Government response and summary of responses
Updated 21 October 2023
© Crown copyright 2023
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/waste-carrier-broker-and-dealer-system-reform/outcome/government-response-and-summary-of-responses
Government response
In January 2022, as part of the government’s work to tackle fly-tipping and other waste crime, Defra consulted on reforming the waste carrier, broker and dealer registration system in England (‘the consultation’). This was a commitment in the Resources and Waste Strategy 2018 following a recognition of the weaknesses in the current system and its impact on illegal waste activities.
The current system makes it hard for regulators to target high risk waste operators properly. Current enforcement options around the carriers, brokers and dealers (CBD) regime are limited and the Environment Agency can only refuse or revoke registrations if set criteria are met. It does not differentiate between small and large players, or the risks posed by the types and quantities of waste handled or managed by them. This is at odds with the other regulatory waste regimes which aim to deliver proportional charges and regulatory effort. As a result, CBD compliance and enforcement work has become reactive rather than proactive, and often only occurs following enforcement activity for other reasons.
Our proposals focus on updating key regulations for people and businesses involved in transporting and managing waste. They will provide a wider level of regulatory tools, greater flexibility around enforcement, increased checks at application stage and funding for compliance monitoring activities, thus providing stronger powers to fight waste crime. The proposals will also join up the CBD regime with the other main regulatory system for the resources and waste sector making it a simpler system for the industry and regulator.
The proposals consulted on are closely linked to the introduction of a digital waste tracking service. The consultation also included questions about permitting in relation to waste exports. A separate consultation on proposed targeted reform of the international waste shipment system will be published at a later date.
Terminology around carriers, brokers and dealers
This section asked questions relating to our proposal to simplify the current terminology of waste carriers, brokers, and dealers to distinct roles: waste controllers and transporters.
We will simplify the current terminology around waste carriers, brokers and dealers to ‘waste controllers’ and ‘waste transporters’ and assign legal responsibility to these new terms:
- Transporters: those who are instructed by a controller to move waste between locations without input on the end destination and classification (for example, hauliers, contractors, delivery drivers)
- Controllers: those who organise waste collection, or its classification, transportation, end destination (for example, brokers, dealers, consultants, waste sites), or arrange the recovery or disposal of waste on behalf of others, and those who buy or sell waste. For avoidance of doubt, this includes those who do not take physical possession of the waste when performing those activities
- Controller-transporters: those who organise waste collection, or its classification, transportation, end destination or arrange the recovery or disposal of waste on behalf of others, those who buy or sell waste and also collect and transport it (for example, waste sites with their own transporter, skip companies, waste collection companies)
This will more effectively link responsibility for the waste to those taking decisions on the fate of that waste.
The move to environmental permitting
We will replace existing registrations with a ‘standard rules’ environmental permit or a registered exemption. We plan to introduce three permit types (waste controller only, waste transporter only and a combined waste controller-transporter permit), each differentiated according to the activity carried out under the permit. We will also differentiate permits further by the scale of the operations undertaken and type of waste carried by the permit holder with additional tiers that take into consideration the type and volume of waste carried. We recognised the concerns about impact on smaller firms and this will ensure that those carrying large amounts of the most at risk waste types will be distinctly identified and charged accordingly. These tiers will be differentiated to cover four levels of risk, ensuring that additional charges and permit conditions will reflect the risk of waste transported and controlled. Further detail on the types of standard rules permits and the conditions of these will be outlined in a subsequent Environment Agency consultation.
Waste producers are required under the waste duty of care to ensure their waste is classified and managed correctly through its complete journey and so they will not be required to apply for a permit or registered exemption, as long as they are passing waste to a permitted waste site, a permitted waste controller or waste controller-transporter, or alternatively allowing an operator with a waste controller permit to make arrangements on their behalf. If they pass waste to an operator who only holds a waste transporter permit, then waste producers will either need a registered exemption or a controller permit to ensure their waste is managed correctly through its complete journey. If they are transporting their own non-construction and demolition or hazardous waste under a certain volume, then they will be required to register an exemption.
Further examples of which scenarios will be covered by permitting are in Annex 1. Note this is not an exhaustive list.
Advertising
It will be a permit condition that permit numbers are displayed on advertising. This will also allow the Environment Agency to carry out desktop compliance work and identify businesses showing incorrect or fraudulent permit numbers in their advertising.
We will also make it a permit condition for permit numbers to be readily accessible to the regulator or local authority upon the inspection of a vehicle.
Both these aspects will be part of the Environment Agency standard rules permit consultation which they will run in due course.
Cash and cash-only ban
We will not be introducing a ban on cash or cash-only transactions for waste services of this nature. The banning of cash payments could impact those groups in society who do not have access to a bank account. The Access to Cash Review found that around 17% of the UK population (over 8 million adults) would struggle in a cashless society and the government has committed to bring forward legislation to protect access to cash. Businesses have discretion as to the forms of payments they wish to accept, including cash, cards and digital payment methods. We will, however, work to make waste producers, in particular householders, more aware of the possible implications of using cash-only operators, and to be extra vigilant in who they intrust to remove their waste.
We will also continue to work with HMRC to assess the feasibility of the introduction of tax conditionality at the point of renewal (see section on renewals and reviews). This would require those renewing a permit to demonstrate they are tax-registered with HMRC and therefore strengthens the link to legitimacy.
Renewals and reviews
We will introduce chargeable permit renewals which will be needed on a regular basis. This will be light touch for existing permit holders and will require them to declare they are still meeting the conditions of their permit, and that their business details and required technical competence is up to date. Renewals will be undertaken at a frequency of every 3 years. If a permit holder does not renew by the renewal date, then they will be required to submit a new, full application.
Charging
Charges will be set in line with the existing legislative charging framework for environmental permitting. Application fees will therefore cover the cost of determining an application alongside an additional fee that will cover the costs of monitoring compliance.
The new, 3 year transporter and controller permits we will introduce will require a single, up-front payment. This will be composed of two elements including an application fee and a subsistence fee. The application fee will cover the costs of determining the application, and the subsistence fee will cover regulatory compliance costs over the 3-year lifetime of the permit. The overall fee will be paid up front, but the subsistence element will be refunded if the application is not successful.
Upon renewal, permit holders will pay a renewal fee and a further 3 years of subsistence.
Detail about assumed levels of charges will be set out in the impact assessment for CBD reform which will be published alongside the legislation required to make these reforms. Charges will be proportionate to size and activities of businesses, and the Environment Agency will be consulting on the associated charges separately before these are finalised.
Compliance and Enforcement
Compliance
Permit costs are for the application for and subsistence of the permit and do not cover enforcement activity. They cover compliance monitoring such as:
- roadside stop checks
- digital and desk-based audits
- on-site audits
The type of compliance check will depend on the type of permit held, the tier and associated level of risk.
The final compliance framework model is being finalised by the Environment Agency.
Enforcement
Bringing waste transporters and controllers into the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) provides a robust enforcement framework, allowing the regulator greater flexibility compared to the existing CBD regime.
Part 4 of the EPR details the enforcement and offences available under the EPR. These will be applicable to waste transporter, controller, and transporter-controller permits. We aim to ensure that our reforms maintain equivalence for local authorities with their current enforcement powers. The Environment Agency will publish guidance on enforcement.
Enforcement work is covered by the Environment Agency’s ongoing Grant-in-Aid funding. In recent years funding for enforcement has increased by up to £10 million per year and is now baselined in the Environment Agency’s budget. Additionally, the Environment Agency will now have the full regulatory toolbox at their disposal for enforcing the EPR in relation to these waste controllers and transporters.
