Questions 1-6 relates to applicant details
Question 7: Do you agree or disagree with the waste types we are proposing to be tracked? We agree that where household waste is collected by local authorities it should not be tracked electronically. Mandatory tracking should focus on the parts of the waste system most likely to attract criminal activity. Tracking waste at the individual household level would require a significant investment in new technology.
Defra has set out the next steps for the implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging material and we are disappointed that producers will not have to pay councils for the cost of clearing up litter. This leaves councils funding litter clear up costs out of already stretched local budgets. We urge Defra to consider littering as a type of waste crime and ensure that it is treated seriously within the waste and resources strategy.
Question 8: Do you agree or disagree with our proposals for which waste activities will be recorded in the waste tracking service?
Agree
Question 9: Do you agree or disagree with our proposals for when waste tracking will not be required?
There is not enough detail for us to be able to answer this question. The proposal needs further development and testing with councils and other organisations involved in re-use and recycling activities.
Question 10: Do you have any views about how we should incorporate waste activities conducted under Non-Waste Framework Directive exemptions, Low Risk Waste Positions and Regulatory Position Statements into the waste tracking service?
The examples given in the consultation document are low risk situations where it is unlikely that criminal activity would take place. We agree that in these situations the specified activities should be exempt from the need to provide further information.
Question 11: Do you agree or disagree with our proposals to remove the requirement to submit information or waste data returns as listed, once the waste tracking service is live?
Local authorities should not be required to enter the same data in duplicate systems. This is not an acceptable use of limited staff resources. We agree with the removal of the proposed list of reporting requirements.
We welcome an early conversation with Defra on local authority data to ensure a smooth transition between systems. We must ensure that systems are future proofed to avoid a situation where councils are required to enter data into multiple systems for EPR, waste tracking and Defra statistics. It would be helpful to understand from Defra whether the Waste Dataflow system will become redundant once the new system of waste tracking is in place.
Question 12: Do you agree or disagree with the information recording proposals in Table 1.
Information recording proposals
|
Information
|
LGA view
|
a)
|
A system-generated unique identifier
|
Agree
|
b)
|
Details of the person who classified the waste
|
Disagree – not necessary
|
c)
|
Details about the destination for all waste movements, including the type of authorisation held
|
Agree. There should be a way for councils to access this information, so they can be transparent with residents on the destination of household waste
|
d)
|
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
|
Agree
|
e)
|
Details of rejected or quarantined loads
|
Yes, if this can be done with placing additional burdens on local authorities
|
f)
|
Details of waste treatment
|
Yes, but this needs testing to ensure that it can be done in practice
|
g)
|
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) identification
|
Basic information on POPs would be helpful
|
h)
|
Details of end of waste products and materials produced
|
No view – it is unclear what is intended
|
i)
|
Onward destination of end of waste products or materials
|
Yes, this would be useful
|
Question 13: Persistent Organic Pollutants – how much information about POPs do you think should be recorded in the service?
It would be helpful to include basic level information about POPs. Requiring further information is an additional burden and there is no clear reason for making this a mandatory requirement.
Question 14: Is there any other information related to waste management that you think should be recorded in a new digital waste tracking service?
No
Question 15-21 on recording treatment, product details and dangerous goods
We do not have a view on these questions.
Q22) If you produce, manage or handle waste in any way, were you aware of your duty to apply the waste hierarchy prior to reading this consultation? Yes, councils are aware of their duties to follow the waste hierarchy.
Q23) Do you think waste holders including producers should record their compliance with the application of the waste hierarchy in the Waste Tracking service We would like to understand whether this has made a difference in those parts of the UK that require this information.
Data recording by itself is unlikely to have an impact on producers. Other measures, such as extended producer responsibility schemes, are more likely to change the way products and designed and treated at the end of their life.
Questions 24-40 on data entry and information requirements
The LGA does not have a view on these questions.
Q41) Do you agree or disagree with the proposed level of access to information for each of the different types of users as set out in Table 4?
d) local authorities – agree
e) wider public and interested parties – agree
Q42) Do you agree or disagree that waste producers should be able to see information about the end fate of their waste?
Agree. We would be happy to discuss this further with Defra.
Questions 43-45 on data protection
The LGA does not have a view on these questions.
Q46) Do you agree or disagree with the proposed offences and associated enforcement options as set out?
Dealing with waste crime takes a range of tools and approaches including enforcement. Penalties must be strong enough to ensure compliance with waste tracking obligations. The regulators must be properly resourced to carry out enforcement action, and it must be clear how this is funded. We seek reassurance from Defra that this would not take resources away from other enforcement activity, for example action against large scale fly-tipping.
We agree with the proposed offences and enforcement options.
Q47) Do you think there should be a maximum limit for variable monetary penalties set out in legislation?
No. We support an approach that allows the regulator to set an amount according to a set of factors set out in regulations.
Q48) Do you agree or disagree with our proposed functions for environmental regulators?
We support the list of proposed functions.
Q49) Do you think costs relating to the investigation of, and enforcement action taken against, those not complying with the requirements of waste tracking should be recoverable through the fees and charges for users of the waste tracking service?
It is not normally the case that the cost of the actions listed in Question 49 are recouped through fees and charges. There is no explanation of why there should be an exception for enforcement of mandatory waste tracking. This may set a precedent and therefore we are not in support.