AGENDA
Meeting Environment Committee Date Wednesday 23 May 2018 Time 10.15 am Place Chamber, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA Copies of the reports and any attachments may be found at www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/environment
Most meetings of the London Assembly and its Committees are webcast live at www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/webcasts where you can also view past meetings.
Members of the Committee Caroline Russell AM (Chair) Shaun Bailey AM Leonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair) David Kurten AM Tony Arbour AM Onkar Sahota AM Jennette Arnold OBE AM
A meeting of the Committee has been called by the Chair of the Committee to deal with the business listed below. Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat Tuesday 15 May 2018
Further Information If you have questions, would like further information about the meeting or require special facilities please contact: Clare Bryant, Committee Officer; telephone: 020 7983 4616; Email: [email protected]; minicom: 020 7983 4458
For media enquiries please contact Lisa Lam, Telephone 020 7983 4067; Email: [email protected]. If you have any questions about individual items please contact the author whose details are at the end of the report.
This meeting will be open to the public, except for where exempt information is being discussed as noted on the agenda. A guide for the press and public on attending and reporting meetings of local government bodies, including the use of film, photography, social media and other means is available at www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Openness-in-Meetings.pdf.
There is access for disabled people, and induction loops are available. There is limited underground parking for orange and blue badge holders, which will be allocated on a first-come first-served basis. Please contact Facilities Management on 020 7983 4750 in advance if you require a parking space or further information.
v1 2015
If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of the agenda, minutes or reports in large print or Braille, audio, or in another language, then please call us on 020 7983 4100 or email [email protected].
Certificate Number: FS 80233
Agenda Environment Committee Wednesday 23 May 2018
1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements
To receive any apologies for absence and any announcements from the Chair.
2 Declarations of Interests (Pages 1 - 4)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Clare Bryant, [email protected], 020 7983 4616
The Committee is recommended to:
(a) Note the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, as disclosable pecuniary interests;
(b) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s); and
(c) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at Agenda Item 2) and to note any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s).
3 Membership of Committee
The Committee is recommended to note the membership and chairing arrangements for the Committee, as agreed at the Annual Meeting of the London Assembly on 10 May 2018, as follows:
Caroline Russell AM (Chair) Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair) Jennette Arnold OBE AM Tony Arbour AM Shaun Bailey AM David Kurten AM Onkar Sahota AM
3
4 Terms of Reference
The Committee is recommended to note the following terms of reference for the Committee:
1. To examine and report from time to time on –
the strategies, policies and actions of the Mayor and the Functional Bodies
matters of importance to Greater London as they relate to the environment and sustainable development in London.
2. To consider environmental matters on request from another standing committee and report its opinion to that standing committee.
3. To take into account in its deliberations the cross cutting themes of: the health of persons in Greater London; the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom; climate change; and the promotion of opportunity.
4. To respond on behalf of the Assembly to consultations and similar processes when within its terms of reference.
5 Standing Delegation of Authority
The Committee is recommended to note the following standing delegation to the Chair of the Environment Committee:
At its Annual meeting on 10 May 2013, the Assembly agreed to delegate a general authority to Chairs of all ordinary committees and sub-committees to respond on the relevant committee or sub-committee’s behalf, following consultation with the lead Members of the party Groups on the committee or sub-committee, where it is consulted on issues by organisations and there is insufficient time to consider the consultation at a committee meeting.
6 Minutes (Pages 5 - 96)
The Committee is recommended to confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 February 2018 and 15 March 2018 to be signed by the Chair as a correct record.
The appendices to the minutes set out on pages 9 to 46 and 53 to 96 are attached for Members and officers only but are available from the following area of the Greater London Authority’s website: www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/environment
4
7 Summary List of Actions (Pages 97 - 140)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Clare Bryant, [email protected], 020 7983 4616
The Committee is recommended to note the completed and outstanding actions arising from its previous meetings.
8 Action Taken under Delegated Authority (Pages 141 - 188)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Clare Bryant, [email protected], 020 7983 4616
The Committee is recommended to note the recent action taken by the Chair under delegated authority, namely to agree, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, the following: An output arising from the Waste Management Investigation;
An output arising from the discussion on water issues; and
Agree the topic, terms of reference and scope for the Committee’s first meeting of 2018/19 Assembly year.
9 Plastics - Nappies and Period Products (Pages 189 - 192)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Ian Williamson, [email protected]; 020 7983 6541
The Committee is recommended to:
(a) Note the report as background to putting questions to invited guests on single-use plastics, and notes the subsequent discussion.
(b) Delegate authority to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion.
10 Environment Committee Work Programme (Pages 193 - 196)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Ian Williamson, [email protected]; 020 7983 6541
The Committee is recommended to agree the work programme for the 2018/19 Assembly year, as set out in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.15 of the report.
5
11 Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 14 June 2018 at 10.00am in the Chamber, City Hall.
12 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent
6
Agenda Item 2
Subject: Declarations of Interests
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 23 May 2018
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out details of offices held by Assembly Members for noting as disclosable pecuniary interests and requires additional relevant declarations relating to disclosable pecuniary interests, and gifts and hospitality to be made.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table below, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests1;
2.2 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s) be noted; and
2.3 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at below) and any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s) be noted.
3. Issues for Consideration
3.1 Relevant offices held by Assembly Members are listed in the table overleaf:
1 The Monitoring Officer advises that: Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct will only preclude a Member from participating in any matter to be considered or being considered at, for example, a meeting of the Assembly, where the Member has a direct Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in that particular matter. The effect of this is that the ‘matter to be considered, or being considered’ must be about the Member’s interest. So, by way of example, if an Assembly Member is also a councillor of London Borough X, that Assembly Member will be precluded from participating in an Assembly meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about the Member’s role / employment as a councillor of London Borough X; the Member will not be precluded from participating in a meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about an activity or decision of London Borough X.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk v2/2018 Page 1
Member Interest Tony Arbour AM Jennette Arnold OBE AM European Committee of the Regions Gareth Bacon AM Member, LB Bexley Shaun Bailey AM Sian Berry AM Member, LB Camden Andrew Boff AM Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Council of Europe) Leonie Cooper AM Member, LB Wandsworth Tom Copley AM Member, LB Lewisham Unmesh Desai AM Tony Devenish AM Member, City of Westminster Andrew Dismore AM Len Duvall AM Florence Eshalomi AM Nicky Gavron AM Susan Hall AM Member, LB Harrow David Kurten AM Joanne McCartney AM Deputy Mayor Steve O’Connell AM Member, LB Croydon Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Keith Prince AM Alternate Member, European Committee of the Regions Caroline Russell AM Member, LB Islington Dr Onkar Sahota AM Navin Shah AM Fiona Twycross AM Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience; Chair of the London Local Resilience Forum Peter Whittle AM
[Note: LB - London Borough]
3.2 Paragraph 10 of the GLA’s Code of Conduct, which reflects the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011, provides that:
- where an Assembly Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered or being considered or at
(i) a meeting of the Assembly and any of its committees or sub-committees; or
(ii) any formal meeting held by the Mayor in connection with the exercise of the Authority’s functions
- they must disclose that interest to the meeting (or, if it is a sensitive interest, disclose the fact that they have a sensitive interest to the meeting); and
- must not (i) participate, or participate any further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting; or (ii) participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting
UNLESS
- they have obtained a dispensation from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer (in accordance with section 2 of the Procedure for registration and declarations of interests, gifts and hospitality – Appendix 5 to the Code).
3.3 Failure to comply with the above requirements, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence; as is knowingly or recklessly providing information about your interests that is false or misleading.
Page 2
3.4 In addition, the Monitoring Officer has advised Assembly Members to continue to apply the test that was previously applied to help determine whether a pecuniary / prejudicial interest was arising - namely, that Members rely on a reasonable estimation of whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, could, with justification, regard the matter as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest.
3.5 Members should then exercise their judgement as to whether or not, in view of their interests and the interests of others close to them, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA. It remains the responsibility of individual Members to make further declarations about their actual or apparent interests at formal meetings noting also that a Member’s failure to disclose relevant interest(s) has become a potential criminal offence.
3.6 Members are also required, where considering a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom they have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25 within the previous three years or from the date of election to the London Assembly, whichever is the later, to disclose the existence and nature of that interest at any meeting of the Authority which they attend at which that business is considered.
3.7 The obligation to declare any gift or hospitality at a meeting is discharged, subject to the proviso set out below, by registering gifts and hospitality received on the Authority’s on-line database. The on- line database may be viewed here: https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/gifts-and-hospitality.
3.8 If any gift or hospitality received by a Member is not set out on the on-line database at the time of the meeting, and under consideration is a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom a Member has received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25, Members are asked to disclose these at the meeting, either at the declarations of interest agenda item or when the interest becomes apparent.
3.9 It is for Members to decide, in light of the particular circumstances, whether their receipt of a gift or hospitality, could, on a reasonable estimation of a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, with justification, be regarded as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest. Where receipt of a gift or hospitality could be so regarded, the Member must exercise their judgement as to whether or not, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA.
4. Legal Implications
4.1 The legal implications are as set out in the body of this report.
5. Financial Implications
5.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Clare Bryant, Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4616 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 4 Agenda Item 6
MINUTES
Meeting: Environment Committee Date: Wednesday 21 February 2018 Time: 10.00 am Place: Chamber, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA
Copies of the minutes may be found at: www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/environment
Present: Leonie Cooper AM (Chair) Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair) Jennette Arnold OBE AM Shaun Bailey AM David Kurten AM Joanne McCartney AM Keith Prince AM
1 Apol ogies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1)
1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Tony Arbour AM, for whom Keith Prince AM substituted.
2 Declarations of Interests (Item 2)
2.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
2.2 Resolved:
That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 5 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Wednesday 21 February 2018
3 Minutes (Item 3)
3.1 Resolved:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2018 be signed by the Chair as a correct record.
4 Summary List of Actions (Item 4)
4.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
4.2 Resolved:
That the completed and outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the Committee be noted.
5 Water Issues (Item 5)
5.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat as background to putting questions on water issues in London to invited guests.
5.2 The first panel discussed sewer blockages, including fatbergs, with the following guests: Richard Aylard CVO, Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water; Karen Gibbs, Senior Policy Manager, Consumer Council for Water; Tracy Stewart, Director General, Absorbent and Hygienic Product Manufacturers Association (AHPMA); Seán Kerrigan, Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA; Natalie Fee, Director, City to Sea; and Edward Palin, Chair, Grease Contractors’ Association.
5.3 A transcript of the discussion is attached at Appendix 1.
5.4 During the course of the discussion, Members requested the following additional information: The Director of City to Sea to provide the percentage of the current sanitary protection market which are reusable; and The Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water to provide a list of borough by borough of blockages of fats, oils and greases in London.
Page 6 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Wednesday 21 February 2018
5.5 The second panel discussed water supply and demand, and trunk mains, with the following guests: Richard Aylard CVO, Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water; Karen Gibbs, Senior Manager, Consumer Council for Water; Daniel Bicknell, Policy and Programme Officer, Greater London Authority; Timothy Mcmahon, Head of Water Networks, Thames Water; and Paul Matthews, Works Co-ordinator and Permitting Area Manager, Transport for London.
5.6 A transcript of the discussion is attached at Appendix 2.
5.7 During the course of the discussion, Members requested the following additional information from the Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water: Waters estimate of London’s current population and the process used to generate the figure; and Further information on the assessed household charge offered by Thames Water for residents that are unable to have a water meter fit in their property.
5.8 Resolved:
(a) That the report and discussion be noted.
(b) That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output from the discussion.
6 Environment Committee Work Programme (Item 6)
6.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
6.2 Resolved:
(a) That plastic waste be added to the agenda for the March 2018 meeting as set out in paragraph 4.5 of the report.
(b) That the current and recent work, detailed in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.2, and its agreed future work programme, as set out in paragraphs 4.3, 4.4 and 4.6 be noted.
Page 7 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Wednesday 21 February 2018
(c) That the summary notes of the site visit to Cory Environmental Energy from Waste, as attached at Appendix 1 of the report, be noted.
7 Date of Next Meeting (Item 7)
7.1 The next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 10.00am in the Chamber, City Hall.
8 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent (Item 8)
8.1 There were no items of business that the Chair considered to be urgent.
9 Close of Meeting
9.1 The meeting ended at 12.08pm.
Chair Date
Contact Officer: Clare Bryant, Committee Officer; telephone: 020 7983 4616; Email: [email protected]; minicom: 020 7983 4458
Page 8
Appendix 1
London Assembly Environment Committee – 21 February 2018
Transcript of Item 5 – Water Issues
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): That brings us on to the main item this morning, which is about water issues. We have a number of guests with us here today, who are very welcome. We are going to have three slightly different sets of guests, although Richard Aylard from Thames Water and Karen Gibbs from the Consumer Council for Water are going to be staying with us throughout the entire meeting, for which thank you very much.
I will just introduce all of our guests, if I may. We have Natalie Fee, who is Director of City to Sea. We have Edward Palin, who is Managing Director at Watling Hope and Chair of the Grease Contractors’ Association. We have Karen Gibbs, who I just mentioned, who is Senior Policy Manager at the Consumer Council for Water. We have Richard Aylard, who has been with us once or twice previously, who is Director of External Affairs and Sustainability at Thames Water. We have Tracy Stewart - and I am looking forward to having some discussion with you about some of the products - who is Director General of the Absorbent and Hygienic Product Manufacturers Association. Finally, last but not least on this panel we have Seán Kerrigan, who is from the European Disposables and Nonwovens Association (EDANA). You are all very welcome to be with us today.
We are going to start with some questions, first of all, from me and I would like to start by talking about sewer blockages. What are the main causes of blockages and the effects of them?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): The main causes are wet wipes, and fats oils and greases. It is the combination of the two that causes the biggest problem. If you have even a single strand of a root going through a sewer and a wet wipe gets caught on it, some fat builds around that, another wet wipe arrives and very quickly you have a blockage.
If I could just talk about the problem with wet wipes - and I am going to do a little demonstration in a minute which you have asked me to do - if a wet wipe is flushed, and hundreds of millions of them are every day, three things can happen. The first thing is it can make its way all the way through the sewers uninterrupted to our sewage works, where it ends up on a screen and has to be scraped off. At the works that you visited, Chair, the other day, the Beckton sewage works, we get 30 tonnes of this material every day. That is only about a quarter of the total waste that we treat and so there are well over 100 tonnes of what we call ‘rag’ going to landfill - because that is the only place you can take it - every single day. That is 100 tonnes a day. Wet wipes are quite a large part of that --
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Sorry. Can I just pick you up on that? You just said that it all has to go to landfill because not only is it a combination of the wet wipe material, the rag and the fats, but it has been in the sewer.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Yes, it is mixed materials and cannot be recycled and you would not want to incinerate it. Therefore, at the moment, it goes to the landfill, over 100 tonnes a day. We call this ‘rag’. It is what we get off the screens. Quite a lot of it is wet wipes but also everything from curtains to condoms. Everything that everybody flushes that they should not flush ends up on the screens.
Page 9
In some ways, that is the best of the three outcomes that you can get with a wet wipe because the second potential outcome is that it ends up caught in one of these ‘fatbergs’ which generate in our very big sewers. These are sewers that are big enough to get people in and we have all seen the photographs. People have to go in there with pickaxes and high-pressure hoses to get this congealed mass out of the sewers. The fatberg stories have done very well in raising awareness and there is now a fatberg exhibition at the Museum of London which is doing very well for them. We are using that as a story to get across the problem.
However, it is the third outcome that is the worst. The third outcome is that these wet wipes and fat cause a blockage in the small sewers of this sort of size outside people’s houses. We clear 85,000 blockages every year from those smaller sewers. If we cannot clear them before they cause a problem, in an average year, 2,000 homes in London get flooded either externally or internally with sewage as a result of those blockages. The same blockages also cause an average of 80 pollution incidents every year where it spews out of a manhole into a brook or a stream and into a river. Some of those cause a lot of environmental damage. Some are cleaned up pretty quickly.
Those are the three things that can happen when you flush a wet wipe and they are all bad.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): You mentioned that the large fatbergs - which has become quite prominent now globally and probably the new word has gone into the Oxford English Dictionary or wherever they add new words to - has raised the profile. Has there been any diminution in the amount of rag, wet wipes and so on, the material that is going down the sewer over the last five or six years or, is 30 tonnes the average per day at Beckton, 100 tonnes across your area, has that stayed static?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): It goes up and down a bit but there is no discernible trend in what arrives at the sewage works. What we have done is we have used the fatberg as a way of getting the message across to Londoners that there is a problem. What we do is we then build on that. We have blockage hotspots. We know where the smaller blockages happen most and we target local campaigns with door-to-door leafleting, advertising on bus shelters and things, and that has produced about a 20% reduction in blockages in those areas that we have targeted. It is one of these things. It is a bit like water efficiency. You have to just keep on getting the message out, over and over again. You have in your packs a map of the blockage hotspots across London.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We are going to talk a little bit more about the non-flushable wipes and then also the fats, because it is the combination --
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): It is the combination.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): -- of the two things in the sewers. The one thing that you have not mentioned -- you have talked about removing the rag on the screens; you have talked about having to chip the fatbergs out of the sewers, but you have not talked about the cost of all of this. There presumably must be a cost in staff time, diverting staff to doing this who could be doing other things, but also just actual money spent on this.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): The direct cost is about £12 million a year, but then there are also all the indirect costs, plus, as you say, the other things we could be doing with those people’s time and effort. It is an entirely unnecessary way to spend money. If we could get the behaviour change that we need --
Page 10
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): It is £12 million a year that Thames Water could be spending on other things?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): In other ways, yes.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): I am sorry. I am talking completely off the cuff here, but if people are producing products that are causing these massive public costs, should there not be a surcharge on wet wipes directly for Thames Water to deal with the problem of what happens when they create fatbergs, like a ‘wet wipe tax’ or something?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): That could be one way of dealing with it, but we would much rather not do that. We would much rather have, first of all, products which are genuinely flushable and which can be flushed. There is a flushability standard being developed. We do not think they are any products on the market yet that are going to meet that standard, but at least having the standard will give manufacturers and their innovation team something to aim for.
The other thing is that on the existing products we want much better, clearer labelling. There is some labelling on some of the products. We would like it in big letters on the front of the packaging, not the back of the packaging, “Do not flush”.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Yes, labelling is absolutely where these questions are heading. How can non-flushable items be prevented from clogging London’s sewers?
Tracy Stewart (Director General, Absorbent and Hygienic Product Manufacturers Association): The key to preventing blockages by non-flushable items is education and labelling, as has just been described here. That is absolutely paramount. You have described very well how you used, for example, the fatberg story to great effect. I was at a conference in Europe - maybe you were too - the week after that happened and it was one of the first things that everybody said to me when they approached me. The message got across far and wide. How relevant it was to people in their homes I am not sure. They were seeing something about a London sewer. However, we are absolutely in agreement with everybody here that messaging, consumer education and better labelling is key to the solution.
We have a good story to tell in terms of our newly updated code of practice for product labelling, which requires an identified symbol to be used on the top of packaging and also on the side of packaging where packets are stacked up on supermarket shelves so that, at the point of purchase, consumers see that symbol and also, every time they use it, they see the symbol as well. This is something that we are embedding and working hard to ensure that all manufacturers take up.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): It seems quite extraordinary that products can be sold in our supermarkets that can cause this kind of trouble if they are used incorrectly. It just seems quite extraordinary. If you are wiping your baby’s bottom, you can use cotton wool and water. You do not need to use a wet wipe. The fact is that they are causing these massive problems and huge amounts of public expenditure to sort them out. Are they trying to make a different product so that it does not cause these problems?
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): Sure. There are two types of wipe. There are ones that are classed as flushable and ones that are classed as non-flushable.
Firstly, I would just like to echo what we said before. The focus here is on the solution and that comes about through changing consumer behaviour and not putting down the toilet what does not belong in the toilet. We Page 11 are quite clear there are only three things that should really go down your toilet. Those are the three Ps: pee, paper and poo.
To go back to your question, there are a class of wipes that are labelled ‘flushable’. We do not think it would correctly affect consumer behaviour to make all items flushable because there is a whole range of items - kitchen wipes, hygiene wipes, panty liners, for example - that also should not go down the toilet. We think that if we were to launch a whole range of products classed as flushable, it would muddy the waters for the consumer.
There is also the fact that in terms of functionality, making a wipe flushable makes it unfit for purpose. You would not be happy wiping your baby’s bottom with a flushable wipe. You would not be happy using a kitchen towel that was designed to be flushed. If it breaks down in water, it would break down in your kitchen.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): We have the business of the education and we need to make sure that it becomes socially unacceptable to put anything down a toilet --
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): Nothing other than paper and human waste.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): As a ward Councillor in Islington, I have a current piece of casework which is a basement flooded with sewage because the manhole -- there was a wet wipe blockage. They had their own little fatberg under the housing association home. When Richard explained it was happening, it absolutely is happening and the impact of that on people’s lives is absolutely miserable. The neighbouring homes have this sewage water coming through into their cellars. These are really serious impacts and serious hygiene impacts and health impacts for residents --
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): There is no escaping the fact that it is a massive problem. There is no escaping that fact and we are focusing on addressing it. We believe the best route to that, as Richard said as well, is consumer education and labelling. We would like to do that in conjunction with the other stakeholders, with the water bodies, again, with the retailers, again. We think that retail labelling and retail positioning, as Tracy mentioned, is quite critical. The distinction in the mind of the consumer needs to be very clear and loud.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): I just want to go back to the idea of alternatives and maybe, Natalie, you might want to come in here. Certainly, in terms of period products, there are things like moon cups. You do not have to use disposable items when you are on your period. You do not have to use disposable items when you are cleaning up your baby. Do you have anything to say about alternatives to selling people products that would cause trouble in the sewer?
Natalie Fee (Director, City to Sea): Absolutely, yes. There are a few points to pick up on there, but in terms of education around reusables, we have been trialling a Menstruation Education Programme across schools in the Anglian Water region. We are currently trialling non-biased education around 17 schools from year 7 right up to year 15. What that is doing is giving students the opportunity to learn about reusables at a very young age, as well as disposable menstrual products, and this is for all students to learn that there are other ways and the environmental impacts of flushing and of our periods. That also can include facial wipes and wipes as well. That is an area that we are really interested in because normalising reusable menstrual products is key. We want to see them placed higher up in shelves and supermarkets looking at reusable pads, reusable cups, reusable period panties as well. There are lots of options there that can stop this problem at source. Page 12
That is very much a key area, especially seeing as next year personal, social and health education it is going to become mandatory and so menstruation education will become mandatory across schools. It is a good opportunity to embed the ‘do not flush’ message and the three Ps message early on. Just picking up on a couple of points --
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Can I just ask you? What percentage of the current sanitary protection market, either internal or external, sanpro, is currently reusables as opposed to other --
Natalie Fee (Director, City to Sea): I do not know. That is a good question. I do not know what percentage it is at the moment, but it would be a good one to watch because it is going through a massive surge at the moment in terms of popularity. It would be good to see. We have been looking with Anglian Water at doing a very closed pilot area to see whether that does reduce the number of menstrual items that are being flushed. Yes, I can certainly look into that figure.
In terms of the labelling on wipes, there is a lot more to be done there because, even on flushable wipes, a lot of those still contain plastic, and on the back, it says, “They are flushable if you flush only one wipe at a time”, in quite small letters. Generally, people are not going to do that. It is a terrible waste of water. They are not going to wipe once, flush, wipe again and flush. That is a grey area that we need to be really aware of when it comes to saying that wipes are flushable. There is some great action being taken around labelling on the front of packs, but removing plastic from the weaves is key. As well as causing blockages, we know that they are changing the shape of the River Thames with the amount of them that are flowing out onto the river. They are changing the shape of the river bank with the wet wipes that are piling up there. We need to make sure that there is not any plastic in those weaves.
Then, when we are talking about behaviour change, if we are asking people not to flush, generally, you have this dirty thing in your hands and what are you going to do with them? It is around making sure that there is education around bins and possibly having two bins in people’s bathrooms. There are a lot of areas to look at there.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): That is a massive behaviour change --
Natalie Fee (Director, City to Sea): It is.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): -- if people are going to start having different bins in their bathrooms if they want to use those kinds of products. Thank you.
Just a bit more on the labelling because it does seem that “bag it and bin it, do not flush it” is pretty clear, but what is the evidence that people are listening to these messages? Is there any research on that?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): There is plenty of interest. When the Chair came to Beckton last week, we did a little demonstration for ITV [commercial television channel]. We put a wet wipe in one pot and we put some toilet paper in the other and we had a very strong --
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: It looks like Richard is on Blue Peter.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Show and tell. Are you going to shake them?
Page 13
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): We flushed these for a bit and very quickly it was obvious that one was disintegrating and the other one was not. That video has been watched 300,000 times on the ITV website. There is plenty of interest in the topic.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): We had better send the Chair to Beckton Beddington with a television crew.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): In preparation for today’s meeting, I visited the Beddington sewage treatment works and the Beckton sewage treatment works where this demonstration was done, and I also went down the sewers. I know a couple of other Members, like Assembly Member Bailey, have also been down a sewer as well. Of course, as soon as you have been into the sewers and seen the actual fatbergs, however small they are, forming - obviously wearing quite a lot of protective clothing - but of course the fatbergs and the amount of rag at Beckton and then the demonstration of how the wet wipe just does not disintegrate explains why you see so many of them arriving completely intact. They have made a very long journey through the sewers before they get to the sewage treatment works.
Can I just ask you, Richard: is the wet wipe that you have just put in that jar a flushable one in inverted commas or a non-flushable one?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): No, it is a non-flushable one, but we tried to find out what was in wet wipes a couple years ago and we could not get any very clear information. We sent a number of samples off to Brunel University and they put them under a scanning electron microscope. You have pictures in your pack that came from that. What makes the wet wipes so pleasant to use - the one I have here is a “makeup be gone pampering wipe”, which removes even waterproof mascara. I will take their word for that -it makes it nice and slippery and smooth but those are microplastic fibres and so, when they do eventually break down, they are not going to do much good for the environment, either. I take the point that it has to feel right for people to use, but there must be scope for more innovation to get something that will do this when it is flushed and not that and still be pleasant to use.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): What about the signage? That is where we were --
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Signage is important. There is on this one, very small on the back - you can scarcely see it - a little picture of somebody standing and dropping something in the toilet and there is an X across it. To be honest, you are just not going to see that in a supermarket shelf. Even if you were looking for it, it is quite hard to find.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): That was my concern when we were at Beckton. I looked at the signage and I could hardly find it without a microscope.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Also, there is just a culture - it is a bit like plastic coffee cups and disposable plastic straws and other items - that these are items that have been manufactured that people have just got used to as something that can be flushed. There needs to be a massive wakeup for people to understand what the alternatives are and to put pressure on the manufacturers to come up with alternatives that are not as damaging.
Tracy and Seán, do you think that the manufacturers are aware that wet wipes are in a bit of a dodgy place at the moment?
Page 14
Tracy Stewart (Director General, Absorbent and Hygienic Product Manufacturers Association): They are acutely aware of the issues. I would say that this is a prime example of why a non-flushable wipe should not be flushed. This is a non-flushable wipe and what we want to see as a solution is helping consumers to identify between the two types. Flushable wipes are moist toilet tissue and wipes that come into contact with bodily fluids such as a wipe that you would use to clean a toilet before you use it when you are out in public or an intimate wipe. They form less than 10% of all wipes on the market. It is about telling people which type of wipe is which.
There is a very good story for non-flushable wipes. Do not forget they are not just used for our faces and our bodies. They are used throughout hospitals. They have made massive differences to infection control. They are invaluable in terms of primary care and secondary care --
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): They are probably going to be disposed of properly in a hospital.
Tracy Stewart (Director General, Absorbent and Hygienic Product Manufacturers Association): Absolutely, but wipes are here to stay and so what we must do is make sure that we work together with all the other stakeholders to ensure that we improve that labelling, bring it to the top of the pack, and make it easily identifiable and absolutely recognisable across all languages as well so that consumers know what they are buying and they know what to do with it.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Do you think that there could be more to be done around labelling and getting the producers to really take a bit more responsibility for the costs that they are causing to society by selling products that people are using inappropriately?
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): There is definitely more to be done and there is definitely more to be done in conjunction with the other stakeholders because this has been ongoing. Labelling efforts started in 2004 and it clearly was not enough. They revise guidelines again every so often to make it more prominent and, as Tracy detailed, there will be front-of-package and side-of- packaging labelling.
Changing consumer awareness comes down to more than product labelling. Prominent labelling might be seen, but will it change the behaviour? A wider campaign is needed across all stakeholders: the water bodies, the retailers, the Government bodies, the consumer bodies and starting with the producers.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Should that kind of campaign in your opinion also include promotion of alternatives to using these products? The products are causing the problem and there are alternatives which we heard about earlier: menstrual products that do not require flushing, things that could be washed and reused. We are seeing reusable nappies. People are prepared to change the type of products that they use to deal with these ordinary, everyday things that need mopping up or cleaning up or absorbing.
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): Anything that alleviates the problem that the use of single-use plastic is causing is to be welcomed, and that is across the board.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): That brings us neatly on - and perhaps we could ask Richard to give his two bottles the occasional shake so that by the end of the meeting we can see the difference between the wipe with the plastic fibres and the wipe with just the cellulose.
Shaun Bailey AM: I share many of my fellow Assembly Members’ views on these sorts of products and I am going to take a slightly harsher line because I wonder if the manufacturers would want to remove plastic from Page 15 these. We use these things because they are convenient and they are comfortable. If you were to remove some of the plastic, would those two elements go away?
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): In fact, yes. None of our members’ products that are marketed as flushable contain plastic. Non-flushable do because, if they did not, they would fall apart. They are designed to stay together. We will state that throughout the meeting. Unless they produce something wrong, it will not break up.
Shaun Bailey AM: Let me ask a different question. What is the percentage in the market? How many of these things that are bought are flushable and not flushable?
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): Currently in the United Kingdom (UK) about 10% are flushable.
Shaun Bailey AM: You can see how, if you are from the public side of this conversation, we are concerned that these things that you know are unflushable are entering our system in huge numbers, but yet you do very little to remove the plastic, which is the only answer to making these things flushable.
Tracy Stewart (Director General, Absorbent and Hygienic Product Manufacturers Association): Making everything flushable is not the answer. That is the point. The products that are not flushable and should not be flushed - and we need to help to ensure that they are not flushed - need to be of the composition that they are in order they do the job that they are designed to do. A flushable wipe is entirely different. It does not have plastic in it and it can be flushed.
Shaun Bailey AM: What does a non-flushable wipe do that a flushable wipe cannot do?
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): It maintains its shape. It can clean your kitchen counter. It can clean a medical counter in a hospital. It can absorb liquid and maintain its shape.
Shaun Bailey AM: Help me do these things even to a lesser degree with paper; my point being this plastic -- let me go a different route. I absolutely do not think the education piece is going to change anything because you have done a lot of education and we are still getting 30 tonnes a day at one end. Education is not going to do anything. We buy these things because they are convenient and so we are going to continue to buy them and treat them in the way we do just because of the scale involved. If you are on our side of the counter, what is the answer to stopping this going into the sewer and costing us £12 million a year?
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): We would have to re- emphasise consumer awareness. The market will not change that demand. The consumer demand is there.
Shaun Bailey AM: Yes, but the consumer demand is alive to lots of things that are not particularly beneficial and so I do not see that as a defence. Are there any technological developments that you have as an industry that you think can maintain the luxury end of this but also help with the disposal end of this?
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): I am unaware of technological innovations that will do that.
Page 16
Shaun Bailey AM: See, to my mind, then, what would you say if I were to say that we should be trying to curtail, reduce and eliminate the use of these products? From a public point of view, they are just going to be more and more and we are bearing the cost.
Tracy Stewart (Director General, Absorbent and Hygienic Product Manufacturers Association): Consumers continue to demand the product and making all these products flushable is counterproductive. It will result in indiscriminate flushing. It is very important that we accept that they are here to stay. There are alternatives that can rightly be promoted. There is no question of that and we would not disagree with that at all.
However, I have to come back to our point: the answer is education. We certainly could have done better. We are looking to improve that and to work with the stakeholders to improve that. We believe that that really is key and that is something that we are looking at building on, along with Water UK and the other water groups.
We are also looking at external stakeholders who are trusted influencers who can help inform consumers, maybe at the antenatal stage of pregnancy, for example, when parents are coming into a new market, if you like. They have a new baby and they are going to be using lots of things in their house that they have not used before, not just wipes but maybe more cotton wool, maybe more cotton buds, may be more sorts of things that could fit down the U-bend and would be thought of as flushable because when you press that button it disappears, but it does not disappear, as we all know.
It is about bringing that piece together and saying to people, “The toilet is not a bin. You will suffer personally if you block your toilet and so will everybody else”, and just helping to bring that education piece in.
If I may just have a minute, I remember when I had my children a long time ago now. I am a grandmother now, but I was told in my antenatal classes - I had this soft messaging - and it was about the fact that you are going to have a lot more to wash, a lot more to clean up and you need to learn how to manage all of this and deal with the things that you have not had to deal with before. I see this as very similar. Could we bring in groups like the National Childbirth Trust? Could we bring in midwives? Could we bring other people who could message about what you do and how you treat your products when you have used them?
Shaun Bailey AM: Richard, what level of non-flushables is manageable to you? In my mind, it costs you £12 million a year. At what point is it negligible? What percentage drop would you need?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): It is our job to manage it, but it is expensive and what we want to do is get that cost right down to zero. If we did not have any unflushable items -- and it is not just wet wipes. People do flush dishcloths. A few years ago, a flushable toilet brush was being marketed. There are all sorts of things that end up on the screens that should not. The basic point is that we only want pee, poo and paper or, as somebody once put it, “Please do not flush it unless you have eaten it first”. It is that kind of messaging that we have to get across. Our schools programme is important and the fatberg campaign has been helpful in getting the non-flushable message.
We just have to keep going and it is a joint effort from everybody involved in this. I do have some sympathy for the industry point of view because, if customers keep demanding things, they have to find some way of supplying them. What we have to then do is work together on a campaign saying, “By all means use these things, but do not flush them because this is what happens and not that”. It is pretty basic stuff.
Shaun Bailey AM: I see your point, but --
Page 17
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Schools are really important in this, actually.
Shaun Bailey AM: -- my worry is that we have an industry that makes a fair amount of money from these products and we bear some of the cost of producing those products, which is a bit of a liberty. Yes, we use them, but I am pretty sure that when I was a baby wet wipes were not the thing. There were alternatives. People use them because they are there. I worry if education will make the change on two levels: who is providing this education and paying for it, and at what level will it stop having any effect and we just have to bear the cost as the public? That is the point that annoys me.
Forgive me if I am being difficult and please correct me, I do not sense an industry forging ahead, trying to remove plastic, which is a whole other thing about the effect it has an environment, which for me personally is a massive worry. I do not sense there a big energy and someone saying, “Let us remove these things”. Part of educating people might be saying, “You cannot have these high luxury wipes. You are going to have to have ones of slightly lower luxury”. Is the industry involved in any of those sorts of things?
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We have been looking at plastics since exactly this time last year. We did a whole meeting last February [2017] on single-use plastic water bottles and so this is something that has been a big concern to this Committee. We have produced a lot of recommendations, many of which the Mayor has already decided to adopt. We are very interested to see how we can pull out of this discussion the best way to move forward.
Natalie Fee (Director, City to Sea): It was just on raising awareness with the education and there does need to be education. We just need to be careful around the backfire effect of normalising wipes and flushing because there has been - I do not know how much of this but I am saying it - an increase in wipes off the back of the fatberg stories. People are like, “Everybody is using wipes and that is normal”. Really, the education piece needs to be almost behind the scenes and what we are putting out there publicly is around normalising having a bin, normalising reusables and normalising alternatives.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Normalising reusables will be an important part of the picture in terms of reducing the overall number of non-flushable wipes that enter the system.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Just a couple of comments if I can before I ask my question. It was just to say that 18 years ago I led the Assembly’s work and campaign to stop smoking in public places. I was told by interviewers and the brightest and the best that I was daft and that it would never happen. We know it can happen. It is about engaging and saying that it may well be a turning cycle of 10 to 20 years but of course, if everybody is on the same page, then we can change attitudes and we can change behaviour when we are clear about the message.
It is about costs and it is to Tracy. Again, starting with a comment, you talked about having babies. When I had my son many years ago, it was regular for you to get a sponsored baby pack and that helped you because you were patterned then. Whatever was in that pack you went away and bought. I was using cotton wool until my mother-in-law told me, “Get a flannel”. There is room for manufacturers and for industries to look and say, when you have identified it, that that point where you can influence and change is the area where it would be great to see some support from the industry and sponsorship of it.
The other thing is - and I do not know if anybody here is of that age - when you bought the baby bath pack, you bought a nappy bucket. It is interesting how over the years the nappy bucket has disappeared and so, as my colleague says, we have to change people’s ways. It was routine to have a nappy bucket in the bathroom Page 18 with your other bucket. Again, we can change behaviours and what we think is not normal now becomes normal.
What is a big problem is cost. I am working with some young women now who are running a charity to raise money for other young women who cannot afford any sanitary items because of the cost of them. Is there a commitment in the industry to be saying, if the trend is about increasing flushable, then you will be looking to make it as economically -- not cheap, but be mindful that if you produce a product and it is higher than the one that you would want people to move away from, that for a huge number of people that is not going to be possible?
Tracy Stewart (Director General, Absorbent and Hygienic Product Manufacturers Association): Yes. I am aware of the sanitary protection campaigns because we do represent the feminine care industry and we have been talking to the various charities in relation to that. I am taking your points on board there.
In terms of wipes and cost, they are not a high-cost item particularly, I do not believe, but then for some people they would be. I guess it is about people having available to them what they can afford to buy and having information about alternatives that may be less expensive.
Going back to your earlier point, you are right that this could take some time and maybe we are making an investment for future years in terms of this education campaign. I am thinking back in particular to having watched the recycling efforts finally becoming embedded as the children who started to learn about that became adults and had their own homes. It might well be that this is not an overnight turnaround - it would be lovely if it was - but I agree with you on all of the points that you have made.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Seán, are flushable products more expensive at the moment than non-flushable?