Exemptions from a requirement to operate under a permit
There are a range of scenarios where we considered exemptions from a requirement to hold a permit. As with permits, registered exemptions will need to be re-registered every 3 years. Some details are below.
A table of example permit and exemption scenarios can be found in Annex 1. Note this list is not exhaustive.
Local authorities
Local authorities carrying out their statutory duties in respect of waste will be able to operate under a non-registered exemption.
Local authorities operating services on a commercial basis will be required to apply for the relevant standard rules permit.
Charities
Our initial proposal was that charities and voluntary groups operating a non-profit service or collecting and moving waste would also be able to operate under a non-registered exemption. However, having considered consultation responses we now believe that there is a case for charities and voluntary groups to be required to register an exemption when transporting or controlling non-saleable stock. This will enable the Environment Agency to hold information on the waste activities of these organisations. (Those transporting charitable donations and moving stock between shops or to and from a central warehouse for sorting or storing will not be in scope. Neither will, for example, groups collecting charitable donations for jumble sales etc.).
Charities operating a chargeable, commercial service will be required to apply for the relevant standard rules permit. This is in order to maintain a level playing field between charities and private waste companies.
Waste managed by people who produce it in the course of business
People who transport or control more than a certain volume of construction or demolition waste, or waste that is subject to a higher level of control, which is produced by themselves in the course of their business, will be required to apply for the relevant standard rules permit. For construction and demolition waste, this is because it is more likely than other types of waste to be disposed of inappropriately. For wastes subject to higher levels of control such as hazardous waste, this is due to the potential for serious harm to be caused.
However, the permitting framework will take into account the differing scales of activity and so those who carry lower volumes of this type of construction or demolition waste (produced in the course of their business) will only be required to apply for a lower level of permit, and will not be required to undertake mandatory competence assessments. Similarly, those who carry small amounts of hazardous waste produced during the course of their business will only be required to register an exemption and not apply for a permit.
The Environment Agency will consult on volumes that apply to these scenarios, and other details, as part of their standard rules consultation.
People who only transport or control low levels of non-construction or non-demolition waste, produced by themselves in the course of their business should be allowed to operate under a registered exemption. This scenario would cover, for example, a plumber who uses rags to clear up some dirty water or the offcuts of pipework they brought onto site to fix a pipe.
However, if a business removes third party waste produced in the course of their business they will be required to apply for a lower level permit. This scenario is an extension of the one above with the addition of someone removing third party waste including waste created from materials that they have not brought onto the site themselves. An example could be a plumber taking away old radiators after fitting new ones.
Extractive industry waste
Extractive waste in England is controlled through the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 and the Major Accident Off-Site Emergency Plan (Management of Waste from Extractive Industries) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009. Given these existing controls on waste from mines and quarries, and the future introduction of digital waste tracking, the transport and control of waste from mines and quarriers will be required to operate under a registered exemption.
Agricultural waste
Companies transporting agricultural waste, or those that offer a take-back service for empty containers and unused product will be required to apply for a permit.
Farmers transporting their own agricultural waste will only be required to operate under a registered exemption.
Animal by-products
Transport of animal by-products (ABP) is already covered by the ABP regulations, requirements which are designed to ensure ABP are suitably and safely handled to the satisfaction of Defra and the Animal Plant and Health Agency (APHA). There is therefore no additional benefit from requiring this activity to be permitted and instead it will require a registered exemption.
Implementation
Once the new system is ‘live’ those with an existing upper tier registration will be required to apply for the relevant permit when their registration is due for renewal thereby naturally creating a staggered approach over three years.
The Environment Agency will communicate to all current upper tier registrants to make them aware of the changes and of the need to apply for a permit (or register an exemption if applicable) when their registration expires.
Those with existing lower tier registrations, where there is no requirement to renew, and who will be required to either register for an exemption or apply for a permit, must do so within 12 months of the system going ‘live’. After this time, their lower tier registration will cease to exist.
New applicants (who do not already hold an upper or lower tier registration) will be required to apply for a permit or register an exemption (whichever is applicable) from the date the new system goes live.
Demonstrating technical competence for permitted activities
Operator competence
The EPR contain a requirement for waste operators to demonstrate operator competence, of which technical competence is a part. As waste transporters and controllers will be moved into the EPR they will be subject to these requirements. This means the Environment Agency must be satisfied those applicants are able to meet the conditions of the permit being applied for, including holding the correct level of technical competence. The regulator will not grant a permit to a person it considers will not be the legal operator of that business or will not operate in accordance with the permit. This may include persons who have not followed permit conditions in the past or appear unlikely to follow permit conditions, and those with more serious and unspent criminal convictions. The regulator will also have the power to suspend permits if they do not consider the operator to be meeting the requirements of the permit at any time during its lifetime.
Introduction of mandatory technical competence
Mandatory technical competence will be introduced for the permit holder and any nominated person(s) within the business. A nominated person(s) must be someone who is employed by the business and spends all their time working for that company (not a contractor who spends a certain number of days with the company).
As is the case for site permits, there will be two routes to demonstrate competence: individual and workplace based. If a workplace competency route is taken, then the permit holder or nominated person(s) on the permit must be named as main point of contact. They will have responsibility for demonstrating the competence requirements are met. A nominated person(s) must be an employee of the company and cannot be a nominated person(s) or technical competence holder for any other permit. They must not be a contractor or consultant.
Applying the requirements of technical competence to waste controllers and transporters in a proportionate way will increase awareness of the importance of record keeping and the impacts of misclassification of waste and illegal disposal of waste. This, alongside the proposed digital waste tracking service, will increase compliance with regulation, will reduce waste crime within the industry and will create a more level-playing field for legitimate waste operators.
How technical competence will be demonstrated
It is important that the ability to show technical competence is proportionate, flexible and accessible for all. We are continuing to work with industry and training providers to create two routes that will allow the wide range of businesses to choose the option that best suits their model.
Whatever the route chosen by an operator, it will be a permit condition that they ensure their workforce is suitably competent for their various roles in that organisation. If enforcement or compliance monitoring finds employees of an organisation to be acting in a way that breaches technical competence requirements, the operator will be liable.
Individual assessments
Although we are still working with industry to finalise the detail we anticipate that, where the individual assessment route is followed, the permit holder and any additional nominated person(s) would take a remote e-learning course before sitting an in-person test at a test centre (similar to the model used for driving theory tests). This would be a similar assessment method to the current Chartered Institute for Wastes Management (Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board) (CIWM(WAMITAB)) system for site permits but the content may differ in complexity. WAMITAB is part of CIWM (the resources and waste sector professional body) and is an awarding body that develops qualifications for those working in the sector.
The requirement is expected to be assessed on a modular basis. For example, a nominated person for a transporter permit will only need to take modules relating to transporting waste, a controller will only need modules relating to handling waste, classification, choosing appropriate treatment, waste recovery and disposal options, and a controller-transporter will need all modules, including one for import and export if they carry out that activity.
As with site-based permits, individual employees would not necessarily need to demonstrate ‘full competence’ (and sit the external assessment) but will need to be able to demonstrate they are competent in the activities they are carrying out and have received adequate training. There will be a requirement to ensure training is cascaded to all staff. Details of this requirement and how this will be evidenced will be included in the subsequent Environment Agency standard rules consultation.
Workplace competence
Alternatively, a workplace-based qualification could be obtained, which would allow the workplace to demonstrate competence rather than requiring individual qualifications. We are working with industry to develop the details of this framework. This would be similar to the current system run by Energy & Utility Skills (EU Skills) for site permits.