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): It depends on the brand, but generally they are.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Therefore, there is a cost barrier to shift from one to the other?
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): It could be perceived that way, absolutely, yes.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Reusable items are even cheaper because you can use them many times.
Shaun Bailey AM: Initially, they are probably not. Just to pick up on a few points that my colleagues have made, I do not share my colleagues’ enthusiasm for the behaviour change in that it will take very long. We agree on that. Even if you get 100% behaviour change, it will take some time and, in that time, we have been adding an awful lot of plastic to our environment of which wet wipes and these products are particularly guilty. We need to do something about not having them arrive in the first place rather than trying to educate everybody else not to put them because, whatever happens, this plastic enters the system somewhere. Even if they do not put it down the sewer, it enters landfill, which is almost equally as awful.
Of course, there is the cost. This is one of my main bugbears. There is the cost to the taxpayer. We are, you could argue, if you were cynical, subsidising an industry which is not taking as much strides as it could to cover the cost of what it is producing.
Page 19
Surely, with such a simple product and the fact that there are some alternatives, a view could be taken from cradle to grave of this product because currently you are releasing it into the wild and are able to wash your hands of it, other than educating us - and I accept the public have a great responsibility for how they use anything - to take care of it. I do not find that acceptable. I just do not. I would like to ask the industry what you are doing to reduce the amount of plastic that you as an industry are putting in our systems, sewers and landfill?
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): I am not sure there is any metric that exists to correlate the cost to society for the use of any product. I am not sure how you would set that up and so I do not know how you would calculate it. I do not know how you would then redistribute those costs. I am not sure how that would be done.
Shaun Bailey AM: Fortunately for the industry, I am a Conservative and do not like tax, but of course the word ‘surcharge’ has been used and at least in the London region we could point to the £12 million a year it is costing us. I am going to stop, Chair, because I am --
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: A surcharge on what?
Shaun Bailey AM: -- beginning to have a moment here, but I just want to make the point that this industry should be making strides to point out to people that the plastic-fill end is a luxury item and you should be asking people to use the paper-fill end - I use crude terms here - which are disposable and which do not clog up the sewers. You should be pushing those products more because they give the public the utility they want without the damage to the environment and also the cost to the public.
Seán Kerrigan (Communications and Media Relations Executive, EDANA): Sorry, just to conclude, Assembly Member Bailey, please do not stop. This scrutiny is needed to change patterns and to effect positive change.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We have just had a very good example from Assembly Member Arnold of a really big piece of behaviour change to do with smoking in public places and of course we also have the evidence of what happened - I know you do not like it - with the concept of an extra charge. Adding 5 pence to the cost of buying plastic bags has reduced single-use plastic bag use by 85% and we are just about to extend it from the larger supermarkets to all. I feel that there is more work that can be done in this space around behaviour change. It might need a carrot-and-stick approach and it might need some bigger signalling towards the more reusable products becoming a larger proportion of the market, but I am pretty sure that it is not beyond us. We have managed to make these amazing products. We can make some amazing new products and we can also shift some of what we are doing away from where we are at the moment.
However, a fatberg is made up not just of wet wipes and so we are now going to talk a little bit about the other half of what makes a fatberg, which is the fat. We have our map of what can only be described as some hotspots and I am going to pass over to Assembly Member Kurten, who is going to lead the questioning in this area.
David Kurten AM: Thank you, Chair. How can fats be prevented from clogging London’s sewers?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): It comes down to behaviour change. First of all, we are working hard with individual customers, persuading them that just because when you wash up and you use some washing up liquid it is all nice and warm and soapy and it all looks as though it has gone away, as soon as it goes down the sink and gets cold again it very quickly Page 20 reconstitutes itself as fat. You can very quickly create your own blockage outside your own house or your neighbour’s house if you are not very careful. We do make fat traps available to people with a big education campaign with individual consumers.
Of course, we are the only utility, really, where our customers operate part of the system. Every decision they take to turn on a tap, what they flush down the toilet or what they put down the sink is our problem to deal with. There is a big education piece here.
The other part of it is the food service establishments and the issue there is about grease and oil that gets down the sewer. In some cases, we have had people in the past tipping waste oil down the sewer. That happens less often than it used to and there are collection schemes being devised that will help that, but it is also just about all the grease from everything that gets cooked. We did a survey of 1,000 food service establishments and 90% did not have effective grease management processes in place. That is not just a wastewater problem; it is also a fire hazard. We work to educate and so we have a pack here, “Protecting your business”, explaining how food service establishments can fit proper grease traps and then how to maintain them, service them and make sure they are effective.
We do have powers to enforce that if need be, but we would much rather work through education. We do a series of visits. The first visit is to explain what the problem is and then we go back and check and then we go back again. Gradually we can get tougher with people if they are not following the rules.
Part of the problem there is that some food service establishments change hands quite quickly, and so we are constantly educating people and that is a process we have to do more and more of. We work very closely with council environmental health officers (EHOs), although some local authorities have had budget cuts and there are not as many EHOs as there used to be, and so we have to take on more of the responsibility for that. It comes down to a constant education campaign.
David Kurten AM: You said that about 90% of food outlets or groups that work with food, restaurants and so on, are substandard. Do you think it is a widespread practice among --
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): There are 35,000 food service establishments registered across London, roughly, and we did a survey of 1,000, a pretty good representative survey, and 90% did not have what we regarded as efficient measures to trap fats, oils and greases. It was not only at the bottom end of the market. This was at all levels, just sheer lack of awareness. Very often when it was pointed out to people, they were very happy to do what was required.
David Kurten AM: Yes. Edward, you are involved in the industry?
Edward Palin (Chair, Grease Contractors’ Association): Yes, grease is the issue that binds everything together. That is the problem. We work with some of the UK’s leading groups and operators and they are proactive, but if a restaurant is over 10 years old chances are it does not have a grease separator and so grease is going straight to the drain. That is the problem.
David Kurten AM: You mentioned grease, and we have fat, oil and grease. What is the difference between oil and grease and fat? Is grease more of an issue than oil?
Edward Palin (Chair, Grease Contractors’ Association): Fat, oil and grease is the product derived from washing pots and pans that gets into the drainage system. That is what is causing the fatberg.
Page 21
David Kurten AM: All right. Are there specific hotspots in London where this is more of an issue? Are there any reasons why there might be specific hotspots where there are higher incidences of blockages and so on?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): You have a map in your folder which shows the areas marked red, where we have the most blockages. There are a number of factors. It is --
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): It looks like east London is a bit of a hotspot to me, according to this.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): It is the number of food service establishments in a concentrated area and it also has something to do with the size of the sewers. What we do is we record this. I have a list of borough by borough of blockages of fats, oils and greases, and Hounslow --
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Would you be able to supply that to the Committee?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Indeed.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I am sure some of our colleagues who are not here today might be representatives of all of London either geographically or London-wide, but others might be interested if you do have that broken down by borough.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Yes.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): That would be great if you could supply that to us afterwards. Thank you, Richard.
David Kurten AM: You mentioned the food service establishments before. Does that include takeaways and things?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Yes. Where food is prepared, you are likely to get some grease, and that there needs to be managed properly. Otherwise, it goes down the drains and causes blockages.
David Kurten AM: I see from the map that it looks like there are some hotspots around Hounslow and also Bexley, which is --
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Hounslow and Bexley are both high up on the blockage list. It is to do with the number of food service establishments and how close together they are, but it is also to do with the size of the sewers. You may find that in those areas there are slightly smaller sewers and so they block more often. By monitoring that, we can then target education activities more closely on those boroughs.
David Kurten AM: As far as you are concerned, with the sewer pipes and so on, do you have any plans to widen the sewers in some of those areas? Is that part of the Strategy?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): It is very expensive to do. The sewers are in good condition and so we would only widen them if they needed to take more flow, either foul flow or in the combined areas surface water. When there are new developments, then, Page 22 yes, we do build additional sewerage capacity, but it does not really make sense to be digging up roads and replacing perfectly serviceable sewers just because people are putting grease and wet wipes down them. We would much rather they were used properly.
We also stepped up our cleaning. We do proactive cleaning. We did about 100 miles of sewer last year, going through, looking. We put closed-circuit television cameras down to see. Just the odd tree root that gets in instantly creates something that can start to build a blockage. We do that in areas where perhaps the sewer dips a bit and begins to silt up. We will get in and jet that out and keep them as clean-flowing as we can. However, as I say, it is the things that people put down them.
It is not just fats, oils and greases. We find everything from concrete to traffic cones to bedspreads. All sorts of things end up in the sewer and it is a constant job to get them out.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We are trying to stick with the fats, oils and greases for now. Hopefully, you are not finding too many traffic cones. Just following on from what Assembly Member Kurten was saying, can I just ask you? You are saying that these particular hotspots are created in some cases by smaller sewers and we have explored that that might be impractical to just enlarge. Are there particular types of cuisine or different types of food outlet that are more prone to creating larger amounts of fat that could be focused on by Thames Water in terms of that education process? Are fast-food outlets, for example, more prone to more fat in the drain than others?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): It is difficult to generalise, but certainly the more fat they use in the cooking, the more is likely to get into the drains. When I talk about the smaller size of the sewers, it is more about that particular network may just be more likely to block. The way we do it is to monitor where the blockages are and then target the campaigns locally to make sure we get the maximum impact. We have the overarching fatberg-type awareness-raising, we have the very focused area on food service establishments, plus we have the individual customer education. We are trying to hit all the constituent parts of the problem.
David Kurten AM: What about enforcement and rules? What rules and laws are there to try to prevent people from putting fats and oils and greases down the drain? What enforcement measures can you take and what enforcement measures can local councils take?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): We and local authorities both have enforcement powers. We prefer not to use those powers. We would much rather educate people. We did have one food manufacturer that blocked sewers consistently despite warnings and they were taken to court and fined. We will do that if we need to, if they have genuinely caused a significant problem in the sewers, but we would much rather work with education. It is much more effective.
David Kurten AM: Was this for someone who was consistently doing it over and over again and did not change?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): They did it twice and in each case put a small sewage works out of action. This was just outside London. They went to court and were fined. We have the powers and when we are talking to them we can say, “Look, as a last resort, we will take you to court”, but it is much better to work with persuasion.
Page 23
David Kurten AM: Yes. You talk about education and you brought in the fat trap there or something. What else do you do to try to seek to educate people and how does your education programme work for greater awareness?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): It works at various levels. It works via the media. The fatberg has been marvellous because it has given us a huge amount of free publicity for the message and the Evening Standard has been really helpful in pushing stories. Certainly, the results from that have been very good. Two thirds of Londoners are aware of the problem, which was a big increase.
We then have to build on that by getting the specific behaviour change. There are things like a fat trap. There is a little plastic scraper in here so that you can scrape the fat out of a roasting tin. You have to make it easy for people. That is the first thing. There is also school education. We have stuff on our websites. When we talk to customers - when we go around and do water efficiency visits, for instance - we will also talk about what to put down the sewers. We are using every opportunity to try to reinforce the messages.
David Kurten AM: With all of these kind of education programmes, they are fantastic, but I do find sometimes that you get 80% of the problems caused by 20% of the people and there is a hard core of people who you cannot reach, who just will not change their behaviour and who are immune to education messaging and just do not care, even if you talk about fatbergs. What can you do about those people? What can you do about --
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): We have to identify them. If we have a blockage on a housing estate, which is the house that is flushing the nappies that they should not be flushing? Which is the one that is regularly putting oil and grease down the sink? If you have a row of food service establishments - eight or 10 in a row sometimes in a street - which one is it that actually has the worst behaviour? If you can pinpoint it, then you can use much firmer persuasion, but more generally it is just about educating and making it easy for people. You can explain to people how they can fit a grease trap and how it will work and that it is good for their business. That is why this is called “protecting your business”, because you are protecting them from flooding their own kitchens in many cases.
Edward Palin (Chair, Grease Contractors’ Association): There is a lack of understanding about putting grease in a waste or recycling receptacle as opposed to down the drain. It is a behavioural change. We have two elements. We have good practice and then fitting a grease separator. For a lot of customers, they do not understand the difference between the two. It is about educating them with regard to that.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Also, from a sustainability point of view, when people do that separation, it can also sometimes be then transformed for use as some sort of fuel as well.
Edward Palin (Chair, Grease Contractors’ Association): Absolutely.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I know some people who have done that in large kitchens where there is a lot of fat being used and we would encourage people to reuse in that way rather than just sticking it down the drain.
Tracy Stewart (Director General, Absorbent and Hygienic Product Manufacturers Association): I have a very quick comment to build on yours, Richard. Having watched the recycling efforts over the years and all the initiatives that local authorities have exercised, such as incentive schemes and refunds on tax and so on, the one thing that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found that worked and the only thing that worked was making it easy for people to do it. Nothing else worked. Page 24
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Thank you very much for that. We are now going to draw this part of our examination of the issues relating to water and London to a slight pause. We are going to thank Seán, Tracy, Edward and Natalie for their contributions. We are going to retain Richard and Karen. We are also going to retain Richard’s lovely bottles of disintegrating toilet paper and not-disintegrating wet wipe and we are going to bring in our new guests. Thank you very much to Tracy, Seán, Edward and Natalie.
Page 25 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 26
Appendix 2
London Assembly Environment Committee – 21 February 2018
Transcript of Item 5 – Water Issues
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I would just like to restart the February meeting of the London Assembly Environment Committee. We have just been talking about fatbergs with Thames Water and a number of other guests. We are now going to move on to the really important issue of water supply and demand over the next 80 years looking out to 2100 and then coming back to this thorny issue, which we have discussed with Thames Water previously, of the situation with regard to burst water mains and action that is being taken to move ahead on that particular challenge, which has been continuing for Londoners.
I am now going to introduce our new guests, who are Daniel Bicknell, Policy and Programme Officer from the Greater London Authority (GLA); Karen Gibbs, who is from the Consumer Council for Water and has stayed on, thank you; Richard Aylard from Thames Water, who has also stayed on; Timothy Mcmahon, Head of Water Networks at Thames Water, in case we have any particular technical issues to be thrown at the panel; and then, finally, last but not least, Paul Matthews from Transport for London (TfL), presumably for when we get to that interface between digging up the road to deal with the burst water mains and the challenges that that places on TfL. We will come to the burst water mains after we have picked up on the issue of the 2100 plan and how we are looking forward to dealing with water supply and demand for our growing city.
One of the things, Richard, I just wanted to start off with at this point was that we are now faced with another major city in the world that appears to have allowed untrammelled growth to take place in terms of housing and is facing potentially having standpipes and no water available at all in Cape Town in South Africa. In that context, I just wondered if you could start by giving us an overview in terms of how we plan to balance London’s supply and demand because, clearly, they do not seem to have that quite right in Cape Town.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): All water companies are required to have a 25-year statutory Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP). We publish a new one every five years and we have just put our draft plan out for consultation. Whereas the guidance used to say, “You need to plan for 25 years and, if you have a really good reason to plan for longer, you have to explain yourself”, this time the rules have been changed. They now say, “plan for whatever period you think is appropriate for the area you serve and your customers, so long as it is at least 25 years”. Looking at London’s growth and the risks around supplying the capital, we have gone for an 80-year plan. Bearing in mind we are going to be redoing it every five years, it at least sets out an 80-year vision.
Another thing we have done differently in this WRMP is that previously we have produced the plan behind closed doors and then presented it to people to say, “What do you think?” That clearly was not the best way to do it and so we have spent the last three years having a whole series of very open forum discussions with our stakeholders to decide what ought to be in the WRMP and to explain to them the work we will be doing and they have critiqued the studies. I am pleased to say that the GLA has attended virtually every meeting and has commented on a number of aspects of it. This plan has been created very much more openly and it has now been published. We think that that will have sufficient in it to protect London against the kind of fate that has befallen Cape Town.
If we could guarantee the same population and the same climate for the next 80 years, all we would need to do is keep getting leakage down, but of course we cannot. We know that climate change is going to kick in even more than it has already and we know we are going to have to deal with about another 2 million people by Page 27
2045. That is the equivalent of Birmingham’s and Glasgow’s populations all moving to London. It is a big challenge and we have set out in the draft WRMP how we think that should best be done to give best value to our customers.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Thank you for setting that out as the start to this part of the discussion. I am going to now call on my colleague Assembly Member McCartney to now come in with some further questions around the supply-and-demand management for the future.
Joanne McCartney AM: Yes. In 2006, I led a report on drought in London because at that stage we were talking about the possibility of standpipes being put in the streets, as you have stated, with an increasing population and the risk of drought. Water UK has done some recent work saying that there is a one-in-five chance that we will have drought again in any potential year for next 25 years.
Do you think your plans are bold enough? Will we see something that is short-term rather than an 80-year --
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): We recognise that from time to time we are going to need to put some kind of restrictions on our customers and we know that customers will accept the imposition of a hosepipe ban in the sort of drought that we would expect to get one year in 20. As it happens, we had to have a ban in 2006 and again in 2012.
However, the important thing is to make sure that we do not get to emergency measures. At the moment, it is about a one-in-125-year drought that would potentially put us into requiring emergency measures. It would not probably be standpipes in the street because can you imagine people queuing in Canary Wharf or Parliament Square? It is just not going to work. We have to have a really good plan. What we are trying to do is to get our resilience over time up from one in 125 years to one in 200 and so it would be a really severe drought, very severe indeed, before we started to get into requiring emergency measures, and that is in our WRMP.
How we want to do it, is the next few years are mainly about managing demand. We can get leakage down further and we can get it down much faster. We can fit a lot more meters and we can help our customers to use water wisely. In the longer term, we are also going to need more water. We cannot do it all through demand management because of what is coming at us in terms of population and climate change. Our draft WRMP sets out for consultation very clearly what we think we need to do both in the next few years and further ahead.
If I talk specifically about leakage, there is a challenge from the Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat), which has been picked up by the Secretary of State in the White Paper, which says that all water companies should be looking to get leakage down by 15% over the next five years. We were originally planning to get a 15% reduction over three five-year periods, but we have brought it forward and we are going to do it over one. Leakage is going to be even more of a focus for us in the next five years than it is at the moment. Of course, having missed the leakage target, we have to get back on track and get the extra 15%, and so there is a huge amount to be done there. That will be coupled with the metering programme and enhanced water efficiency.
One of the things we have been doing is, before we fit people with a meter on a compulsory basis, we go around and talk to them about water efficiency. Not surprisingly, that is when they are most receptive. We do what we call ‘smarter home visits’. We go and knock on the door. Groundwork, who are our partners, talk to people about how to use water wisely. They give them water-efficient tap inserts, low-flow showerheads, all the things that they can use to help them use water sensibly. The combination of leakage, water efficiency
Page 28 and metering means we can keep getting demand down and it is only later in the period that we will have to start bringing in the extra supply options.
Joanne McCartney AM: Can I ask Karen, perhaps? Are you satisfied that Thames Water is doing all that it can or is there something that it should be doing? In that report, which was 10 years ago, we suggested that the Consumer Council might want to evaluate each of the water companies’ conservation campaigns and give advice or rate them. Is that something that you do, that sort of evaluation?
Karen Gibbs (Senior Policy Manager, Consumer Council for Water): Yes. We have worked very hard to ensure that the companies in the southeast, particularly those with compulsory metering programmes, have had very extensive water-efficiency campaigns and support packages to complement the metering itself. We have also made sure that where, like in the southeast, the water situation is very stressed, the companies have been working together on communications as well because there are lots of these issues that do suggest that customer awareness and education is an important part of that process. Improving in that respect is another important element.
In terms of whether Thames [Water] is doing enough, it is really important that Thames’s plans reflect the priorities of its customer. This is why we have encouraged Thames, along with all the other companies, to seize the opportunity to do effective customer engagement and research to understand what customers’ priorities are and where they support investment in demand management and new water resources and that they are also comfortable with the pace of investment because, at the end of the day, the services need to be affordable for customers today and in the future.
Joanne McCartney AM: I believe a group of my residents is challenging Thames Water and saying that there is no legal obligation to take a water meter [reading], but is there evidence to show that putting water meters in would reduce water use and therefore bills? That is what customers are concerned about.
Karen Gibbs (Senior Policy Manager, Consumer Council for Water): Certainly, there is evidence to date from the programmes that have run ahead of the Thames Water metering programme that it is delivering savings in the amount of water that companies are having to put out into distribution. How much is attributed to putting the meter in and what else the company has done to help customers use less water - through help with repairing supply pipe leakage, audits to help the household consider how much water they are using and maybe change behaviour - is quite difficult to disaggregate, but the programmes themselves are certainly delivering results in terms of reducing water demand.
What I would say is that an important element in that demand balance is the effort that the companies make in reducing leakage. The level of a company’s leakage is often a barrier to customers accepting the need to be more efficient themselves and so it is really important that the company has a comprehensive approach to demand management before it considers then delivering new water resources.
Joanne McCartney AM: Richard, can I ask you? Do you have evidence that when you put meters in, customers’ fears that their bills will go up are unfounded?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): We have done a lot of analysis of the results from companies that were ahead of us in doing metering and we forecast about a 16% reduction in usage from customers who have a meter fitted on a compulsory basis.
Page 29
Joanne McCartney AM: That is usage but a water rate is a flat rate per year irrespective of the amount of people. I can imagine that low-income families may be particularly concerned. As the mother of two teenage girls, with their showers, it is --
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Yes.
Joanne McCartney AM: Do you have evidence that it does not put customers’ bills up? At the end of the day, for customers to want to come forward and take those meters --
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): We have done a lot of work on analysis of what it does to bills. There are a few customers, those in low rateable value properties with large numbers of people living in the houses who were not using water carefully, whose bills will go up a lot. If you have an elderly couple living in a four- or five-bedroom house on their own, their bills will come down quite dramatically. For the vast majority of people, the bills are very similar under a meter, just a little bit above, the same or a little bit below. The curve has a lot in the middle.
The important thing is that once people have had the help and they have fitted the water-efficient devices, just about everybody can get their bill down. Some people have to work harder at it than others, but it is our job to work with them and give them all the support we possibly can.
The other thing we do is we phase it in so that before they get their first metered bill, they get at least a year when they are being told what that bill would be so that they can work it out. They can change immediately if they would save money, but if the bill is going to go up they have time to adjust their behaviour before they get their first metered bill that they need to pay.
Joanne McCartney AM: There is a transition period?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): There is a transition, yes. They are aware of what it is going to be before it arrives.
Joanne McCartney AM: In the past, we have talked about vulnerable families. Do you offer any schemes for those who are on particularly low incomes?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Yes, we have a number of schemes. The first thing that we would say is --
Joanne McCartney AM: They should not be afraid?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): No. Anybody who has trouble with paying their water bill, please pick up the phone and talk to us because there are lots and lots of things we can do to help, ranging from in some cases a social tariff where they get the whole bill reduced by up to half, through to advice on water efficiency. We even have a charitable trust that can help. There are a lot of measures, but the main thing for us is just to know that that particular customer has a problem.
Joanne McCartney AM: One of your long-term plans is the new reservoir. Ten years ago, you raised it with us and it had been on the table then for quite a while. Is that just a really long-term goal or is it something that you think you are going to move ahead with very quickly?
Page 30
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): A lot of things can change; for instance, the amount of water that we need to supply to other companies in the area. We have had one discussion with the companies. We transfer water amongst ourselves quite a lot and so we have an initial forecast with those companies of how much they would need. If they need more water, it could potentially bring our need for a big resource forward. If they need less, it could go backwards. If population growth is faster or slower than predicted or if the Environment Agency’s requirements for us to reduce our existing abstractions go forward or backward.
At the moment, we think that in the mid-2040s we are going to need a big new source of water in the form of a reservoir. That has been around since the 1990s as a plan. There is only one really good site that we can use and we are keen to safeguard that. The way it would work is we would take water from the River Thames in the winter when the river is flowing high and store it. Then, in the summer when we need it, we can supply the local area, bearing in mind Oxfordshire, Swindon and Banbury are all growing very fast as well. We would put most of it back in the river, it would flow down to London under gravity just in the river and we would abstract it at a nominal abstraction point. We would be moving water that falls on the wetter west down into the south and east on a gravity-powered conveyor belt using the river. We would not be having to pump, which is really important.
The other thing is once that water is in the River Thames, we can abstract it, but so can all the other companies that abstract from the Thames. It could become a resource for Affinity Water, Southeast Water and Sutton and East Surrey. It becomes a regional resource. There is a lot of work being done through what is called the Water Resources in the South East Group to work out how we can most effectively share water between companies. As Karen said, customers want companies to work together and move water around where it makes sense and come up with the best overall regional solution. That is what we are all trying to do through this group that is been working away to find a big integrated plan.
Joanne McCartney AM: That is on the table. That is useful. Can I ask finally Daniel, from the GLA’s perspective on the supply and demand and how to balance that? Is there anything that the GLA has been suggesting to Thames Water that it is not doing?
Daniel Bicknell (Policy & Programme Officer, Greater London Authority): We are broadly supportive. We have been quite clear on the balance between supply and demand. The priority has to be focused on demand management first and maximising that, recognising that London’s per capita consumption figures are still stubbornly high. They are coming down so there is more that can be done on that. Clearly, we have talked about leakage and leakage is a really important part of that and we are pushing quite hard on that, particularly on the mains bursts side and we can talk a bit more about that later on.
In the draft Environment Strategy, we do recognise that however hard you push demand management - and more needs to happen there - there is still a need for a new regional resource for London. That is not just something that Thames Water is calling for; it is something that all the water companies that supply London are calling for. We recognise that need is there and the solution that is delivered should be the best solution for London and Londoners.
We are doing a complementary piece of work. We are not trying to redo any of the detailed analysis that Thames Water has done to support its WRMP, but we have started carrying out an assessment of the WRMP supply options, just to assess how they impact on Londoners specifically, different parts of London, different mayoral priorities as well, looking at some of the more social elements of the different supply options. Does a new reservoir or does a new effluent reuse scheme have a disproportionate impact on certain demographics or
Page 31 parts of London? It is understanding that broader picture, not wanting to redo any of Thames Water’s detailed work.
Joanne McCartney AM: Thank you.
David Kurten AM: I just wanted to pick up on something you said, Richard, about the population projections. You said you thought there might be an extra 2 million people by 2045. I just wonder if that is an underestimate based on the way the population has been growing over the past 20 years. We have had an increase of over 2 million people in London’s population since 1997. If that is extrapolated, the relative increase is getting larger. Would you not expect more like 3 million people or more by 2045 rather than 2 million?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): The answer is that forecasting is really difficult. Forecasting population has not gone well in the past in general but --
David Kurten AM: It is far more than people have said in the past, yes.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): -- what we have done is we have done what we are required to do in our plan, which is to use the official figures which the GLA uses. We have also had various academics looking at them and trying to break them down into smaller areas and then reaggregate it and see whether there is double counting. There is a lot of work going on at the moment to try to get really good forecasts.
However, the important thing is that the plan gets redone every five years. We want the best view of the future now and we will be revisiting that regularly. The important point is that we have enough headroom so that even if the population goes up quite sharply, we should be able to cope. We build headroom into our plans. The further into the future we go, the more headroom there is.
David Kurten AM: The most recent figure, for example, for the midyear to June 2016, London’s population went up in one year by 135,000, which is far more year-by-year if that is replicated than what you say over the next 27 years to 2045. If that is replicated year-on-year, London’s population will not grow by 2 million; it will grow by 3.6 million. That is nearly double your projection. With your forecasts talking about how you will meet water needs with a 15% reduction in leakage and a 15% reduction in consumer use, that is not going to come true if the population is going to go up far more than you are projecting.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): You are quite right and London has grown faster than predicted over the current five-year period but, as I say, we are using the best available forecasts. We do build headroom into our plans and so we have time to adapt because the future will never be exactly as we predict it.
In one sense, why would we not generate huge amounts of additional water? The answer is that it would be very expensive for our customers and we could be spending money that does not need to be spent. We have to get the balance right here and so the important point is to make sure we have time to adapt if the future does not turn out to be quite where we expect.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): As a matter of interest, Daniel, do you concur from the GLA’s side with the Thames Water projections in terms of population or are we somewhere else on the page in the GLA?
Page 32
Daniel Bicknell (Policy & Programme Officer, Greater London Authority): I probably would not want to comment too much on the detail, but I have been party to the sessions that have looked at how they are calculating population projections. It is extremely complicated and I support the approach that they have taken with several views on it, including the academic view. There is some discrepancy between the two, but you are trying to build that into your projections. We are broadly in support.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): With the five-year reviews of the plan, you do not envisage that London is going to run out of water as seems to be happening in Cape Town, for example?
Daniel Bicknell (Policy & Programme Officer, Greater London Authority): Maybe that is a slightly different question around the resilience and drought measures. From that point of view, again, we are supportive of Ofwat’s view and the approach that the majority of water companies are taking in moving from a 1-in-125-year level of resilience to a one-in-200-year level of resilience. Yes, London will always have some form of restrictions when droughts happen and droughts will happen, but the ones we are trying to avoid, as Richard says, are those extreme drought measures that are really disruptive and expensive for London. We think that moving towards a higher level of resilience is a good way of doing it and an important way of doing it.
David Kurten AM: Just one final question. We have different estimates of London’s current population. What do you put London’s current population as users?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): I would have to write to you about this, Chair. I cannot just give figures off the top of my head. We can write you about the process that we have used and how the numbers have been generated. That is perhaps the best way. As Daniel says, we have had some very long and very complicated sessions with the academics looking at this. We do account for it in two ways. One is by looking at scenarios. If London grew faster, would this plan be resilient? The second is by building in headroom. We are always trying to make sure that we have time to adapt if things turn out differently, as they will.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I believe that the mostly accepted figure is 8.8 million for the current population. Thank you for that, David.
Keith Prince AM: Before I start, though, I would like to just revisit metering for a minute, if that is OK. Talking from personal experience, I have spent a lot of time living in flats. I had a flat in Ilford and I had it on a meter and was very happy with that. I then moved to another flat - a maisonette, I think they call it --
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Keith, just before we enter into a long description of how many flats you have lived in, just behind you is the Tudor Primary School, who have come all the way from Ealing to listen to you. Today we are talking about water with Thames Water and we are trying to talk about plans for the future. In 80 years’ time, how much water might we need? How much water might we be using? You have just missed us having a discussion about the other thing that Thames Water deals with, which is what goes into the sewers. We talked about fatbergs and people putting the wrong things down the toilet and also the amount of grease and fat that comes out of people’s kitchens and goes down the sinks, possibly also from restaurants. Now we are just talking about water and making sure we have enough water for the next 80 years. That is where we are. Keith, coming back to you?
Keith Prince AM: Thank you. I will not restart. The second flat I had --
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: No, do. I missed it. Please start again. Page 33
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): He was on his third flat, Jennette.
Keith Prince AM: No, I am on my second --
Joanne McCartney AM: Maisonette.
Keith Prince AM: -- maisonette. It did not have a water meter. Because I am quite frugal with water - I do not even have it in my whiskey - I asked for a water meter to be fitted and I was refused for some technical reason, which meant that I was then paying - quite the reverse of what you were saying - twice as much for my water. I do not expect you to give me a refund, but what can be done in those situations?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): There are certain properties that we cannot meter, particularly in blocks of flats because often they were built with all the kitchens connected at one side of the property and the bathrooms connected at the other and so --
Keith Prince AM: This is a maisonette and so we are talking about only two homes.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): There would have been a reason why we technically could not fit a meter. In those circumstances, what we should have offered you is what is called the ‘assessed household charge’. That is based on an average of what a metered customer would be paying for a property of that size. If we did not offer you that, I am sorry, but that would have got your bill down to an average metered charge.
Keith Prince AM: I was done, then, because I had evidence of how much water I had used the previous year and, clearly --
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): I am happy to look at it afterwards but --
Keith Prince AM: No, do not worry.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): -- as Karen knows, there is a mechanism to address exactly that problem.
Keith Prince AM: I am not doing a personal pleading, but I am just making the case for the people of London.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): If anybody is watching and has been offered a meter and has not been offered the assessed household charge when we cannot fit one, then they should contact us and we will look at it.
Keith Prince AM: Could you send me the details so that I can --
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Yes, absolutely.
Keith Prince AM: -- get that out to the people in Havering and Redbridge? Thank you.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Certainly, yes. Page 34
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): That would be helpful, Richard, because the point that Assembly Member Prince is making is something that comes up a lot with Councillors as well as with Assembly Members with people saying, “I wanted a water meter. I live in a block of flats and I was told I could not have one”. Some information about what we can tell people in those circumstances would be really helpful for all of us.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): I can do that.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Thank you.
Keith Prince AM: Now back to where we were -- you can go and tell your mums and dads that; that is helpful. Looking at the long term and London’s water needs, clearly, you have some options which we have already discussed and so we do not need to go through that again. What do you think will be the environmental impact of those changes that you need to make?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): It depends which resource option we choose. The GLA’s Environment Strategy talks about the need for a big new resource for London. As Daniel says, they are now looking at what those might be. They come in various categories. We have potential for a big new reservoir. We have potential for water transfers from other parts of the country. We have potential for reuse of treated sewage effluent. We have desalination. Some of those have high costs to build but low costs to operate, like the reservoir. Others have relatively low costs to build, like the desalination plant, but are incredibly expensive to operate. The environmental impacts are different for each of those options. That is one of the things we have looked at in the plan. That is what we are asking our customers about, “Do you agree with this? Here is our best homework. What do you think?” It is a genuine consultation and there will then be a revised plan coming out in the autumn [2018].
Keith Prince AM: The point there really is, if we can manage on less, it is a double bubble bonus because, by providing more, it is not just the fact that you have to provide more; there are also environmental costs linked to that as well.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): We should always take as little water as we possibly can from the environment and make best use of it.
Keith Prince AM: Moving on to my mum’s house now --
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: How many has she had?
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I was going to say: are we going to do the whole family or --
Keith Prince AM: No, she only had one. Anyway, the reason I am bringing this up --
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): That is lucky, really, because we do not quite have time for the whole family.
Keith Prince AM: No, indeed, and she is dead now and so she does not mind. Her house is one of those 1930s buildings in Romford or Hornchurch where the drainage comes from the roof straight into the mains sewer. I know that is a real problem because that gives us a lot more volume and, in many ways, it also increases the amount of mixed sewage that goes in. What can we do to reduce that?
Page 35
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): What has happened there is that Romford, and other large parts of London, have a combined sewer system. That is the way they were built, to take to take the surface runoff and the foul drainage through the same pipes, which means you need quite big pipes, and it means your biggest problem in terms of flow is the rainfall and not the foul flow that comes from the houses. Therefore, as far as possible, we want to intercept the surface flow and not get it into the sewers. That is quite difficult, particularly in heavily built-up areas, and so we are doing some work.
We have been looking at retrofitting sustainable drainage in some densely populated areas of west London. We have used permeable road surfaces. We have used swales, everything to try to slow the water down. We can cope with it in the sewers; we cannot cope with it all at once. That is when the problems occur. Retrofitting this sustainable drainage is really expensive and complicated and so what we prefer to do is to make sure that all new developments have really good sustainable drainage. If you go to the Westfield shopping centre, for instance, in west London, it has two huge tanks underground. All the rain off the roof and the carparks drains into those tanks and is released into the sewers over a period of days and weeks so that we do not get these great peaks of flow.
Keith Prince AM: Could they do what we do here? We reuse it. We put it down the loos.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): You could and that would be even better still, yes. When the Millennium Dome was built, it was built with full greywater reuse. We did a lot of monitoring on it and got a lot of evidence, but I am afraid when the new building owners came in, they said it all looks a bit complicated and ripped it all out.
Keith Prince AM: Wow.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): We are up against sometimes the economics, facilities and building managers, but what we want to try to do is to make sure that new build in particular is built to really high standards of sustainable drainage because we can make these areas green and attractive. For instance, at the Old Oak Park Royal development area, there is an Integrated Water Management Strategy, which will see the water captured, will create pleasant green areas around the buildings and will stop flows - or slow down flows - into a problem area of sewers, but it has to be built in at the start.
Keith Prince AM: Do you think this is something that should be emphasised in the new London Plan?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Absolutely, yes.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): You will be pleased to know that one of the responses from the Environment Committee, which will be collated together with the other Committees, is to say that integrated water management strategies should have more prominence in the London Plan. That is going to be part of our response, I hope.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): It is one thing to have a strategy; it is another thing to follow it. We hope it will be enforced.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We are hoping it is going to be a strong policy, not just in the commentary part of the Plan.
Page 36
Daniel Bicknell (Policy and Programme Officer): I was just going to say, in the draft London Plan, it was published just before Christmas and it has a beefed-up policy in that area and the drainage hierarchy that has been a success as part of the outgoing plan and we have seen a huge improvement. It is not perfect. We have seen probably more tanks than we would like and fewer green sustainable urban drainage systems, but it has still been quite successful in new developments in increasing the attenuation of those. The drainage hierarchy in the new Plan has improved. We think it will encourage and continue to ensure that we see an increase in attenuation of surface water but with greener sustainable drainage solutions; green and blue roofs, more rain gardens encouraged and then fading over to tanks if additional capacity is required.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): There are some really good models of how this can be done. Some boroughs are better at it than others, but Enfield is particularly good. There are a lot of really good green sustainable drainage schemes which I am very happy to take any of the Committee to see if they were interested. There are some really good models of what can be done.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Is it Firs Farm [Wetlands] in Enfield?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Yes.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): That has just opened and we also have the Walthamstow wetlands and the Woodbury wetlands. We are starting to develop a number of these areas that can capture the rainfall and stop the large amounts flowing into the system.
Keith Prince AM: Finally - and I cannot think of any connection to any of my relatives on this one, I am afraid - energy recovery from sewage. How can we help London become more carbon-neutral?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): I am really pleased you asked that question. We have been recovering energy from sewage sludge since the 1930s with a process called anaerobic digestion. That typically gets less than 40% of the potential energy content out of the sludge. We have now been fitting a front end called thermal hydrolysis, which is a sort of a pressure cooker. It makes the sludge give more energy when you digest it and that gets to about 50% of the available amount of energy from the sludge.
The next stage would be what is called pyrolysis. The problem has always been that the sludge has been too wet to go through the pyrolysis process without being dried first and you use more energy in drying it than you get out of it. A few years ago, we were looking at how we could reduce the volume of sewage sludge that we take out after it has been digested to farmland because it is mostly water. You are moving lots of this really heavy stuff around in tankers, which makes no sense.
We talked to the cider industry and they showed us something called a Bucher Press and a Bucher Press is what they use to get the last juice out of every apple to make cider.
Keith Prince AM: Making cider out of it, then?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Yes. We reworked with them this cider press as a sewage press and that gets the water content down from 90% to less than 60%, which is great for taking stuff out to farmland because you need fewer lorries, less fuel and less pollution, but it also makes pyrolysis viable. What you do in pyrolysis is you take the digestive sludge, you squeeze it through the Bucher Press and then you cook it in a vacuum and that gives you a whole lot more gas Page 37 which you can use for energy. You then get about 90% total of the energy recovered but, also, what you have done is massively reduced the volume of what is left. What you have is a tenth of the previous volume. It is so concentrated that it can be mined and, therefore, you can recover phosphates, metals and carbon. You have created a circular economy in which you start off with sewage sludge and you end up with water, energy and resource.
We have done a small-scale pilot on this and that worked. We are now building a full-scale plant which is going to take a waste stream of the waste of 500,000 people. It is the size of quite a big sewage works and this is at Crossness which is across the river from Beckton. That plant is being built now and it is going to be the first 100% sewage sludge pyrolysis plant. It takes a bit of time, I suspect, to get it working because these things are pretty technical but if that does work, we will then do that on a bigger scale elsewhere and it will make a big difference in terms of carbon.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): For the benefit of our guests up there, the waste of 500,000 people is the poo of 500,000 but Richard is too polite to use the word ‘poo’.
Keith Prince AM: It is about the size of two boroughs, is it not, roughly?
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): No. That is probably slightly more than two boroughs, is it not?
Keith Prince AM: My two boroughs are around about that.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): We think that will produce enough energy to power about 2,000 homes.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): With the Bucher Press, that is mechanical rather than --
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): It is a mechanical press, yes, and we have --
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): The amount of energy used is quite low.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Quite low, yes.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): What do you have to put into the presses at that point to get the heat up so that the pyrolysis can start to occur in the vacuum?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): You have to heat your first batch, but then, as you produce waste heat, that then precooks the next batch. You are using some of the heat from the process to make sure that what you are putting in is dry enough.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): It only uses input heat to commence the reaction in the first place.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): That is right. Once it is going, it becomes self-sustaining. It is all these points which is where the technical work is required because this is much more technical than we have ever had in our sewerage works before. We are going to need different people, different training and different equipment. We are confident enough to be building a plant of this size to give it a real good go. I am very happy to take you to see it when it is up and running in a year or so’s time. Page 38
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I suspect that might also be of considerable interest to the Committee as well.
Shaun Bailey AM: I just want to ask a short question on desalination. I worry you have had a conversation about population growth and the distorted fact that we do not quite know what it is. At some point, we may just have to produce some extra water and if it is not there, that probably leads up to desalination. I understand it has a great environmental impact because it is so energy intensive.
I wonder, in our 80-year plan, are we trying to do this process you just talked about, which sounds very exciting if it works, next to a plant that desalinates, or we can lower that? Effectively, London is the only megacity in Europe and I worry that with so many people, we could have a huge problem where we just do not have enough water.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): We will always be wanting to use the energy we get from pyrolysis in our own plants as much as possible. The point about desalination is it is quite a good stopgap, but it is really expensive to operate and there are better options frankly, for London, than desalination; on the basis of what we have looked at, at the moment anyway.
Shaun Bailey AM: I understand that. The only point about desalination is it seems like the only thing that can produce water in a short period of time.
Shaun Bailey AM: It seems like the only thing you could do in a short space of time.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): You are right, Assembly Member Bailey, but if we get our planning right and we give ourselves enough headroom and we review it regularly enough, we will not get caught out and have to do something in a hurry.
Shaun Bailey AM: I hope that is correct, but I am just worried for the day that we do get caught out because water is so basic, if you do not have --
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): We move quite quickly from the hosepipe ban that is inconvenient to emergency measures which start costing London hundreds of millions of pounds a day in economic activity. We do not have that many options which is why there always has to be good long-term planning, reviewing the forecasts and building in headroom.
Shaun Bailey AM: Thank you, Chair.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): That brings us on neatly to talking about planning and how we manage our water resources without incurring huge costs but at the same time being aware that we do need to bring down leakage and we do need to deal with bursts when they happen. Assembly Member Arnold is now going to lead off with some questions on trunk mains particularly but burst water mains in general. I am sure a number of the other Members of the Committee will have a few things to say.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Tim, Richard told me earlier that the buck now stops with you. Congratulations on this wonderful job that you have with the title of Thames Water Head of Water Networks. Depending on your answers, the threat here is that I will tweet your direct number, which Richard gave me. No, he did not - I jest - but I can get it.
Page 39
You were not with us at our previous meetings, but you are up to date in terms of where we are. Let me just start working on the assumption you are up to speed. On top of the actions recommended in the forensic review following the disastrous leaks that we had in 2016, what are you going to do on the trunk mains network as a result of that strategic review?
I would also like to add that, that strategic review came about because of all the burst pipes that happened then. Will you be carrying out a strategic review of a similar kind regarding the two main trunk bursts that occurred at the end of January [2018] in Shepherds Bush? Let us start with those two questions.
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): In respect to the trunk main forensic review, that took place in March 2017 and post that and through consultation through our stakeholders in Ofwat, we condensed that down into our strategic plan which was five core commitments which covered 87 core initiatives. Those five commitments range from our operating model - that is the concept of my role - and taking increased ownership back into Thames from our alliance partners and building the capability underneath me because these assets are very complicated to manage.
Looking at risk management: how do we improve our models and our tools to enable us to understand risk more effectively? The Paul Cuttill report [Paul Cuttill OBE, Thames Water Trunk Mains Forensic Review, 2014] highlighted the consequence and the consequence was very good. The industry issue around likelihood as an area of key focus.
Asset information and understanding our assets more effectively to ensure we can close these pipes as quickly as possible or understand how the network is configured. Our event management, and our response, if one of these assets were to fail: how do we get there as speedily as possible and shut the piping as quickly as possible and the aftercare around that? Also, our monitoring policy: how we do ensure we are monitoring those assets as effectively as possible?
Of those 87 initiatives or commitments, we have delivered about half of those to date. The Paul Cuttill report highlighted two in particular of immediate focus. The first one was around our customer representation onsite if one of these assets were to fail. The second one was our insurance policy. How do we make it clearer to our customers if they are impacted? I am pleased to say both of those are now on track. If you look at our customer representation, we now have 15 fulltime people working 24/7 who can respond to any incident that might occur. You referenced the Hammersmith and Fulham incidents --
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Tell us how that worked, then, in that instance.
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): With the Hammersmith and Fulham incident, what happens is through the Police or the Fire Brigade, because of the size and nature, you usually get a call from them first that goes to a special telephone line which we now have in place; again, a reference from the Paul Cuttill report. That then flags up to our duty manager, a person who is on 24/7, and he contacts those customer representatives. For one of the incidents that you have referenced, the Hammersmith King Street burst, we had four people dispatched within 15 minutes. Their role was purely to deal with the customers flooded. We still have the response of sending our operatives to go and close the valves, but we now have the customer side in place, which is really good to see, and we are getting good plaudits from our customers because we were able to manage them in that incident.
The other part which we learnt a lot of from 2016 was around our insurance policy. How do we get it right? We have a booklet here which I am happy to share. It just makes it a lot clearer to customers around our policy. Through those incidents in 2016, we have been able to test that with our customers and the Consumer Page 40
Council for Water to understand how we have the right policy. As an example, we used to have an old-for-old replacement on a policy or, if your fridge was two years old, we would replace it with a two-year old fridge. We have now amended that policy for new-for-old for any instance going forward, which we believe none of the other water utilities are providing.
We also have a discretionary policy. That is almost like an apology policy. For any inconvenience that calls you out of your home for a long period of time, Thames Water will make a goodwill payment to recompense those customers for that. That is for inconvenience they have been caused. We have made that a lot clearer which we did not have in place in 2016. Again, that is starting to have good plaudits from our customers going forward.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: That sounds really good given the disastrous experience of 2016. Thanks for that.
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): You referenced the two trunk mains in Hammersmith and Fulham. Do we undertake a forensic review of those assets? Absolutely. What we do is for every pipe over 12 inches, we send it off for a forensic review, a non-destructive test where they fire balls at it to understand the weaknesses and strengths of each of those spans of pipe and understand how it failed. There could be up to 50 reasons why it failed. That usually takes between six and eight weeks because it is a very complicated service. From that, I can then understand why that asset failed, what we can do about it and what the mitigation is we could put in place to try and prevent it from happening again. We are doing it for those two trunk mains in question.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Do you have any information on the timescale that you are envisaging for renewing the trunk mains network? We did get some figures but any update on a timescale?
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): Yes. Trunk mains are incredibly difficult assets to replace, predominately because it is understanding where to invest your money. As I said, risk is broken into consequence, so the impact of one of those pipes failing and likelihood, so how often it may fail. Consequence we understand very well. We have a very good tool that is supplied. We have upgraded that tool back off the 2016 learning to understand our modelling impact. If you put a ball on this table, the water would flow in one direction. What we learnt from 2016, especially the Islington Upper Street burst, where water was going in two directions once it got over a certain amount. That secondary direction caused the impact to our customers. We have updated our model and so our consequence model is even better.
What challenge is likelihood, therefore, understanding where they are going to burst? If you look at the two Hammersmith and Fulham bursts two weeks ago, they had a quite high consequence. They are in our top 30% of risks but likelihood, they had not burst in that location before, therefore, I need to understand likelihood much more effectively to understand where to spend that money as efficiently and effectively as possible for our customers. We have a duty of care to make sure we are spending money in the right areas. We are working hard in this area. We are improving our dataset. We are looking at how we can understand our burst rates more effectively and the geospatial locations of where those bursts may have taken place.
More importantly is innovation. We have trialled a technique from a company in Norway called Revolve where we are trying to understand putting this asset in the pipe when it is live and there is water in it, to try and understand the thickness of the pipe. If I can understand the thickness of the pipe, I can understand the likelihood and, therefore, I will be able to understand risk more effectively. Until we can do that, it makes it incredibly difficult to know where to spend the money because we are seeing, when we have done that, you
Page 41 are potentially replacing bad parts of pipe but also very good parts of pipe; all the same age, all the same condition; laid at the same time and that is our challenge.
Nonetheless, when you look at our mains replacement programme for the same period between 2015 and 2020, that reads about 30 kilometres of mains will be replaced in London.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: 30 kilometres.
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): In London, correct. The next time period between 2020 and 2025, although we are testing that with customers at the moment, this may change, it is 57 kilometres; it is increased. Our challenge is we would like to do more but I need to get the balance right between cost effectiveness, spending money wisely because we need to understand that risk as effectively as possible. Understanding that likelihood is our key challenge to Thames and to the industry.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: One of the things that came through with our joint work with the boroughs was they felt that Thames Water should share their information more. Borough Leaders did not have a clue in terms of where their mains were, in terms of your priority. Also, at our Committee meeting, TfL suggested it would like to see Thames Water’s risk register for trunk mains bursts because, of course, it is not just your customers as residents; it is about Londoners and it is about the transport system.
If I just go over to Paul for a moment and just say to Paul, yes, there was a suggestion that Thames Water’s risk register for trunk mains bursts be shared with TfL. Has that happened?
Paul Matthews (Works Co-ordination and Permitting Area Manager, Transport for London): At present, I am not aware of any long-term plans for the 57 kilometres that might need to be replaced in London, especially for TfL, that would be very appreciated because that has helped to mitigate the network in turn. As you appreciate, emergency bursts are exceptionally complex to manage and deal with and we are working very closely with Thames Water to help manage that.
We are doing quite a lot of work with Thames Water at the moment, trying to get more information out of them. One is locations where they are going to replace them in turn. For instance, Cadent Gas is a good example. They do grade their mains. We know exactly which ones it wants to replace. It has gradings on which ones to do in 12 months, which ones in two years and which ones in five years, and we have a really good idea of how we are going to deal with that.
We now have an action plan with Thames Water to try and get that extra information because that would help us manage and plan long-term. Upper Street is quite a good example. That was a burst water main which caused massive damage, but when we went ahead with the planned work, we got a huge amount of capital work taking place. We got a shuttle bus service to support residents and it was, I believe, an effective solution to quite a horrible situation. Anything like that that we can plan ahead on in the future would be very appreciated.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Back to you, Timothy. Is that on your list of actions?
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): Absolutely.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: It was agreed in June [2017]?
Page 42
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): Yes. With the 57 kilometres, we are still going through our internal signoff and the testing of our customers. Once we have confirmed if that is good enough, if that is big enough, are they are the right assets to replace, we will absolutely share that, but we have to have a signed-off plan before I can do that.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: When should we write to you? In three months’ time? Should the Chair write to you in six months’ time?
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): It will be in six months’ time.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Six months’ time, is it? We should put that as an action to write to you.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Can I just clarify? The 57 kilometres, is that per annum that you are proposing and what percentage is that of your overall number of kilometres? We had some figures that said on your current rate of renewal, it would be 500 years before you renewed everything. That is quite a long period.
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): Per Asset Management Plan (AMP) and it is 3,200 kilometres of trunk mains across the Thames Water estate. It is a long time. That is because we are trying to understand this likelihood side. We would absolutely like to increase that number but until we can understand the likelihood and know where to spend that money most effectively, it really challenges our business plans.
We are doing more than just replacement, I hasten to say. We are looking at monitoring. The key element, which is a lot cheaper when we do not understand the asset bases effectively as we do because we cannot understand this likelihood side if you cannot see inside a pipe.
We are increasing our monitoring to 25% of our network by 2025 and that incorporates a number of different technologies. There is something called a Syrinix unit which is a clever tool that talks to each other and says there is a potential leak here, therefore, we can get on there before it bursts. There is also something called a Sahara chain there which is whereby you put a parachute and a sonar device down the pipe which tells you there is a leak. We are doing that extensively today. That has covered about a third of our network amongst some other techniques.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Sorry, Timothy. By 2025, will you have replaced about 57 kilometres?
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): Between 2020 and 2025.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: All right, two years. There is work in progress but then 2020 to 2025 is the big period of replacement.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): When you say 25% of your network will be monitored, is that the trunk main network that will be monitored? It is specific to that? At the moment, it is a third? No. Because then that is going down.
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): At the moment, our monitoring covers 16% as of today.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): 16%.
Page 43
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): Yes, 16 and it is going up to 25% and that is related to the clever techniques I have just talked about; Syrinix and Sahara surveys. We do use other techniques: people with special correlators. This is basically a device that puts sounds down a main and it can highlight where a leak might occur or even with the human ear. We use those techniques as well to find leaks and that covers a about a third of our network. Clever devices, 25% of the network, but we use other devices to cover about a third of the network.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: This is all new action following on from the recommendation. It has been going on but you have escalated it.
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): Yes. When you look at our original plan for AMP 6 when the trunk main is in its entirety, it accumulated to £150 million. Off the back of the incident in 2016, we increased our investment from the board by a further £95 million to target the likes of Upper Street and so on. The next AMP period will be £250 million. We are increasing our investment plans up on our current AMP6 plans.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: There is just one more question. There was also a general agreement at the June 2017 meeting that some form of loyalty, utility, Pan-London co-ordination of roadworks would be helpful which is what I think Paul has referred to. Who is leading on this? In the past, we have had Mayoral intervention. I cannot remember whether it was the first or second administration where there was a compact, a Pan-London compact made with the utility companies, TfL and anybody who is digging--
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Is it permits?
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: In permits and stuff. Where are we with all that? Daniel?
Daniel Bicknell (Policy and Programme Officer): I can comment briefly on that. There is the Infrastructure High Level Group which has met once and is meeting again next month or April [2018], perhaps.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: When you say High Level, who sits there then?
Daniel Bicknell (Policy and Programme Officer): Chief Executive Officer (CEO) level mostly, managing directors of key utilities and regulators. One of the subgroup pieces of work is around potentially developing an infrastructure called Nation Unit; setting up geographically specific units that would have a role in project managing or co-ordinating the deliveries of utility work.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Is the CEO from Thames Water there?
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): Our CEO will be there, yes. Steve Robertson is going personally. He went to the first one, he is going to the next one. He is taking an interest in all the work that is being done to prepare for it. He is actively personally involved in this.
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): Absolutely. We have trialled something in the Croydon Borough. It is called the Thames Water Connects All in which we are trying to bring all of our programmes together along with other utilities to go to a street and try and do that all in one place, especially for our plan in the works which we believe is a very effective tool and it will have good results. We are aiming to roll it out to Westminster next. We are trialling something ourselves working with our other stakeholders to join in through things.
Page 44
Daniel Bicknell (Policy and Programme Officer): Just in terms of co-ordination as well, we also recently set up the Water Advisory Group which has a slightly different role and does not overlap with the infrastructure side of things but is about having all the water companies and key water representatives around the table, also very senior director and managing director level, to ensure that all water companies that impact on London and the regulators that work in London can have a forum to communicate and ensure an integrated approach to water management. We have another meeting next month [March 2018]. That is chaired by Shirley Rodriguez [Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy].
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: That is interesting. To Paul, from TfL, that sounds promising, does it not?
Paul Matthews (Works Co-ordination and Permitting Area Manager, Transport for London): Yes. Obviously, that is the whole job, to co-ordinate work, to pan into work together. Long-term, that has been very useful. We have a lot of works already where we have lots of utility works working together. We have objectives within TfL to make sure works collaborate.
Just a few examples. On this Cadent Gas example, I was using, they are doing quite a lot of resilience work around London at the moment. I have been talking to Thames Water and we have three locations where we are doing some localised leakage collaboration already. It is looking promising, but it would be good to see something more strategic.
Joanne McCartney AM: I raised this at our last meeting in June [2017]. We had someone from TfL with the same job title as you and we had Nigel Dyer, CEO of Thames Water Infrastructure Alliance. I raised the issue of the North Circular Road at Enfield at Bounds Green. In 2016, it burst nine times. I do not know the figures for this winter and thankfully we have had a mild winter, but certainly there was an incident on 8 September last year [2017] and 10 October. I got a flurry of emails. Following that, I did write to both parties and I have not received a response. I am going to hand you the letters at the end so that you can hopefully follow up.
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): I am not aware of that.
Paul Matthews (Works Co-ordination and Permitting Area Manager, Transport for London): I want to say that TfL have certainly written to Thames Water to say that we would like that main replaced.
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): I have sent for an update on that. We have met with TfL and I had a very challenging conversation naturally and we are very aware that that burst frequently. We do have plans in place to replace that between 2020 and 2025. The issue I have is do I spend the money on an area that impacts traffic or potential assets that might risk life and limb? I have to spend the money in one area and it will always be in the life and limb area. That is where our investment is taking place this AMP period. Needless to say, we need to resolve some of those areas that cause traffic disruption and it is in our plan for the next AMP period. It is a very complicated main to replace. You cannot replace it.
Joanne McCartney AM: You talk about the land outside of the road there, like a bypass, and so disruption is a minimum.
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): Correct. Yes, we have looked at that. It will cause significant disruptions on the North Circular, therefore, we looked at do we abandon the main and reconfigure the network? We looked at that extensively. That was probably our preferred option at one point. However, that rose quite a lot of concern in the Enfield area, the portable servicing zone, which I am not comfortable with from an assisting perspective. That puts undue pressure to all supply to our customers, therefore, we are going to have to come back to the option around realigning that pipe or replacing that pipe Page 45 which again will cause significant disruption to the North Circular thus working closely with TfL, we will have to plan it very carefully.
It is a difficult position to be in. We have got plans in place for the future between 2020 and 2025 to do that but for this AMP period, I have a difficult situation to balance risk to life and limb or more traffic disruption.
Joanne McCartney AM: I would urge you to do it because unplanned bursts cause great disruption and it is to business, it is to livelihoods as well.
Timothy Mcmahon (Head of Water Networks, Thames Water): Absolutely, I understand.
Joanne McCartney AM: I do have to make the point that a private company with the profits that Thames Water has, it should not be an either/or. You are a profitable company and you should be able to do both.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): That might be our last question. Richard, I wonder if you could just shake the two containers in front of you and talk us through where we have got to with the demonstration.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): As you can see, this one [with toilet paper] has literally disintegrated. This one [with a non-flushable wipe] is still sitting there exactly as it was when I put it in. One of those interesting things that was said by the industry representative was that the so-called flushable wipes did not contain any plastic. That is quite interesting and I shall follow that up. If you look at the electron microscope photographs, the flushable wipe does have clearly identifiable plastic fibres in it. There is a point to follow up on there. The demonstration speaks for itself.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Yes, it does. We can see why toilet paper going down the toilet does not cause much of a problem, but we can see that the wipe - clearly non-flushable - is going to potentially come all the way back to North Crossness pretty much exactly as it looks now.
Richard Aylard CVO (Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water): I should have said: I find an advantage of pyrolysis is that if we can get the plant right, we will be able to put the wet wipes and things that come off the screens through the pyrolysis and recover some energy from them rather than putting them into landfill. There are quite a lot of wins to be had from getting that right.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): As one of our goals from the Mayor is to see London as a zero-to-landfill city by 2050, let us hope that the pyrolysis is able to deal with that. Otherwise, we will be failing in that regard.
Page 46
MINUTES
Meeting: Environment Committee Date: Thursday 15 March 2018 Time: 10.00 am Place: Chamber, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA
Copies of the minutes may be found at: www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/environment
Present:
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair) Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair) Tony Arbour AM Shaun Bailey AM David Kurten AM Joanne McCartney AM
1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1)
1.1 An apology for absence was received from Jennette Arnold OBE AM.
1.2 During the discussion on Agenda Item 4 (Plastics), the Chair welcomed pupils and staff from St Winifred’s Catholic Primary School, Newham, who were observing the meeting from the public gallery.
2 Declarations of Interests (Item 2)
2.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
2.2 Resolved:
(a) That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 47 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Thursday 15 March 2018
(b) That it be noted that during the discussion on Agenda Item 5 (Mid-term Review), Leonie Cooper AM (Chair) declared a non-pecuniary interest as she is a volunteer member of Community Renewable Energy Wandsworth, which had made an application to the Battersea Arts Centre, the Centre having been mentioned during the discussion.
3 Summary List of Actions (Item 3)
3.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
3.2 Resolved:
That the completed and outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the Committee be noted.
3.3 Following the conclusion of Agenda Item 3, the Chair stated that in accordance with Standing Order 2.2D, she would take the agenda items in a different order to that set out on the agenda and would take Agenda Item 5 (Mid-term Review) next.
4 Mid -term Review (Item 5)
4.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat as background to putting questions on the Mayor of London’s environment agenda at the mid-point of his elected term with the following invited guests: Shirley Rodrigues, Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy; Patrick Feehily, Assistant Director - Environment; Andrew Jones, Policy and Programme Manager; Andy Richmond, Policy and Programme Manager; Rachel Cary, Policy and Programme Manager; Cassie Sutherland, Policy and Programme Manager; and Elliot Treharne, Policy and Programme Manager, (Air Quality and Hydrogen).
4.2 A transcript of the discussion is attached at Appendix 1.
Page 48 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Thursday 15 March 2018
4.3 During the course of the discussion, Members requested the following additional information: Details about the decentralised energy waste heat projects that the Mayor was supporting, once those projects were in contract; and A pan-London aircraft noise map once it was available.
4.4 At the end of the discussion, the Chair thanked the guests for their answers to the Committee’s questions.
4.5 Resolved:
(a) That the report and discussion be noted.
(b) That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion.
4.6 At 11.02am, following the conclusion of this item, with the consent of the Committee the Chair adjourned the meeting and reconvened it at 11.08am.
5 Plastics (Item 4)
5.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat as background to putting questions on issues relating to plastics to the following invited guests: Alice Ellison, Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium Joe Kerr, Regional Manager for London, Co-op Food; Richard Parker, Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland Janice Morley, Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard; Dan Cooke, Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor; Barry Turner, Group Director, British Plastics Federation; Dr Antoine Buchard, Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainable Chemical Technologies; and Libby Peake, Senior Advisor, The Green Alliance.
5.2 A transcript of the discussion is attached at Appendix 2.
5.3 At the end of the discussion, the Chair thanked the guests for their helpful contributions to the discussion.
Page 49 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Thursday 15 March 2018
5.4 Resolved:
(a) That the report and discussion be noted.
(b) That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion.
6 Environment Committee Work Programme (Item 6)
6.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
6.2 Resolved:
(a) That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to: Agree a provisional work programme for the first part of 2018/19, which will be subject to formal agreement by the Committee at its first meeting of the new Assembly year; Arrange for any site visits, informal meetings or engagement activities before the Committee’s next formal meeting; and Agree the topic, terms of reference and scope for the Committee’s first provisional meeting of 2018/19 Assembly year.
(b) That the current work programme, detailed in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.4 of the report, be noted.
(c) That the schedule of meetings proposed for 2018/19 Assembly year, set out at paragraph 4.6 of the report, which is subject to agreement at the Annual meeting of the London Assembly on 10 May 2018, be noted.
Page 50 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Thursday 15 March 2018
7 Date of Next Meeting (Item 7)
7.1 The next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for Wednesday, 23 May 2018 at 10.00am in the Chamber, City Hall, subject to confirmation of the London Assembly’s calendar of meetings at the Annual Meeting of the Assembly on 10 May 2018.
8 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent (Item 8)
8.1 There were no items of business that the Chair considered to be urgent.
9 Close of Meeting
9.1 The meeting ended at 12.49pm.
Chair Date
Contact Officer: Teresa Young, Senior Committee Officer; telephone: 020 7983 6559; email: [email protected]; minicom: 020 7983 4458
Page 51 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 52 Appendix 1
London Assembly Environment Committee – 15 March 2018
Transcript of Agenda Item 5 – Mid-term Review
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I would like to welcome our guests to this part of the meeting. I would like to start by welcoming our first group of guests, the Deputy Mayor for Energy and Environment, Shirley Rodrigues. You are very welcome, and also the Assistant Director for Environment, Patrick Feehily. We also have, at this moment in time, Andrew Jones, who is a Policy and Programme Manager at the Greater London Authority (GLA), and Rachel Cary, who is also a Policy and Programme Manager at the GLA.
We have a range of questions, as usual, which we would like to put to you. We are going to start with me, as usual. My question is really very open ended. How satisfied are you with progress on the brief so far - we will take as the baseline for that the pledges in the [Mayor’s] manifesto - and how far do you think the Mayor, and the [Environment] Department, has been able to move ahead on fulfilling those manifesto commitments?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Thank you, Chair, and Committee for giving me the opportunity to give an update on the Mayor’s record to date, since his election. As you know, two years ago the Mayor was elected on a hugely ambitious vision for the environment, including manifesto commitments to seek to make London a zero-carbon city by 2050; a National Park City, the first in the world with more than 50% of London green; putting London on track to reach a 65% recycling target by 2030; and cleaning up London’s dangerously polluted air.
Since coming into office, the Mayor has done a twin-track approach. We have been revising the eight previous environment strategies to create a single Environment Strategy and, in parallel, running a number of programmes in order to take action now, helping Londoners now to reduce the impact on environment. We have been working with the other Deputy Mayors to make sure environmental policies are fed through and embedded in the other strategies the Mayor is developing; for example, the London Plan, the Transport Strategy and so on.
Some of the programmes I would like to mention here - I am sure we can go into a bit more detail during the session - are our pan-London Fuel Poverty Scheme and the Better Boiler Scheme, which helped replace and repair over 480 boilers. We have been helping with grants for 13 organisations to develop new community energy schemes. We have been piloting the first solar reverse auction scheme in order to help reduce installation costs for solar photovoltaic (PV) [panels].
On green infrastructure; the Mayor has helped support the planting of over 75,000 trees with our partners in London. The partners are also bringing in an additional 40,000 trees. We have announced the first National Park City Week, which will take place in July this year [21-29 July 2018].
On waste; we have been talking with the boroughs and proposing a set of policies to help boroughs increase their recycling rates. In particular, we have been tackling the real problem of single-use plastics and have announced further funding for that. Also, today we started the first of five pilots with our new Water Refill Scheme in a number of areas in London, including the London Bridge area so as you walk about here you will be able to see stickers in some of the café windows. In parallel, the Mayor has announced a programme to rollout drinking water fountains across London.
Page 53 Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We are particularly pleased about that, because that was one thing that was not in the mayoral manifesto but has, in fact, adopted recommendations from our report [Bottled Water]. The Mayor complimented the work of this Committee. Boiling it down, he said top scrutiny by this Committee. That is, roughly speaking, what he said in the last [London Assembly] Plenary Session when we discussed this. We are delighted in the Committee that this is a series of initiatives that are coming forward.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is not the only one. There are a number of reports the Committee has put forward with recommendations that we have been taking into account as we develop the Strategy, and now as we are looking at the consultation responses. I know there are further ones on waste to come out.
In conclusion, the Mayor has committed significant funding to this agenda. We have allocated over £800 million through Transport for London’s (TfL) business plan to deliver and develop air-quality improvements; funding £12 million to create and improve green spaces and to encourage more tree planting in London; and the Energy for Londoners Programme, a suite of programmes from energy efficiency through to decentralised energy. There is something in the order of £34 million around that. That is not to mention the money that is going into the plastics and refill approaches.
This is just a snapshot of some of the work we have been doing on the Environment agenda. I am really grateful for the opportunity to give you that snapshot and I am happy to take questions.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): A number of my colleagues are champing at the bit now to get into some more of the detail. You have just run through some of the headlines there; waste, air quality, plastics, trees, National Park City and energy efficiency. If you were going to give the Mayor marks out of ten?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Ten out of ten, definitely, on aspiration and ambition.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Ten out of ten for ambition and ten out of ten for progress?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): For both, given the caveats the Mayor has on powers. We will talk about air quality later but the Mayor has set out a very ambitious suite of policies and programmes. We have already taken massive action on trying to clean up the bus fleet, implementing low-emission bus services. The Mayor has taken action where he has powers and is able to do that, but is constrained by the Government’s policy. For example, accelerating the start of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and implementing the T-Charge. If we were given more powers and funding - access to the Clean Air Fund, for example, which London is excluded from - then we could bring London into compliance sooner. In other areas, where there is a dearth of powers - energy efficiency, for example, where there are no national programmes - we are able to put programmes into place, such as our Warmer Homes Programme and some of the work we are doing around commercial energy efficiency, our boiler scrappage scheme for example. However, we know there is much more that could be done. We will do what we can and keep advocating for the ability for London to do more.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Thanks very much for that overview, Shirley. I am now going to start by passing over to Assembly Member Bailey, who is going to ask you in some detail about green infrastructure issues.
Shaun Bailey AM: Morning, Deputy Mayor. How are you?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Morning. Fine, thank you.
Page 54
Shaun Bailey AM: Good. What progress has the Mayor made towards his goal of greening London? You made a statement the Mayor wants to move the 47% green cover to 50%. What progress has he made?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is a target to make London - half of London, at least - green by 2050. That is the timespan where we are going to have to deliver in the order of the coverage of 30 Hyde Parks to do that. We have been putting in, as I mentioned before, both practical programmes and the policy framework to help do that. The main policy framework is through the London Plan and through the Environment Strategy. The London Plan has set out protections we want, to make sure we conserve the green space that we have - protecting the Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and so on - and then advocating where we might incorporate green infrastructure and smaller green spaces. For example, again, this is one of the proposals the Assembly’s Environment Committee has proposed, making sure we integrate green space and green infrastructure into new developments from the start. Through a policy in the London Plan, with the Urban Greening Factor, we are going to be requiring developers to look at that right from the start.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Shirley, I do not like to correct you but that was not the Environment Committee. That was my rapporteurship, but I did it through the Housing Committee. This is another very welcome response from the Mayor to initiatives from Assembly Members, but in this case with a housing hat on.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I thank Housing colleagues too. In parallel, as I have mentioned, we have a number of programmes. Originally it was a £9 million funding allocation, increased just recently by the Mayor to £12 million, to fund a series of programmes to support community projects across London, projects by businesses and by boroughs, to create and enhance the quality of green spaces in London.
Shaun Bailey AM: Just to interrupt you there, enhancing green spaces is fine but that will not increase the amount of cover. The goal is to move up, not to enhance. You made a comment about the London Plan. However, of course, the London Plan has removed protection for gardens. Is that not directly flying in the face of the goal to increase green cover?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The London Plan has not removed the protection for gardens.
Shaun Bailey AM: Yes, it has.
Tony Arbour AM: It has removed it.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The previous Government removed the restriction on permitted development rights.
Shaun Bailey AM: No, Shirley, point 3.5 in the London Plan removes the protection for gardens and makes it easier to build on the back garden. That is a fact.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is a fact that people were always able to build on their back gardens, up to a certain level - I think it was 50% of the garden - through permitted development rights. If people want to move beyond that they have to apply the new London Plan policy,
Page 55 which has protections that were not in place before. That is about making sure that any impact on green space - the garden space, trees, or whatever - has to be replaced. That is what the Urban Greening Factor does.
Shaun Bailey AM: Replaced with what? It becomes a matter of quality, Shirley. Talking about green cover on roofs and so on is very welcome but it is certainly not the same as a garden. It is not of the same quality. That brings us on to another point of tree cover as well, how are we doing with our tree planting target?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Let me go back to your first question. To be absolutely clear, this Mayor has not removed any protections on gardens. They had already been removed by the previous Government. What the Mayor has done is put in protections for any development that goes beyond permitted development rights.
Shaun Bailey AM: Not true.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The Urban Greening Factor sets out a requirement for developers. Local authorities will then, to be in conformity with the London Plan, have say to those developers, “How are you going to replace any green cover that has been lost?” That could either be by new green cover or green spaces in the vicinity of that housing development or, as we have said, through new green infrastructure, green roofs, green walls, more tree planting and so on. That is what is proposed in the new London Plan.
Shaun Bailey AM: For the avoidance of doubt, I utterly disagree with your contention that he has not removed protection. If we talk about the quality of green cover when these spaces have been removed, green walls and green roofs are welcome but it is not like-for-like, is it? You cannot, for instance, plant a tree on your roof, where you could in your garden, if you see what I am saying.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): You could plant it in the vicinity, there may be some space outside of the development. Andrew, I think that is right?
Andrew Jones (Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority): There will be variances. So, yes, you will end up with more green roofs. There may not be those trees directly replaced when we are doing the Green Cover Policy. However, you are still going to gain the benefits. All that green cover, whether it is a green roof or a tree, provides a range of benefits. You will gain those benefits but they may be provided by a different feature.
Shaun Bailey AM: I think a mature tree gives a different kind of benefit.
Andrew Jones (Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority): Yes, but not every garden has mature trees in it.
Shaun Bailey AM: Yes, but every garden has the opportunity to do that in a way a roof absolutely does not.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Assembly Member Bailey, I am sorry, I am going to have to ask you to be very quick because I need to draw you to a close and move on. We are quite tight for time, remember I mentioned that before we started.
Shaun Bailey AM: OK, let me quickly focus on how we are doing with the tree target. I do not want to make too much of a point. The Mayor gave a very huge target on his website, which has been changed. You said 75,000 trees have been planted. Does that total include any net loss?
Page 56
Andrew Jones (Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority): That is the number of trees he has planted. The 75,000 is the figure he has invested money into. Our partners have also, through The London Tree Partnership, planted an additional 40,000 trees in 2016 - 2017. We do not have the figures for what it planted in 2017 - 2018. It is a figure for tree planting, it is not a net figure in terms of the trees that have been removed. We do not have those facts.
Shaun Bailey AM: Is it possible to get a net figure?
Andrew Jones (Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority): It is quite challenging to get figures because trees are removed through various mechanisms. A private individual can remove a tree if they want to and it has no protection on it. It is very challenging to find a figure in terms of the number of trees that have been felled. What we are doing, and as the policy talks about, is tree cover. We are exploring mechanisms in terms of how we monitor tree cover more regularly. At the moment, the recommendation is to do that once every five years in terms of getting an overall figure. We are trying to investigate whether there are more rapid means of establishing that information in terms of what the overall tree cover is in London, looking at various remote sensing mechanisms.
Shaun Bailey AM: That will be very welcome. I accept your point, it is hard to see who is cutting down trees in their garden and what is happening with development. I see it as a challenge in London because we have a lot of development and trees are often removed. If we have planted ten trees, but 15 have been removed, you will see my point.
Andrew Jones (Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority): Yes. There are obviously policies in the London Plan to ensure trees of value are retained on new development sites. There is a plan to encourage replacement trees. There are proposals for things like Capital Asset Valuation for Amenity Trees that puts value on trees in terms of what should be replaced. You will find developments like the Heygate Estate have increased the number of trees they have planted from the numbers that were removed.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Thanks very much for that, Andrew. I am afraid I am going to have draw green infrastructure and that line of questioning to a close.
Tony Arbour AM: I am sorry about that, Madam Chair. I am willing to sacrifice the question I have been allocated to pursue the matter further. I am sure it was just a slip of the tongue, Shirley, however, you said it was permitted development to build on 50% of back gardens. That, of course, is wholly untrue. If you had a two-acre back garden it manifestly would not be permitted development to be able to build on an acre of that. I think what you meant related to the volume of the existing building on the site, only to a height of one storey. Is my interpretation more correct than yours?
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I am sorry, this is a planning debate --
Tony Arbour AM: No, I am afraid not. The Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy absolutely said what was being proposed in the new London Plan, in effect, had been decided by the Government. What I am putting to the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy - and, indeed, to you with your vast knowledge of such matters - is that it is not permitted development to build on 50% of back gardens.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Can you answer that, Shirley, quickly because we do need to move on?
Page 57 Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): You might be right and I am sorry if I misspoke. That is what I meant.