Cost
Detail about assumed costs for these assessments will be set out in the impact assessment for waste carriers, brokers, and dealers reform which will be published alongside the legislation required to make these reforms. They are not however anticipated to be the same scale of costs as the existing WAMITAB scheme due to the lighter touch approach to learning.
Links to other existing schemes
A number of waste transporters and controllers will already be operating at, and be able to demonstrate, a certain level of competence acquired through existing schemes. For example, Technically Competent Managers for site permits are likely to cover the same themes we would want for transporters or controllers. Therefore, those who already hold this level of competency will not be required to undertake additional transporter or controller competency, providing the permit holder or nominated person is the one who holds it. The nominated person(s) must be an employee of the company and cannot be an external contractor or consultant. Similarly, those who are already part of the EU Skills Workplace Assessment Scheme will not be required to demonstrate additional transporter or controller competence as the expectation is the scheme will be updated to incorporate this learning.
Those who are required to register an exemption
Those who are required to register an exemption (see on exemptions from a requirement to operate under a permit) are carrying out low risk activities. They are still required to meet their duty of care requirements, but we consider requiring them to achieve and demonstrate competence as outlined above too burdensome for little practical benefit. We will therefore not be requiring those registering exemptions to demonstrate competence.
Transition period for the introduction of competence requirements
The introduction of mandatory competence is a significant change for the industry, and both operators and training providers will need adequate time to prepare. Therefore anyone applying for a permit in the first year of the system going live will only be required to enter proof of their technical competence within one year of that go-live date. If this is not submitted within the required timescale the regulators will have the ability to suspend permits until this is received.
For example: if the new system started on 1 April, then an applicant would have until 31 March the following year to have entered a valid technical competence assessment. This is regardless of when their application was approved during that time.
From a year after the go-live date, evidence of competence will need to be submitted as part of any permit application.
Ongoing competence
Evidence of continued competence will be required at point of renewal (every 3 years) for a renewal to be granted and must also be available during the life of a permit if requested by the regulator during audits. The requirement to cascade competence training to all employees will continue to apply.
Evidence of continued competence will be applicable regardless of whether a business has taken the individual assessment or workplace approach. They will have to show evidence of up-to-date assessments or certificates as applicable.
How will technical competence be monitored and enforced?
Applicants will be required to provide evidence that they, and if applicable other nominated person(s) have acquired the relevant level of competence. If this is not provided, the regulator can refuse the application.
For those applying for a permit in the transition phase, if they do not submit the required evidence by the allocated time frame, the regulator can suspend the permit until it is satisfied competence has been attained.
If, during audits, the permit holder cannot provide evidence of adequate staff training and therefore the staff are considered not to be operating at the appropriate level of competence, the permit may be suspended until the regulators are satisfied competency is in place.
If an employee is involved in a breach of permit, or good practice, then the permit holder is responsible. If they cannot demonstrate a suitable level of staff competence, then the regulator may suspend the permit until this is put in place.
Permits may also be revoked if, for example, other compliance and enforcement tools fail to protect the environment, or the permit holder is no longer considered to be competent, or there is a pattern of problems or repeated issues with competence or behaviour.
The link to Duty of Care
The Duty of Care legislation and Code of Practice will be amended in due course to reflect the changes around these reforms and the introduction of a digital waste tracking service. We will also consider the need for a wider awareness campaign aimed at the general public, to make it easier for them to meet their duty of care requirements. This will cover things such as making sure they check whether a business is permitted if required and that they know where contractors are taking their waste.
The devolved administrations
We are currently working closely with the Environment Agency and the devolved administrations to assess our options mitigate any risks arising from a differential approach across UK nations, ensuring operators register with the correct authority and to prevent the intentional exploitation of this system.
Waste exporters
We consulted on a proposal to introduce permits for waste exporters, including considering whether those permits should be time limited, and introducing a technical competence requirement for operators holding a waste exporter permit. We are currently exploring alternative options for reform, separate to a permitting system, that would help to achieve the aim of this proposal whilst avoiding duplication of requirements under other permitting regimes. We plan to come forward with proposals for reform which will focus on closing existing loopholes in the legislation on waste shipments, ensuring that the responsibilities of waste exporters in relation to the fate of exported waste are clear, and ensuring that the UK waste shipments competent authorities have access to adequate information to support compliance and monitoring work to tackle illegal waste shipments.
Summary of responses
This document contains a summary of the responses to the consultation on ‘Reform of the waste carrier, broker, dealer registration system in England’. A more detailed summary of responses is provided at Annex 2.
This consultation was held between 21 January and 15 April 2022.
The consultation sought views on:
- the move from a registration to a permit-based system and the types of permits available
- what activities should be covered by permits, what should be covered by registered exemptions and what activities should not require either a permit or registered exemption
- the introduction of a technical competence element required for permits – the level required and how it can be demonstrated through the workforce
This document summarises the responses received to each question. We received a total of 426 separate responses. The majority of these responses were from businesses that handle or manage waste.
Terminology around carriers, brokers and dealers
This section of the consultation asked questions around planned changes to terminology within our proposal, whether these terms fairly represent the operational waste sector and how assigning legal responsibility in this way will impact the effectivity of regulation and improve accountability.
Q1. We think that assigning legal responsibilities for managing and transporting waste to ‘controllers’ and ‘transporters’ rather than ‘carriers, brokers and dealers’ better reflects the way the waste and resources industry works. Do you agree or disagree?
71% of respondents agreed that legal responsibility should be assigned to waste ‘’controllers’ and ‘transporters’ as to better reflect the way the waste and resources industry works.
Q2. We think that assigning legal responsibilities in this way will enable us to regulate the management and transport of waste more effectively. Do you agree or disagree?
66% of respondents agreed that assigning legal responsibility to controllers and transporters of waste would enable more effective regulation of the transport and management of waste, with 19% disagreeing.
Q3. We believe assigning responsibilities in this way will help ensure that all waste handlers are held accountable for any mismanagement that occurs. Do you agree or disagree?
68% of respondents agreed that the proposals would increase accountability for waste mismanagement within the sector.
The move to environmental permitting
This section of the consultation asked questions about the consolidation of the CBD regime under environmental permitting regulations, the types of permits to be introduced and how these could be differentiated.
Q4. Do you agree or disagree with our proposal to bring the current CBD regime under the environmental permitting regulations?
73% of respondents agreed that the current CBD regime should be brought under environmental permitting regulations.
Respondents were also concerned that this proposal could result in increased costs to businesses, consequently increasing consumer prices, resulting in an increased demand for illegal waste services.
Q5. Do you agree or disagree with our proposal to introduce three types of permit – controller only, transporter only and combined controller-transporter?
73% of respondents agreed with our proposal to introduce three types of permit.
Many respondents stated that permit types should be further separated to reflect the scale of waste carried or be distinguished by the type of waste carried and that the proposed permit types were not specific enough.
Others stated that there should be distinct permits for those who are controllers of their own waste, as current proposals may be disadvantageous to organizations who produce and discard of their own waste.
Q6. Do you agree or disagree that standard rules permit types should be differentiated according to the activities to be carried out under the permit such as controller, transporter or both?
74% of respondents agreed that standard rules permit should be differentiated according to the activity carried out.
Previous comments were reiterated here, with a significant number of respondents stating that permits could also be differentiated by the type and scale of waste handled. Others agreed that permits should be differentiated according to the activities but not under the proposed controller-transporter regime.
Approximately 2% of respondents also stated that this proposal should only be implemented alongside a competency scheme for the activities in question.