Tony Arbour AM: What was it that you meant?
Andrew Jones (Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority): Permitted development allows a certain scale of --
Tony Arbour AM: No, the precise point that the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy made was that you could build on 50% of the area of back gardens as permitted development. That is not true, is it?
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): That is, in fact, what the Deputy Mayor for Planning [Regeneration and Skills], Jules Pipe CBE, told us when he attended this meeting when we were talking about the London Plan.
Tony Arbour AM: I do not believe he did.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I do not think you can pursue that today.
Tony Arbour AM: When this matter is minuted we can precisely see that this discussion as to what is permitted development is completely misleading.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I am sorry, Tony. We will write to Jules Pipe CBE and ask. It is a planning issue. I do not think the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy is the right person to ask for the precise definition. I am going to write to Jules. Shirley said exactly what Jules said.
Joanne McCartney AM: I am looking at the Planning Portal. It says,
“An extension or addition to a house is permitted development, not requiring planning permission, subject to the following conditions ...”
One of which is, “... no more than half the area of land around the original house”.
Tony Arbour AM: Precisely.
Joanne McCartney AM: Then this Government has extended extensions from a three metre, to a six metre or nine metre. In terms of most gardens in London that would cover more than half.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I would like to thank Deputy Mayor McCartney for being very helpful. I am now going to move on to carbon reduction. I would like to invite Assembly Member Russell to ask about carbon reduction and the cost of carbon emissions.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Chair. A question on carbon reduction. To start off with, what has the Mayor done so far to reduce London’s carbon emissions?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Thank you, Caroline, for that question. As I have said before, the Mayor takes a twin-track approach. For setting the policy framework; through the London Plan he will set new policies, which have been out for consultation and will go through examination in public during the course of the year, around new zero-carbon homes and extending that to new zero-carbon
Page 58 developments. We have a requirement for developers to look at embodied carbon. We set a new Energy Efficiency Target and also a whole host of other policies that are around carbon reduction.
In the Environment Strategy we have set out a proposal for Energy for Londoners, which is a suite of programmes. It is a £34 million programme that was launched earlier this year that includes, for example, energy efficiency programmes through Warmer Homes and the Decentralised Energy Enabling Project (DEEP), which provides technical assistance to develop heat networks across London. Alongside the Environment and Energy Strategy we published two action plans, one on fuel poverty that is looking at those sorts of energy efficiency programmes but with a view to helping people with problems such as having to choose between heating and eating, as well as a new Solar Action Plan.
We have also been looking at how we might mobilise new finance into green infrastructure, working with some European funding to try to expand the amount of money going into low-carbon work. Then, of course, we have issued the prior information notice - the first step in the procurement process - for a new energy company for London that will aim to provide fairer energy prices for London and also will align with some of those programmes over time. There is a whole host of other issues that we have been working on.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): I am getting nudged by our Chair at the moment so I am going to move on to a bit more detail here. Can you flesh out a bit more the detail on your progress on the procurement of the energy-supply company?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The first part of the work we did was to look at a very detailed analysis of what the pros and cons were of going down various routes in terms of the energy company, what were the costings and what were the things we might need to take into account. On that basis, the Mayor decided to go down the route of partnering with an existing supplier in terms of minimising the financial risk, the wider risk to Londoners’ funding, for speed, and for being able to provide fairer fuel bills to those people in fuel poverty. As you know, one in ten households in London suffers from fuel poverty. Having received that report, the first part of the procurement process is to issue a prior information notice. That was issued in November last year [2017]. We then followed up with a supplier questionnaire and a supplier day, where we had something in the order of 60 or so interested parties coming along or expressing interest. Then maybe 10 to 20 of those have come back, after filling out the questionnaire that gives us more detail about their track record. We are now analysing those responses in order to finalise the procurement documentation, which we hope to issue later this year.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): The London Plan says that the option to move to a fully licensed supply company,
“... will be kept under review in light of changes in the market and clarification of national policy”.
Do you have a timeframe for when you are likely to review your decision for a ‘white label’?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We keep the matter under review all the time. As you know, the regulatory situation is changing all the time. We have the Government talking about imposing price caps, we have prices going up and down and the national picture is changing all the time. We will keep this under review. At the moment, in order to get the implementation of the scheme going, we have gone down the partnering route.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): If you are keeping it under review, do you expect to review it within this term of office?
Page 59
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I do not know. It really depends on what happens nationally in terms of the context. As I said, at the moment we have an approach where we are going down this route of partnering. It really depends on the results of the tender process and what comes back, whether we are happy with the offer the various companies are making. We want to make sure we get the best deal for Londoners as quickly as possible.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): You are not ruling out reviewing it in this term, but you are not committing to that?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): No, as the Mayor said, we will keep this under review.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Moving us on, in terms of the London Community Energy Fund grants, what are the next steps to supporting community energy?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We had an incredible response from the community energy groups in London. We have expanded the number of projects we were hoping to fund to 13, varying across London from Battersea Arts Centre to city farms and so on. They are working up their business cases to take that forward. What we are now looking at is reviewing what the second phase might be, what the community energy groups want in terms of support. In structuring the Fund, we were very careful to consult with them and others to say, “What is needed?”. What we got back was, “We need help in developing the business cases and support around making the financial case and so on”. That is what we are doing at the moment, working with those groups and the umbrella organisations, Community Energy London and so on, to work out what next.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Is there also support to encourage people to get involved in community energy who have not yet thought about getting connected with those existing groups, are you doing any work on that?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is really the role of Community Energy London. We have said we are very happy to work with it. We have hosted - as I believe the Assembly Environment Committee and Leonie [Cooper AM] has as well - meetings here where we can, through officers, to give them the benefit of advice and so on. We are very happy to look at them.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): For full transparency, you have just mentioned the Battersea Art Centre Project. That is an application that has come in from CREW, Community Renewable Energy Wandsworth. I receive no money from CREW but I am a volunteer member of CREW. I have been quite involved with a number of the community energy groups but that is the one I am specifically involved with. There is absolutely no conflict of interest, but for transparency a lot of people do know I am involved in CREW and Battersea Arts Centre obviously is in Wandsworth.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Very good. I will move swiftly on again to waste heat from the Tube. What is the GLA Group doing to ensure that waste heat from the Tube is used to heat buildings, beyond the Bunhill example in Islington?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have been talking to TfL about what more it could do. Through the project I mentioned before, DEEP, officers are looking to see what other opportunities there might be. Bunhill Phase 2 is a very complicated and complex project. It is doing very well
Page 60 in terms of the energy centre being built and so on. We are trying to map what other opportunities there might be. It is a huge area. We know we need to capture more of our waste heat across London - whether it is from the Tube, energy from waste plants and so on - in order to minimise the call on the [gas and electricity] grids, as we talked about before.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): There are no concrete and specific things?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): There are no specific projects.
Rachel Cary (Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority): The Bunhill Project, as you say, is nearing completion.
Patrick Feehily (Assistant Director - Environment, Greater London Authority): As Shirley mentioned, we are at the stage of doing the capacity analysis of where we can take waste heat from the Tube network with TfL. We are also looking at working with Thames Water on taking waste heat from the sewers and anywhere else that we can get waste heat from in London.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Heat but not smell, I hope.
Patrick Feehily (Assistant Director - Environment, Greater London Authority): One hopes.
Rachel Cary (Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority): We are also updating the heat map that we produced that enables developments to see where there is available heat as well. That will be done this year.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): That sounds very helpful. Are you promoting the idea of heat networks to developers?
Patrick Feehily (Assistant Director - Environment, Greater London Authority): The DEEP project has three or four decentralised energy waste heat projects that we are supporting at the moment. We have to be a little bit careful about coming forward with some of the names because we are not in contract with them. We can mention one in Sutton, which is waste heat from Beddington.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We can certainly write to you once we know they are in contract to give you more details of those projects. There is a range of contracts, from housing developments through to, as we said, the Thames Water one.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): The Committee would appreciate that as and when you reach the point where commercial confidentiality is not so much of an issue.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): In terms of solar, what have you done to quantify the likely impact of policies to encourage solar power beyond GLA property?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): In developing the Solar Action Plan we identified what we might be able to do with the GLA programmes and the Group, the estate we have, in terms of feasibility. This is where we think we can probably mobilise, including our planning approaches, an extra 100 megawatts (MW). The 1 gigawatt (GW) and 2 GW ambition we have is a technical feasibility of what happens in London. We know roughly where that might be. The GLA Group, for example, is looking at solar
Page 61 mapping to understand where the higher potential for that might be. We are also mobilising programmes. As I mentioned, the solar reverse auction is another way of getting more and more solar panels on London’s roofs.
Rachel Cary (Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority): One of the largest contributors is new builds. We saw 7 MW of solar PV investment coming through new build last year. As Shirley mentioned, where we have a key power is that we have strengthened the energy provisions in the London Plan, so that is going through as well. That is really where we can drive significant investment into renewable, PV and also heat pumps.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Obviously, with new builds you build it in from the outset. What about retrofitting PV?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is done through two things. One is the solar reverse auction, which is a pilot. If that works in the four or five boroughs we are doing it in at the moment we hope to extend that across London. We also have the RE:FIT Scheme, which is the public sector retrofit programme. That is looking at how you might improve energy efficiency and the promotion of renewable or decentralised energy in our hospitals, schools and so on. It is case by case, what is suitable for that development. Solar will be part of that, as will be heat networks, energy efficiency measures and so on.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Digging into the energy efficiency measures a bit, as a ward Councillor in Islington I have lots of estates with solid wall construction, buildings that are the hardest to retrofit with any external insulation solutions. There was a previous report from this Committee that suggested a funding scheme where the energy savings would be used to repay loans, and then the repayments would be recycled into more loans for work to retrofit homes. Are you thinking about anything like that? In terms of retrofit, London is very behind the rest of the country.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I am not sure we are behind the rest of the country. The whole country is behind the targets that --
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): OK, maybe we are behind on the national targets.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): To clarify, the Committee on Climate Change has said we need to massively address energy efficiency retrofitting across the country. London is no different in that we are behind where we need to be. We have estimated something in the order of 100,000 homes a year would need to be retrofitted to meet the Climate Change Target that the Government has set. We have been advocating for Government to treat energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority. We are doing what we can do through our programmes.
In terms of mobilising finance, which is a key issue, we have been looking at a number of ways we might mobilise more green finance into energy efficiency, solar and so on. That could be the revolving-fund approach you are talking about. Also, it is how we might use our pension funds to fund some of the schemes we need. The real barrier to that is even though the projects are quite big in local authority terms they are not big enough for pension funds to get out of bed for. The problem is about agglomeration and so on. At the moment, these are all things we are looking at. We hope to be able to give you a bit more detail in the Environment Strategy coming forward.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Page 62 Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Thanks very much, Assembly Member Russell. We are going to move on to discuss waste now. As you know, we have been looking at that a lot in this Committee over the last nine months. We will be producing a report hopefully next week, we are in the process of finalising it now. We will be sending that over and hope that will contribute to your thinking in terms of the final version of the Environment Strategy.
Obviously one of the problems we (and you) have been looking at is the fact that London’s recycling has completely flat lined, there has been no growth over the last five or six years. Is that something the Mayor has managed to start to address in the last two years?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Recycling performance has flat lined over the last eight years. We have just seen a very small, 1%, increase that is welcome but really is not good enough for where we need to be. The real issue for us is how we reduce the waste arising in the first place, starting with the top of the hierarchy. That is projects like the work we are doing on single-use plastics but also, importantly, the work we have been doing on promoting the circular economy. Instead of the ‘take, make, dispose’ approach, we are looking at reducing the virgin resources going into producing products and services, and then how we make sure they stay used for as long as possible. Then, as they come to the end of life, how we maximise recycling and make sure the disposal is as environmentally friendly as possible so we avoid landfill and avoid incineration other than very, very residual waste.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Obviously a 1% increase is not going to get us towards the Mayor’s target of 65% of all of our waste being recycled. We need to move from 32% in domestic to 42%, and up to the 65% across the whole of the municipal picture. How is the Mayor planning to close that gap between the projected effect of his policies and the necessary recycling rates that we are clearly still miles away from?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Thank you for that. In the Environment Strategy we have looked at how you get to the high 40s percentage level that we think is feasible in London. That was developed through Resource London, which is a partnership between the Mayor, the London Waste and Recycling Board and, very importantly, the boroughs. The modelling shows it can be done. The way to do that is by collecting the six dry recyclables at kerbside and, where possible, flatted properties. Increasingly we need to do much more of that, given half of London is flatted. Very importantly, also by a separate food-waste collection. That is a huge amount of resource that is being wasted that could be used productively. Also, with a focus on how much more we can do on commercial waste.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Our understanding - talking to the Anaerobic Digestion & Bioresources Association (ADBA), Bio-Collectors and others who work in the food waste sector and do anaerobic digestion – is that there is an available resource in London that is completely under-utilised for dealing with food waste. Are we going to be able to utilise the facilities that are there to make sure that food waste is not going to the wrong place anymore?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have said separate food-waste collections and as local authority contracts come up for renewal the Mayor has very limited powers on waste to review those contracts. Andy [Richmond, Policy and Programme Manager, GLA] and his team review those contracts to make sure that the new requirements in the Environment Strategy are being looked at - the six dry recyclables and the separate food waste collection - and that they are making provision to maximise the resource used.
Page 63 Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I am going to bring in Andy, but the word I am also going to introduce at this point is “targets” because we have not mentioned that enough yet, if at all. Are there going to be some targets that we are going to see over the next two years, the latter half of this mayoralty?
Andy Richmond (Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority): To pick up food waste, yes, there is plenty of capacity for processing within and near London. The challenge is the cost of implementing the collection service. For food waste the expense is at the front end in the cost. That is why the cycle of contract is the best opportunity in which to introduce that without additional funding being provided to the authorities.
Also in terms of the 1% point increase we have just seen, we believe this is the start of a series of increases over the next few years, hopefully. There have been a number of service changes within the last two years that will have an impact on that recycling rate. Unfortunately, data is a little bit behind in terms of recycling data so we are seeing the impact interventions two-plus years ago are having. We will start to see the impact of interventions that have been taken in the last two years come through in the next two years.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We understand the Mayor’s policies develop through the London Waste and Recycling Board, working with Resource in the boroughs. However, we still think there is a gap. This is something we are going to be focusing in on again. It is too important for us not to be tackling everything, from the plastic waste - that you know we have been focusing on - through to reducing the amount of waste arising in the first place, through to making sure we increase recycling.
I am going to bring in Joanne now who is going to talk about air pollution. Can I thank Elliot Treharne [Policy and Programme Manager - Air Quality & Hydrogen, GLA] for joining us at this point? I think you may have one or two things to say about it. I would also like to thank Cassie Sutherland [Policy and Programme Manager, GLA] who has joined us as well, probably to talk about something subsequent to air pollution.
Joanne McCartney AM: The Mayor has made some really good progress on air pollution. However, even with the introduction of the ULEZ, I believe your own figures show that on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution it will take us until 2026 to get within legal limits. Is there any scope for increasing action on this? What is your reaction to the fact it is still going to take another six or eight years to deliver on this?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The Mayor has said very strongly that we could bring London into compliance sooner than the Government’s own modelling suggests. We have set out very clearly - both in the Environment Strategy, the Transport Strategy and in the Mayor’s words - what else we need to speed that up. In order to accelerate the phase out of diesel – which is highly polluting transport, given transport is half of the pollution problem in London - we need the [National Vehicle] Scrappage Fund to help people who bought diesel cars in good faith to move to cleaner vehicles. We need a new Clean Air Act to give the Mayor powers over the non-transport part of the pollution problem in London - around the river, construction and so on - where he has no, or very limited, powers. There are powers we are trying to use in order to influence but are not hugely effective. We have said very clearly what needs to happen. We are very disappointed that the Mayor’s calls for action - either by the Government, or for the Government to give him the powers and funding he needs - have not been heeded. We saw today the four Joint Select Committees come together, endorsing many, if not all, of the Mayor’s calls for urgent action by Government and for the powers to act on this problem.
Joanne McCartney AM: What reaction have you had from the Government about a Diesel Scrappage Scheme? I have started to get letters as people realise the ULEZ is imminent, my constituents are concerned about that.
Page 64
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): None. We have written in. The Mayor met with Secretary of State Gove [The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs]. We have made representations to the Treasury and others. We have produced our own very targeted scrappage fund of what might happen in London, setting out where we might help move the older polluting vehicles and vans out, and how you might be able to give financial incentives for people to move to new vehicles or to move to mobility packages, which would be great and moving onto public transportation, for example. That has gone in to Government. As I understand it, we have had no response.
Elliot Treharne (Policy and Programmes Manager (Air Quality & Hydrogen), Greater London Authority): The only thing that is perhaps worth adding is that in the Government’s consultation on the Clean Air Fund - which London is not eligible for - has identified four potential areas of activity where they would support local authorities in other parts of country to spend that funding, and one of those is potentially on scrappage. It is potentially an option for other parts of the country but not for London because they are not enabling us to access that funding.
Joanne McCartney AM: Has it given any reasons for that or not?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I think they are banking on what the Mayor has done. As I said before, the Mayor has set aside £800 million within TfL’s budget but, as you all know, TfL does not get any subsidy from Government anymore so we have to meet TfL’s budget out of the fare box. We are really constrained by the finances from being able to do more. What is shocking is that Londoners are paying vehicle excise duty, which goes into the Clean Air Fund, and yet are not able to access that funding in order for the Mayor to choose how he might do that. He would say a decent scrappage fund is absolutely necessary to help those poorer families and businesses that need to, and want to, move out of those vehicles.
Joanne McCartney AM: The Government’s National Air Pollution Strategy has been found to be inadequate for a third time by the courts recently. What do you expect the timescale to be for a new action plan to come forward from Government?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): They have said this summer [2018], haven’t they? I am not quite sure how long the summer is.
Joanne McCartney AM: There might be a little window when we can lobby again for some of these issues.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We continue to lobby, absolutely. We hope today’s announcement will give more food for thought for Government, if it has not already had enough food for thought, to change their stance and to speed up and intensify the action we can take.
Joanne McCartney AM: There has been a lot of press interest in the Mayor’s comments about wood and other solid-fuel burning stoves in the capital, and I think it is fair to say that most people did not realise that when they were buying these lifestyle choice items. For some they are for heating, but for most they are not. What can the Mayor do about that in future, which is beyond the education piece?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): You are absolutely right, Assembly Member McCartney. People in the past have bought these not knowing how polluting they were, both for their own health, let alone for the health of others. Aside from the advice - we are funding some campaigns to alert people to the problem - we have been working with the manufacturers’ association, Heating Equipment
Page 65 Testing & Approvals Scheme. The Mayor is saying through the new Clean Air Act that he has the power to impose tougher emission standards on new stoves people buy. They are not looking to people who have them already. That is more about educating people about how to use them safely and more efficiently, the fuel they use and so on. I think it was in January 2017 there was a very high-pollution episode and wood burning was 50% of the problem. It is about seeking powers, for a very limited time, to able to impose restrictions on the use of the stoves or the fuel.
Joanne McCartney AM: You can talk about restrictions, but enforcement is extremely difficult, isn’t it?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is, and that is a local authority issue. This is, again, one of the reasons why we want a Clean Air Act. At the moment, the ability for local authorities to enforce is constrained by a very old Clean Air Act, which essentially means local authority officers having to go out and look for dirty smoke, which is a bit difficult at night when people are using these things. It is updating that and giving the local authorities support in their call for more powers to enforce when necessary.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I am going to have to move us on again. Thank you very much for your answers on issues relating to air pollution. I am now going to ask Assembly Member Kurten if he will pick up on the issue of water. That has been a really fraught issue for a lot of Londoners over the past few weeks, with Thames Water failing to keep a lot of customers updated as to whether or not they would ever have their water turned back on.
David Kurten AM: Yes, thank you very much. Good morning. I would like to ask about water in more general terms, given the population increase we are seeing at the moment. We have 9 million. If the population continues growing at the current rate we could be at 10 million by 2030 and 11 million by 2040. The water companies have purview in making sure customers have enough water. Are you confident in their plans to supply enough water to London’s growing population?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): They have just issued their plans. We are reviewing those at the moment. I do not know when exactly the consultation ends.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority): The end of April [2018].
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We are reviewing the plans and we have a number of meetings with water companies to go through their assumptions to make sure we understand where they are coming from. We have commissioned some work to look at whether that is going to be sufficient to take into account London’s needs, the impact on the environment and the impact on bills. Obviously, they are doing it for wider regions; it is to make sure Londoner’s interests are represented in that discussion. That process is ongoing at the moment. Until we have gone through that process I cannot say we are confident in them. What we are very pleased about is that they have been looking at the issue. We have made sure that is in the London Plan, that we need a new water resource for London. We know there is a supply deficit anyway, irrespective of the massive population increase, because London is very dry.
David Kurten AM: One of the things we sometimes hear of are plans to build a new reservoir somewhere up in Oxfordshire or so on. It does not seem it has been started. Do you have any ideas if that is going to happen, or when it is going to happen?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is one of the options the water companies have proposed. That would then need discussions with Oxfordshire, or wherever. There are a
Page 66 number of other alternatives that Cassie can perhaps explain in a bit more detail. We are certainly keeping an eye on this. One of the things we have been looking at is making sure that people are aware that these are things the Mayor of London is concerned about, in order to ensure that London’s needs are taken into account.
Cassie Sutherland (Policy and Programme Manager, Greater London Authority): The Water Resource Management Plan that Thames Water launched about a month ago is its 80-year plan for water resources for its region. It has set out a number of different options it says are possible. It will choose a preferred option, which is called the most sustainable option, in their Plan. That includes mainly focusing on demand management in the next 10 to 20 years; looking at reducing leakage; increasing efficiency and water metering; and also taking some more water from the Thames, just upstream of the Teddington Weir, and using some water from a nearby plant. That is its short-term plan.
In the longer term, it does suggest at the moment a reservoir may be needed around the 2040s. It has also put forward a proposal for a canal transfer in Oxfordshire as well, to move some of the water around. In the 2060s it suggests growth in the reuse of water from the current Beckton Sewage Treatment Works, reusing water there and cleaning to a much higher standard, so it puts higher-standard water back into the river with water being extracted from other parts of the river. There is a lot of movement around the place and it gets quite technical. There is a lot of stuff supporting this. That is its longer-term plan.
It looks at some of those smaller resources and demand management in the short term, leading to some bigger resources needed from the 2040s onwards.
David Kurten AM: Thanks for that answer. Another thing we hear sometimes is the idea of integrated water management. Can you talk about that and its role in the future for London?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): There are a number of integrated water management strategies that we have done already. There are certain locations we need to make sure are kept an eye on. The ones we have in place already are around Vauxhall, Nine Elms, the Old Oak and Park Royal area, Old Kent Road and so on. We have made sure this is included in the London Plan so developers are keeping an eye on that. Obviously, we do not just rely on the London Plan but GLA officers - like Cassie and her colleague, Daniel [Bicknell, Principal Policy and Programme Officer, GLA] - are closely working with boroughs to identify where else they might be required. We have helped to part-fund and project manage those strategies where we think there are key areas. Of course, we have been working with the water companies and developers to make sure that is really integrated with our flood management agenda.
David Kurten AM: Thank you.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Thank you for that, Assembly Member Kurten. That was very concise. Assembly Member Arbour, we just have time for you to ask your questions about noise, and aircraft noise in particular. Obviously, the Committee has looked at Tube noise as well. We have been given a hot-spot map by TfL on Tube noise but it does continue to be a very difficult issue for Londoners. However, Tony is going to ask about aircraft noise, which is also an issue for many Londoners.
Tony Arbour AM: Thank you for directing me, Madam Chair, as to my question. In relation to aircraft noise, is there not a contradiction between the Mayor’s support of the expansion of City Airport and noise pollution in London?
Page 67 Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The expansion of City Airport had been agreed by the Secretary of State already. The work that the Mayor is doing now is with Newham Council, to make sure the surface noise can be addressed, through some of the transport improvements he is working with TfL on. The issue of aircraft noise from the flight path changes that have been instigated by City Airport is separate from the development issue. He has advocated for an independent noise regulator in order to monitor that.
Tony Arbour AM: Of course, it is not only noise that the expansion of airports creates, it is also pollution. I was interested to hear - because this does appear to be your immediate reaction to pretty well any kind of criticism - that the Government has already supported this, or the Government has done that. However, it is a fact that the current Mayor actively supported the expansion of City Airport, isn’t it?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I think he dropped his objection to the expansion.
Tony Arbour AM: That is an interesting take, dropping your position.
Patrick Feehily (Assistant Director - Environment, Greater London Authority): He was given legal advice that there was no point in taking forward the objection to the compulsory purchase planning order.
Tony Arbour AM: I see. In any instance where something happens that might create additional pollution of any kind the Mayor will accept what the Government says, and he does not do it protestingly. I do not recall, contrary to what you have said, the current Mayor objecting to this, saying, “I have had this advice and therefore I am going to withdraw my objections”. What he should have done, if you are being consistent, is to say, “Despite the fact I have had this advice, I still object to this on the grounds this is increasing the amount of pollution that residents of London are subject to”. Do you not think that is a more appropriate way of dealing with the matter?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I am not sure I can add much more to what I, and Patrick, have said already about the legal advice. To be absolutely clear, where the Mayor has a purview - such as, for example, air quality - he has been absolutely clear on his position about pollution and will maintain those positions.
Tony Arbour AM: Thank you, Chair.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Can I ask you about the idea of compiling a pan-London aircraft noise map? Tony is focusing in there on issues relating to the expansion at City Airport. There has also been a lot of attention paid to Heathrow, which impacts on my constituency as it does on Tony’s. There are also other hot spots where noise affects Londoners. For example, planes going in and out of Luton and Stansted and then, of course, things like the Battersea Heliport, which has a major impact on people locally in Battersea. Is there a pan-London Aircraft Noise Map? I know Assembly Member Arnold has asked about this for the sake of some of her constituents who are impacted as well.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have been waiting for the third round of mapping from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is long overdue. We have been asking for that to be released, which would provide that information.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): If you do acquire that, is that something you would be able to share with the Committee?
Page 68
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes, absolutely.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We would appreciate that, so we can see the extent of the impact of noise across the whole of London. That will be very welcome.
Thank you very much for coming in and answering our questions as part of our mid-term review.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Thank you for the opportunity.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We will obviously be compiling together our thoughts as a result of this session. Could I ask the Committee to note the discussion we have just had and delegate authority to me, as the Chair, in conjunction with the party Group Lead Members to agree any specific outputs coming from it, which might include a letter to the Mayor, to the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, or both, with our views on what they have told us today.
All: Agreed.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Thank you very much.
Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 70
Appendix 2
Environment Committee – 15 March 2018
Transcript of Agenda Item 4 - Plastics
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We are going to move on to the next item on our agenda, Item 4, which we reversed with Item 5 earlier on. It is going to be on the issue of plastics, which is something that we first looked at last February [2017] where we were focusing very specifically around the issue of plastic water bottles and single-use water bottle waste. Of course, we have just seen another announcement this morning from the Mayor on tackling that and a great piece of scrutiny, as he said. Some of his plans on that were not included in the Manifesto and emerged in the draft [Environment] Strategy, and there is now a budget for this. We are starting to move ahead on plastic water bottles. When we see a reduction from 75% of the flounder in the River Thames being filled with plastic, we will know that we have started to have an impact.
However, I think we all know that that is not the only piece of plastic that we need to deal with in London because we have our particular on-the-go culture and we move around the city a lot, and of course we have food as well as drink in plastic. We are absolutely delighted to have our particular selection of guests here this morning, who have started to work in this area and are starting to take this issue forward in a very coherent way across a number of strands of tackling plastic. I am just going to introduce our guests and then we will move into our questions.
I would like to welcome Alice Ellison, who is the Environment Policy Adviser from the British Retail Consortium. Thank you for joining us. We have Joe Kerr, who is the Regional Manager for London from Co-op Food. You are welcome as well. We have Richard Parker, who is Head of Sustainable Packaging from Iceland. Thank you very much for joining us. I am particularly delighted to have Janice Morley, who is the Homes and Property Editor from the Evening Standard. If anyone listening on the webcast or in the room has not heard about the Standard’s Last Straw campaign, you need to get on the page on that one. We have Dan Cooke from Viridor, the Regulatory Affairs Director; Barry Turner, who is the Group Director from the British Plastics Federation; Dr Antoine Buchard, who is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Sustainable Chemical Technologies; and last but very much not least we have Libby Peake, who is the Senior Policy Adviser in this area from the Green Alliance. You are all extremely welcome. I am going to start by coming straight to Janice.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): Thank you.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Why has the Evening Standard made a focus on plastic waste a major campaign? We know you have done really good work on things like food waste before, which is something we were just discussing earlier, but why a campaign on plastic waste?
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): For some reason, it is the air now. There is a much greater willingness from everyone to worry, not necessarily do anything but be anxious about what plastic is doing to the planet, and that anxiety is a very good starting point in many ways. Of course, you know Blue Planet was great, like the blue touch tape for anyone’s conscience. At the turn of the year, which is a good launching pad for everything, we decided that we needed to do something.
I was in sympathy with the main paper on the straw campaign. For some reason we use more straws than any other country in Europe. I am not putting any aspersions on cocktail bars and how much we drink, but seriously 2 billion straws are too many. It is a real menace, as the recyclers will tell us. Not only are they a Page 71 pretty useless product in all but they fall through and they cause terrible problems in the recycling process. That, in conjunction with my own anxiety and confusion about how to recycle plastic, brought it to the forefront. I thought, “It is the edge of homes and property and it is in all our homes”. As someone said in the last Committee meeting, half of our homes are flats. They have their own enormous set of problems when it comes to recycling. I think we all get the feeling, from the top to the bottom, from the making to the recycling, that it is a difficult process and it should be an easier process.
I have set out this year to explain to people that plastic is not trash and that we have to understand that plastic is precious. We are going to live with it because it is part of our DNA now, literally part of our DNA. We are all a little bit plastic. We have to use it and control it in the best way possible. I was originally very concerned about the idea that we should find different ways of creating biodegradable plastics and I have discovered that is a red herring. I have understood that recycling is the way forward and we just do not do it properly. Manufacturers do not help us, we do not help ourselves and 33 boroughs do not help us, so God help us at the moment.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): What has been the response of Londoners to the launch of this campaign?
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): Londoners are very heavily buying in. In the straw campaign we have just lost count of the number of people because they have gone off on their own, thank goodness, with their own initiatives. Hundreds and hundreds of restaurants and bars, big restaurant chains like dim t and Pizza Express, have all said they were going to get rid of straws completely, which is wonderful, or they are going to find alternative ways. Biodegradable straws? I do not know. This is where it all goes horribly wrong, is it not? But at least we have raised the profile. This is a single-use product that is profligate, as are plastic cups, as are water bottles, as are, as are. Let us go right back to our mantra for this year - or mine - that trash is too precious to waste.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Indeed it perhaps should not be seen as trash in the first place.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): No. It is not trash, it is a resource and it should be recycled.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Absolutely. It comes back to the circular economy at the beginning. I can see lots of people nodding but I am going to move on to my colleague David, who is going to move on to the next area of questioning. Thank you, David.
David Kurten AM: Thank you very much. Good morning. I will start with you, if I can, Barry, from the British Plastics Federation. It is a just a general question to set the scene. Why are plastics so popular?
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): I think they have become very popular because they are so resource-efficient, they are so flexible in terms of their application and they offer so many benefits in terms of reducing emissions and food waste. I could give you a very long list. As a material, as the earlier speaker said, the trick with plastics is to get them back and put them to work again. That is where we need to do more work.
David Kurten AM: There was a time, obviously, before we had plastics because they were invented 100 years ago or so. Could we ever go back to that time or not, do you think?
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): We could go back to that time. What you have to reflect on are the implications of going back to that time in terms of the amount of resource that goes Page 72 into making alternatives, the fact that you will probably end up having to manage more waste, not less waste, in terms of the increase in bulk and increase in weight, and you will lose some of the functional benefits plastic has brought in terms of keeping products fresh. I think personally it would be a retrograde step. You will say, “You would say that, would you not?” but there is plenty of evidence out there - a lot of people are occupying this space at the moment - that says you really have to work hard to get it back. You have to value it. That is the trick here.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): Sometimes it is made harder for us to get back. When one item has black plastic, which is not recyclable, and a film on it that is not recyclable, and the third part is recyclable, it is really difficult to get that back and the household does not know that so it all goes in the same place.
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): I would agree that there are some changes that need to be made in that area. In terms of black plastic, it is such a small part of the mix it could have been easily gotten back with smart detection.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): Or not even used in the first place.
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): At the end of the day I am afraid it comes back to economics. You have to make an investment to get a lot of things back. If there is not enough of it to get back you have to say, “Can we continue to use that?”
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): “Do we have to put it there in the first place?”
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): Exactly. What you are seeing now is a lot of brands and retailers saying, “In some applications we can probably live without requiring that particular product”. I am seeing a lot of really positive moves in terms of brands, retailers and waste management companies in our industry now looking at the circular economy and taking steps towards that to increase recycled content, get the right material in there, get the right designs in there and get it back.
David Kurten AM: Thanks for that. I will move on to Richard, if I can, from Iceland. Obviously being a supermarket, what percentage of supermarket produce is covered in plastic?
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): I cannot give you an accurate figure but it is a very high percentage, that is for sure. Certainly, in our own product range I think probably above 80% would have some form of plastic in contact with the food. Although we have made our position very clear that we want to eliminate as much as possible over time, plastic does have benefits, as Barry says. Very much so. We are not anti-plastic. We would rather see it be collected wherever possible. We are supporters of the deposit return scheme (DRS) as well, in terms of making sure we close the loop. At the end of the day, from our point of view, it is not the endgame. We want to eliminate the source basically, to reduce wherever possible the source of the ocean pollution that is occurring.
David Kurten AM: Is it necessary to have 80% of produce wrapped in plastic? If not, are there alternatives?
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): There are alternatives. We have a five-year plan now where we are gradually moving away from plastics and moving into predominantly paper, I would say, in the future. A lot of new technology is coming with coatings that are compatible with the paper recycling process so that you can maintain the structure, and also in some cases we are going to get better shelf-life. Page 73
Two examples are mushrooms and strawberries, where we can use a pulp-based product that allows the moisture to flow through the packaging. There are some benefits and there will be some disadvantages. We have to minimise any disadvantage that is occurring, remembering that more than 60% of food waste, for example, is occurring in the home. That is something we are serious about. It is why our business is predominantly frozen. Well, it is not. It is 30% frozen but you would think it was more than that.
David Kurten AM: Joe, do you have anything to add to that?
Joe Kerr (Regional Manager for London, Co-op Food): Yes. In the Co-op we have been doing a lot of work in reducing the amount of plastic that we use and lot of work on making sure the plastic that we do use is easily recyclable. If you take 2006 as a basepoint we were using 78,000 tonnes of plastic and we have taken 44% off that so it is currently a much more manageable number. As a Co-op we are member-led and we give those members an update every annual general meeting to report our progress on plastics and how we use it. If you think about easily recyclable, just in 2016 only 41% of our packaging was easily recyclable. We have got up to 71% with a target of 80% by 2020 but our members want us to get to 100% and we are working hard on that.
David Kurten AM: Thank you. I may be able to go back to you, Barry, with that point. You have 71% of plastics that are easy recyclable but some are not, and then some are non-recyclable. You mentioned before films and then the black bags. Why are they non-recyclable and what can be done about that?
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): If you look at the way we collect materials and the way that we process them, I would argue that you could move over a period of time to a situation where that 70%-odd could easily be 95%. There are technologies there but they will take time to roll out and fall into place.
We do make it difficult for the consumers. In my view there is a lot of inconsistency in terms of collection systems and we - Government, retailers and the waste management industry - have all been working hard on how we make it easier and more consistent right across the country, so that we remove a lot of confusion. There is an awful lot of confusion in this space.
Just coming to the point on waste, I think we would all accept that from appearances, when you go into a supermarket there is an awful lot of plastic there. We have heard a figure of 80%. Just to put it into perspective, that 80% in terms of waste arising reduces to 20% and that is because of the lower bulk and the lightweight nature of the product. It amplifies the point that the trick here is to take this incredibly resource-efficient material and get it back, and get it back as easily as you can.
What I would say is really exciting at the moment, if you look at where a lot of the brands and retailers are going now, is that they are all embracing the idea of the circular economy. We want to get it back. They are all embracing the idea of, “Let us increase recycled content where we can”. They are all setting targets in this space. The focus on plastics at this point in time is resulting in some really good initiatives right across the piece from the whole logistics angle. It will reduce further. With bottles, as more people start using these as they are on the go then that will have a further effect of reducing. In some areas, new materials might well come into place and that will have an impact as well.
If we can increase the recycled content, which I am now seeing a lot of people signalling they are committed to, and get that material back consistently in the most efficient way possible, then we are truly moving into a proper circular economy, which is the space I think we all need to occupy.
Page 74
David Kurten AM: Thank you.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): To address Janice’s point about the complexity and the need to make plastic precious to stop us from throwing it away, I understand in Norway that they have restricted the plastics in circulation to two varieties only, which means that some are presumably completely recyclable. They recycle 98% of their plastics and the other 2% is presumably the other type that is not recyclable because it is not recycled. Would that not then fit together with what Richard [Parker] and Joe [Kerr] are saying, that it is what their customers are now asking for, and would that not fit together with what Janice is saying about making it easy for householders? Would that not be the way to go forward, to make it really simple?
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): Yes, exactly. Well-designed plastic is a good recyclable material. We have heard that we are not helping ourselves, that manufacturers are not helping, packagers are not helping, supermarkets and indeed consumers; I would argue the other way around. I think we have made good progress but there is so much more to be done. On your point, Chair - and again, London’s ambitions in this are to be applauded - I would point us all in the direction of the Waste and Resources Action Programme’s (WRAP) new -
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We still want the Mayor to be more ambitious on this. We need him to move on from water bottles.
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): Yes, I am sure, and that is where I would point us all in the direction of the forthcoming Plastics Pact that WRAP has put out, which is one of the best pieces of work that organisation has put into the public domain recently. That has new ambitions for recycled content in all of the products that those of us around the panel that produce products have. It has ambitions to design in better collection systems and have much higher ambitions in terms of percentages collected and the systems that have to enable that, making it easier for consumers and making it easier for us as the recyclers and the reprocessors. That has exactly those targets, which will hopefully move us all in the right direction. That will be a voluntary commitment.
We have heard about some of good cross-sector collaboration and we are only really in the last couple of years beginning to see that. We as recyclers have been very frustrated in terms of the lack of connection and the lack of understanding from some of the packaging manufacturers, some of the retailers and so on, but in the last two to three years we have really seen that cross-sector collaboration come together with a much better understanding of where our limitations lie in terms of being one of the leading recyclers and reprocessors of this stuff. We are looking to invest more in the technology we have heard about but again we have to find the right cost mechanisms. I am sure we will come on to the Packaging Waste Recovery Note (PRN) scheme, DRS and some of the mechanisms and the levers that can be pulled to enable us as a sector to invest more in the much-needed technology to enable us to both capture and then reprocess more of this material.
Well-designed plastic has a great place in terms of waste minimisation and resource efficiency. It is just about narrowing down the numbers of polymers that are used, instead of the nightmare for recycling that is the composite materials that are currently produced in far too great a proportion.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): Do we think that will happen?
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): I believe the levers are there.
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): I would echo that. I think the mechanisms are already in place. There are initiatives being run across Europe to look at those more complicated Page 75 structures, to see if we can simplify them and still keep the same barrier characteristics. That is one stream of work. In addition to that there are new exciting technologies coming on that could even take those complicated structures that exist today and reprocess them.
In terms of the number of polymers and in terms of progress, I think it is just worth making a couple of points here. I would argue we are down to about three anyway because if you look at your packaging mix, typically the ones that are in predominant use are polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene and polypropylene. We have simplified it already. A lot of products have been taken out of the market on packaging. There are other polymers used elsewhere in buildings and the like and they are used for very good reasons, but in terms of packaging, which is what we are focusing on today, we are essentially already down to three. Could we go further? Maybe. We might get it down to two. There are people looking at that at this moment in time.
In terms of the progress we have made, I would totally echo that point. We sometimes beat ourselves up as a nation. If you look across Europe we are number 7 in terms of recycling performance out of 30 European countries. We want to improve that further but it is not that we are bottom.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I am not going to stop you, Barry, but we did hear from you just now as well and I really do want to bring in my colleague, Assembly Member Arbour, who wants to ask some questions that speak to - however many varieties of plastics there are now - what the environmental impacts of plastics are.
Tony Arbour AM: I am concerned to know how much of our plastic waste is exported. We are told that China has now closed the door but I understand there are other willing customers. Is that right? I am not sure, really. That must be Janice, who presumably hears every rumour there is on the street.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): I am the non-expert on this panel but we all know that China is getting extremely picky, quite rightly, about the sort of plastic it receives, and we all should be ashamed at the low levels of plastic that we recycle in our own country. Where else it is going, God only knows. I honestly have no idea.
Tony Arbour AM: Perhaps Dan knows.
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): We estimate that about 842,000 tonnes of plastic packaging is recycled within the United Kingdom (UK) at the moment. We as a company recycle about 120,000 tonnes of that. Of the stuff that we recycle, 78% was reprocessed here in the UK, 9% went to Europe and 12% to the rest of the world. China has not closed the door on plastics, China has banned mixed plastic imports at the moment and raised its standards on other grades of plastic. The bigger concern recycling-wise is what is happening with the paper markets but we are here to talk about plastics. The plastics markets, both within the UK and closer to home, are pretty robust. We are working with, again, reprocessors and packaging manufacturers but there is plenty of reprocessing and remanufacturing that happens here in the UK. It is not such a bad story as what the wider impression often is.
Libby Peake (Senior Policy Adviser, The Green Alliance): It is great that Viridor recycles so much of the plastic. The official figures show that about two-thirds of our plastics are recycled to be reprocessed abroad and traditionally China accepted about 50% of the world’s plastics, which obviously will no longer be the case. There are other markets that are opening up, including in Vietnam and Malaysia and places like that, that are taking plastics in the short term. I would probably say that in the long run they will not want low-quality plastics, which is often what is exported. In terms of solving the problem, a lot of work needs to be done to improve the collection systems in the UK so that we are collecting high-quality material that can be recycled
Page 76 domestically and, tying in with producers and all sorts of things like that, we limit the number of polymers that are created and we increase the demand for recycled content.
I would also say one thing, that it is great that we are focusing on creating value from plastics - from the plastics that we have to, say - but I also want to make sure we do not forget that reduction does have to be a big part of whichever sustainable solution you want. Initiatives like what we are going to see in London for bottle refill stations are great and they are definitely things that need to be talked about more and promoted so that we have less plastic in circulation in the first place. I know some people might disagree with me on that but I do think it has to be an important part of the solution.
Tony Arbour AM: I do not think anyone sitting here would disagree with that proposition. You are well informed on that. How much money do we make from exporting plastic to Vietnam? Is it actually a profitable business or are we paying them to accept our waste?
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): Quite simply, yes, it is profitable. There is a value in this product. As a recycling company and within the sector at the moment, the focus has to be on quality, quality and quality. Only by producing good-quality materials, being able to sort good-quality post-consumer waste streams or material streams, are you able to get the best price for the secondary commodity you are then selling. The polymer types that we have heard about, pure PET and good-quality high-density polyethylene , whether it is natural, that single colour, or mixed-colour - ‘jazz’, as it is known - provide good prices and the prices have been fairly robust. Some of the lower-value materials that we hear about - the pots, tubs and trays, in effect, the harder to recycle stuff, films and the like, including some black plastics and the mixed composite materials that we have talked about - do have a negative value but they are a very small percentage.
Tony Arbour AM: Finally, the one thing we have all been hearing about is today’s news that there are tiny atoms of plastic in all the water that we drink and so forth. How much plastic leaks into the environment and is therefore unable to be recycled? Is it a lot or is this going to be one of the new urban myths?
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): It is difficult to put a number on it. I have seen various estimates. When I talk about the environment as a whole, it could be around the 1% level but there is a lack of clarity there. The reason there is a lack of clarity is that if you look at the litter on our streets, on our beaches and in our rivers, it is difficult to tie that down and quantify it because of the nature of the subject. There are quite a few European studies. There has been work done by Keep Scotland Beautiful in that space, in terms of doing counts and trying to project an amount. There is some data around but I would suggest there is a lack of accurate, verifiable data. There is some but there is not enough. That is the best I can give you, I am afraid.
Tony Arbour AM: Do you want to give a better figure? 1% sounds like an enormous amount to me.
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): To put it into perspective, plastic waste is 2% of all the waste we generate as a nation. Plastics waste associated with packaging is 2.2 million tonnes. Yes, 1% of 2.2 million tonnes is an unsatisfactory number to be littered but I have to say it is very much an estimate because it is so difficult to quantify. What we would all accept is that we want to see less litter and we need to do a better job in that space. That is the best I can give you.
Tony Arbour AM: Do you have another figure, Libby?
Libby Peake (Senior Policy Adviser, The Green Alliance): There are some figures out there. I would stress that there is a lack of reliable data in this area. That is one thing that definitely needs to be addressed. Page 77
It is one reason why the World Health Organisation this morning said that they are going to finally start looking at what the impacts on are health because that is another area where there is not enough data. These data gaps need to be filled, but there are estimates that there could be more plastic in the sea, by weight, than fish by 2050 if we continue on our current trajectory. It might be 8.5 million tonnes a year that is estimated to leak into the ocean. It is a large quantity.
Another problem in terms of estimating how much is in the ocean is that the test you get now normally collects things on the surface, near the surface or on beaches but we know that most plastic sinks when it goes into the ocean. It is difficult, after it gets into the ocean, to measure how much is in there. Definitely a lot more work needs to be done to understand the sources of marine plastic and identify appropriate actions.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We have also been joined by some new people in our audience who are from St Winifred’s Catholic Primary School in Newham and I think we would like to wave to them. We all would, even Tony [Arbour AM]! Look at that. We are talking about plastic. We are talking about what happens to plastic when it gets thrown away. We were just talking about how much of it gets into the sea. We know that in the River Thames, which is just behind me, 75% of the flounder in the River Thames have plastic inside them. Flounder are fish. We are talking about how we can stop plastic, how we can use less plastic and whether we should find out if it makes us not very healthy, as well as the fish, if it gets inside us and we do not know.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): All sorts of figures get pulled out about where plastic goes and how much plastic goes where. One I heard the other day was that 8 billion tonnes of plastic goes into the sea.
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): Not from the UK.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Is that illegal dumping or is it what you are allowed to do, get rid of waste by putting plastic into the sea? It is a naïve question but I simply do not know the answer.
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): Could I come in on that? We have done a lot of work in this space to try to understand. We have set up a marine litter platform and brought together professors and experts in this field, experts in waste management, a lot of people. We have flown them in from all over the world to get a better understanding of this issue. I would characterise it as follows.
The plastics that go into our oceans fall into a number of categories. We have plastics that are, I would say, illegally dumped by seagoing vessels, which should be returned to port and disposed of properly. There is an element of that. It is very difficult to quantify, for obvious reasons. There are plastics associated with discarded fishing gear that is not discarded intentionally. Well, one would hope not. There are now collection schemes in place to try to get that back. Then there are plastics that enter our oceans from water treatment plants, which can be small bits of plastic, microbeads or fibres. Then finally there are plastics associated with litter, where people discard items or plastics with no thought to the environment. Those are the main areas. There is lots of data that we could share with you in terms of what that make-up looks like.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Sorry, I need to move on, actually, because we still have some more areas of questioning.
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): I just want to echo what Libby said. There is a lot of data out there on how much plastic is in the sea. There is evidence that a 20-foot container-load goes into the sea every minute of the day. That is across the world. Yes, I accept that quite a lot of that is coming in from areas that are not directly under our control in the UK but this is where we feel that leadership is needed in terms of moving on and eliminating the cause of the problem, which is the whole background to our Page 78 philosophy about eliminating plastics wherever we can. The microplastic that has been discovered now in rivers, including in this country, is extremely worrying and we really need to do something about that.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): 100 tonnes of wet wipe and rag material, which contains plastic so it does not dissolve in the sewers - it sometimes gets mixed up with fat and creates fatbergs - is recovered every day by Thames Water. We have been to visit it. That is another aspect of the problem. You can visit the sewers and have a look at it. It is pretty revolting and congealing into the fatbergs is even more revolting.
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): I would make two or three quick points on the matters we have just discussed. In the research I have seen, the vast majority of plastics that end up in the ocean and in the environment, emanate from poor waste management systems in other countries. Again, I come back to the fact that we in the UK have a very sophisticated and well-developed system of waste management and recycling and we have the opportunity to make that better.
The opportunity looks around three key things. One is the consumer, people putting the right stuff in the right bin to capture as much of it as possible. We all have responsibility for that, businesses and individuals. The second is putting a value on the material. We could do even more of that through DRS or some other things but we need to move quickly because for us to invest in new recycling technology we need a clear policy landscape. We cannot deal with too much risk and uncertainty. We have the opportunity to move first.
Then I come back to good design. You pointed it out in terms of wet wipes. We hear about cotton buds. Our sister company, South West Water down in the southwest of England, deals with lots of stuff coming through sewage treatment works where people put cotton buds and all sorts of things down the toilet that should not go in there. The question is: why are cotton buds made out of plastic in the first instance? I know lots of work is going into moving to more sustainable materials, cardboard, for instance, which was used previously. Design is very important but I reiterate we have an opportunity and London has the opportunity to lead here, to continue with the good progress that has been made to make everything more recyclable and capture as much as possible.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): I do think we should put instructions on packaging. Then we would be guided as to what to do with it. My office accused me of being a bag lady but I bring in so much plastic and have a rant in the morning now to say, “There is nothing on it. Where does this go? It says this is recyclable or in some cases biodegradable”. Biodegradable is a whole new can of worms. There is either no instruction or there is, “Tear it off. Put the paper in here. Put the lid in there”. Then what do you do with the main thing? There is nothing on it to say what you do with that. There is just no policy on instructions on plastic.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Signage.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): Signage. That is it.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We talked about signage with Thames Water and a number of other guests last month. Sometimes it is so small or it says it is flushable when it is not, but that is a specific issue.
Libby Peake (Senior Policy Adviser, The Green Alliance): I just wanted to come back to the sources of marine plastic. Barry [Turner] listed a number of them but there are a few more that are probably important to tackle, one of which is nurdles, also known as mermaid tears. They are the tiny bits of pre-production plastic that are made into the plastic we then put on the market. Those do sometimes leak out of the production process so it is really important to tackle that. There is also tyre dust, which is a more difficult one. When the Page 79 tyres wear down they shed bits of plastic that then get into the wastewater system and out into the sea. That is a really difficult one to tackle.
Just to pick up on the point that Dan [Cooke] made about the sources of plastic and how a lot of the plastic gets into the sea from developing countries with poorer waste management infrastructure, that is absolutely true and there are a couple of points to make about that. One is that it is great to see that the Government is implementing or sending some of its international development budget to that because that is something that absolutely needs to be tackled and we can export our best practice on that. Second, since we export so much of our plastic there is no guarantee that it is not our plastic that is being mismanaged in those countries and then getting into the sea. That is something we absolutely need to tackle by trying to keep more of the plastic that we need to produce in this country.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Alice, I will bring you straight in. Some very good points there.
Alice Ellison (Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium): Hi. Some of the points I wanted to make have been made already, about the international figure, the role that waste management has to play and the part that London and the UK can play in a leadership role on that. On the sources of microplastic, a couple of other sources. One that has received quite a lot of media coverage is microfibres from clothes washing. The other is paint on buildings. It just shows how complex this issue is.
Another point I am going to make - we are going to look at this later, maybe - is that it is really important when we are looking at plastic to take a holistic approach. What are the unintended consequences and what else is affecting the world’s oceans? Plastics absolutely are affecting the world’s oceans but so is climate change so whatever we do with plastics, we just need to make sure we are looking at those trade-offs with global warming and carbon emissions.
On labelling, the British Retail Consortium about ten years ago set up something called the On-Pack Label scheme. The reason we did that was that we were saying to local authorities, “You need to be more consistent in the way you collect and recycle materials” and the pushback to industry was, “You need to be more consistent in the way you label”. We developed On-Pack Recycling Label. It is a voluntary scheme so not all products or all packaging has it but it will say, “Not currently recycled”, “Widely recycled” or the one that everyone hates, which is, “Check local recycling”.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): Absolutely, and you do not, and you cannot get through.
Alice Ellison (Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium): That scheme from strength to strength. It is really being --
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): How many people do we actually think ever check their local recycling? I might. Some of the other Members of the Committee might. Then when you try to do it, as Janice has said, sometimes it is impossible to find out.
Alice Ellison (Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium): Absolutely. That goes back to, first, the need for more consistent approaches, and also the points that were raised around what retailers are doing, rationalising their plastics and the number of polymers they are using. We have seen that retailers have ambitious targets about recyclability, 100% of their packaging or particularly plastics packaging to be recyclable within the next few years. That will help. That labelling scheme at the moment is a voluntary scheme and if more people can take it on -- Page 80
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Should it be voluntary?
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): No, it should be --
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): There are 50 things on the back of a package now saying where it comes from and what it is made of and you cannot put the --
Alice Ellison (Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium): The industry has bought into it. Lots of --
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): This is unanimity from the Evening Standard, Iceland, the Co-op, the British Retail Consortium, Viridor and everybody who is here saying it should not be voluntary, signage actually telling you whether or not it is recyclable.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): Not little sort of dots with a circle in them.
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): I would agree with you. You have to make it easy. You have to make it easy for people and we do not.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): It is not easy if you do not know what it is.
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): I know.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): OK. It is about making it easier for people to understand what they are doing and to be able to read it on the package as well.
David Kurten AM: Just another environmental factor is not the plastics themselves but things that get put into the plastic that may have an effect on people. I did not quite agree with you, Janice, in your statement at the beginning. You said plastic is in our DNA. Maybe that was just for effect.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): No, absolutely. There is research in America to say that women are feeding breast milk to babies with plastic particles in it.
David Kurten AM: I would not say it is in our DNA. It is not in our DNA in a molecular sense.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): I think they might disagree with you there.
David Kurten AM: If I could get to the point, what I want to ask is that there are things that are in plastics, chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA) and polychlorinated biphenyls, which have been banned in France and a partial ban in Canada. They are known as oestrogen mimickers. They have a hormonal effect.
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): I am familiar with them.
Page 81
David Kurten AM: That is a big problem, is it not? Do you see it as a big problem? Would a ban in the UK be good? That would have an epigenetic effect rather than being in the marker of our DNA. What are your comments on that?
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): There is a lot of misunderstanding about where these additives are used. If you take food packaging, food packaging and drinks packaging has to be tested to very, very rigorous food-safe standards. I have seen numerous press articles saying PET bottles have BPA in them. They have not and we keep on telling people this. There is a lot of misunderstanding in that space. But even those products, non-food or drink products that have some element of BPA in, have to be certified safe at a European level. You have to show that there is no chance that migration can cause harm. At a European level it is very, very well regulated.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): I want to move on to the next session because this is not one of our lines of questioning. I think we are going to bring in Dr Antoine Buchard at this point because we are now going to talk about the alternatives to plastics, which does follow on from the question that you were asking. Shaun, can I ask you to lead on this?
Shaun Bailey AM: Dr, I want to start with you because I am interested in the alternative to plastic. I walk around and buy things from the supermarket and think, “I would not care less if this was in a piece of paper as opposed to plastic”. Some things need to be in plastic. What is your end of the industry, the coating end, as it were, doing to allow different, less environmentally impactive substances to be used as packaging because of coatings and stuff being developed?
Dr Antoine Buchard (Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainable Chemical Technologies): Alternatives to plastic. Even if my own research looks at alternatives to plastic, there is something that needs to be really clear, and that is what Barry said. The advantages of using plastic coatings and everything for shelf life are tremendous. There is no denial about this. It is great you people are looking for the alternatives to that, pulp and paper based, etc. But even looking at biodegradable plastic and the type of stuff that I work on, it is in such early stages. It needs a proper lifecycle analysis to quantify the impact on the amount of energy that we put in to produce things, what is going to be the energy that the recycle companies are going to put in to do a triage of all this type of stuff.
The alternative exists but there needs to be first and foremost a reduction of waste in the first place, looking at exactly what Libby [Peake] said. The priority needs to be, “Do things need to be packaged in so many things or not?” That is the first question. The other thing that needs to be done is to increase the recycling content. Absolutely, those are precious resources. If we do not get them back then that is a problem because in the end those are fossil fuel-based resources and we may want to keep them for more important things like making medicine, making fuels and so on. That is another debate. Then once all those things fail, when we really need alternatives, that is where we come in and we try to design new materials that will be biodegradable and so on, but this has to be the last resort in my personal opinion.
Shaun Bailey AM: I disagree because plastics are environmentally very impactful and if we can have an alternative that is cheaper to produce, does not change the customer’s experience and has less of an impact --
Dr Antoine Buchard (Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainable Chemical Technologies): Absolutely, do not get me wrong. My research is about making biodegradable plastics so I am deeply interested in this type of thing. What I want to say is that right now the alternatives that exist sometimes are not as good as the materials we have now. That is what I am saying.
Page 82
Shaun Bailey AM: That is a judgment call because it depends in which way they are not as good. If they do not preserve your strawberries as long but they do not end up on the sea or they do not need to go to landfill, you might argue that a few rotten strawberries are worth the risk.
Dr Antoine Buchard (Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainable Chemical Technologies): Absolutely.
Shaun Bailey AM: That is by the by. I want to move on. When you talk about alternatives in a retail setting, how impactful are they on the customer experience? Are customers willing to do that? Are they willing to buy strawberries in a different pallet or are you worried, as a retailer, if you do not present what people want there is an impact on your bottom line?
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): Certainly, if you take strawberries or mushrooms as an example, I do not think there will be any negative impact from a consumer point of view. If we obscure the product because we put, for example, translucent or opaque paper on the surface, then you cannot see the product itself and I think that will be an issue for people. A ready-meal habit is to slide the tray open to see the food and then push it back in. That is the habit.
My view is that we should show a recognisable difference to plastic. Therefore, paper-based substrates with a coating that is water-based, which are being worked on at the moment to be very effective alternatives, those sorts of things can help us. Also, maybe we will have to print what the food looks like on the top of the surface at some point so you know what it will look like when it is cooked. People will have less ‘convenience’ when they are looking at it. We need to explore those and pilot test them, etc.
From a frozen product point of view, it is much easier to move away from plastics quicker because of the shelf life that is inherent in freezing products, which is why we are starting with the range of products in frozen. The consumer experience there I think will not be damaged. It will be changed, and maybe some of us will have to do a little bit more work in the future, maybe decanting sometimes. We are looking at all of those alternatives, including selling vegetables. We used to sell frozen vegetables loose and then you put them in your own bag. If that is a paper bag, then why not?
I visited Ekoplaza yesterday in Holland where they have a plastics-free part of their store and it is a great experience to see that. They have a lot of challenging packaging that they put on the shelf. A lot of it looks like traditional plastic but it is not, it is compostable films. How we handle those is the key issue in terms of recycling infrastructure and collection and sorting. We are very well aware that those materials can be difficult to separate from traditional plastic, but that is an infrastructure issue.
It is about labelling as well. It is clearly saying what you need to do with the pack, where you need to put it and what the infrastructure is to handle it. We can change these things and that is what we are working on, particularly with the Welsh Government, who are very close to our hearts, to look at recycling and that kind of thing in Wales.
Shaun Bailey AM: To ask about the use of alternatives as we have them now, you can buy a milk carton and it is paper based. Is that easier to recycle?
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): In some places. The technology that is used to break down that kind of carton is only in Halifax, as I understand it, in the UK, but we have had discussions with Tetra Pak directly about what is coming next. Everybody is now working on plastic alternatives or alternatives to plastic. In a few years’ time there will be more choices in terms of non-plastic, for example, milk. It is not impossible to think about not having plastic. Page 83
Shaun Bailey AM: I wonder how much of this is public-led. If I buy a fizzy drink I expect a plastic bottle. I wonder if --
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Shaun.
Shaun Bailey AM: Hold on.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): No, Assembly Member Bailey, these are not your questions. Assembly Member Russell’s questions are about supermarkets reducing plastic use and alternatives, and you appear to be leading on the supermarkets’ alternatives.
Shaun Bailey AM: I was not, because where I am going is we had the manufacturer of wet wipes in here. I detected - this is a personal view - a distinct lack of enthusiasm for moving plastic out of their product. I wonder if it is because there is a lack of alternative for them or if they just do not want to lose the luxury feel of their product, which may cause its profitability to go down.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We are not going to ask our guests to talk about wet wipes. I am going to --
Shaun Bailey AM: It is the removal of plastic.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): You can answer on wet wipes but I am going to move on to Assembly Member Russell’s questions now, some of which we may not follow because Assembly Member Bailey just did. Assembly Member Russell, over to you.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Yes. On the supermarket commitment to plastics, Shaun started to raise the issue of the perverse incentive for some manufacturers of products to keep using plastics because there may be convenience factors. If we are thinking about public purpose and making sure that the goods that are sold in our supermarkets are not harmful either to our environment or to our health, then does there need to be a bit of a common mission to try to sort these issues out? When you walk into a supermarket you see packets of biscuits, for instance, for sale, where they have plastic wrap over the packets of biscuits and then two packets of biscuits held together with more plastic wrap. That is absolutely unnecessary packaging, yet that was Marks and Spencer yesterday evening, because I knew we were coming to this session and I wanted to check out the packaging.
There are examples everywhere of packaging that is about making things to sell rather than being about preserving things and avoiding food waste. Obviously, I get these supermarkets are massive businesses and are moving a lot of fragile goods so that we can all buy them and take them home and enjoy them, but there is also a whole layer of products that get sold that just have plastic in them in order to make them feel like a product, to make them feel like something to buy. Little things of cheese with little bits of biscuits in them, things sold for lunchboxes, sold in small quantities.
Can you comment at all - and I will start with Alice and then move on to Joe [Kerr] and Richard [Parker] - on how the supermarkets can really help to reduce this unnecessary plastic waste? Are there targets that you think you should be setting yourselves as supermarkets? Alice, do you want to start?
Alice Ellison (Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium): If I start from an industry perspective, as we have seen with Blue Planet and all documentaries that have come out recently, retailers are really responsive to customers and customer pressure. We have seen what difference that has made. There Page 84 will be instances where retailers will be announcing their own commitments. We note, for example, the Iceland commitment. We are all really interested in that and looking forward to understanding the learnings and challenges that come from that.
Then we recognise that there is a pretty competitive role to this as well and that is why industry, as Dan [Cooke] has indicated, are talking to WRAP about this new Plastics Pact, which will have some really challenging targets and brings together commitments not just for industry but also local authority waste management and customer behaviour change as well. The idea is that would be a voluntary commitment but it would be signed up to by the four UK Governments and it would be a model similar to the Courtauld model that we have already seen be successful in achieving change in food waste.
There is a role for both but absolutely that Plastics Pact will bring everyone together so that we have collaboration and look across the system. That is really, really important to look across. That will look at particular issues. One of the issues where we would admit there is some way to go is black plastic. There is a project at the moment that is underway. Projects like that would be something that this commitment could look at and take forward and pilot and share the learnings.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Thank you. Can I ask Joe?
Joe Kerr (Regional Manager for London, Co-op Food): I guess for the Co-op, we are a community retailer and we are always battling against three things: the availability of the product. Customers are always looking for the products to be there, the life that you get on that product and how we sell the products. These are the things that are on our minds. I have already talked about our commitment to reducing the plastics that we use and to be easily recyclable, but if you look at the packaging on our fresh foods it really does make a significant difference to the freshness of the product and how long you get to keep that product. If you look at a carrot, for instance, if you sell loose carrots you will get a couple of days before they start to go off. If you keep carrots in a plastic bag, you will get weeks, and the customers know that.
What we have done in the Co-op is we have looked at the black packaging that was aesthetically pleasing. There was no need for it to be there and we have removed that. We took all the polystyrene bases out of pizzas. Our sushi used to come in black plastic. We have now changed that. It is clear, easily recyclable plastic with a card, black paper, in there.
Co-op can only focus on what we control. We need the big brands’ help, we need their co-operation on that. We need everybody to help us along the way with it. As I said, we have members who have a conscience. We are always listening to what they have to say and it is high on our agenda, but I think separating what is required for the life of the product and what is aesthetically pleasing is what you should be focusing on. If you think about a packet of crisps, you get 90 days on a packet of crisps because it is in that bag. Ninety days is a lot of life on a product and we sell a lot of crisps. We sell loads of crisps in London.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Does that mean you do not need 90 days’ worth of freshness?
Joe Kerr (Regional Manager for London, Co-op Food): We could find an alternative. That is right, yes, if we could find an alternative, which would be good. But that is the industry. It is that industry balance. I have to say in the Co-op we have reduced the waste that we put in the bin significantly, by 50%. The clear process is buy new stock in all the processes to try to get that balance right, but the need for plastic is evident because it gives us the life in the product and not to cause so much of it. Our mission is to get to that easy recyclable point.
Page 85
We also know that two-thirds of our product ends up in landfill because as the customers leave there is nowhere for them to recycle the product. That education piece is really important. If I am in London and I buy my sandwich and I buy my crisps and I eat them because it is a nice day, where do I put that? We need employers to have recycling bins in the places of work. We also need to have the ability on the streets to maybe go and put it somewhere. I think Walt Disney said if you walk any more than 25 steps with something in your hand it ends up on the floor.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Therefore you would really appreciate help from the big brands as well as doing stuff inside from the Co-op perspective.
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): I would echo a lot of what Joe has said. By the way, we do talk to each other about things like this and make sure we all know what our strategies are. From our point of view, I think there is a habit change. We have got into the habit of buying two-for-one or banded packs and this kind of thing. We have to revisit that in terms of what we do and what we put on shelf.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): You are saying that the BOGOF [Buy One Get One Free] should bog off?
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): There is no point in wrapping two in one wrap and doubling the packaging, I believe. We have choices. We can make choices with our retailers to say we will promote it in a different way. A discount instead, maybe.
Just to echo some of the black plastic progress, the reason we have said we want to pull out of black plastic ready meals is for the reason of lack of recycling infrastructure in the country. I tried for about a year and a half to get a sample of a detectable black tray from our biggest supplier and I failed to get one. The progress that has been made has been absolutely unforgivable. That is the reason why we took the decision to say we were not doing that any more. You have done a very similar thing, as have most retailers, we will say.
I am very well aware of what the destination of plastic flexibles is that is a good destination, which is black plastic, but if we are not prepared to invest in the infrastructure to handle it and recycle it we have to change what we put into the system. That is our view.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): And the film on top. A recycler said to me on Monday when I was at the depot, “If I had just one wish it would be that every film on top of every product was the same plastic because then I could capture it and recycle it, but it is all different.”
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): We would rather make it paper.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): Absolutely I am buying into that one.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): That sounds very good. Dan.
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): That is a really good opportunity to again reiterate the need -- firstly reiterate the complexity of this as an issue but especially to reiterate the need for cross-sector collaboration. We know retailers, packages and consumers, indeed, are looking at and often want, or think they want, alternatives to plastics, but at the moment we need to think those through carefully. Compostable plastics, for example, confuse the hell out of the existing sorting systems and often are not as compostable as normal organic material, so they create some issues. Biopolymers and compostable materials, we might want to think laterally. It is good renewable fuel and you might want to recover energy from them because it is Page 86 organic, it is biogenic carbon and therefore it is renewable fuel so why would you recycle that in the first place, question?
Paper, and some retailers moving to paper-based packaging. We need to be careful there as well. I mentioned the markets in China especially. The global papers markets at the moment are very fragile and the demand if we have yet more poor-quality paper and card put into the recycling systems -- we are talking about value. There is little to no value in that at the moment, whereas plastic, if it is recyclable and recoverable, holds its value and therefore may be a better solution.
I am making a point here that these are complex issues. There has been some fantastic innovation by retailers and by some of the leading brands. We have had the likes of Unilever and Procter & Gamble’s design teams coming into recycling facilities to have a look at the implications of their work on our work and beginning to join up through the supply chain. I know there are big plans in terms of innovation for plastics that these guys are involved in. These guys, Co-op, have led the way often, and Iceland is doing some great stuff. It is that cross-sector collaboration and the innovation going forward, but we need to think it through in terms of holding the value - both to the consumer and the profit margin of everybody involved - of the material throughout the supply-chain process.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Obviously, it is at the recycling end, it is the local authorities, the recycling facilities that are available and then it is the people manufacturing the products, the people who are selling the products. It needs all those voices to come together to have a system that everyone agrees --
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): The good news on that is to a degree we already are. Libby [Peake] down the end here will know. We sit on a couple of circular economy taskforces that are set up to do exactly that. The Green Alliance has convened one. Business in the Community has convened one. That is about getting around the table and saying, “Right, big picture, what do we need to do? What do we need to call for at a policy level from the UK Government, the London Assembly and others? What can local authorities do?”
We have not really spoken about the huge challenge at the moment that local authorities face. They are reducing funding in terms of collection systems, communication with customers and so on. That is seeing a downward trend in the quality of material coming into the system just at a time when global markets are demanding more and more quality. There is a disconnect there. We really do need to put pressure on funding for local authorities to be adequate for the waste management and recycling systems. That coming together through those various circular economy taskforces is beginning and there is some really good dialogue and innovation beginning to take place. We are moving at point of pace.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): Well if you have 33 boroughs all agreed on how to collect the waste that would be useful.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): They all have different contracts at the moment so they are collecting different stuff.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): They all have different systems. It is short term, you live in a flat for six months and then you suddenly end up the other side of London. You have tried very hard to put your stuff in this bag and it is this colour with this instruction. Believe you me, I have ten instructions on the collection bag in my borough and one of them says not to put plastic in there.
Page 87
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): My last point on that is again there should be an opportunity here. We have the UK Government’s Waste and Resources Strategy coming into effect this year. I know London is trying to do or is doing a great deal as well. There is the opportunity to bring collection systems and the standardisation of those into a much greater focus through those mechanisms and do more than just cajole gently local authorities, but encourage them and have the levers to encourage them to work at a much faster pace to standardise. It will take time. You cannot do it overnight, and local authorities know best what collection systems work best for them. We have to see greater things, because it is all about convenience as well as cost for the consumer to make sure we capture as much of this stuff as we can and get the right stuff in the right bin.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Can I just add in an extra wrinkle to the question? Is there something that the supermarkets can be doing to encourage their customers to recycle? Local authority budgets for all that education stuff about recycling have gone down and down. They are not doing as much of that and I wonder if there is something that the supermarkets can be doing.
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): What you have just said, Dan, I think is absolutely critical, that we join up these things. I have been involved in this for years and I have worked with Unilever before. The fact that there is no harmonisation between boroughs is a massive issue in terms of getting vehicles planned, infrastructure in place and recycling in place.
I want to mention one other thing, that there is a PRN review, the Packaging Recovery Note review. We need to know where that money is going, how much it should be and how it influences the infrastructure. That is what I believe. Also, there are a lot of opportunities now to stand up in front of, for example, the paper industry as well, talking about what is going to be coming their way in the near future and what can and cannot be handled.
We are trying to get real design criteria in place so that we properly manage the whole recovery and recycling system. I think we all can work together on that. There are various formats for that. Defra is talking about it, as is the Government overall. There are some new opportunities, partly because China has triggered a much bigger discussion on what we should have had in the country in the first place. Wales is very much more co-ordinated, I believe, as a region. It is the second-best recycler in the world. Maybe we should be looking at their model. We will be supporting them, definitely.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Lessons from Wales.
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): Because we are the biggest employer in Wales and the biggest turnover company, we will be influencing Wales. In fact, we sent a note to them yesterday about instore recycling with a DRS system that we are going to pilot.
Alice Ellison (Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium): On your question about advice to consumers, again I will repeat about the on-pack recycling labelling and then pick up the points on producer responsibility. Producers in the UK pay into a producer responsibility scheme for packaging, which is called the PRN system. I think it is accepted that that is a blunt instrument. It does not incentivise responsible packaging choices. If you put a black tray, which is currently not recycled, you are paying the same price as a clear plastic bottle that is easily recycled, or a piece of paper. It is not incentivising the right choices.
Also, when producers pay into that system there is no transparency, as Richard has said, about where the money goes, how it is spent, how it is changing, how it would build the infrastructure that we need and how it would support local authorities. Defra is aware of that. There are also things coming out of Europe. There is Page 88 something called a Circular Economy Package that is being finalised over the next few months. If the UK is bound by it, that will require significant changes. There is a lot going on and it is changing really, really fast. The point you make is that it is important, in whatever happens, to build in everybody and the whole system but also customers, how you communicate and how you get that behaviour change as well as just directing funding.
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): Yes. I want to expand, if I may, a little bit on that PRN system. We have a fantastic opportunity to revise producer responsibility at this point in time. I will give you an example. Apart from incentivising best practice, you can also use it as a funnel to create strategic funds to bring about change. We have not touched much on on-the-go but if you look at where our litter comes from, it is associated with those items typically that we associate with drinking and eating food on the go.
I think we would all accept that there are costs associated. As soon as you take a package, a drink or some food out of one of the convenience stores, there is a higher cost to get that material back and there is a higher cost in terms of what happens to that material if it gets littered. Yet all the policy directions and the signals we send to the consumer are not reflecting that higher cost in any shape or way. Your VAT rate comes down if you take it out. You are saying to the consumer, “It is cheaper, you can take it away with you”, but the economic cost of them taking it away is far greater.
If we could only take a step back and revise this system properly so that it reflects the appropriate costs, the best behaviours, then we could put more money into creating an infrastructure for on-the-go collection of material and we could put more money into behaviour change and litter programmes than we are able to do at the moment. Would that not be a good place to be, if we could use that opportunity and look at the whole thing and say, “Yes, we have a producer responsibility scheme, we all accept it is a blunt instrument and we are all engaged in that dialogue at this moment in time; let’s seize the opportunity”?
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): That is inspiring.
Do we think that supermarkets could ever consider a total ban on single-use plastic bags? It is yes or no, isn’t it?
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): A simple yes for that. Listen carefully.
Joe Kerr (Regional Manager for London, Co-op Food): Particularly in London the number of serial forgetters of bags, people who come into your shop without a bag, is huge. If you take away the compostable, cheap bag and replace it just with the bigger bag you need to pay for there is more plastic in that and I would be worried about the fact that we would get more of that. We need to think long and hard about a better alternative because there are a lot of people who come into our shops who forget bags and just pick them up.
Libby Peake (Senior Policy Adviser, The Green Alliance): This is not about plastic bags but - as we were talking about - behaviour change, which is obviously an important thing to do. We have seen that with the plastic bag we can change behaviours. I wonder if we ought to be a bit more ambitious in terms of the behaviours that we are looking to change, and bringing back more things. We talked about refilling water bottles but we have not talked about instituting more refill stations in supermarkets. I know this has been examined in the past and has not been terribly successful in this country, but there is no reason why you need to buy a new plastic bottle every time you get detergent or something like that. I wonder if supermarkets could start examining the business models that could be implemented to encourage more reuse rather than this single-use plastic that does not have to be single-use plastic. Page 89
Joe Kerr (Regional Manager for London, Co-op Food): That is under consideration. We do not know what will happen in the marketplace between now and five years’ time but, for example, in the store I went to yesterday there is a water machine for refilling. In Germany they are refilling milk bottles in store, so it is coming, I think. We just have to see whether we want to drive that change or whether we want to respond. We cannot do everything all at once, unfortunately, but it is on the table as consideration. It is probably again another inevitable direction.