Q7. If you disagree with our proposal, how do you think the standard rules permits should be differentiated?
43% of respondents did not answer, leaving 57% who did. Of those, 10% felt that there should be no differentiation. Scale of the organisation was particularly criticised as a point of differentiation as it was suggested larger organisations may have more robust environmental management systems and controls.
Differentiation by type of waste was the most popular with respondents, with 15% agreeing this would be a preferable category. Differentiation by hazardous and non-hazardous waste or by whether the waste was produced through the provision of a service by the permit holder (for example, as a result of construction activities) were popular motivations for agreeing with this category. By number of staff was the least popular of the proposed categories with only 1% of all respondents agreeing with this proposal. Respondents stated that quantifying the number of staff that frequently carry waste would be challenging, as many businesses have a high turnover of employees and many carry waste irregularly, registering as a waste carrier more so as a precaution than a reflection of daily activities.
Many respondents stating other opinions suggested that standard rules permit should be differentiated by a combination of the suggested categories as this would provide the most accurate assessment of the scale of the business and associated risk, resulting the fairer allocation of fees. The most commonly suggested combination included all three of the proposals outlined in this question.
Advertising
This section of the consultation asked questions around legal requirements for permit numbers to be displayed on advertising and in business vehicles and the impact this would have on broader regulatory compliance.
Q8. Do you agree or disagree that it should be a permit condition to show a permit number on advertising?
76% of respondents agreed that there it should be a permit condition to show the permit number on advertising.
Q9. Do you agree or disagree that it should be a permit condition to clearly display permit numbers on any vehicle used for the collection and transport of waste?
59% of respondents agreed that it should be permit condition to display permit numbers on any vehicle used for the collection and transport of waste.
Q10. Do you agree or disagree that these measures would help improve Duty of Care compliance?
68% of respondents agreed that proposed measures would help improve duty of care compliance.
Renewals and reviews
This section of the consultation asked questions relating to the case for introducing permit renewals for controllers and transporters, whether this should be built into the proposed reforms and if so, how they should be implemented.
Q11. Do you agree or disagree that a renewal element should be built into the transporter-controller permitting system?
75% of respondents agreed that a renewal element should be built into the proposed permitting system.
Q12. Do you agree or disagree that with our proposal to implement permit renewal through self-declaration process?
77% of respondents agreed that permit renewal should be undertaken through a self-declaration process.
Q13. If we introduce permit renewal, how frequently do you think permits should be renewed?
The general trend was towards a less frequent renewal period as to free up resources so other activities, mostly relating to enforcement, can be prioritised by the regulator. 36% of respondents agreed that if they were to be introduced, permits should be renewed every 3 years. This was the most agreed upon period, with prominent levels of agreement seen from individuals, business that handle and manage waste, consultancies and similar types of organisations and unspecified types of organisations.
Charging
This section of the consultation asked questions relating to the existing legislative charging framework associated with Environmental Permitting.
Q14. Do you agree or disagree that subsistence charges should align with charges under the Environmental Permitting Regulations to fund the same range of regulatory activity?
59% agreed that subsistence chargers should align with charges under EPR, as to fund the same range of regulatory activity.
This group was primarily concerned about the impact of additional fees on SMEs, and that additional charges would not correspond to additional or more effective enforcement action.
Enforcement
If you have any comments, please leave them below
23% of respondents left a comment.
Many used this free text box to comment on the problems caused by waste crime generally rather than specifically on enforcement.
There was a lot of criticism over a lack of enforcement of the current CBD regime and a scepticism over whether the new regime will change that. There were a number of comments on the lack of deterrent, light fines for heavy breaches and the need for fixed penalty notices and vehicle seizures as quicker and more effective enforcement.
Many felt that the Environment Agency was not sufficiently resourced to enforce the current regime and that this was unlikely to change. There was concern too that not enough will be done to tackle those who intend to continue with their criminality regardless.
Some local authorities were keen that the revised legislation considered the role that they play in enforcing the regime and that more consideration should be given to joint operations and intelligence sharing.
Exemptions from a requirement to operate under a permit
This section asked questions about specific transporter-controller activities and whether they should require a standard rules permit, a registered exemption or a non-registered exemption.
Q15. Do you agree or disagree that charities or voluntary groups operating a non-profit service should be able to operate under a non-registered exemption?
While 36% of respondents agreed that charities and voluntary groups operating a non-profit service should be able to operate under a non-registered exemption 53% disagreed and wanted to see some kind of control whether that was a permit, a registered exemption or some other control.
Q.16 Do you agree or disagree that local authority waste collection and disposal authorities and regulatory authorities should be able to operate under a nonregistered exemption?
41% agreed with the proposal. Those that commented thought that it would be unnecessary for a regulator to ask another regulator to be registered.
48% disagreed and wanted to see some kind of control whether that was a permit, a registered exemption or some other control. Those who thought local authority waste collection and disposal authorities and regulatory authorities should be required to operate under a permit were keen that everyone was treated the same. Some felt that if small businesses require a permit the requirements for a local authority should be as high or higher. However, many of the pro permit comments indicated that they in fact wanted to see some kind of minimum requirement rather than necessarily a full permit.
Q.17 Do you agree or disagree that charities operating a chargeable, commercial service should be required to apply for the relevant standard rules permit?
There was strong agreement across all respondent categories. Many of those that agreed saw no distinction between a charity running a commercial enterprise and a business and wanted to see a level playing field.
Q.18 Do you agree or disagree that waste disposal and collection authorities operating on a commercial basis should be required to apply for the relevant standard rules permit?
There was strong support for this proposal.
Q19: Do you agree or disagree that those who transport or control waste produced by themselves in the course of their business, and where that waste is construction and demolition waste or the waste is subject to a higher level of control should be required to apply for the relevant standard rules permit?
There was a clear majority in support of this proposal. Those that agreed wanted to see a level playing field. There was some confusion regarding what construction and demolition waste was among those that disagreed.
Q.20 Do you agree or disagree that those who only transport or control non-construction or demolition waste, produced by themselves in the course of their business, should be allowed to operate under a registered exemption?
Overall there was strong support for this proposal. Many of those that did not agree thought that this distinction could lead to confusion for both the industry and the public.
Q.21 Do you agree or disagree that businesses removing third party waste produced in the course of their business should be required to apply for a permit?
There was a clear majority in support of this proposal although many of those that agreed expressed a desire to see a more proportionate approach depending upon the quantities and types of waste. There were concerns however that this option could leave residents with waste that would then become the responsibility of the local authority.
Q.22 Do you agree or disagree that the distinction and risks between scenarios (e) and (f) are sufficiently clear to require two different regulatory approaches?
There were very few comments supporting answers to this question. Almost all of the various respondent categories closely reflected the overall picture. The majority of those that disagreed and thought they should be treated the same favoured a permit.
Q.23 Do you agree or disagree that those transporting or controlling waste from mines and quarries should be required to operate under a registered exemption?
Responses were largely split between those that agreed and those that wanted either a permit or some other control. Comments supporting the latter seemed to suggest they were in fact in favour of a permit.
Support for a permit focussed on the likely large quantities of waste and its type being more suitable for a permit as well as a desire to see a level playing field. Others expressed confusion as to why mining waste would not be permitted in the same way as construction and demolition waste and pointed out that there would likely be a distinction between types of mining waste.
Q.24 Do you agree or disagree that companies transporting or controlling agricultural waste should be required to apply for a permit?
There was a clear majority in support of this proposal reflected across respondent categories. Supporting comments focussed on the potentially large quantities and types of waste.
Q.25 Do you agree or disagree that farmers should be required to operate under a registered exemption if they are only transporting their own agricultural waste?
Local authorities expressed the strongest support for this proposal. Supporting comments noted that now was not time to burden farmers with additional requirements given the pressures the industry is under. It was however felt that farmers should be able to quickly prove their authenticity when challenged by regulatory bodies to prevent criminals from masquerading as farmers.
Many individuals and businesses supporting a permit focussed on the desire to see a blanket requirement for a permit when transporting any waste. Many could not see a difference between a farmer transporting their own waste and a third party transporting it.
Q.26 Do you agree or disagree that those who transport or control only animal by-products should operate under a non-registered exemption?
While 32% of respondents agreed with this proposal 45% thought that those who transport or control only animal by-products should operate under a greater control with most preferring a permit. Supporting comments were consistent across all respondent types in that they felt that the material was potentially harmful and that there was too much abuse in this area. Some detailed situations where transport of this material causes problems and how a permit would potentially help. Others wanted to see a level playing field with all waste movements requiring a permit. There was an error in the consultation paper which should have proposed a registered exemption for the transport or control of animal by-products. This will be considered and addressed in the government response.
Implementation
Recognising that these proposals represent a big step change to the industry, this section asked questions about providing both industry and regulators with sufficient time to prepare.
Q.27 Do you agree or disagree that those who currently hold an upper tier registration should be required to apply for a permit at the time when this registration is due to be renewed?
While there was strong support for this proposal supporting comments expressed concerns regarding ongoing delays with the processing of permits. Others had concerns about the time and resources required to update references on annual season tickets within the first 12 months. Others felt there should be a provision drafted that an operator cannot renew their existing licence before its expiration so as to prevent circumvention of the implementation approach. There were also calls for the Environment Agency to be sufficiently resourced to be able to carry out identification checks.
Q.28 Do you agree or disagree that those who currently have a lower tier registration should be required to either register an exemption or apply for a permit within 12 months of the system going live?
While there was strong support for this proposal supporting comments were keen that the Environment Agency noted any significant movements to registered exemptions as well as any significant drops in overall numbers. Many of the comments again called for the Environment Agency to be sufficiently resourced to be able to carry out identification checks.
Demonstrating competence for permitted activities
This section of the consultation asked questions around the introduction of mandatory technical competence for those dealing with waste, who should be required to have it, how it should be demonstrated and what sort of implementation period would be appropriate.
Q29: Do you agree or disagree with introducing technical competence as a controller or transporter permit requirement?
Overall, 70% of respondents agreed technical competence should be introduced for the proposed transporter and controller permits, with the majority (58%) considering it should be introduced for both types of permit. Only 1% considered it should be introduced for transporter only permits, and 9% for controller only.
Q30: Do you agree or disagree that a regulatory approach to assuring technical competence is likely to be the most effective in achieving a good standard of competence in waste controllers and transporters?
69% of respondents agreed a regulatory approach to be the most effective way of achieving a good standard of competence in waste controllers and transporters.
Q31: If you are a business that handles waste, which of the following waste technical competence qualifications do you or your employees hold?
One third of respondents (31%) said they did not hold any technical competence qualifications. Of those that did, 23% held CIWM or WAMITAB Level 4.
Other qualification held by respondents were Dangerous Goods Driver (ADR) and Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC) training, CIWM continuing competence through training courses they offer, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), graduate or post-graduate degree in related field and National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health (NEBOSH) certification.
Q32: Who do you think should be required to hold a full level of competence? (tick all that apply)
Respondents were split between the permit holder (53%) or nominated persons (46%) being required to hold a full level of competence.
Q33: Do you agree or disagree that having a nominated person responsible for cascading competence through the workforce is a proportionate approach for companies to demonstrate that their staff are at a suitable level of competence?
74% of respondents agreed that having a nominated person responsible for cascading competence through the workforce was a proportionate approach, and this was reflected across all groups. Respondents did note however that competence against one person can often lead to issues (holidays, sick leave etc) so depending on size it would be sensible if numerous people can be nominated.
Q34: to what extent are you in favour of a workforce-based competence scheme, such as the existing Energy and Utilities Skills scheme, being considered as an approach for waste controllers and transporters?
50% of respondents did not feel they knew enough about the scheme. Of those who did, 14% were somewhat in favour, 12% strongly in favour with 13% having no opinion.
There were comments that there should be an option of which route organisations wished to take, of which this should be one approach but not the only approach.
Q35: Do you agree or disagree that an online ‘assessment’, which needs to be completed as part of the initial application process, should be introduced as a way of demonstrating competence when applying for a permit?
69% agreed that an online assessment should be introduced as a way to demonstrate competency.
Q36: Do you agree or disagree that those operating under a registered exemption should still be required to hold an appropriate level of transporter or controller technical competence?
74% agreed that those operating under a registered exemption should still be required to hold an appropriate level of technical competence.
Respondents commented that operators holding an exemption should be sufficiently aware of their responsibilities and hold appropriate competencies but there was general agreement this needs to be proportionate to the activity and level of risk.
Q37: If you agree, do you agree or disagree that some form of basic online assessment, possibly forming part of the registration process itself, would be a proportionate approach?
73% of those who agreed that operators registering an exemption should be required to demonstrate competence went on to agree that some form of basic online assessment would be a proportionate approach.
Transition period for the introduction of competence requirements
Q38: Do you agree or disagree that there should be a phased introduction of the competence requirements?
78% of respondents agreed that there should be a phased implementation of competence requirements.
Q38 sub question: If you agree, how long do you think operators should have to provide evidence of full competence?
Of those who agreed there should be a phased implementation, 48% thought this should be twelve months, 15% thought it should be six months. 21% of respondents suggested other time periods of: 2 years (12 responses), up to 3 years (5 responses), 18 months (1 response), 5 years (1 response).
Q39 Do you agree or disagree that those operators applying for a transporter or controller permit with no existing CBD registration should be required to provide evidence of full competence at application stage?
63% agreed that those operators applying for a transporter or controller permit should be required to provide evidence of full competence at application stage if they have no existing CBD registration.
Ongoing competence
Q40: Do you agree or disagree that there should be a requirement to demonstrate continuing competence?
77% agreed that there should be a requirement to demonstrate continued competence.
Q41: If we were to introduce a requirement for demonstrating continuing competence, how often do you think this should be undertaken?
31% thought continued competence should be undertaken every 3 years. Other time frames offered were 10 years, in line with permit renewal periods if that is applied or if there are any major legislative, best practice or staffing changes.
Q42: Do you agree or disagree that there should be some sort of accredited third party assessment as part of this continued competence?
Just under half of all respondents (49%) agreed there should be some sort of accredited assessment as part of any continued competence. Just under a third (28%) did not know or had no opinion.
How will technical competence be monitored and enforced?
If you have any comments, please leave them below
19% of respondents left a comment.
The comments focused around two main themes, resourcing of regulators and the types of compliance or enforcement that should be carried out.
There was agreement across groups that regulators need to be appropriately funded to carry out required compliance and enforcement that operates efficiently and proactively, and that this is vital to the success of the proposals.
On compliance, there were views that monitoring should extend beyond any desk-based assessment and include practical on-site tests for representative employees. There were also comments around the need to have increased roadside checks and more penalties handed out than under the current CBD regime.
There was agreement that there should be enforcement action for non-compliance with competence and continuing competence requirements of permits set out amongst the offences.
Others were more cautious, suggesting that it should be the responsibility of the regulator to monitor for business falling below the required levels of competent operating and bring proportionate enforcement actions, rather than businesses have to demonstrate continuing competence which could prove to be a burden for legitimate operators who have no history of poor performance.