Libby Peake (Senior Policy Adviser, The Green Alliance): There is a role there as well for regulation, I would say. We have been talking about how the packaging producer responsibility regime is going to change, as they are looking at it now. It is a big opportunity. You do want to try to incentivise those behaviours, the best environmental behaviours, and it is a great opportunity to do so.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): Everyone has to buy into it. The end user has been so spoiled by supermarkets. It is their responsibility as much as the whole chain, from manufacturer to retailer to user.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): Are there not some great business opportunities here where you can design things that you can bring in to be refilled? I think Barry is the only person who is modelling a reusable water bottle here but there are a million different examples of different water bottles. There are now coffee cups that can be refilled. I really do not like them in this media, and then you always have a plastic lid on top of it. It is really nice. In fact, I was out yesterday with Thames Tideway and so was David [Kurten AM] and they gave us really nice ones that were made out of bamboo with a nice section on the outside to stop you from burning your fingers.
There must be lots of other business opportunities so that it is not just cosmetic companies that say that you can go and do your refills there. Other cosmetics are available but Lush do refills. If you can come to the Co-op, if you can come to Iceland with your receptacle in a lovely shape and have it refilled, is that not that going to be part of the future, do you think?
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): We are already discussing branding because it is a nice opportunity to brand market your product, the Evening Standard. You have your coffee cup in the office and take out all the water machines, so that everyone who looks at this piece of plastic that took millions of years to produce and a few seconds to get rid of puts a different value on it. We are going to get rid of all our plastic cups, hopefully very soon, and just have people think about taking it there, filling it up and bringing it back. If they have to wash it up at the end of the night, tough.
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): We are doing the same in our head office now. There are no plastic single-use bottles in head office and we have removed all the standard cups. Even Costa, dare I say. Everybody is using refillable now. Again, I think that is going to be a trend, definitely.
Alice Ellison (Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium): I want to talk about plastic bags and the refillables. On the plastic bags I was not sure what you meant by single-use plastic bags. Do you mean the carrier bags or do you mean the ones that you use for fruit and vegetables or do you mean both?
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Both, but I was thinking about the carrier bags to take your stuff home in. The ones that you put loose fruit and vegetables in when you are picking them up in the supermarket, those are also single-use bags.
Page 90
Alice Ellison (Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium): On the carrier bags, a number of retailers have already moved away from single-use carrier bags and they now no longer have them. It will be interesting to see what the impact of that is. As Joe [Kerr] said, there is an issue around whether people pay a bit more and use them once and then it goes into the waste stream. We will have to see what happens but, yes, they are moving in that direction.
On the very thin plastic bags for fruit and vegetables and confectionary, they have a key role to play around reducing food waste. There was some research done by WRAP that looked at if you bought food loose and you did not store it in a thin plastic bag, what the difference was between lifetime in a fridge. A few things it did not make much difference but for most it had a key difference. If you took those out of supermarkets in some instances you might be able to replace it with paper but I do not know that it would as effective. There would be recycling.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Are they recyclable? At the moment, if I had one of those I would put it in my bin rather than in my recycling.
Alice Ellison (Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium): It is recyclable film, so you can recycle it with carrier bags. Some supermarkets will have recyclable points. That might be something. The other point around the refillables is that it is something businesses have looked at before. I am sure they are looking at it and I am sure there are advantages and opportunities and they will be looking at those. Sometimes if you have something like a taskforce or the initiative that WRAP is looking at where you can collaborate and pilot things together, one of the things that might be piloted is how you recycle more film and capture that. I am sure Dan [Cooke] will be able to talk about that a bit more.
The other thing is: what are the issues when you are looking at refillables, how do you encourage it and how do you bring the customer with you? That is a key point. If there are more collaborative platforms and initiatives they can definitely explore things like that. There will also be things going on in the background that we will not know about that will also need to be announced.
Caroline Russell AM (Deputy Chair): Can I pick you up on the thin bags for picking up loose fruit and vegetables? Could those be things that we take back to the supermarket, either to be recycled or do we pay a deposit? Do you get charged for those at the checkout so that you are incentivised as a consumer to use fewer of them? There is no easy way to recycle it unless, as supermarkets, it gets recollected back again. Maybe there is a --
Alice Ellison (Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium): It does get recycled. Some larger supermarkets will have collection points for bags and you can take those back. If you do an online delivery as well they will take all those types of bags back for you. That is a really interesting question around the incentives and that balance with food waste. Yes, it would be interesting to give customers pause for thought rather than using lots of single-use little bags but at the same time they do play a key role in food waste. It is a really interesting question.
Joanne McCartney AM: On that, about incentivising, in Germany, for example, bottle return schemes and DRS have led to almost 100% recycling. Is that something you would think of introducing?
Joe Kerr (Regional Manager for London, Co-op Food): We at the Co-op are really keen on it but one of the challenges we have is space in our shops. We have predominantly a lot of stores under 3,000 square feet, but we would be really interested in collaborating with other retailers to do something. For lots of things in London collaboration is really important. If we could just get the synergies together that could make the Page 91 difference. We are up for it. We are doing a trial in south-eastern Co-ops so we will wait to see the results of that. The smallest machine I have seen is about the size of a Coke-dispensing machine, which is pretty big for our shops.
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): Just to echo that, I think we were the first two supermarkets to support the bottle deposit scheme. We are going to be piloting the system to see how well that resonates. We have an issue with space instore as well. A lot of our stores are local in the high street. I was talking to the Minister in Scotland about this a few weeks ago. Scotland is slightly ahead of the game in terms of where its legislation is. Exactly what they want to do is another question. If you are in a high street situation, for example, collaboration with the stores in the high street to identify a location where this can be put - in a bus stop, maybe, in an environment where people can recycle centrally - that is the kind of model that we could be looking at.
Again, it is about sensible, cross-functional discussions. How is the funding going to work in terms of cash flow and so on? On vouchers, are we are going to use them uniquely if it was in our store? I think, longer-term, it will not be located in specific stores unless they are big ones in remote places. It is more sensible to have them --
Joanne McCartney AM: Having to drive to a location.
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): Yes. It is more sensible to have them in the high street where you can conveniently recycle but the infrastructure obviously needs to be there. Leading with a direction from legislation would drive that process faster, I think.
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): On DRSs, there could be a big opportunity to drive recycling further but it needs to be carefully thought through. From our recycling and reprocessing facilities’ point of view, it could either provide a fantastic quality feedstock for recycling or it could rob the infrastructure that we have of the recycling that we currently reprocess. It all depends on the system and the design of the system. Is it the Norway system? Is it the Western Australian system that was introduced only in the last 12 months? What we think needs doing is to look at those systems and very carefully consider the logistics, who is going to collect the material and the competitiveness of the body or bodies that will then be in control of that material, so that we as the reprocesses and recyclers have good opportunities to be able to reprocess the material, the lifeblood of the plants that we do.
We have to think through very carefully the effect it will have on long-term recycling contracts that are already in place between collectors, reprocesses and local authorities as well as businesses. It will be very disruptive and it needs to be carefully designed and carefully thought through to maximise the benefit to the supply chain across the piece to make sure that it retains the value and raises levels rather than causes too much disruption and upsets the current system.
Libby Peake (Senior Policy Adviser, The Green Alliance): I would echo what Dan has just said. It would be much better if this was done across the UK. Obviously, Scotland has announced that it is going to do it. That could potentially create some problems in terms of something is done in Scotland but not in England, or not nearby in England. Can people from England go up and recycle their material there and get deposits back for that? That is something that you definitely do not want to see. You want everyone to be able to access this DRS.
I would also highlight the importance that this can play in creating a high-quality stream of material, because one of the reasons plastic is not recycled as much as it should be is because it gets contaminated. There are Page 92 different types. You are not keeping the high-value streams separate. In the UK most of our collection systems are comingled, which means that it gets separated and it gets contaminated and it is all mixed together and it is not economical to separate it in this country and recycle it.
One of the main benefits of a DRS is that it creates immediately a high-value stream that you can recycle and we can then build infrastructure in the UK to recycle it. We definitely do not want to see that disrupt businesses or local authorities or the recycling facilities that exist so it does need to be carefully thought out, but there is absolutely no reason why it cannot be done and it cannot be done well.
Joanne McCartney AM: Thank you.
Alice Ellison (Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium): Obviously retailers have made individual statements about DRS. Absolutely there is a conversation to be had about it. I was in Scotland yesterday talking about the different components in Scotland and what the retail perspective on that was. It shows how complex it is, but it is part of a much bigger picture.
One of the questions we were asking in Scotland is: how does that fit in with everything else? How would that fit in with the reform of the producer responsibility for single packaging? We would say that whatever we come up with needs to be evidence-based and it needs to be citing a particular issue. Is it recycling on-the-go, for example? What is it we are looking to address and how will that solution address it?
It also needs to work in the UK. We hear about different systems but I think the UK has a local authority recycling system. If we were to look at DRS, how would it impact on local authorities? If there is a risk that it could disrupt local authority recycling infrastructure then that is serious. It might mean that we lose collection of other recyclable material that might not get picked up by a DRS.
Joanne McCartney AM: I think all my questions have been addressed but I do have one and that is to the supermarkets. You obviously take great care on your supplier chain, looking at where your products come from. We have heard that products that you cannot recycle are shipped abroad. Do you do that same level of checks in your investigation?
Joe Kerr (Regional Manager for London, Co-op Food): There is a team that is very, very close to that, like I said. We are very clear on how our waste is managed. I would suggest that we are probably at the very forefront of that, to be honest. I have a high level of confidence in that. I do not have any examples of that.
Joanne McCartney AM: You do check?
Joe Kerr (Regional Manager for London, Co-op Food): Yes.
Joanne McCartney AM: I know here if we are getting rid of household rubbish we are told we can still be liable if that ends up in a fly tip somewhere else. Are there the same obligations, particularly if you are sending it abroad?
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): From our point of view we have just reviewed all of the back-of-store closed loop. Everything that comes into our stores - I am sure it is the same as yours where you have distribution going into stores daily - we pick up from the store, plastic waste and cardboard or paper waste. That is a closed loop, basically. We have just signed a new contract to make sure we know exactly where that is going to and what waste streams it is going into.
Page 93
With some of it - certainly the flexible side - what we will be doing is diverting that into multi-use plastic post-consumer-use bags and that kind of thing. That is a trend. We see that coming back. It is a long-lasting plastic reusable system that we would then keep going. Not of single-use plastic, of course. We are dead against that.
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): Just very quickly, as a recycling and waste service provider to both big businesses and local authorities, wherever we export material we will do an audit on the end destination reprocessing or remanufacturing. Indeed, we have taken clients out to China and to Vietnam where we use far east markets, as well as to the facilities that we process in the UK to make sure that there is that traceability of every single tonne of material captured.
Shaun Bailey AM: I want to ask a small question about refillable. You talked about how in Germany that they refill milk and so on. How does that behaviour change? Is it popular? Is it economically viable for the supermarkets involved?
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): I have not seen it personally. It is just starting, I think, in some of the retailers in Germany and it is early days. We need to look at that as part of a long-term plan for milk. I am not sure it will take off dramatically but we will watch it and see. Again, with Ekoplaza in Holland, we will also be watching what happens with the water-refill system and how much that is doing in terms of use. I cannot answer how well it is working in Germany at the moment. It is the kind of thing we need to find out.
It is one of many. Home deliveries for milk in glass bottles are increasing, which is interesting because that is historic for some of us who can remember that. It is a trend. Maybe that will also have an impact. Some of the milk people are thinking of building new factories in this country as well and are consulting on which direction to take the overall packaging solutions in the future. It could be there is a balance between refill and other containers and home delivery.
Shaun Bailey AM: Libby, do you want to comment?
Libby Peake (Senior Policy Adviser, The Green Alliance): I would just observe that the long-term trend, not only in the UK but in other European countries, is to move away from refillable packaging. I know that WRAP did some studies in the UK a few years ago, maybe about eight years ago, looking at trying to increase refillable packaging. It did not really take off, it did not go anywhere, but I think it is possible now, with the public mood shifting, that people might be more receptive to it. There are certainly going to be challenges in getting the level of behaviour change that is needed.
Shaun Bailey AM: I only ask because milk and liquid strikes me as something that we are closer to doing. I am much happier to refill my water bottle or my milk bottle. It strikes me that level of change could drive change down the line with things that are slightly more difficult to envisage people refilling. That is why I asked the question.
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): I will give you an example where certainly within our household it works in terms of a refillable product, and that is in the bathroom: soaps, detergents, shower gels, things like that. You can buy it in bulk and you can put it in a container that is safe to use in your shower. It is possible, but you are right to say it does require a mind shift.
Alice Ellison (Environment Policy Adviser, British Retail Consortium): And storage, which Londoners do not have. Page 94
Shaun Bailey AM: I just say it because it feels more possible. I ask the supermarkets as well, because there are questions around it, “Is it more profitable for you? Is it space-saving for you? What are the hygiene issues for you having to refill?” and those kinds of things. Are those things being looked at? You suggest they are.
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): When I was presenting in front of all of our suppliers, it was one of the things that was unknown. “We do not know what will happen but here are examples of what is already happening.” We have not done a full commercial evaluation of that. I am sure we will and I am sure you will do it as well and maybe other retailers have done more work on it. Obviously, even with a DRS, for example, there are hygiene issues associated with that. That is why for the smaller stores, for example, it is going to be a big challenge if you put that inside the store rather than sharing it with a space outside of it.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): What percentage of waste goes back into the manufacturing process?
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): That is a very broad question and it depends on what waste stream we are talking about. Overall, the local authority recycling rate in England at the moment is about 45% or 46%.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): A fresh product will absorb 45% of waste?
Richard Parker (Head of Sustainable Packaging, Iceland): If you come to plastics there are already formats on the market that have virtually 100% recyclable content that are being used in contact with liquids. It is possible to go back. Obviously, there are regulations around that, tight regulations, to make sure there is no risk.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): Hygiene.
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): Often arbitrary regulations. The Food Standard Authority requirements on food-based packaging is that 95% of the recycled content has to have come from other food-based packaging. Scientifically that does not make any sense. We again need to look at those standards if we are really going to encourage the rate of recycled content in the range of products that people use.
Janice Morley (Homes and Property Editor, Evening Standard): There could be tremendous progress made in closing that loop?
Dan Cooke (Regulatory Affairs Director, Viridor): There could be in that area, yes.
Barry Turner (Group Director, British Plastics Federation): Again, lots of brands have targets to increase their recycled content. It is already happening.
Shaun Bailey AM: That is me done, Chair.
Leonie Cooper AM (Chair): We have covered a really interesting range of issues this morning. Libby referring to the change in consciousness is a really good point. From the time when we first talked about
Page 95 plastics at our Committee meeting last February [2017] the public consciousness on this issue has massively changed. The Evening Standard has obviously been part of making that happen for Londoners.
It is now possible, if you are vegetarian and live in London, to have a box of fruit and vegetables delivered to you with packaging that you then send back the following week through one of these fruit and vegetable companies, and then have your milk delivered from your local milk delivery company and then send that bottle back to be refilled with milk the next time. There may be some people who have already pretty much cut all of the plastic packaging out. However, for those who have not, the message I have taken from what we have just been saying is in general, wherever possible, let’s use less plastic. That means individually but also from manufacturers and retailers. Wherever we are using it, let’s have fewer types so that it is simpler. Let’s have some great labelling that should probably be mandatory so that when people are using plastic they know what to do with it and it can be segregated more easily, which increases its value.
We still need more innovation in this space, I think we were also saying, particularly around supply chains. We have just had that interesting debate about deposit return, the interface with the arrangements that we have at the moment and how that fits together with recycling but also the issues around value. It is having better disposal systems that we understand that do not mean Londoners have to have 27 different boxes in their flat to try to do the segregation at home. There is the on-street segregation and the supermarket segregation that will then help Dan and his colleagues in that part of the business do the good work further down the chain, probably making sure that we do not end up with things being exported, partly because places like China are saying, “We do not want your mucky old plastic anyway any more”, and also because - I think Libby was making this point - we are not quite sure sometimes that it may not end up in the wrong place. Our straws that we think we have done something good with are the ones we have just seen David Attenborough filming up the turtle’s nose.
There are a lot of really, really interesting messages that come together there. Thank you so much for your contribution.
Page 96 Agenda Item 7
Subject: Summary List of Actions
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 23 May 2018
This report will be considered in public.
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out details of completed and ongoing actions arising from previous meetings of the Environment Committee.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee notes the completed and outstanding actions arising from its previous meetings.
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 15 March 2018 Minute Topic Status Number 4. Mid-term Review Ongoing Deputy Mayor for During the course of the discussion, members requested Environment and the following information: Energy Details about the decentralised energy from waste heat projects that the Mayor was supporting, once those projects were in contract; and A pan-London aircraft noise map once it is available. Ongoing Scrutiny Manager The Committee delegated authority to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members to agree any outputs arising from the discussion. 5. Plastics Ongoing Scrutiny Manager The Committee delegated authority to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members to agree any outputs arising from the discussion.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 97
6. Environment Committee Work Programme Completed – Scrutiny Officer That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation See Agenda with party Group Lead Members, to: Item 8. Agree a provisional work programme for the first part of 2018/19, which will be subject to formal agreement by the Committee at its first meeting of the new Assembly year; Arrange for any site visits, informal meetings or engagement activities before the Committee’s next formal meeting; and Agree the topic, terms of reference and scope for the Committee’s first provisional meeting of 2018/19 Assembly year.
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 21 February 2018 Minute Topic Status Number 5. Water Issues During the course of the discussion, Members requested Director, City to Sea the following additional information: Completed – Attached as The percentage of the current sanitary protection market which are reusable; Appendix The Director of 1. External Affairs and A list by boroughs of blockages of fats, oils and Ongoing – Sustainability, greases in London; Requests Thames Water to Thames Waters estimate of London’s current sent on provide population and the process used to generate the 6 March figure; and 2018
Further information on the assessed household charge offered by Thames Water for residents that are unable to have a water meter fit in their property.
Completed – Scrutiny Manager The Committee delegated authority to the Chair, Leonie See Agenda Cooper AM, in consultation party Group Lead Members to agree any outputs arising from the discussion. Item 8.
Page 98
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 17 January 2018 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 5. Electric Vehicle Charging That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation Ongoing. Scrutiny Manager with Party Group Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion. 6. Draft London Plan Ongoing Deputy Mayor for During the course of the discussion, Members requested Planning, the following additional information: Regeneration and Skills A map of London to show where people are more than 800 metres away from a town centre; The relationship between the biodiversity action plans, the supplementary planning guidance and the overall strategy in the London Plan; and Further details on whether Sections 2.18(C) and 1.18(D) of the old London Plan are fully covered and protected by new policy areas: G6(B)(2), G3(C) and G4(B) of the London Plan.
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 7 December 2017 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 6. Waste Management Completed – Scrutiny Manager That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation See Agenda with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output Item 8. from the discussion.
7. Particulate Air Pollution Ongoing. Scrutiny Manager That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion.
3. Legal Implications
3.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report.
4. Financial Implications
4.1 There are no financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.
Page 99
List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1- Unflushables Report 2017/18
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None
Contact Officer: Clare Bryant, Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4616 Email: [email protected]
Page 100 Appendix 1
UNFLUSHABLES REPORT 2017/18
A NATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO REDUCE THE NUMBER
Page 101 Page OF WIPES AND MENSTRUAL WASTE FLUSHED
RUN BY CITY TO SEA CONTENTS
1.Executive Summary 3 2. Introduction 5 3. Methodology 7 4. Results 11 5. Discussion 31 Page 102 Page 6. Recommendations 36 7. Conclusion 38 8. References 39
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 2 of 39 Executive Summary
Objectives of City to Sea’s Unflushables Campaign
1. Embark on new communication and behavioural change strategies to reduce the number of people (adults, teens and children) flushing wipes and menstrual products.
2. Escalate the flushing and plastic pollution debate with retailers and manufacturers so they consider this issue under their CSR/sustainability remits.
3. Lobby retailers, manufacturers, trade organisations for better ‘do not flush’ labelling on all menstrual products and personal care products. Page 103 Page 4. Encourage retailers, manufacturers, trade organisations to take action for them to educate their consumers on correct menstrual waste disposal.
5. Campaign for consumers to add their voice to the debate and buy plastic free alternatives while also pledging to commit to the ‘3ps’ behaviour.
6. Work with 3rd party influencers to encourage change.
Conclusions
Throughout 2017, City to Sea has been working with UK Water Companies via the 21st Century Drainage Programme to deliver a National Campaign to Reduce the Number of Wipes and Sanitary Waste Flushed. We’ve delivered on time and to budget whilst exceeding our outreach targets by 1200%.
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 3 of 39 Benefits
City to Sea is a non-profit organisation running campaigns to prevent marine plastic pollution at source. By engaging individuals, working with retailers and lobbying manufacturers and government we're reversing the trend for disposable items in order to safeguard our seas for the future. Flushed plastics make up around 7% of beach litter in the UK [1], and that figure keeps on climbing each year.
Here at City to Sea we’re helping to reverse that trend by creating content and campaigns that nudge people to only flush the #3Ps, inspire people to switch to reusable menstrual products and ensure pressure is put on manufacturers where needed to meet Water Industry Specifications.
Financial benefits: reduced costs of avoidable sewer and pump blockages, flooding and pollution incidents, costs to landfill, reduced ODI fines –totalling £50 million+ cost reduction p.a.
Political: demonstrating water companies’ commitment to action under the microbeads/microplastics ban consultation. Page 104 Page Environmental: reduced risk of plastics fibres from flushed plastics (cotton buds, sanitary waste and wipes) entering sludge, river and marine environments and human food chain.
Reputational: Water companies’ reputational enhancement as a result of supporting an environmental campaign to reduce marine/river litter and plastic pollution.
Action: Unbiased method of facilitating consumer power and encouraging customers to connect their flushing actions to the impacts on the receiving environments.
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 4 of 39 2. Introduction
Here in the UK, millions of people are flushing single-use plastic down the toilet in the form of wipes, menstrual products and other bathroom products like cotton buds and tooth-flossers. With a growing population and growth in the number of products likely to be flushed, we are witnessing an increasing threat to the sewerage network.
This increasing inappropriate disposal leads to blockages in the sewerage system which can in turn lead to the flooding of homes and polluting water courses and the local environment.
A network that is designed to protect public heath is becoming just another bin. This worrying trend needs to stop - and it's easy for everyone to change their flushing behaviour.. Page 105 Page
£88 million per year spent by UK water companies on sewer blockages
366,000 sewer blockages per year
80% are avoidable, caused by people flushing items & fats etc
20% unavoidable, caused by tree roots, heavy rain defects in pipes etc
Of course it’s not just blockages, but when permitted sewage overflows occur due to heavy rainfall items - commonly plastic - end up in our rivers, beaches and in the ocean.
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 5 of 39 Our research, combined with the Project Steering Group's (PSG) previous DNF campaign findings, shows that the primary reason people are flushing wipes, menstrual items, etc is lack of awareness. The PSG's ultimate, unified wish is for more people to stop flushing anything other than the 3Ps down the loo. Our remit for this campaign, therefore, was to continue to land the 3Ps message with as wide an audience as possible, and help more people understand why they should stop flushing wipes and sanitary products.
The main cause of sewer blockages, sewer flooding incidents and pollution incidents is as a result of unflushables in the sewer network. Furthermore, Marine Plastic Pollution is a topical, shareable and shocking subject. As experts in this field, we were able to use our platform and partnerships to convey a fresh 'why' – because flushed plastic contributes to the pollution of our rivers and seas, harms wildlife and ends up back in our food chain. Though our platform we are:
Bringing a fresh perspective for media
Able to engage with new audience
Page 106 Page Working with young people - educate message before flushing becomes habit
Reaching females who are engaged with green and ocean issues who are …
Often still flushers, active and ready for change
Engaging a large network of campaigners and influencers
Communicating with a large mailing list
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 6 of 39 3. Methodology
Through our campaigning platform City to Sea was contracted to deliver a 12 month campaign with our stakeholders targeting public (consumers), retailers and manufacturers and influence policy change. There were two threads to the campaign –
1) wipes Page 107 Page 2) disposable menstrual products, these followed the same process of:
Phase 1 - Agree focus area with stakeholders (e.g. labelling/pledges/product design) Devise campaign strategy & deliverables.
Phase 2 - Initiate campaign: films, consumer petition, lobbying retailers and/or manufacturers, TV/Press, competitions, events.
An initial eight 'engagement activities' (x4 wipes, x4 menstrual items) will be agreed on based on Phase 1 research.
Phase 3 - Project Report & Workshop.
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 7 of 39 #dontbelievethewipe / #3Ps
As set out in the project resumé, and detailed in 'Campaign Strategy Document 1', our campaign would deliver a minimum of four engagement activities designed to reach specific audiences who've been identified as those responsible for flushing 'the dirty dozen'.
Through consumer-focused films, press and social media images, the campaign goal was to inform, inspire and involve in excess of 100,000 people with the 3Ps message and bring about lasting change by asking manufacturers to take responsibility for the waste they are creating.
City to Sea’s upbeat and to-the-point videos are social media sensations. Nobody would flush plastic bags down the loo, so why feminine care products? Page 108 Page
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 8 of 39 Periods: The Facts – An Unbiased Education for Female Teens
A schools-based campaign to empower young women to make positive and informed menstruation choices. The objective was to raise awareness of flushing, the environmental impact of traditional products, and of their alternatives.
Currently schools are not required to educate about periods, and a third of girls are not told about periods by their parents. Page 109 Page By September 2019 regulations are coming into effect requiring PSHE (Personal, Social, Health and Economic education) to be taught in all schools in England. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland this PSE or Health and Wellbeing education is also either compulsory or recommended. Schools will have flexibility over how they develop these subjects. This presents a fantastic opportunity to reach girls, who may have otherwise had no (or biased – Proctor & Gamble schools programme for example) education with regards to their periods and correct sanitary disposal.
As part of the education programme, Period Power will take students on a journey through the drainage systems and explain how and why sanitary items can get into our waterways and seas, through blockages and in heavy storms through permitted CSO’s (storm outlets). This highlights the impacts locally for students. It will look at landfill from water treatment centres to highlight waste to landfill. Following this, it will highlight issues with the chemicals used in most sanitary products and the effects it has on fishery stocks and the water itself.
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 9 of 39 This will show them how their actions affect environments which are familiar to them, as well as ones that aren’t. The targeted age groups have a heightened sense of environmental responsibility, and this helps to remind them of why it is important to know their options.
The new messaging and topics raised in the lessons intersect at a key time when students often learn flushing habits of menstrual products from parents or guardians. Instead students themselves are learning the importance of DO NOT FLUSH which is often fed back to family members!
As part of Periods: The Facts we will also be engaging with Proctor & Gamble (Always/Tampax) and Li-Lets and the NHS to help them adopt greater emphasis on DNF in their educational programmes. Page 110 Page
We ran both campaigns simultaneously.
#dontbelievethewipe served to leverage the current interest in marine plastic pollution to land the 3Ps message to a new and engaged audience.
Periods: The Facts is forming the 'Do Not Flush' educational platform for a 'hard to reach' audience and provide the long-term, sustainable impact of less disposable menstrual products being flushed.
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 10 of 39 4. Results
Our campaign was delivered on time and to budget whilst exceeding our outreach targets by 1200%. Page 111 Page
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 11 of 39 4. Results
Since the launch of our first engagement activity in June 2017 we've reached almost eight million people, with three million of those receiving the #3Ps message, via playful, punchy, timely and accessible pieces of digital content. Our most responsive audience has been females aged 30-45.
Our schools pilot is being rolled out across 22 schools and has reached over 6000 young people.
ADDITIONAL TOTAL TOTAL OMB TOTAL #3Ps TOTAL FILM VIEWS TOTAL PUPILS ENGAGEMENTS IN TOTAL REACH SCHOOLS VIEWS REACH PERSON Page 112 Page
3,351,843 22 6,000 125,000 7,000 3,000,000 7,800,500
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 12 of 39 Engagement activity 1
Milestone: D Date: 8th June 2017
Type: Film
Title: Don’t Believe The Wipe Page 113 Page
PLATFORM TARGET ACTUAL
REACTIONS REACH VIEWS SHARES / RTs & COMMENTS
Facebook 45,000 895,652 429,479 10,702 9523
You Tube 10,000 12,690
Twitter n/a 35,765 5811 123 172
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 13 of 39 Engagement activity 3
Milestone: F Date: 24th July 2017
Type: Film
Title: Plastic-Free Periods?
PLATFORM TARGET ACTUAL
REACTIONS Page 114 Page REACH VIEWS SHARES / RTs & COMMENTS
Facebook 45,000 298,0749 2,724,021 43,926 18,796
You Tube 10,000 10,725
Twitter n/a 32,651 7,866 183 200
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 14 of 39 Engagement activity 3
Milestone: E Date: Jun 17 - Feb 18 Type: Schools Pilot
Title: Periods - The Facts
Initial Focus Group: 24 young people from 11-14 years old Page 115 Page
Lessons suitable for Key Stage 2-5, with two lessons for Key Stage 2: • Menstruation and Me • Menstrual Products The four lessons for Key Stages 3-5 cover: • A recap of menstruation and products • The environmental impacts of products • Myths, taboos and celebrations • Period poverty
The schools also receive a box of reusable and disposable products for pupils to experience in the classroom, plus a leaflet on products and disposal options to take home. This leaflet will also be emailed to parents by teachers.
Schools Reached: • 22 Schools including a Catholic all-girls School and one all-boys school • Teachers plan to trial lessons from Yrs 5-13 in tutor groups, PSHE and Health & Social Care lessons • 1 team of school nurses and 1 Youth Service team will be utilising the boxes and lesson plans in small groups. • 26 Boxes in total • Leaflets sent for circa 6000 pupils to take home
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 15 of 39 Periods: The Facts. Why Did We Focus on Menstruation Education?
The average menstruator will spend about 3,500 days having a period, which equates to 11,000-15,000 disposable products. (AMPHA) The majority of menstruators (59%) dispose of products in the bin, however those that flush down the loo cause issues down the chain. (Anglian Water)
80% of sewer flooding incidents are caused by blocked sewers- caused by people flushing tampons, applicators, pads, wipes or pouring fats, oils and grease down the sink which causes damage to houses as well as river and sea pollution. (Anglian Water).
These are caused by: • period shame • disgust at blood and menstrual products / hygiene reasons • lack of awareness • toilet being seen as the second bin.
“I’ve got a young child and I wouldn’t want him finding something like that in the bin” (Falp & le Masurier, 3.9, 2008)
In order to address this shame the discourse around periods needs to change, and one of the easiest places to start is at school.
Product 116 Page companies have recognised the power of giving free products in schools since the 1930’s as creating brand allegiance so this is a key point to update education and change the way periods are talked about.
Furthermore, changing this would be beneficial to pupils and of interest to schools because:
o Almost half are embarrassed by their periods o Less than a quarter (24%) feel comfortable discussing their period with their male friends o Under a third (29%) feel comfortable discussing their period with their fathers o Four fifths (82 per cent) admitted they have hidden or concealed their menstrual products o Almost three quarters (71%) admitted that they have felt embarrassed buying menstrual products PLAN UK Survey of 1000 menstruators from 14-21 yrs old (Nov 2017)
From our ‘Periods. The Facts.’ leaflet.
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 16 of 39 Periods: The Facts. How did we approach it?
We provided a comprehensive range of lesson plans covering all of the aspects of menstrual education from biology, environment, taboos and period poverty for KS2-KS5 and invited schools in the Anglian Water region to join the pilot:
• 152 school PSHE leads emailed and mailed • 2 schools hosted training sessions • Pitched at a PSHE teachers meeting in Colchester •
Page 117 Page Referral email sent through Healthy Schools Colchester • Sent out a ‘Show and Tell’ box of an unbiased range of disposable and reusable menstrual products for pupils to touch and ask questions about • Sent out leaflets for each pupil to have and parents to receive via email • Awaiting feedback from pupils and teachers after each lesson and for parents via the leaflet email
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 17 of 39 Periods: The Facts. What did we learn?
“These resources are perfect- I have my whole terms lessons planned out now as these include everything. They provide me with current up-do-date thinking that I can include in PSHE lessons and tutorials. Our school is looking forward to using the box and lessons for years 7-8 as well as years 12-13 Health and Social Care”
The pilot is just underway currently so it is too early to give full conclusions. However from the teacher training sessions and feedback, these things can be understood:
1. PSHE teachers are very busy and cover a huge range of lessons so providing everything they need makes the resources more attractive. 2. The problem of plastics is a current topic in schools 3. The resources and topics were relevant for wider applications than just PSHE- so the reach can be even wider e.g. Health and social care lessons, school nurses, the Youth Service. 4. Teachers (female and male alike) really enjoyed learning about the reusable options and asked relevant questions 5. Biology aspects are taught at fixed times through the year e.g. Yr 5 & 6 at end of summer term after SATS before secondary school, Yr 7 start of new term, 6. Schools value ‘experts’ going in to help them with delivering lessons but have limited budgets these days Page 118 Page
“Plan International UK is calling for the new Relationships and Sex Education curriculum – currently under consultation and due to be rolled out in September 2019 – to incorporate lessons which teach girls and boys, together, about the physical, personal and social aspects of menstruation” (Nov 2017)
From our ‘Periods. The Facts.’ leaflet.
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 18 of 39 Periods: The Facts. What are the benefits and how can we continue?
In considering the nationwide rollout, these things need to be considered around having maximum impact and making the resources as desirable as possible for teachers to use:
Boxes: • How branded- Water UK or individual water companies? • How distributed- centrally or regionally? • How stocked- important to remain unbiased with a range of products from different organisations? Page 119 Page Lesson plans:
• PSHE Association ‘quality mark’ for wider reach and authority? • Where located? Central website so organic take-up as well as targeted communications? • Uploaded on to other places such as TES (where teachers look?)
Outreach • Nationally co-ordinated engagement campaign- letters and emails? • Local ambassadors to train teachers and go into lessons if required? This could potentially be integrated with local ambassador/ regional co-ordinator roles for Refill. • Other local charities e.g. WEN are also offering outreach in this area
Who leads? • City to Sea as a non-profit can get preferential rates for menstrual product resources and can network with other non-profit organisations and schools • Water companies can share through their education departments?
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 19 of 39 NON-APPLICATOR APPLICATOR TAMPONS ORGANIC TAMPONS MENSTRUAL CUPS TAMPONS
DISPOSABLE PAD ORGANIC REUSABLE PAD PANTS MATERIALS • Bleached cotton or • Bleached cotton or • Organic unbleached • Medical grade DISPOSABLE PAD (see table over) viscose with a thin viscose cotton silicon or latex
cover of polyester • Plastic or paper • Bioplastic wrappers • TPE-plastic MATERIALS • Plastic • Organic cotton • Cotton & synthetic • Synthetic • Plastic wrappers • Cardboard applicator (Not recommended) (see below for more • Synthetic materials • Bioplastics fabrics information) • Wood pulp EASY TO USE Requires more Applicator helps Applicator helps Requires some practice EASY TO USE Yes Yes Yes Yes practice than with insertion with insertion applicator tampons HOW TO WEAR Stick the adhesive strips Stick the adhesive strips The wings have They replace to underwear to underwear poppers that underwear HOW TO WEAR Worn internally Worn internally Worn internally Worn internally ft around underwear THICKNESS/FLOW Various sizes/suitable for Various sizes/suitable for Various sizes/suitable for One cup suitable THICKNESS/FLOW Various thicknesses/ Various thicknesses/ Various thicknesses/ Hold between 1-4 regular different fow different fow different fow for all fows suitable for different fow suitable for different fow suitable for different fow tampons of blood COSTS 23p-£3 £2-£5 depending £4-£6 or you can also make £10-£25 COSTS 75p-£3.50 a pack 89p-£3.50 a pack £2.80-£3.50 pack £15-25 each (guidance only) depends on packet size on pack size your own for a few pounds Initial high cost but saves (guidance only) depending on quantity depending on quantity depending on quantity and if branded money over the years HOW MANY TIMES Once Once 100s, 100s, HOW MANY TIMES Once Once Once 100s, CAN I WEAR IT? wash after every use wash after every use CAN I WEAR IT? it will last up to 10 years Page 120 Page WHERE TO BUY Supermarkets, chemists, Chemists and online shops Online shops, Online shops WHERE TO BUY Supermarkets, chemists, Supermarkets, chemists, Online shops, Online shops, online shops, machine in or make your own online shops, machine in online shops, machine in chemists, some chemists, public toilets (instructions online) public toilets public toilets health food shops, health food shops, some supermarkets some supermarkets WHAT TO DO Fold and dispose of in the Fold and dispose of in the Wash and reuse. Wash and reuse. AFTER USE bin. Never fush bin or home compost. Put in a wet bag if Put in a wet bag if Never fush changed away from home changed away from home WHAT TO DO Wrap in toilet paper and Wrap in toilet paper and Wrap in toilet paper and Rinse or wipe after AFTER USE dispose of in a bin. dispose in the bin. dispose in the bin or emptying. Sterilise with PLASTIC & SYNTHETIC MATERIALS & FABRICS PLANT-BASED FABRIC & BIOPLASTICS Never fush Never fush tampons home compost. boiling water after • Derived from oil and plastic bases which can be made into a range of • Derived from plant and wood crops or applicators Never fush each cycle waterproof, thin and hard-wearing fabrics and materials • Often chemical free although natural materials like cotton are • Chemicals are required to make materials processed with chemicals unless organic • Cheap to produce so generally cheaper to buy
NON-ORGANIC COTTON ORGANIC COTTON • Cheaper to produce • More expensive to produce • Cotton production uses more pesticides & insecticides than any • Organic cotton grown without chemical pesticides & fertilisers so other single crop each year (this is for all cotton products, not just better for the soil, water, air and workers menstrual products) 1 • Reduces water usage and improves water quality • Workers health is affected by the chemicals • Organic certifcation stipulates worker’s rights & factory conditions • Farmers face uncertain prices for crops • Increases the income of smallholder farmers
MEDICAL GRADE SILICONE LATEX • Made from quartz and sandstone • Produced from the sap collected from rubber trees • Tested and approved for use inside the body, including implants, • Some people may be allergic to latex medical devices and menstrual cups
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 20 of 39 Engagement activity 4
Milestone: F Date: 6th November 2017
Type: Schools Educational Film
Title: Periods - The Facts Page 121 Page
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 21 of 39 Engagement activity 5
Milestone: H Date: 18th September 2017
Type: Film
Title: Dirty Flushing
PLATFORM TARGET ACTUAL
REACTIONS Page 122 Page REACH VIEWS SHARES / RTs & COMMENTS
Facebook 45,000 895,652 66,322 10,702 9523
You Tube 10,000 11,481
Twitter n/a 35,765 5811 123 172
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 22 of 39 Engagement activity 6
Milestone: I Date: 24th November 2017
Type: Influencers
Page 123 Page Title: Laura Tott, Cici Coleman, Precious Stars
PLATFORM TARGET ACTUAL
Influencer Followers Likes / views comments
Instagram 74,000 Laura Tott 69,200 2,223 21 followers
Instagram 75,000 Ci Ci Coleman 69,200 1,379 10 followers
You Tube n/a Precious Stars Pads 118,753 4,700 251
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 23 of 39 Engagement activity 7
Milestone: J Date: 19th November 2017
Type: Film for World Toilet Day
Title: Plastic Pollution From Toilets?