There were also comments around ensuring a suitable grace period and awareness campaign to ensure businesses do not end up being penalised for innocent mistakes due to not being up to date with requirements.
The link to Duty of Care
If you have any comments, please leave them below
16% of respondents left a comment.
There was agreement across all groups that an awareness campaign of some sort aimed at house holders would be beneficial, so they are aware of their legal responsibilities and consequences if these are not met. There were also comments suggesting a need to increase awareness across all responsible parties, no just house holders, so everyone knows their legal requirements and responsibilities.
Consultancies and trade bodies commented the role and requirements of producers especially need to be clarified and clearly communicated so they, and others, know what is expected of them.
Respondents agreed that any future changes need to be clearly communicated with good guidance produced to ensure all know what is expected and how they can comply.
Individuals and businesses noted concerns that householders or others would continue to pay the cheapest quote and not ask questions around permits etc. They had concerns the reforms would likely increase that cost gap between legitimate operators and those without permits and the cheaper companies will be more appealing. Subsequently they considered there needs to be greater enforcement action and penalties for those who did not comply.
Any other comments
Do you have any other comments to make about our proposals to reform the law on waste carriers, brokers and dealers?
96% of respondents left a comment.
Many of the comments expressed overall support but followed that up with their thoughts. There were also a number of comments from people who believed that the current system was fine and did not need to be changed.
There were a number of comments suggesting that the reforms would simply make life difficult for existing law-abiding businesses while doing nothing to tackle criminality. Many of these comments focussed on the impact on smaller businesses. They believed that the reforms could lead to higher waste disposal charges and consequently push more business to illegitimate businesses.
Some thought that the impact assessment fees for application and annual subsistence to be too low to enable sufficient enforcement. There were lots of concerns about enforcement, insufficient funding and that overall, not enough resource was targeted at this. Others thought the fees were too low as they would not create a sufficient barrier to entry. Many people reiterated how essential it was for local authorities to be able to enforce as well as the Environment Agency.
There were concerns about the reforms being England only and worries about this leading to people registering with the jurisdiction with the lowest regulation. Concerns were also raised about different terminology across the UK.
Comments from local authorities focused on how crucial enforcement would be for the reforms to be a success and the need for a high-profile publicity campaign. Many of the comments from consultancies focussed on the need for a permit holder to be able to identify themselves as the permit holder to a customer.
Waste exporters
Q60. Are you an exporter of waste, and are you currently registered as a broker or dealer in England or elsewhere? For the purpose of this consultation ‘exporter’ is defined as ‘any natural or legal person who intends to carry out a shipment of waste or intends to have a shipment of waste carried out on their behalf’.
Only 11% of respondents were waste exporters, of which 10% were registered as a broker or dealer with the Environment Agency in England. No campaign group responded to any questions in this section of the consultation.
Q61: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that operators exporting waste from England must hold a permit?
Most of the responders (71%) agreed that all operators exporting waste must hold a permit. However, almost a quarter of the responders were unsure or had no opinions on this. This trend was consistent across most respondent groups.
Q62: If we were to require operators exporting waste from England to have a permit, do you agree or disagree that the permit should be time limited?
60% of respondents agreed that permits should be time limited, whilst 6% disagreed.
Q63: Do you agree or disagree with the principle of including a requirement for applicants to demonstrate technical competence as a requirement to hold an exporter of waste permit?
Whilst the majority of responders agreed that applicants should be required to demonstrate technical competence, almost a quarter of the responders were uncertain.
Annex 1: Indicative permit and exemption scenarios
Householder transporting waste generated by their household
Example: Householder taking waste to HWRC
Requirement: Non-registered exemption
Waste at place of production with minimal sorting to be collected by another company
Example: Hospitals, universities, schools, offices or shopping centres etc. This does not include the movement of waste between different sites (for example waste being moved from one university campus to another)
Requirement: Non-registered exemption
Non-chargeable collection services not for commercial profit
Example: Charities transporting or controlling non-saleable stock
Requirement: Registered exemption
Non-commercial services meeting a statutory duty
Example: Local authority waste collections
Requirement: Non-registered exemption
Chargeable collection services for commercial profit
Example: Waste collection companies, charities offering chargeable collection service or local authorities offering a commercial service
Requirement: Permit
Onwards transport from drop off collection locations for low level waste
Example: Crisp packets being taken from collection points in offices to onward commercial or charitable collection sites
Requirement: Non-registered exemption
Transporting or disposing of construction and demolition waste or hazardous waste above a certain weight
Example: Waste collection company collecting or transporting waste from building site and skip operators
Requirement: Permit
Tradesperson or business transporting their own waste produced in course of that business (non-construction and demolition waste only, and hazardous waste below a certain weight)
Example: Plumber installing new bathroom for householder – removes offcuts of pipework installed, paint tins or dirty rags or other such waste from materials that the plumber brought to site themselves
Requirement: Registered Exemption
Tradesperson or business transporting 3rd party waste produced in the course of that business
Example: Plumber installing new bathroom for householder – removes old bathroom suite from premises as part of job
Requirement: Permit
Companies dealing in agricultural waste, picking up waste from a farmer or a group of farmers, or those that offer a take-back service for empty containers and unused product.
Example: Agricultural waste collection services
Requirement: Permit
Farmer taking own agricultural waste to permitted waste site
Requirement: Registered Exemption
Companies which only transport or deal in extractive waste from mines or quarries
Requirement: Registered Exemption
All movement or disposal of animal by-products
Requirement: Registered Exemption
Annex 2: More detailed summary of responses
This document contains a summary of the responses to the consultation on ‘Reform of the waste carrier, broker, dealer registration system in England’.
This consultation was held between 21 January and 15 April 2022.
The consultation sought views on:
- the move from a registration to a permit-based system and the types of permits available
- what activities should be covered by permits, what should be covered by registered exemptions and what activities should not require either a permit or registered exemption
- the introduction of a technical competence element required for permits including the level required and how it can be demonstrated through the workforce
This document summarises the responses received to each question. It is an annex to the government response. We received a total of 426 separate responses. The majority of these responses were from businesses that handle or manage waste.
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| An individual | 58 (14%) |
| A business that handles or manages waste | 259 (61%) |
| A local waste collection authority | 21 (5%) |
| A local waste disposal authority | 6 (1%) |
| A consultancy or similar type of organisation | 13 (3%) |
| A trade association or professional body, on behalf of your members | 19 (4%) |
| A campaigning group, on behalf of your members | 0 (0%) |
| Another type of organisation (please specify) | 45 (11%) |
| Not answered | 5 (1%) |
Terminology around carriers, Brokers and Dealers
This section of the consultation asked questions around planned changes to terminology within our proposal, whether these terms fairly represent the operational waste sector and how assigning legal responsibility in this way will impact the effectivity of regulation and improve accountability.
Q1. We think that assigning legal responsibilities for managing and transporting waste to ‘controllers’ and ‘transporters’ rather than ‘carriers, brokers and dealers’ better reflects the way the waste and resources industry works. Do you agree or disagree?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 303 (71%) |
| Disagree | 64 (15%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 59 (14%) |
71% of respondents agreed that legal responsibility should be assigned to waste ‘controllers’ and ‘transporters’ as to better reflect the way the waste and resources industry works.
This was consistent across most respondent groups. However, local waste disposal authorities were split evenly with 50% of respondents and 50% disagreeing with the proposition.
Individuals showed a similarly low level of agreement with 59% of respondents of this category agreeing, however, only 17% disagreed with the remaining 24% stating no opinion.
Q2. We think that assigning legal responsibilities in this way will enable us to regulate the management and transport of waste more effectively. Do you agree or disagree?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 283 (66%) |
| Disagree | 82 (19%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 59 (14%) |
66% of respondents agreed that assigning legal responsibility to controllers and transporters of waste would enable more effective regulation of the transport and management of waste, with 19% disagreeing.
Agreement was low within several respondent categories, with 55% of individuals agreeing, 50% of local waste disposal authorities agreeing and 53% of trade associations or professional bodies on behalf of their members agreeing.
Consultancies and similar types of organisations showed the lowest levels of agreement with 38% of respondents agreeing to the proposal. 38% of respondents from this group similarly disagreed with this proposal, and were the most likely to disagree, with most other respondents showing a balance between no opinion and disagreement.
Q3. We believe assigning responsibilities in this way will help ensure that all waste handlers are held accountable for any mismanagement that occurs. Do you agree or disagree?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 290 (68%) |
| Disagree | 70 (16%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 62 (15%) |
68% of respondents agreed that the proposals would increase accountability for waste mismanagement within the sector.
This agreement was seen within most respondent categories with high levels of disagreement seen within consultancies or similar types of organisations and trade associations or professional bodies, on behalf of their members which saw only 38% and 32% of respondents agree respectively.
Local waste disposal authorities were evenly split between with 50% agreeing and 50% stating no opinion.
The move to environmental permitting
This section of the consultation asked questions about the consolidation of the CBD regime under environmental permitting regulations, the types of permits to be introduced and how these could be differentiated.
Q4. Do you agree or disagree with our proposal to bring the current CBD regime under the environmental permitting regulations?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 313 (73%) |
| Disagree | 51 (12%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 62 (15%) |
73% of respondents agreed that the current CBD regime should be brough under environmental permitting regulations, with almost all respondent categories seeing an agreement ratio of over 70%.
The only respondent category with less than 70% in agreement was consultancies, or similar types of organisations, which saw 61% of respondents agreeing and 31% disagreeing.
Respondents were also concerned that this proposal could result in increased costs to businesses, consequently increasing consumer prices, resulting in an increased demand for illegal waste services.
Q5. Do you agree or disagree with our proposal to introduce three types of permit – controller only, transporter only and combined controller-transporter?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 327 (77%) |
| Disagree | 53 (12%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 46 (11%) |
73% of respondents agreed with our proposal to introduce three types of permit, with all but one respondent group, consultancies, and similar types of organizations, showing a lower level of agreement, at 46%. This was followed with 31% of respondents disagreeing and 23% expressing no opinion.
Many respondents stated that permit types should be further separated to reflect the scale of waste carried or be distinguished by the type of waste carried and that the proposed permit types were not specific enough.
Others stated that there should be distinct permits for those who are controllers of their own waste, as current proposals may be disadvantageous to organizations who produce and discard of their own waste.
Q6. Do you agree or disagree that standard rules permit types should be differentiated according to the activities to be carried out under the permit such as controller, transporter or both?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 327 (74%) |
| Disagree | 53 (13%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 46 (13%) |
74% of respondents agreed that standard rules permit should be differentiated according to the activity carried out. This was universal across most respondent categories with the exception of consultancies or similar types or organizations showing only 54% of respondents agreeing and 31% disagreeing.
Previous comments were reiterated here, with a significant number of respondents stating that permits could also be differentiated by the type and scale of waste handled. Others agreed that permits should be differentiated according to the activities but not under the proposed controller-transporter regime.
Approximately 2% of respondents also stated that this proposal should only be implemented alongside a competency scheme for the activities in question.
Q7. If you disagree with our proposal, how do you think the standard rules permits should be differentiated?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| By size or no. vehicles | 15 (4%) |
| By no. staff | 6 (1%) |
| By type of waste | 62 (15%) |
| They should not be differentiated – single type of permit | 43 (10%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 72 (17%) |
| Other – Please explain | 46 (11%) |
| Did not answer | 182 (43%) |
43% of respondents did not answer, leaving 57% who did. Of those, 10% felt that there should be no differentiation. Businesses that manage or handle waste and consultancies or similar types of organisations were the most likely to agree with a single type of permit – stating that the identified categories are not inherently determiners of risk. Scale of the organisation was particularly criticised as a point of differentiation as it was suggested larger organisations may have more robust environmental management systems and controls.
Differentiation by type of waste was the most popular with respondents, with 15% agreeing this would be a preferable category. Local waste collection authorities were the only group with no respondents agreeing with this category.
Differentiation by hazardous and non-hazardous waste or by whether the waste was produced through the provision of a service by the permit holder (for example, as a result of construction activities) were popular motivations for agreeing with this category.
By no. of staff was the least popular of the proposed categories with only 1% of all respondents agreeing with this proposal. The two respondent groups that agreed with this category were individuals and businesses that handle or manage waste with 3% and 2% of respondents agreeing respectively.
Respondents stated that quantifying the number of staff that frequently carry waste would be challenging, as many businesses have a high turnover of employees and many carry waste irregularly, registering as a waste carrier more so as a precaution than a reflection of daily activities.
Many respondents stating other opinions suggested that standard rules permit should be differentiated by a combination of the suggested categories as this would provide the most accurate assessment of the scale of the business and associated risk, resulting the fairer allocation of fees. The most commonly suggested combination included all three of the proposals outlined in this question.
Advertising
This section of the consultation asked questions around legal requirements for permit numbers to be displayed on advertising and in business vehicles and the impact this would have on broader regulatory compliance.
Q8. Do you agree or disagree that it should be a permit condition to show a permit number on advertising?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 325 (76%) |
| Disagree | 44 (10%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 57 (13%) |
76% of respondents agreed that there it should be a permit condition to show the permit number on advertising. There was little disagreement with this proposition, however, consultancies or similar types of organizations showed a large proportion of responses stating no opinion, with 31% of respondents taking this position.
Respondents identifying as businesses that handle or manage waste had the largest number of disagreeing responses at 13%, stating that this would place additional burden on businesses with little benefit to their customers, who will either be confused by or not be aware of what permits entail.
Q9. Do you agree or disagree that it should be a permit condition to clearly display permit numbers on any vehicle used for the collection and transport of waste?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 253 (59%) |
| Disagree | 116 (27%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 57 (13%) |
59% of respondents agreed that it should be permit condition to display permit numbers on any vehicle used for the collection and transport of waste. There were lower levels of agreement between respondent groups, with individuals and businesses that handle or manage waste showing the lowest level of agreement among respondents, with only 53% of respondents agreeing with the proposal.
Remaining groups showed higher levels of agreement among respondents, with at least 70% agreeing within each category with the exception of consultancies and similar types of organizations. Local waste collection authorities and local waste disposal authorities showed the highest levels of agreement with 90% and 100% of respondents agreeing respectively.
Q10. Do you agree or disagree that these measures would help improve Duty of Care compliance?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 291 (68%) |
| Disagree | 64 (15%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 71 (17%) |
68% of respondents agreed that proposed measures would help improve duty of care compliance. Most respondent groups showed similar levels of agreement, with the exclusion of consultancies or similar types of organisations of which 38% agreed with our proposals and 38% disagreed.
95% of local waste collection authorities and 100% of local waste disposal authorities showed high numbers of agreement, with neither category’s respondents disagreeing with the proposal.
Renewals and reviews
This section of the consultation asked questions relating to the case for introducing permit renewals for controllers and transporters, whether this should be built into the proposed reforms and if so, how they should be implemented.