PLATFORM TARGET ACTUAL Page 124 Page REACTIONS REACH VIEWS SHARES / RTs & COMMENTS
Facebook 45,000 163267 56,597 1613 1249
You Tube 10,000 12,237
Twitter n/a 12635 2592 87 109
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 24 of 39 Engagement activity 8
Milestone: K Date: 19 December 2017
Type: TEDx Bristol - Film / Talk
Title: Why Plastic Pollution Is Personal Page 125 Page
PLATFORM TARGET ACTUAL
REACTIONS REACH VIEWS SHARES / RTs & COMMENTS
You Tube 10,042
Twitter 10,998 n/a 36
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 25 of 39 Summary of video viewing figures by platform (page 1 of 2)
Release Film Reach Reactions Views Shares Comments date Top Audience Women % Men % Age group Don't Believe the Wipe 07/06/2017 895,652 10,702 429,479 9,523 2142 64 34 33 - 44 Plastic-Free Page 126 Page Periods? 24/07/2017 2,980,749 43,926 2,724,021 18,796 10833 85 14 25 - 34 Dirty Flushing 19/09/2017 150,467 1271 66,322 631 221 75 22 35 - 44 Plastic Pollution from Toilets? 16/11/2017 163,267 1,613 56,597 1,249 145 67 31 35 - 44 average average average TOTAL 4,190,135 46,810 3,276,419 30,199 13341 72.75% 25.25% 33 - 44 yrs
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 26 of 39 Summary of video viewing figures by platform (page 2 of 2)
Film Release Date Impressions Views Retweets Likes Page 127 Page Don't Believe the Wipe 07/06/2017 36,210 6,387 172 123 Plastic-Free Periods? 24/07/2017 32,651 7,914 200 183 Dirty Flushing 19/09/2017 10,411 2,217 45 61 Plastic Pollution from Toilets? 16/11/2017 12,635 3,321 109 87 TEDx 19/12/2017 10,998 n/a 117 320 TOTAL 102,905 18,486 526 454
YouTube
Film Release Date Views Don't Believe the Wipe 07/06/2017 12,690 Plastic-Free Periods? 24/07/2017 10,725 Dirty Flushing 19/09/2017 11,481 Plastic Pollution from Toilets? 16/11/2017 12,000 TEDx 19/12/2017 10,042 TOTAL 56,938
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 27 of 39 Additional Engagement Activities
All of the following public engagement activities we arranged, delivered and shared on social media were in addition to the commissioned work. Engaging audiences first hand with the concept and messaging of Unflushables and #3Ps.
Steppes Travel - presentation Royal Geographic Society - presentation 7,000 + PEOPLE Festival of Nature - film screenings DIRECT Shextreme - panel discussion Bath Spa University - presentation FACE TO FACE UWE - film screenings ADDITIONAL Seed Festival -presentation ENGAGEMENT! Fieldview Festival - full display and engagement Greenpeace scientific research trip Transition Clevedon We The Curious - large outdoor screenings Wildscreen - large outdoor screenings Page 128 Page
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 28 of 39 Media Reach Page 129 Page
“City to Sea’s upbeat and to-the-point videos are social media sensations. Nobody would flush plastic bags down the loo, so why feminine care products?”
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 29 of 39 One Minute Briefs
City to Sea worked with designers on the One Minute Brief platform.
Freelance graphic designers from around the UK spent their lunch breaks creating some shareable content on the theme of Unflushables; bringing the #3Ps to life with unique contemporary, funny and edgy designs. Reaching over 105,000 social media users. Page 130 Page
PLATFORM TARGET ACTUAL
REACTIONS REACH SHARES / RTs & COMMENTS Facebook n/a 42,513 616 231
Twitter n/a 82,530 297 219
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 30 of 39 5 Discussion
Common attitudes and behaviours of people that we know about around flushing and environmental concerns [2]:
TGI analysis of wipes and san-pro consumers identified two key groups: mums aged 25-34 with babies and toddlers mums aged 35-45 with teenage daughters engaged through 6 focus groups and 1-1 interviews with teenage girls and mums
Page 131 Page Levels of concern depend on:
Responsibility Home-owners far more concerned than renters Teens completely detached from the issue Lack of personal responsibility drives more flushing out of home
Experience Those who have had problems with blocked drains far more conscious of their behaviour Most tried quick fixes – sticks, hangers, plungers, boiling water in the first instance, then called Dyno-rod
Who are the heaviest flushers? C2DE mums: Rented housing rely on landlords or the council to resolve any blockages should they arise Lower sense of responsibility No fear of consequence
Teenage girls: Lack knowledge and experience Embarrassed at using san-pro Unsure what to do Too much hassle to wrap and bin menstural products CBA -"dad will sort it out"
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 31 of 39 Beliefs and Barriers to people flushing vs using a bin:
“We didn’t know there was a problem”
”It’s easier putting it down the loo” ”There isn’t a bag to put tampons in”
”It’s more hygienic to flush” ”I don’t want to risk my family seeing this in the bin”
”I don’t know what happens once I flush it” ”It’s someone else’s problem once it’s round the bend”
”We don’t have a bin in the toilet” ”The wipes say they are flushable”
”I’ve always done it; it’s a habit”
Page 132 Page ”It’s more hygienic to flush”
”Tampons are small so they can go through the pipes” ”Some of the products say flushable”
”I don’t believe it’ll cause a blockage” ”Everyone does it”
”My mum taught me to put it down the loo” ”Wipes are just like toilet paper” [2]
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 32 of 39 Emerging Insights to Flushing Behaviours Through Unflushables 2017
We noticed a high volume of comments regarding tampons – very few people seemed to know or think this could cause a problem. Not contributing to plastic pollution seemed to be a highly motivating factor to changing behaviour which we attribute to our campaign having used the following Anglian Water Behavioural Change principles:
A known and trusted messenger (City to Sea) Claire Sumners I stopped using products ages ago! What I did Grabbing attention, giving facts, focusing on the here and now was send your film to convince Page 133 Page friends of mine to use Appealing to the heart as well as the head mooncups....it's worked!!
Showing that other like minded people are doing it (and maybe create ways to link people)
Asking for a small commitment and build (DNF / Switch to Reusables) Catherine Jones I'm using a mooncup for the first time this Making it easy to act (Two bins / DNF / Listing Alternative Products) month and am a convert.
Using communications channels that are at the right time in the right place
Creating momentum and keep target audience in touch with progress Bee Bushell I got a moon-cup after watching this video and I haven't gone back to tampons. Adapting to social media trends
Helena Howells Jones Definitely made me Hazel Morfett Yes definitely, thinking about the Jane Currie Where was this video 17 years ago Amy more aware of the products I use and the way unsustainability of pads and tampons pushed me Leeworthy Sarah Murray Erin Williams Brooke I dispose of them. I now wouldn't dream of over the edge for getting a moon cup, and I couldn't Grayson !!!??? Those poor men who had to put their flushing anything down the toilet! be happier! (so weird but it's soooo much nicer) hands and faces in 100kgs of tampons!
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 33 of 39 What Went Well?
'Plastic-free Periods?’ was by far the most successful of our engagement activities, gaining over 2.4 million views (and still climbing!). We attribute this to many of the above mentioned social marketing principles, it was both daring and funny, but also down to the fact it was a targeted audience (menstruators aged 20-40 and parents of menstruators) and offered a unique angle on the plastic pollution topic.
The film discusses the health implications, as the younger generation teachers the older, appealing to both Mothers and Daughters alike. It also described clearly how people can save money. Being solutions focused, it leaves the viewer empowered, motivated and keen to share. It gave women who already use reusable menstrual products an exciting tool to convince their friends to join them. It did this in a way others organisations would not dare!
What Could Have Gone Better?
We would have liked to be able to measure the reduction in blockages, or conducted general public polling on awareness of the #3Ps to give us a greater sense of impact other than audience reach and reactions.
Also, 134 Page the lack of an agreed UK Water Industry Specification meant we were unable to run a consumer campaign calling on retailers and/or EDANA to meet those guidelines,. This meant we were able to raise awareness but unable to bring about lasting change in terms of labelling or materials used.
This is something City to Sea is well-positioned to do in the future.
It would be good to understand why there wasn't as much take up and sharing of the one-minutes briefs by water companies as we would have expected. Is there something we could do better?'
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 34 of 39 Changing Attitudes and Behaviours to the Water Cycle
City to Sea is in a unique position, through continuing to leverage the growing interest in plastic pollution, to encourage everyone to value water.
Plastic pollution give us a way to connect people to the water cycle – through what they flush and through what they wash down the sinks and by coming from us (a trusted voice / non-corporate) the message is received in a peer-to-peer way instead of 'water companies telling us what to do'.
BBC's Blue Planet II (December 2017) has further increased interest in the subject and the door (to behaviour change) is wide open for us to enter with suggestions on how our personal actions can make a difference. So ensuring water is returned safely through the network, through pumps and back to the treatment works to be treated and returned to the environment – free from disposable wipes or menstrual products or microplastics. Page 135 Page We can tell the story that as people we are only ‘borrowing’ water from nature and then returning it.
It’s worth noting and flagging that many ‘flushable’ wipes (or moist toilet tissues as they should be referred to so as to differentiate between wet wipes and flushable wipes) specify ‘one wipe per flush’ on the back of pack, in very small letters. This indicates that the manufacturers are aware of the problem of blockages and raises the issue of obscene amounts of water wastage if an average of five wipes are being used per person, per poo!
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 35 of 39 6. Recommendations
There’s a lot more work to be done. Building on our successes, honing our messaging and building on what worked, we’d like to continue helping Water UK members to reduce the amount of non-biodegradable waste being incorrectly flushed into the UK’s sewer system.
City to Sea has established itself as a trusted voice on the subject of Unflushables. We’ve reached over four million people though our films alone in 2017, however we want to do more to drive lasting behaviour change. We believe an ongoing partnership with Water UK & the UK’s Water Companies can support us in our goals to:
Encourage people to stop flushing baby wipes Continue to land the 3Ps messaging nationally
Pressure baby wipe manufacturers to list the ingredients of the substrate / weave & have clearer DNF labelling Inspire women to switch to reusable menstrual products
Drive retailer support for removing plastic from menstrual products & add clearer DNF labelling on packs Educate people to have 2 bins in their bathroom (recycling and waste) Page 136 Page [Establish links and work with other influential national stakeholders to raise awareness on the 3Ps messaging eg Leisure providers, NCT, AMPHA, WEN, etc etc]
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 36 of 39 Options available to us for measuring lasting impact for future campaign strands:
Reduced number of sewer blockages / waste to landfill
Polling / surveying Increased sales in reusable menstrual products
Decline in SRD on beaches Views & engagement statistics Page 137 Page Pledges
We can offer various options for working with us to ensure we leverage the current interest in plastic pollution and our expertise in Unflushables.
From providing regular, shareable content on social media, to creating and producing films with viral potential to working with Influencers, we can ensure the 3Ps / 2-Bin Bathroom messages are embedding in our popular culture and creating new norms when it comes to flushing.
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 37 of 39 7 Conclusion
Since the launch of our first engagement activity in June 2017 we've reached almost eight million people, with three million of those receiving the #3Ps message, via playful, punchy, timely and accessible pieces of digital content. Our most responsive audience has been females aged 30-45.
Our schools pilot is being rolled out across 22 schools and has reached over 6000 young people.
The lack of a consumer campaign to drive lasting industry changes has meant that we've had to rely on views/reach to gauge impact and behaviour change, however the phenomenal response to some of our outputs proves that the messages were on trend, timely and engaging.
We struggled at times to 'stay true' to our key messaging as a plastic pollution campaigning organisation through having to meet steering group criteria around mentioning home-flooding and sewer blockages. As mentioned in the discussion section, we had to 'tone down' some of the content and add messaging and footage we felt restricted the shareability of the final content. This is visible in the results – the films in which we didn't mention plastic pollution or in which we focused more heavily on home flooding and sewer blockages resulted in noticeably fewer views.
Our most impactful output was our 'Plastic-free Periods' film, gaining over 2.7 million views. We attribute this to it being fun and playful; having used many social marketing principles; being targeted to a specific audience (menstruators aged 20-40 and parents of menstruators) whilst offering a practical, solutions-focused and unique angle on the plastic pollution topic. (See page 34)
Whilst 138 Page it seems consumers are engaged with the issue of plastic pollution, an increasing volume of single-use, disposable plastic bathroom products are coming onto the market. Further engagement and outreach is needed to help people understand the relationship between their wastewater and their local and global environments. We suggest a three-pronged approach to this; through reaching school children we're able to ensure future generations have the DNF/3Ps message embedded from a young age and before becoming consumers of menstrual products, through working with retailers and manufacturers we're able to insist on clearer labelling and ensure plastics are not used in any potentially flushable / washable products and through continually raising awareness amongst key target groups we're able to drip-feed DNF/3Ps messaging and continue to nudge behaviour change by showing the trend towards binning over flushing.
Generating a shift from disposable menstrual products towards reusables has a significant role to play, both in terms of reducing blockages/related incidents, overall waste to landfill and in reducing microplastics in the aquatic environment [3]. Prevention at source, by reducing the number of microplastics flushed into the oceans, is the “most viable” option, according to the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC)[4]. As a female-led campaigning organisation, City to Sea can campaign on issues like this – we have the freedom to be vocal, persuasive and personal.
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 38 of 39 8 References
1. Marine Conservation Society, Beachwatch Report, 2016.
2. ’Keep it Clear' Research, Anglian Water, 2017.
3. Period of adjustment: the case for reusable feminine hygiene products, Eunomia Research Consulting, 2017. http://www.isonomia.co.uk/?p=4912
4. MPs urge water firms to help prevent microplastic pollution. Utility Week, August 2016. https://utilityweek.co.uk/mps-urge-water-firms-to-help-prevent-microplastic- pollution/ Page 139 Page
City to Sea CIC 2018 Unflushables Report, Feb 2017 - Feb 2018 Page 39 of 39 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 140 Agenda Item 8
Subject: Action Taken Under Delegated Authority
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 23 May 2018
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out recent action taken by the Chair under delegated authority.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee note the action taken by the Chair under delegated authority, namely to agree, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, the following: An output arising from the Waste Management Investigation; An output arising from the discussion on water issues; and Agree the topic, terms of reference and scope for the Committee’s first meeting of 2018/19 Assembly year.
3. Background
3.1 Under Standing Orders and the Assembly’s Scheme of Delegation, certain decisions by Members can be taken under delegated authority. This report details those actions.
4. Issues for Consideration
4.1 The Environment Committee held three public meetings to hear evidence for their waste management investigation. The three key aspects of the investigation were: waste reduction and the circular economy, household recycling, and energy from waste. The Committee published separate findings reports on each of these topics. These can be found on the London Assembly publications page of the Greater London Authority website.
4.2 On 13 July 2017, the Environment Committee resolved:
That authority be delegated to the Chair in consultation with the Deputy Chair and party Group Lead Members to agree any output arising from discussion [Waste Management – Circular Economy].
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 141
4.3 On 9 November 2018, the Environment Committee resolved:
That authority be delegated to the Chair in consultation with the Deputy Chair and party Group Lead Members to agree any output arising from discussion [Waste Management – Household Recycling].
4.4 On 7 December 2017, the Environment Committee resolved:
That authority be delegated to the Chair in consultation with the Deputy Chair and party Group Lead Members to agree any output arising from discussion [Waste Management – Energy from Waste].
4.5 Following consultation with the party Group Lead Members on 21 March 2018, the Environment Committee’s report Wasting London’s future was published. This has been attached as Appendix 1.
4.6 On 21 February 2018, the Environment Committee resolved:
The Committee delegated authority to the Chair, in consultation party Group Lead Members to agree any outputs arising from the discussion [water issues].
4.7 Following consultation with the party Group Lead Members on 26 March 2018, the Chair sent a letter on behalf of the Committee to the Director of External Affairs and Sustainably, Thames Water. This has been attached as Appendix 2.
4.8 On 15 March 2018, the Environment Committee resolved:
That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to: Agree a provisional work programme for the first part of 2018/19, which will be subject to formal agreement by the Committee at its first meeting of the new Assembly year; Arrange for any site visits, informal meetings or engagement activities before the Committee’s next formal meeting; and Agree the topic, terms of reference and scope for the Committee’s first meeting of 2018/19 Assembly year.
4.9 Following consultation with party Group Lead Members the topic, terms of reference and scope for the Committee’s first meeting of 2018/19 was agreed as Plastics – Nappies and Period Products. More information about the topic is set out at Agenda Item 9.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no direct financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.
Page 142
List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – Wasting London’s future Appendix 2 – Letter to Director of External Affairs and Sustainably, Thames Water
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: Member Delegated Authority Forms 824, 865, 881, 910, 927, 933 Waste: The Circular Economy Waste: Household Recycling Waste: Energy from Waste Contact Officer: Clare Bryant, Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4616 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 143 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 144 Appendix 1
Wasting London’s Future
Environment Committee March 2018 Page 145
Holding the Mayor to account and investigating issues that matter to Londoners
Page 146
Environment Committee Members
Leonie Cooper AM Shaun Bailey AM (Chair) Conservative Labour
Caroline Russell AM David Kurten AM (Deputy Chair) UKIP Green
Joanne McCartney Tony Arbour AM AM Conservative Labour
Jennette Arnold OBE AM Labour
The Environment Committee examines all aspects of the capital’s environment by reviewing the Mayor’s strategies on air quality, water, waste, climate change and energy.
Contact Grace Loseby, Assistant Scrutiny Lisa Lam, External Relations Officer Manager Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Telephone: 020 7983 4299 Telephone: 020 7983 4067
Follow us: @LondonAssembly #AssemblyEnv facebook.com/london.assembly
Page 147
Contents
Foreword ...... 4
Summary ...... 6
Recommendations ...... 7
1. Introduction ...... 10
2. Preventing Waste ...... 12
3. Increasing recycling ...... 16
4. Reducing residual waste ...... 23
5. Energy from waste and benefits from waste disposal ...... 26
Our approach...... 31
References ...... 34
Other formats and languages ...... 38
London Assembly I Environment Committee 3 Page 148
Foreword Leonie Cooper AM Chair of the Environment Committee
London is wasting resources, treating valuable things as nothing more than rubbish. Things that Londoners could pass on to other Londoners for shared, or repeated, use are ending up being treated as waste. Metals turned into jewellery, coffee grounds turned into fuel to power buses, upcycling and free-cycling – the opportunities are there, but we often ignore them. We must do more to develop the so-called circular economy, supporting more small and medium businesses to develop innovative approaches. In addition, compared to others cities, London’s recycling rate is low and has stagnated over the last 5 years. We can and must do better. Londoners might move house a lot, lead busy lifestyles and enjoy city life – people who live in Milan enjoy a similar lifestyle, but manage to recycle at much higher levels than Londoners do. City Hall, working in conjunction with the London boroughs, must do more to make it easy for us to recycle. We really must step up and deal with our own recycling, as countries like China announce that they don’t want our low-grade mixed plastics any more – and we should not be looking to sending it to other countries, such as Vietnam or Indonesia, instead. Hitting the Mayor’s target of 65 per cent municipal recycling by 2030 will be very challenging, so we need a step change to make this happen. Unlike other parts of the UK, England is “Hitting the lagging behind in what it does with food Mayor’s target waste. There is an urgent need for London to move ahead with separating all food of 65 per cent waste, whether from homes, cafes, or municipal restaurants, and use it to create gas as it is broken down in anaerobic digestors. No recycling by food waste should really go anywhere else 2030 will be very – except into composters. challenging, so Finally, as landfill sites are closed and we look toward London being a zero-waste to we need a step landfill city, we will see waste previously change to make sent to landfill going to Energy from Waste plants instead. This should be only the this happen” waste that cannot be re-used, recycled or sent to anaerobic digestion and the Energy from Waste plants serving London
London Assembly I Environment Committee 4 Page 149
should be the most efficient and clean possible, producing the minimum possible emissions and producing the maximum possible energy and heat. This report explores all aspects of the waste hierarchy, from the vital need to re-designate some waste as re-usable materials, through recycling, segregation, collections, food waste and anaerobic digestion to energy from waste and landfill, and then makes a series of recommendations to the Mayor. If London is to meet its Mayoral targets urgent action is needed, and we commend our recommendations to the Mayor.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 5 Page 150
Summary
Wasting London’s future resources
London’s growing waste problem poses a serious threat to the environment, wasting natural resources and emitting too much carbon into the atmosphere. We all know this is unsustainable. The Mayor has pledged to increase total recycling in London from 52 per cent to 65 per cent by 2030. This requires an increase in household recycling from 33 to 42 per cent. The Mayor has also pledged that London should send zero waste to landfill by 2030. Yet, despite attempts to increase them, household recycling rates have remained relatively unchanged for the past five years. Because Londonders don’t recycle enough waste, over half is currently burnt for energy. Sending waste to Energy from “Because Waste Plants has been hugely succesful in Londoners reducing reliance on landfill, but burning materials wastes valuable natural don’t recycle resources, generates carbon dioxide enough, over emissions and contributes to local air pollution. half of our London faces specific — but not unique — waste is burnt” challenges to increase recycling, in particular, a transient population and a high proportion of flats. But London’s recycling service is not fit for purpose and does not reflect, or work with, London’s challenges. It lacks consistency across boroughs and accommodation types, needlessly confusing residents and making it harder to communicate behaviour change campaigns London-wide.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 6 Page 151
Recommendations
Preventing waste
Recommendation 1 The Mayor should set specific targets for circular economy procurement within the GLA group. Recommendation 2 To promote the circular economy, the Mayor should ensure that the LWARB Route Map to the Circular Economy is widely promoted and adopted, including funding circular economy entrepreneurs. Recommendation 3 The Mayor should lobby Government to further increase producer responsibility for packaging and to reduce plastic waste. This should include better signage on products so that plastics are kept in circulation for as long as possible or recycled as appropriate. Recommendation 4 Partnerships between circular economy operatives, such as charity shops and municipal waste services, should be strengthened by Mayoral involvement. The Mayor should aim to improve connections so that residents can easily choose to participate in the circular economy when disposing of household waste.
Increasing recycling
Recommendation 5 To ensure all homes have a consistent recycling service, the Mayor should include flats within the standard recycling provision offer, as stated in the draft Environment Strategy. This should include separate food waste collection. Recommendation 6 Recycling provision for new homes should be strengthened in the London Plan. To elevate the importance of recycling, the wording should read –
London Assembly I Environment Committee 7 Page 152
“Dwellings must be designed with adequate and easily accessible storage space that supports the separate collection of dry recyclables.” Recommendation 7 The Mayor should publish a required trajectory for each borough’s recycling rates, to ensure that future targets are met — and if these rates are not successfully met at the time of contract renewal, the Mayor should step in. In directing the services, the Mayor should ensure recommendations included in this report are taken up by the service provider. Recommendation 8 The Mayor should explore the funding options that he and others could provide to ensure the implementation of a consistent harmonised recycling service that would maximise recycling in London. However, the Committee recognises that this may take a number of years due to the length of borough waste contracts. Utilising break clauses in contracts that allow for early improvements (such as the segregation of food waste) should be actively explored by boroughs, with support from the Mayor’s team as necessary.
Reducing waste
Recommendation 9 When providing recycling and food waste collections, boroughs should consider reducing the frequency of residual waste collections. Recommendation 10 The Mayor should facilitate the use and, if necessary, the construction of Anaerobic Digestion facilities, to ensure food waste never ends up in landfill or incineration. Recommendation 11 The Mayor should lobby the Government to make it easier for boroughs to fine serial offenders who fail to comply with recycling regulations including landlords.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 8 Page 153
Energy from waste and benefits of waste disposal
Recommendation 12 The Mayor should set targets to reduce the total amount of biodegradable and recyclable waste sent to landfill and incineration by 2026 — and set targets to further reduce the amount by later dates. Recommendation 13 The Mayor should strongly support the construction and use of facilities within London’s borders for the most sustainable management of its own waste. Recommendation 14 The Mayor should aim for London to become a zero-waste export city, conducting research on the feasibility of this, and then set a policy to achieve as close to zero as feasible, subject to overall environmental objectives.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 9 Page 154
1. Introduction
Key findings
▪ London’s recycling rate is rubbish. Our recycling rate is below the national average and has barely increased despite advancements in collection and processing.
▪ London burns over half of its waste for energy. This brings some benefits but has an environmental and financial cost.
▪ London exports a significant amount of its waste.
▪ The city faces several challenges in increasing recycling but these challenges also offer opportunities. Giving a standard recycling offer to all properties would increase recycling.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 10 Page 155
Changing our approach to waste management
1.1 We are now more socially, environmentally and economically aware of the impact our waste is having on the planet. Recent television programmes and environmental campaigns have drawn public attention to waste and recycling. It is costing us and, with an expected population increase, the situation could get worse if we don’t do something about it. 1.2 London is beginning to turn the tide on waste and is becoming an exemplar in tackling the scourge of plastic waste. Several of the capital’s leading supermarkets and food outlets are reducing their use of plastic and more are expected to follow. Business Improvement Districts are starting to install water fountains and City Hall is working hard to go “plastic-free”. But there is still more we could do. 1.3 We need to make it easier for Londoners to use less and recycle more. But London’s recycling service is not fit for purpose and does not reflect London’s challenges. There are different recycling policies across the 32 London boroughs and recycling can differ if you live in a house, high-rise block or above a shop. Londoners are needlessly confused about what they can and cannot recycle. These inconsistencies make it difficult to educate Londoners across the city about recycling. 1.4 London is in a unique position to change the future of its waste management. London boroughs have several waste contracts renewing in the next two years. This is where waste authorities could take the opportunity to not only implement the Mayor’s Environment Strategy, but could go further in reducing waste and increasing recycling.
The investigation
1.5 Evidence for this report was collected by a range of methods. During 2017 – 2018, three committee meeting were held on issues affecting waste management in London, these issues included; the circular economy, household recycling collections and Energy from Waste. All three meetings were followed by a findings report which reported on the evidence collected in the meeting. Committee members also visited several recycling and energy recovery centres as well as holding a call for evidence.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 11 Page 156
2. Preventing Waste
Key findings
▪ Waste reduction is the best form of waste management. It could greatly relieve pressure on London’s waste infrastructure.
▪ The circular economy will be key in reducing overall waste and increasing recycling in London.
▪ Alongside the benefits to the environment, the circular economy will create new jobs and contribute to the local economy.
▪ The circular economy is still in its infancy. Supporting new enterprises via procurement and policy will help it become further established.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 12 Page 157
Waste reduction
2.1 Waste reduction is at the top of the waste hierarchy. It has even lower environmental impacts than recycling, and often requires no costly processes or infrastructure. So reducing waste in the first place has to be the best approach of all. 2.2 Reducing the amount of waste reduces the pressure on waste management infrastructure like recycling centres, energy from waste plants and landfill. It also makes targets like the Mayor’s 65 per cent recycling goal easier to achieve. 2.3 Waste reduction is one of the central goals of ‘circular economy policy’, a major new direction in waste management thinking. ARUP found up to 60 per cent of total waste arising in London could be reduced by 2041 if we invest heavily in the circular economy.1
The circular economy 2.4 The circular economy minimises the extraction of natural resources and re- uses and recirculates goods to extract the maximum value from the original manufacture. By seeking to recirculate resources after use by repair or recycling, the circular economy recognises “waste” as a valuable commodity. Examples of the circular economy include incentivised return schemes and lease-hiring models. 2.5 Engaging with the circular economy offers the opportunity to reduce what is viewed as waste and promote sustainable growth in London. As well as reducing waste, the benefits of the circular economy include reduced carbon dioxide emissions and economic and employment growth. WRAP found that moving to the circular economy could contribute £7 billion net benefit to London’s economy.2 2.6 Reuse is a familiar concept: for example, the UK’s charity shops diverted over 330,000 tonnes of textiles from landfill in 2017.3 However, many businesses haven’t heard of ‘the circular economy’. In 2014, 50 per cent of small to medium size businesses researched hadn’t heard of the concept. 4, 5 It is still a relatively new concept which needs bringing into wider use.
The Mayor’s role in furthering the circular economy in London 2.7 A fully circular economy is some way off and will require Mayoral leadership to encourage others to follow suit. Keith James, Textiles Delivery Manager, WRAP told us — “The best way for the Mayor to do this within his capabilities is to act as an exemplar to other businesses — embodying circular economy principles throughout the GLA Group”.6 2.8 The GLA has recently updated its Responsible Procurement Policy, reflecting the need to procure circular economy services and ensure better environmental outcomes for London. The Met procured a circular economy service during their estate reduction programme in 2015 – within 12 months,
London Assembly I Environment Committee 13 Page 158
the service had helped the Met to save over £300,000 and make significant carbon savings.7 2.9 The Mayor has set out plans to encourage the circular economy in London but more needs to be done to put these into action. The London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) published a Circular Economy Routemap in 2017. The Routemap focuses on five key business areas: built environment, food, textiles, electricals and plastics. Stakeholders in these areas have been called to action, including the Mayor and the wider GLA Family. 2.10 The Government also has a role in encouraging the circular economy. Extended Producer Responsibility is a policy approach under which producers are given significant responsibility, financial or physical, for the treatment or disposal of post-consumer products. In its recent Environment Plan, the Government stated that it intends to encourage producers to take more responsibility for the environmental impact of their products.
Case study – Making the GLA Family more ‘circular’ The Circular Economy isn’t anything new to City Hall, but efforts have recently been ramped up. For a number of years its food waste has gone on to make biofertiliser and biogas. The Mayor recently announced stopping the use of single-use plastics and installing water fountains at City Hall – both examples of ‘designing out’ waste and the benefits of embracing the circular economy. In the wider GLA Family, the Met recently outsourced their uniform service to DHL who will provide an end- to-end supply chain for their uniform service. The Met expect this to have a positive impact on the environment as more uniforms will be recycled than before. The Mayor’s efforts for the GLA Family to become ‘circular’ could go further. Across London, initiatives are showcasing how the circular economy can touch every part of procurement. For example, the National Union of Student’s offices in London uses Phillips LED lighting procured through the ‘pay per lux’ solution, whereby Phillips offers light as a service and retains responsibility for the performance of the lighting. The Mayor could request extended producer responsibility from each GLA procurement provider so that items are not bought but rather hired. This would give the producer a responsibility to collect and recycle the product once it has come to the end of its service life.
2.11 Partnerships between boroughs and charity retailers could be beneficial to both. Used goods are recirculated in the economy (often at low prices for local people) and the householder, the council or often both save on the costs of disposal. There is a great deal of scope to increase these partnerships across London’s 32 London borough. Councils can also support charities by not charging them to dispose of household items that cannot be sold or recycled, and by offering discretionary business rate relief.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 14 Page 159
Recommendation 1
The Mayor should set specific targets for circular economy procurement within the GLA group.
Recommendation 2
To promote the circular economy, the Mayor should ensure that the LWARB Route Map to the Circular Economy is widely promoted and adopted, including funding circular economy entrepreneurs.
Recommendation 3
The Mayor should lobby Government to further increase producer responsibility for packaging and to reduce plastic waste. This should include better signage on products so that plastics are kept in circulation for as long as possible or recycled as appropriate.
Recommendation 4
Partnerships between circular economy operatives, such as charity shops and municipal waste services, should be strengthened by Mayoral involvement. The Mayor should aim to improve connections so that residents can easily choose to participate in the circular economy when disposing of household waste.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 15 Page 160
3. Increasing recycling
Key findings
▪ Each borough in London has a different recycling system which, coupled with London’s relatively transient population, makes it hard for councils to instil good recycling habits in their residents.
▪ Standardising waste collection has been a part of successful recycling systems across the world.
▪ Flats will soon become the predominant housing type in London. Ensuring successful recycling in these properties is therefore paramount. Yet flats currently have worse recycling provision than other properties.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 16 Page 161
Working with London’s challenges
3.1 Transience has always been a key aspect London’s geographical, social and political landscape. There is no getting away from the fact that many Londoners move into the city, subsequently move from borough to borough - and move from flats to houses, or back again. Around a third of households in London’s private sector have moved in the last year.8 This transience is a key characteristic of London. However, when it comes to recycling it creates a challenge.
3.2 London’s population transience is a key factor in its poor recycling rate. When people are not familiar with the recycling provision where they live, and the rules for using it, their compliance with the system may drop and the system may not work so well. This has an impact on recycling rates.
Figure 1 – Greater population transiency goes with poorer recycling rates (per borough)
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20% Householdrecycling rate 15%
10% 9% 12% 15% 18% 21% 24% 27% Annual population transience rate
Source: Office for National Statistics, Mid-2016 Population Estimates Mid-2016 and DEFRA, ENV18 - Local authority collected waste: annual results tables 3.3 Currently, each borough has its own arrangement for waste and recycling collection. For example, Tower Hamlets provides a weekly recycling and separate food waste collection, while Newham doesn’t collect glass or food recycling and all other recycling is collected fortnightly. Inconsistency across recycling systems means that each time residents move, which in London is evidently frequent, good recycling habits are undone. One way to improve recycling in the context of Londoners’ migratory habits would be to standardise recycling services.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 17 Page 162
Standardising London’s recycling systems 3.4 Standardising recycling services increases recycling. Analysis of successful recycling systems in countries like Wales found that they all offered a comprehensive system — for example, mandatory separate collections of dry materials and food waste. 3.5 A degree of consistency is starting to emerge across London’s recycling services. LWARB has a key role in coordinating these efforts. Most boroughs (29 out of 32) collect six dry recycling streams (although the degree of segregation varies) and over half provide a separate food waste collection to kerbside properties. The Mayor plans to improve the consistency of recycling and sees it as a key requirement to increasing recycling rates overall.
Consistency across housing types 3.6 People who live in flats tend to recycle less than those in kerbside properties. WRAP found that a typical flat’s recycling service yields 50 per cent less recycling than average low-rise properties.9 We found a strong correlation between property type and recycling rates. Generally, the more flats a borough has, the worse its recycling rate. Reasons for this include: transience, property tenure, space limitation, deprivation, language and culture, service quality and design, and access to facilities. Figure 2 – Boroughs with more flats tend to have lower recycling rates
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% Householdrecycling rate
0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of flats per borough
Source: Office for National Statistics, 2011 Census and DEFRA, ENV18 - Local authority collected waste: annual results tables 3.7 Over half of London’s properties are flats and this proportion is set to rise. According to the London Plan, it is expected that at least 50 per cent of new developments will be flats. Improving recycling from flats is key to reaching the Mayor’s overall targets, but the rise in the number of flats may affect the Mayor’s recycling targets. According to LWARB, there will need to be a 40 per cent uplift of recycling from flats if the Mayor’s overall recycling target is to be reached by 2030.10 The London Borough of Newham reflected that “the growing proportion of London’s housing stock which consists of blocks of flats is causing a drop-off in recycling rates as the contribution of green waste
London Assembly I Environment Committee 18 Page 163
composting reduces, given the vast majority of new properties being built do not have private gardens.”11 3.8 Increasing standardisation of recycling services in some, but not all properties, was included in the draft Environment Strategy. By 2020, waste authorities will need to demonstrate that all properties with kerbside collection receive a separate weekly food waste collection and a collection of, at a minimum, the six main dry recycling materials (glass, cans, paper, card, plastic bottles and mixed plastics). However, for flats the draft Strategy only says that boroughs should “look to provide this to flats where feasible.”12 3.9 Increasing recycling services to all properties is essential to increasing recycling overall. Flats currently have fewer recycling services when compared to kerbside properties. For example, only 14 boroughs currently provide food waste collection from all flats, compared to 19 boroughs which provide kerbside properties with separate food waste recycling.13
Separate food waste collections 3.10 Working with London’s density, rather than against it, will increase recycling. We heard that density should not be an obstacle but rather an opportunity to increase recycling, especially for food waste collections. Food waste collectors prefer density as it means greater loads for fewer trips. BioCollectors, a London anaerobic digestion plant, said “there are challenges with flats and I accept that, but what has been missing from the debate is the opportunity in flats as well…what any collector is looking for is density on that round and the density is there in London.”14 3.11 Separating food waste has several environmental benefits. As well as increasing recycling, food waste can be used to produce biogas and biofertiliser. Anaerobic digestion is a process used to break down food waste and other organic matter to produce energy. Reportedly, processing food waste via anaerobic digestion would reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by 21 million tonnes within 15 years.15 3.12 Other cities have demonstrated that food waste recycling from flats can dramatically increase recycling rates. Milan’s municipal recycling rate increased by nearly 20 percentage points following, among other initiatives, the introduction of a separate food waste collection service. Density has not been a barrier to increasing recycling in Milan – a city where 80 per cent of the 1.3 million inhabitants live in high rise buildings.16
Recommendation 5
To ensure all homes have a consistent recycling service, the Mayor should include flats within the standard recycling provision offer, as stated in the draft Environment Strategy. This should include separate food waste collection.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 19 Page 164
3.13 People, irrespective of whether they live in a flat or a house, are more likely to separate out their rubbish inside their homes rather than outside at communal bins. Yet many new homes — particularly flats — are being built with insufficient storage for this to happen. Antony Buchan, Head of Resource London, LWARB said, “A lot of properties are now being built with less than 5 per cent internal storage…I come back to that you can put all the lovely facilities you like outside of the building but if people are not already doing it in their home…it is critical. We need to make sure waste and recycling is thought about in the home as well so people can engage in the services.”17 3.14 The London Plan gives recycling provision for developments, but is vague and does not hammer home the need for sufficient recycling facilities. The London Plan currently states: “Dwellings should be designed with adequate and easily accessible storage space that supports the separate collection of dry recyclables.”18 This wording should be stronger, stressing the importance of separation in new builds.
Recommendation 6
Recycling provision for new homes should be strengthened in the London Plan. To elevate the importance of recycling, the wording should read – “Dwellings must be designed with adequate and easily accessible storage space that supports the separate collection of dry recyclables.”
3.15 A full recycling service doesn’t always mean increased recycling rates. For example, the London Borough of Camden already recycles the six main waste streams, provides weekly food waste collections and has an incentivised voucher scheme. Yet Camden’s recycling rate is just 27 per cent. Consequently, increasing services won’t necessarily mean an increase in recycling – residents may still choose to put their waste in the residual bin rather than recycle it. However, when faced with a fortnightly residual waste and weekly recycling collection, residents are more inclined to recycle. 3.16 Mayoral plans to increase recycling need to be strengthened. Overall, London averages need to be rising every year and, to reach the final target, households need to be recycling 57kg more per year, per property; this is equivalent to 4,000 aluminium cans. But boroughs are already struggling to increase recycling and new initiatives require resources.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 20 Page 165
Figure 3 – Households will need to continually increase their recycling for Mayoral targets to be reached
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200 Householdrecycling (thousandtonnes) 0 2001 2005 2010 2017 2025 2030
Source: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2017 and data supplied by GLA 3.17 Wholesale changes to recycling services can be costly. Some service changes (such as reducing residual waste collections) could release money but London Councils calls on the Mayor to provide funding – “without any funding, we believer harmonisation may occur over time, as contracts end, but this could take decades”.
The Mayor’s power to increase recycling 3.18 The Mayor could increase consistency, and ultimately recycling, in London directly. Between 2018 and 2020 there will be 17 recycling contracts up for renewal and four waste disposal contracts. This represents a huge opportunity. Boroughs are expected to notify the Mayor before renewing contracts and the Mayor has the power of direction when a contract could be detrimental to the implementation of the Environment Strategy. However, Shirley Rodrigues, Deputy Mayor for Environment said that “Ultimately, the Mayor does have a power of direction but that is sort of an extreme power that any Mayor would be reluctant to use. It is about partnership with the boroughs.”
London Assembly I Environment Committee 21 Page 166
Figure 4 – There will be a large number of recycling contracts coming up for renewal during 2019.
16 14 12 10 8 6 4
numbercontracts of 2 0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 year Source: LWARB, 2017 3.19 Contracts previously agreed without adequate Mayoral oversight and intervention continue to negatively affect recycling rates. The East London boroughs receive a highly restricted recycling scheme because of their long- standing PFI contract. Standard recyclables such as glass, some plastics and food waste, are required to be thrown into general residual waste. As reported by London Borough of Newham, this situation could last until 2027, and considering projected growth in these boroughs, this will become “more of an issue for London’s performance as a whole than it already is.”
Recommendation 7
The Mayor should publish a required trajectory for each borough’s recycling rates, to ensure that future targets are met — and if these rates are not successfully met at the time of contract renewal, the Mayor should step in. In directing the services, the Mayor should ensure recommendations included in this report are taken up by the service provider.
Recommendation 8
The Mayor should explore funding options to ensure the implementation of a consistent recycling service that would maximise recycling in London. However, the Committee recognises that this may take a number of years due to the length of borough waste contracts. Utilising break clauses in contracts that allow for early improvements (such as the segregation of food waste) should be actively explored by boroughs, with support from the Mayor’s team as necessary.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 22 Page 167
4. Reducing residual waste
Key findings
▪ Disincentives, alongside increased recycling services and financial incentives, are needed to increase recycling. We were told that boroughs need a range of tools to increase the amount and quality of recycling.
▪ Most London boroughs still offer a weekly bin collection, despite fortnightly residual waste collections positively affecting recycling rates in other parts of the UK.
▪ Fining residents who continually violate recycling guidelines, although a contentious issue, has proven successful in increasing recycling.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 23 Page 168
Enforcement activities
4.1 Encouraging and incentivising residents won’t increase recycling on its own. Boroughs said they needed more “stick, rather than just carrot” to increase recycling. Enforcement tools that boroughs found useful include reducing access to residual waste and fining repeat recycling offenders. 4.2 The majority of household waste is recyclable. According to two different estimates, London’s waste is 70 – 80 per cent recyclable.19,20 Currently much less than this is placed in household recycling collections, and less still is accepted by recycling facilities. The rest goes into the ‘residual waste’ stream. Some contributors to this investigation have talked of the whole residual waste stream as ‘non-recyclable’. It is true that when food waste, paper, plastic, glass, metal and non-recyclable materials are all mixed together in a bin or bag, it becomes very difficult and costly to separate them for recycling. But truly non-recyclable material is only a small fraction. Waste management policy must not be built around the current size of the residual stream. 4.3 Reducing collections of residual waste is proven to increase recycling. Analysis of successful recycling systems, such as those in Wales and Germany, show that behavioural disincentives work, so they should surely be considered. 4.4 Reducing residual waste collections affects recycling rates in London too. Resource London found that the biggest difference to recycling rates had been made by reducing the frequency of residual bin collections. Antony Buchan, Head of Resource London, said: “What will probably impact the greatest driving up recycling rates is moving to a restricted residual collection, whether that be by containment or by frequency, but frequency has the greatest impact.”21 The London Borough of Ealing recycling increased from 43 to 51 per cent when the borough changed from weekly to fortnightly collections of residual waste.22 4.5 The Mayor’s progress towards his waste targets could be significantly strengthened by requesting that London Boroughs reduce their residual bin collections as part of their waste contracts. The majority of boroughs in London collect residual waste weekly and may continue to do so if not instructed and supported by the Mayor. London Councils requested that, alongside targets in increasing recycling, there should be targets for reducing waste. 4.6 Councils should segregate food waste (not mixed with garden waste) and continue with weekly food waste and recycling collections, to meet the LWARB route map to the circular economy. When it comes to residual waste, it is up to the councils to decide what collection services are most suitable for their individual borough. With cost-saving paramount to their agenda, councils should consider making savings by restricting residual waste collection. In the case of the London Borough of Ealing, this decision saved the council between £1.7-£2.3m per annum, so is well worth considering.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 24 Page 169
Use of fines to increase recycling 4.7 Boroughs in London would like to use enforcement, as well as incentives, to reduce residual waste and eliminate contamination of recycling collections with the wrong sorts of materials. Previously, the option of fining residents who were violating recycling procedures was available to boroughs (Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) and many found it useful to have such a tool in the box. However, the Deregulation Act 2015 has now made this process lengthy and resource intensive. As a result, fines are no longer seen as a useful deterrent. 4.8 The use of fines is controversial and would require a major programme of public engagement. But financial penalties for repeat recycling offenders have previously received cross-party support among boroughs, and the Mayor has a role in exploring how this could be introduced across London. London Councils previously lobbied against the change of powers which saw fining become a time-consuming and costly process. Feryal Demirci, Labour Councillor and Vice-Chair of London Councils and Transport Committee, said: “if you do not have the powers to be able to enforce or if you have really limited powers…it just means that this is all about carrots and there are not many carrots. We are really lacking a stick in this area.”23 4.9 Milan City Council found that, alongside food waste collections, fines had a positive effect on the rate and quality of recycling. However, implementing such systems is resource intensive – a dedicated crew of inspectors perform visual checks before collection and give fines for impurities, such as plastics in food waste.
Recommendation 9 When providing recycling and food waste collections, boroughs should consider reducing the frequency of residual waste collections.
Recommendation 10 The Mayor should facilitate the use and, if necessary, the construction of Anaerobic Digestion facilities, to ensure food waste never ends up in landfill or incineration.
Recommendation 11 The Mayor should lobby the Government to make it easier for boroughs to fine residents who fail to comply with recycling regulations including landlords.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 25 Page 170
5. Energy from waste and benefits from waste
disposal
Key findings
▪ Burning waste to recover energy has environmental benefits compared to landfill, but it is not preferable to recycling or anaerobic digestion.
▪ London burns over half of its waste. The amount of waste that London burns is increasing, which negatively impacts on the environment, as some material is burnt that could be better utilised.
▪ Burning waste produces energy which can be used to power and warm homes. The Mayor has plans to maximise the benefits and limit the environmental impacts of energy from waste.
▪ London currently exports a significant amount of its waste.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 26 Page 171
Burning, burying and exporting waste
5.1 Waste that isn’t recycled can either be used as fuel to produce energy (mainly by incineration) or simply disposed of (mainly by landfill, or in some places by incineration without energy recovery). Energy recovery and disposal are the bottom tiers of the waste hierarchy because they destroy or render unusable the materials involved, and create harmful impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.
Landfill 5.2 Landfill is at the very bottom of the hierarchy. It uses up land and tends to emit more pollutants into air and groundwater. In particular, for organic waste such as food and paper, landfill releases much of the carbon content as methane, causing greater greenhouse impact than the carbon dioxide released by incineration. However, it may be noted that plastic waste in landfill releases a smaller amount of greenhouse gases when compared with incineration, so burning plastic waste is actually more damaging than disposing of it in landfill.
Energy from Waste 5.3 Energy from waste incineration is above landfill in the hierarchy because it generates electric power and, in some cases, heats buildings. This replaces energy from other, potentially more polluting sources. Metals can also be recovered and recycled from incinerator ash, and some of the ash can be used as aggregate, reducing the need to quarry this from the ground.
5.4 Burning waste contributes to air pollution in London. NOx, a combination of nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen monoxide, is released into the atmosphere when fuels are burnt. Combined, London’s Energy from Waste facilities emit over 2,000 tonnes of NOx per year, equivalent to 4 per cent of London’s overall air pollution contributions and more than all the articulated lorries driving in London. Chlorine, arsenic, and mercury are also emitted from EfW facilities (64 tonnes of chlorine, 116 kg of arsenic, and 15 kg of mercury). As stated in the draft Environment Strategy, nitrogen dioxide is of most concern due to its impact on health. 24,25 5.5 The Mayor seeks to further scrutinise the impact of EfW on London’s environment. Energy from Waste facilities are monitored by the Environment Agency and any infractions of emission standards are reported and can lead to a halt in operations. The carbon intensity floor measures the carbon impact of Energy from Waste, which can be offset by producing greater amounts of energy and improving the efficiency of an EfW facility. The Mayor wants to limit the environmental impact of EfW and in his draft Environment Strategy calls for waste authorities to demonstrate how they meet the carbon intensity
London Assembly I Environment Committee 27 Page 172
floor. To maximise the benefits of EfW, the Mayor has requested that all facilities have Combined Heat and Power.26
The place of EfW in waste strategy 5.6 In 2007, the UK sent over 50 per cent of waste to landfill: now it is just 10 per cent.27 SUEZ, a recycling and energy recovery provider, found that despite operating 45 landfills in the South East: “it is expected to see a rapid decline in numbers and available capacity through to 2030…this will arise generally through natural closure when the sites are full or when they reach the end of their planning permission.”28 Reducing levels of waste going to landfill has, in part, led to an increase in burning waste for energy. 5.7 Moving waste away from landfill and into EfW has pushed it up the waste hierarchy, as energy and in some cases heat are now recovered along with metals. However, EfW plants are still receiving waste that should be dealt with further up the waste hierarchy – reducing waste altogether via a circular economy approach and improved recycling are two Mayoral goals that need developing much further. 5.8 The Mayor’s commitment to stop sending any waste to landfill is welcome. But he also needs to limit the amount of waste sent unnecessarily to incineration. Putting waste into landfill has been steadily declining and landfills will close within the next decade. 29 5.9 It will not be good enough if waste that was previously sent to landfill is simply sent to incineration instead. The residual waste stream must shrink in size, through waste reduction, reuse and recycling, and not just be redirected. 5.10 There are better options for dry recyclables and food waste than going to incineration. Anaerobic digestion (AD) has more benefits and reduced environmental impact. AD breaks down organic matter in the absence of oxygen, producing biogas (60 per cent methane and 40 per cent carbon dioxide) suitable for a variety of energy uses, and a digestate that can be used as a soil fertiliser. Gasification and pyrolysis are more advanced thermal treatments than incineration which offer high efficiency. Both processes turn food waste and residual waste into an energy resource.
Waste exports, imports and self-sufficiency 5.11 London exports a significant amount of its waste outside its borders. Six million tonnes of waste is sent to other parts of the UK and 1.3 million is exported outside of the UK. 30
London Assembly I Environment Committee 28 Page 173
Firgure 5: London only recycles, and disposes of, a small proportion of its waste
London exports 6 million tonnes of waste to other parts of the UK
London exports 1.3 million tonnes of waste outside of the UK he UK Source: SLR, 2017 5.12 The Mayor has set a goal for London to become net self-sufficient in waste. This means that London should recycle, or use for energy, as much waste as it generates. Waste can be exported and imported as long as the exports are not bigger. 5.13 Managing London’s waste in the capital means that Londoners both gain the benefits (such as recycled materials, electricity, heat, employment) and take responsibility for their own environmental impacts and other costs. At the moment, it can be cheaper for waste to be shipped outside the capital but this means that London loses out on the benefits of EfW and leaves other areas to deal with its waste. Currently, some waste that has been treated goes to fuel EfW facilities elsewhere in the UK and abroad. 5.14 Recycling within London may become an increasing critical issue. In 2017, China made a landmark decision to refuse imports of low-grade plastics. This had serious repercussions for the UK recycling market. China had previously been relied on as a recycling and disposal destination. Building up London’s recycling infrastructure will help to minimise risks and create local recycling markets. Recent openings of recycling sites have proven successful. The Dagenham Plastics Facility, which recycles milk bottles into pellets, was acquired by Veolia and in September 2017 was running at full capacity.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 29 Page 174
Recommendation 12 1.6 The Mayor should set targets to reduce the total amount of biodegradable and recyclable waste sent to landfill and incineration by 2026 — and set targets to further reduce the amount by later dates.
Recommendation 13 The Mayor should strongly support the construction and use of facilities within London’s borders for the most sustainable management of its own waste.
Recommendation 14 The Mayor should aim for London to become a zero-waste export city, conducting research on the feasibility of this, and then set a policy to achieve as close to zero as feasible, subject to overall environmental objectives.
London Assembly I Environment Committee 30 Page 175
Our approach
The Environment Committee agreed the following terms of reference for this investigation: • To explore the Mayor’s role in reducing the costs and environmental impacts of London’s waste and how it is handled, with a particular focus on: - Reducing overall waste (informed by the ‘circular economy route map’ LWARB is expected to publish) - The potential to develop greater consistency in household recycling and food/organic waste collections between London boroughs - The role of energy from waste plants (incinerators and potentially others) in managing residual waste.
At its public evidence sessions, the committee took oral evidence from the following guests: • Dr Liz Goodwin, Chair, London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB) • Clare Ollerenshaw, Circular Economy Manager, LWARB • Andy Richmond, Policy & Programmes Manager, GLA • Keith James, Textiles Delivery Manager, WRAP • Rebecca Trevalyan, Chief Lending Officer, Library of Things • Viv Taylor, Head of Growth & Marketing, OLIO • Councillor Feryal Demirci, Labour Councillor for Hoxton East & Shoreditch, Vice-Chair of London Councils Transport and Environment Committee, LWARB Board member & Hackney Cabinet Member • Andy Richmond, Environment Team, GLA • Robert Hunt, Chief Corporate Officer, Veolia • Antony Buchan, Head of Resource London, LWARB • Councillor Bassam Mahfouz, Labour Councillor for Ealing, Cabinet Member Environment, Transport & Leisure, LWARB Board member • Paul Killoughery, Group Managing Director and Owner, Bio Collectors • Julian Walker, Chief Operating Officer, Cory Riverside Energy • Professor Darryl Newport, University East London and Institute of Civil Engineers representative
London Assembly I Environment Committee 31 Page 176
• Tim Rotheray, Director, The Association for Decentralised Energy • Angela Murphy, Sustainability Strategy Team Leader, Camden Council • Doug Simpson, Principal Policy & Programme Officer, GLA • Shlomo Dowen, National Coordinator, UKWIN • Dan Cooke, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Viridor
During the investigation, the committee also received written submissions from the following organisations: • Nappy Ever After • Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens • Way to Eco Ltd • Respace Project • Mechline Developments Ltd • Personal submission • Grand Union Alliance • Premier Workplace Services • Western Riverside Waste Authority • Premier Workplace Services • Library of Things • MPS • Grundon Waste Management Ltd • British Soft Drinks Association • Charity Retail Association • Personal submission • UKWIN • (AMDEA) Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances • Unpackaged Innovation Ltd. • Mineral Products Association • (ADBA) Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association • SUEZ, Recycling and recovery UK • European Suppliers of Waste-to-Energy Technology (ESWET) • London Borough of Newham • Circular Economy Club
London Assembly I Environment Committee 32 Page 177
• Dong Energy • Cory Riverside Energy • Climate Change & Environment Group, Hornsey & Wood Green Labour Party • North London Waste Authority • Environmental Services Association • Real Nappies for London • Catering Equipment Suppliers Association (CESA) • Tottenham & Wood Green Friend of the Earth
London Assembly I Environment Committee 33 Page 178
References
1 ARUP and London Waste and Recycling Board (2017), Circular Economy Effects on Waste Production in London – Impact Assessment Report, Available online at http://www.lwarb.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Final- Report_Issue.pdf 2 WRAP (2015), Employment and the circular economy – Job creation through resource efficiency in London, Available online at http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/London%20Circular%20Economy%2 0Jobs%20Report%202015%20Online%20Version%20Final.pdf 3 Submission from the Charity Retail Association 4 Fusion Observatory, (2014) How to shift towards the circular economy from a small and medium business perspective: A guide for policy makers. Available online at https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/19210/How- to-shift-towards-the-circular-economy.pdf 5 Chartered Institution of Waste Management, (2014) The Circular Economy: what does it mean for the waste and resource management sector? Available online at http://www.ciwm- journal.co.uk/downloads/CIWM_Circular_Economy_Report- FULL_FINAL_Oct_2014.pdf 6 Evidence from Keith James, Textiles Delivery Manager, WRAP. Meeting of the Environment Committee, 13 July 2017 7 Communication with Met, June 2017 8 London Assembly Housing Committee (2016), At Home with Renting – Improving security for London’s private renters, London, London Assembly 9 Research provided by LWARB, October 2017 10 Evidence from Antony Buchan, LWARB. Meeting of the Environment Committee, 9 November 2017 11 Submission from Councillor Patrick Murphy, London Borough of Newham 12 Mayor of London (2017) Draft London Environment Strategy, available online at https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE- DO/environment/environment-publications/draft-london-environment- strategy [accessed on 20/12/17]
London Assembly I Environment Committee 34 Page 179
13 Provided by LWARB 14 Evidence from Paul Killoughery, Group Managing Director and Owner, Bio Collectors. Meeting of the Environment Committee, 9 November 2017 15 Submission by Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association 16 16 Milano Recycle City, (2016) Food waste recycling: the case study of Milan – Milano Recycle City, available online at https://issuu.com/giorgioghiringhelli/docs/food_waste_recycling_the_case _study [accessed on 30/10/17] 17 Evidence from Antony Buchan, LWARB. Meeting of the Environment Committee, 9 November 2017 18 Mayor of London (2017), The London Plan – The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Draft for public consultation), available online at https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/new_london_plan_decemb er_2017.pdf [accessed on 06/03/18] 19 Mayor of London (2017), Appendix 2: Evidence Base, available online at https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/appendix_2_evidence_base .pdf [accessed on 9/3/18] 20 Mayor of London (2017) London Environment Strategy – draft for public consultation, available online at https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_environment_strat egy-_draft_for_public_consultation.pdf [accessed on 13/2/18] 21 Evidence from Antony Buchan, LWARB. Meeting of the Environment Committee, 9 November 2017 22 Evidence from Councillor Bassam Mahfouz, Labour Councillor for Ealing. Meeting of the Environment Committee, 9 November 2017 23 Evidence from Councillor Demirci, Labour Councillor for Hoxton East & Shoreditch. Meeting of the Environment Committee, 9 November 2017 24 Transport for London (2017 – 2018) Ultra Low Emission Zone and Low Emission Zone, available online at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-quality-consultation- phase-3b/ [accessed on 9/3/18] 25 Energy from Waste emissions reported to the Environment Agency and supplied by the Greater London Authority Air Quality Team 26 Mayor of London (2017) London Environment Strategy – draft for public consultation, available online at
London Assembly I Environment Committee 35 Page 180
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_environment_strat egy-_draft_for_public_consultation.pdf [accessed on 13/2/18] 27 DEFRA (2017) ENV18 – Local authority collected waste: annual results table, available online at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data- sets/env18-local-authority-collected-waste-annual-results-tables [accessed on 19/03/18] 28 SUEZ (2017) Mind the Gap 2017 – 2030: UK residual waste infrastructure capacity requirements, available online at http://www.sita.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/MindTheGap20172030-1709-web.pdf [accessed on 19/03/18]. 29 Mayor of London (2017) Draft London Environment Strategy, available online at https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE- DO/environment/environment-publications/draft-london-environment- strategy [accessed on 20/12/17] 30 SLR (2017) London Plan Waste – Forecasts and Apportionments, Task 3 – Strategic Waste Data, available online at https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/task_3_- _strategic_waste_data.pdf [accessed on 13/2/18]
London Assembly I Environment Committee 36 Page 181
London Assembly I Environment Committee 37 Page 182
Other formats and languages
If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of this report in large print or braille, or a copy of the summary and main findings in another language, then please call us on: 020 7983 4100 or email: [email protected].
Chinese Hindi
Vietnamese Bengali
Greek Urdu
Turkish Arabic
Punjabi Gujarati
London Assembly I Environment Committee 38 Page 183
Greater London Authority
City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
Enquiries 020 7983 4100 Minicom 020 7983 4458
www.london.gov.uk
©Greater London Authority
London Assembly I Environment Committee 38 Page 184 Appendix 2
Chair of the Environment Committee City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA Telephone: 020 7983 4458 Web: www.london.gov.uk
Léonie Cooper AM London Assembly Member
Richard Aylard CVO 26 March 2018 Director of External Affairs and Sustainability, Thames Water ( Via email)
Dear Mr Aylard,
Water Resources Management Plan
On behalf of the London Assembly’s Environment Committee, thank you again for attending our meeting in February. Following the meeting, the committee has considered the issues covered by your draft Water Resources Management Plan and, more broadly, issues of water management for London, and offers you the following points in response.
Planning on a long-term perspective We welcome the overall approach to long-term planning in the WRMP, including the extension of the time horizon to 80 years, and the alignment of population projections with those used by the GLA (which therefore align with the strategy for housing and workplace growth in London). We highlighted two years ago the significant long-term pressure on water resources generated by London’s planned growth and the need for up-to-date population forecasting.1
We have also joined you in highlighting the magnitude of the economic and other impacts of emergency water use restrictions in the case of severe drought. We therefore welcome that you are seeking to increase resilience to this threat and have set a goal in terms of the expected return period of a drought severe enough to trigger emergency measures (from 125 to 200 years). We have in the past received evidence that three-dry-winter (or worse) droughts have occurred in London six times in the 140 years of scientific rainfall records, and urge you to closely monitor the projected future likelihood of clusters of dry winters.2
1 Growing Growing Gone, London Assembly Environment Committee report 2016: https://www.london.gov.uk/about- us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/growing-growing-gone-long-term-sustainable 2 Evidence from Met Office, at the London Assembly Environment Committee meeting, 3 June 2014: www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/b10840/Minutes%20-%20Appendix%201%20- %20Transcript%20Tuesday%2003-Jun-2014%2010.00%20Environment%20Committee.pdf?T=9 See also Come Rain or Shine, London Assembly Environment Committee report 2015: https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/come-rain-or-shine
Page 185
Demand management We very much welcome your focus on efficiency demand management and leakage reduction, which we have supported for some years.3 This approach will hopefully minimise both the financial and environmental costs of providing water. The roll-out of metering is an important part of both leakage reduction and consumer efficiency, but safeguarding vulnerable users against bill increases is important and we welcome your attention to this issue.
As we did at our meeting, we must stress the importance of leakage reduction and of reducing mains bursts in building Londoners’ willingness to change behaviour to reduce their own usage. This goodwill is undermined if media reports seem to show water suppliers themselves allowing much greater quantities to escape.
Water supply Where the draft WRMP shows the ‘four best programmes’ for meeting future water needs, we note that your preferred ‘most sustainable’ programme bears a close resemblance to the ‘lowest cost’ programme, and less to the ‘least environmental effect’ or ‘most able to cope with future challenges’ programmes. While recognising the importance of cost in keeping consumer bills down, we also consider that environmental effect and the ability to cope with future challenges are crucial aspects of sustainability, and urge you to ensure that you give sufficient weight to these criteria in reviewing your ‘most sustainable’ programme.
Sustainable drainage and integrated water management The need for managing rainwater runoff in London is now well-recognised, and we welcome the work you are doing, with the Mayor and others, to promote sustainable drainage.
In the long term, we see the most sustainable future of London’s water management involving the integration of water supply, waste water collection and treatment, and rainwater drainage.4 Water in any form is a resource, and so it will ultimately be more effective to build these into a functional, integrated system, rather than attempting to deal with each of the three as isolated problems (or by compounding one problem with another as with combined sewers). We therefore welcome the work you are doing, again with the Mayor and others, on Integrated Water Management Strategies, and recommend that you continue to embed this approach in all of your work.
Sustainable energy Sewage is not just a water resource: it is also a carbon resource. Its carbon will be released to the atmosphere after conventional treatment and so extracting energy from it is of considerable environmental, as well as potentially commercial, benefit. We were very pleased to hear at our meeting of your innovative work to increase the extraction of energy from sewage waste, and look forward to positive results from the pyrolysis pilot.
Trunk mains We have discussed with you several times now your response to burst trunk mains, and the flooding and other effects that this causes. We welcome your implementation of the recommendations of the Cuttill report, and commend to you the further recommendations of our counterparts in local authority scrutiny, including Lambeth, Lewisham, Hackney and Islington.
However, we are concerned that the strategic review of the trunk mains asset class has not done what we had been led to expect it would. You told us in January 2017 that it would be “a much more
3 Water Matters, London Assembly Environment Committee report 2012: https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london- assembly/london-assembly-press-releases/water-matters-efficient-water-management 4 Growing Growing Gone, London Assembly Environment Committee report 2016: https://www.london.gov.uk/about- us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/growing-growing-gone-long-term-sustainable
Page 186
detailed review, which is going to take a year, which is going to look at our whole trunk mains network. …to look back over a number of years at what we know about the condition of the pipes, what we do in terms of maintenance and the period over which we replace them. There is going to be a great deal of very detailed learning from that, which will be ready within a year, in time to inform the business plan for the next five years.” However, the Strategic Review document published in October is largely an implementation update on the Cuttill report.
The work of establishing where and how to accelerate the replacement of trunk mains, improving the condition of the network, and reducing the likelihood of future bursts, remains to be done. In AMP7 (2020-25), you are planning to increase your renewal programme to 57km, but since you have 3200km of pipe this means you are going at a rate that will take 280 years to replace the network. Since this is well in excess of the expected asset lifetime, it is not sustainable. You say that you will accelerate work when you have sufficient understanding of the network condition to prioritise, and that you expect to monitor more of the network with devices to detect pipes in poor condition and at risk of bursting. But since you only plan to increase monitoring coverage from 16% to 25% by 2025, it does not seem likely that you will achieve the knowledge you say you need within this time frame. If you are not going to step up mains renewal so dramatically as to renew the bulk of the network within a few decades (and we recognise that this would be very costly) then we urge you to get a much more urgent picture of the network condition so that you can soon begin to target vulnerable sections of pipe in a way that is both cost-efficient and highly effective at reducing the risk of bursts.
As a further point on trunk mains renewal, stakeholders still wish you to share more information on your renewal programme. We welcome your agreement with TfL to provide information within six months; this should have happened sooner and we will monitor delivery. We also heard at our meeting that borough Leaders do not have an understanding of where water mains in their area come in your priority order. This kind of transparency would be very desirable. We would encourage a deepening of the co-operation represented by the Infrastructure High Level Group, and endorse the suggestion that there could be an infrastructure co-ordination unit and geographical units to co- ordinate local works. These bodies should liaise as necessary with the relevant local authorities.
I would be grateful for your reply to the points raised. Please copy your response to the Committee’s Scrutiny Manager, Ian Williamson – [email protected]
Once again, thank you very much for your time.
Yours sincerely,
Léonie Cooper AM Chair of the Environment Committee
Page 187 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 188 Agenda Item 9
Subject: Plastics – Nappies and Period Products
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 23 May 2018
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 The Committee will discuss, with expert guests, environmental issues related to single-use plastics focusing on period products and nappies. Topics will include the financial and environmental impact of disposables.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the Committee notes the report as background to putting questions to invited guests on single-use plastics, and notes the subsequent discussion.
2.2 That the Committee delegates authority to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion.
3. Background
3.1 Disposable plastics are ubiquitous. As discussed in previous committee meetings, their presence affects our lives daily – from water bottles to food wrapping. Since its inception over 100 years ago, 8,300 billion tonnes of virgin plastics have been produced globally.i During 2014, the UK consumed 2.2 million tonnes of plastic and over half was by households.
3.2 The manufacture and disposal of plastics affects the environment. Manufacturing of plastics require virgin resources and their disposal causes air pollution and has been identified as a cause of sewer blockages. However, using plastic can reduce waste by prolonging shelf life.
3.3 Reusable alternatives offer a range of benefits. Reducing our use of plastic would benefit the environment in a number of ways and re-using products can be financially beneficial to the consumer, as well as the local authority.
4. Issues for Consideration
Plastic in nappies and period products 4.1 Plastic has been used widely because of its durability, light-weight design, low production cost, its resistance to chemicals and its properties as a thermal and electrical insulator. According to the American Chemistry Council “Plastics are used in such a wide range of applications because they are
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 189
uniquely capable of offering many different properties that offer consumer benefits unsurpassed by other materials”.
4.2 The majority of single-use nappies, tampons and menstrual products contain plastic. As well as the product itself, these items can also be wrapped in plastic.
Use of nappies and period products 4.3 The majority of nappies and period products in London will be single-use. Considering the number of babies in London, Real Nappies for London suggested that this amounts to over 100,000 tonnes of nappy waste every year. In terms of period products, a person could use over 9000 tampons or 3000 pads in their lifetime.
Disposal 4.4 The majority of nappies will end up in landfill or incineration. Real Nappies London estimated that, without collection costs, local authorities in London were spending over £11 million on disposing of nappies each year.
4.5 Similar to nappies, without a reusable or recycling option, period products will end up in landfill, incineration or flushed down the toilet. The Women’s Environment Network reported that period products and cotton buds make up over 7% of items flushed down the toilet in the UK. Period products were identified by Thames Water as a component of sewer blockages and Fatbergs.
Environmental impact 4.6 Landfill, incineration and unflushables impact on river and marine environment. When plastics is buried or burnt it can impact on air quality. Thames Water have reported that non-flushable items such as period products and wet wipes cost £12 million a year to repair. Local authorities are attempting to reduce waste by reducing residual bin collections and supporting reusable alternatives.
Alternatives 4.7 Reusable products offer an alternative. Seven local authorities in London offer a voucher initiative for reusable nappies and there several reusable period products available on the market. Financial benefits from using reusables are especially important for those who lack access to nappies and period products.
4.8 The Committee has invited guests from relevant industry and public bodies to answer questions. Invited guests (not all of whom will participate in the whole meeting) include: Mandu Reid, Founder, The Cup Effect Alice Walker, Project Manager, Real Nappies for London Kate Metcalf, Co-Director, Women’s Environmental Network Tracy Stewart, Absorbent Hygiene Products Manufacturers Association Martin Capstick, Managing Director, North London Waste Authority
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.
Page 190
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There is no financial implication to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.
List of appendices to this report: None
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Ian Williamson, Scrutiny Manager Telephone: 020 7983 6541 E-mail: [email protected]
i Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R, and Law, K.L (2017) Production, use, and fate of all plastics, available online at http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/3/7/e1700782.full.pdf [accessed on 12/03/18]
Page 191 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 192 Agenda Item 10
Subject: Environment Committee Work Programme
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 23 May 2018
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report establishes the committee’s work programme for the 2018/19 London Assembly year.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the Committee agrees its work programme for the 2018/19 Assembly year, as set out in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.15.
3. Background
3.1 The work programme for the 2018/19 Assembly year has been drawn up following informal discussions between party Group Lead Members. The programme is now for formal agreement by the Committee.
3.2 A similar report will be submitted to each subsequent Committee meeting to track the Committee’s work and propose any changes, including confirming dates and adding topics as required.
4. Issues for Consideration
Water issues 4.1 This meeting is being used for a discussion on nappies and period products. The discussion takes forward the Committee’s previous work on single-use plastic waste and on non-flushable items blocking London’s drains and sewers. A covering report on this topic can be found at Agenda Item 9.
Work programme for the rest of 2018/19 4.2 The table below sets out the allocated dates for the Environment Committee in the 2018/19 Assembly year. The table notes suggested business for the earlier dates.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 193
4.3 The work programme is subject to change in future as the committee develops proposals for its work. Dates may be used for formal committee meetings, informal meetings, site visits or other activities for the committee. The work programme also provides for the committee to respond to any matters that arise during the year.
Meeting Date Proposed topic Committee meeting 14 June 2018 Draft London Food Strategy Committee meeting (or other evidence-gathering) 12 July 2017 Green Belt Food Growing Committee meeting (or other evidence-gathering) 20 September 2017 Embodied Carbon in the Built Environment Committee meeting (or other evidence-gathering) 11 October 2017 Cold and Damp Homes (and/or November) Committee meeting (or other evidence-gathering) 8 November 2017 Cold and Damp Homes (and/or October) 6 December 2017 Date available
15 January 2018 Date available
28 February 2018 Date available
27 March 2018 Date available
Plastics 4.4 The Committee’s discussion at the current meeting on nappies and period products could be combined with discussions in the 2017/18 year on wet wipes to generate findings on single-use absorbent and hygienic products.
4.5 Party Group Lead Members have also expressed interest in broader issues of reducing plastic in the waste stream and in the environment, including designing plastic out of products, encouraging consumers to choose non-plastic and/or re-usable products, and encouraging appropriate disposal. This could build on work from 2017/18 on plastic bottles and other packaging.
Green belt food growing 4.6 Party Group Lead Members were interested in intersecting questions of food and of the outer London green environment.
4.7 Food growing in, and around, London may benefit food sustainability and security, and the accessibility of healthy food. It may provide opportunities for Londoners to get in touch with where their food comes from. It is also an element of London’s economy and employment, and of completing cycles of organic materials. The Mayor launched the draft London Food Strategy in spring 2018, and the Committee, in liaison with other Committees of the London Assembly, may wish to consider a response to the consultation draft. Pending confirmation of the publication date for the draft strategy, it is expected that it could be discussed at the Committee’s June meeting.
Page 194
4.8 The outer London Green Belt is an important part of London’s environment, helping to provide resilience against weather events like heavy rain or heatwave, providing access to nature for Londoners and habitat for wildlife, and helping to absorb air pollution. Food growing activities in this area can enhance these functions. Scoping work on this topic will consider how broadly to look at these questions. It was felt that a summer investigation would best enable possible site visits or other work away from City Hall to gather evidence in the field.
Cold, damp and carbon emissions in homes 4.9 The Committee has previously investigated carbon emissions from London’s domestic sector, and Mayoral programmes to reduce it. With progress being made on easy measures like loft and cavity wall insulation, there is a need to tackle homes that are hard to insulate, especially where this leaves residents in cold and/or damp conditions. The investigation will focus on social housing and examine delivery of the Mayor’s Fuel Poverty Action Plan. The issues have greatest public resonance in winter, so it has been suggested to gather evidence in autumn/early winter and to publish a report later in the winter.
4.10 Putting up and altering buildings generates considerable carbon emissions, so there can be a tension between the carbon savings of a more efficient building fabric and the carbon costs of refurbishment or rebuilding works. Informal discussions with the Planning Committee indicate that, if the Environment Committee were to investigate these ‘embodied carbon’ questions before October 2018, it could inform the Examination in Public of the London Plan.
Particulate pollution 4.11 Air pollution from motor exhaust has received considerable attention over recent years, but some other sources have received less. With cleaner motors taking over the roads, other sources are emerging as having greater relative significance. These sources include secondary engines on vehicles, such as those powering refrigeration units, and solid fuel burning such as in wood fires and stoves, pizza ovens and barbecues. The Mayor is aiming for stringent health-based clean air targets, as recommended by this Committee, and so all sources of emissions need to be borne down on.
4.12 There is also ongoing work to assess particulate pollution on the underground network.
4.13 Whether within the cold homes investigation or the air pollution, Lead Members have expressed an interest in investigating domestic boilers, including replacing older boilers with more efficient ones, replacing boilers altogether with systems such as heat pumps, and whether householders can use their heating more efficiently.
Other work 4.14 Party Group Lead Members kept in mind other potential work of the Committee, including holding the Mayor to account for developing and delivering policies such as the T-charge and Ultra Low Emission Zone, a Mayoral energy supplier, the Solar Action Plan, the Environment Strategy and associated strategies, and action on Tube noise.
4.15 The Committee is also likely to respond to consultations and contribute to wider debates such as on London airports and the National Air Quality Strategy. Members anticipate holding a meeting on aviation issues during the year.
Page 195
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.
List of appendices to this report: None
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None
Contact Officer: Ian Williamson, Scrutiny Manager Telephone: 020 7983 6541 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 196