Q11. Do you agree or disagree that a renewal element should be built into the transporter-controller permitting system?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 318 (68%) |
| Disagree | 46 (11%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 62 (15%) |
75% of respondents agreed that a renewal element should be built into the proposed permitting system. 54% of consultancies or similar types of organisations agreed with the proposal and comprised the respondent group lowest in agreement.
Local waste disposal authorities were collectively in agreement, with 100% of respondents agreeing with the proposals. 4% more respondents expressed no opinion in relation to our proposal than those who disagreed.
Q12. Do you agree or disagree that with our proposal to implement permit renewal through self-declaration process?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 327 (77%) |
| Disagree | 73 (17%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 26 (6%) |
77% of respondents agreed that permit renewal should be undertaken through a self-declaration process. Only 38% of consultancies and similar organizations agreed with these proposals, however, with 54% disagreeing. 50% of waste disposal authorities also disagreed.
Many respondent categories were agreed highly with our proposal, with 81% of both businesses that handle or manage waste and local waste collection authorities agreeing, alongside 76% of both individuals and other types of individuals agreeing.
Q13. If we introduce permit renewal, how frequently do you think permits should be renewed?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Annually | 69 (16%) |
| Every 2 years | 57 (13%) |
| Every 3 years | 155 (36%) |
| Every 5 years | 100 (23%) |
| Other | 22 (5%) |
| No opinion | 23 (5%) |
The general trend was towards a less frequent renewal period as to free up resources so other activities, mostly relating to enforcement, can be prioritised by the regulator. 36% of respondents agreed that if they were to be introduced, permits should be renewed every 3 years. This was the most agreed upon period, with prominent levels of agreement seen from individuals, business that handle and manage waste, consultancies and similar types of organisations and unspecified types of organisations.
Responses were otherwise quite divided, with agreement trending at a low and similar level of agreement for most respondent categories. This excludes respondents identifying as local waste disposal authorities who had the strongest consensus among any respondent group, with 100% agreeing that permits should be renewed annually. This was also the only group from which no one agreed with the 3-year renewal period.
Charging
This section of the consultation asked questions relating to the existing legislative charging framework associated with Environmental Permitting.
Q14. Do you agree or disagree that subsistence charges should align with charges under the Environmental Permitting Regulations to fund the same range of regulatory activity?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 251 (59%) |
| Disagree | 61 (14%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 114 (27%) |
59% agreed that subsistence chargers should align with charges under ERP, as to fund the same range of regulatory activity. Opinion ranged from being low in agreement, as is the case with consultancies and similar organisations at 31%, to high in agreement, seen with both local waste collection authorities and local waste disposal authorities seeing over 80% respondents agree with this proposal.
Most respondent categories stated no opinion in response to this question, with only consultancies and similar types of organisations recording higher than 20% disagreement, with 31% of respondents disagreeing and 38% stating no opinion.
This group was primarily concerned about the impact of additional fees on SMEs, and that additional charges would not correspond to additional or more effective enforcement action.
Enforcement
If you have any comments please leave them below
23% of respondents left a comment.
Many used this free text box to comment on the problems caused by waste crime generally rather than specifically on enforcement.
There was a lot of criticism over a lack of enforcement of the current CBD regime and a scepticism over whether the new regime will change that. There were a number of comments on the lack of deterrent, light fines for heavy breaches and the need for fixed penalty notices and vehicle seizures as quicker and more effective enforcement.
Many felt that the Environment Agency was not sufficiently resourced to enforce the current regime and that this was unlikely to change. There was concern too that not enough will be done to tackle those who intend to continue with their criminality regardless.
Some local authorities were keen that the revised legislation considered the role that they play in enforcing the regime and that more consideration should be given to joint operations and intelligence sharing.
Exemptions from a requirement to operate under a permit
This section asked questions about specific transporter and controller activities and whether they should require a standard rules permit, a registered exemption or a non-registered exemption.
Q15. Do you agree or disagree that charities or voluntary groups operating a non-profit service should be able to operate under a non-registered exemption?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 156 (37%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a permit | 97 (23%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a registered exemption | 112 (26%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under some other control | 18 (4%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 43 (10%) |
While 36% of respondents agreed that charities and voluntary groups operating a non-profit service should be able to operate under a non-registered exemption 53% disagreed and wanted to see some kind of control whether that was a permit, a registered exemption or some other control.
40% of businesses agreed that charities and voluntary groups operating a non-profit service should be able to operate under a non-registered exemption. However, businesses that disagreed reflected the overall picture with 49% selecting one of the other options. Responses from other categories such as individuals, local authorities, trade associations and other reflected a similar picture.
Q.16 Do you agree or disagree that local authority waste collection and disposal authorities and regulatory authorities should be able to operate under a nonregistered exemption?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 173 (41%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a permit | 145 (34%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a registered exemption | 51 (12%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under some other control | 11 (2%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 46 (11%) |
41% agreed with the proposal. Not many of those that agreed felt the need to justify their view with a comment. Those that did comment thought that it would be unnecessary for a regulator to ask another regulator to be registered.
48% disagreed and wanted to see some kind of control whether that was a permit, a registered exemption or some other control. Those who thought local authority waste collection and disposal authorities and regulatory authorities should be required to operate under a permit were keen that everyone was treated the same. Some felt that if small businesses require a permit the requirements for a local authority should be as high or higher. However, many of the pro permit comments indicated that they in fact wanted to see some kind of minimum requirement rather than necessarily a full permit.
Q.17 Do you agree or disagree that charities operating a chargeable, commercial service should be required to apply for the relevant standard rules permit?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 321 (75%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a registered exemption | 40 (10%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a non-registered exemption | 14 (3%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under some other control | 13 (3%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 38 (9%) |
There was strong agreement across all respondent categories. Many of those that agreed saw no distinction between a charity running a commercial enterprise and a business and wanted to see a level playing field.
Q.18 Do you agree or disagree that waste disposal and collection authorities operating on a commercial basis should be required to apply for the relevant standard rules permit?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 339 (80%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a registered exemption | 26 (6%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a non-registered exemption | 21 (5%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under some other control | 7 (1%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 33 (8%) |
There was strong support for this proposal. There was particularly strong support among businesses that handle or manage waste. They felt that local authorities that operate on a commercial basis should be subject to the same rules as private businesses. Many respondents were keen not to give local authorities a commercial advantage in the free market.
Local waste collection and disposal authorities that disagreed could see no reason why a local authority should be permitted for commercial waste collections given their overall remit. Those that thought that a non-registered exemption was more suitable similarly felt that as long as a statutory duty to collect waste from business premises existed a non-registered exemption should suffice.
Q19: Do you agree or disagree that those who transport or control waste produced by themselves in the course of their business, and where that waste is construction and demolition waste or the waste is subject to a higher level of control should be required to apply for the relevant standard rules permit?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 312 (73%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a registered exemption | 47 (11%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a non-registered exemption | 13 (3%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under some other control | 15 (4%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 39 (9%) |
There was a clear majority in support of this proposal. Those that agreed wanted to see a level playing field. There was some confusion regarding what construction and demolition waste was among those that disagreed.
Q.20 Do you agree or disagree that those who only transport or control non-construction or demolition waste, produced by themselves in the course of their business, should be allowed to operate under a registered exemption?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 225 (53%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a permit | 120 (28%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a non-registered exemption | 19 (4%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under some other control | 16 (4%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 46 (11%) |
Overall there was strong support for this proposal. Many of those that did not agree thought that this distinction could lead to confusion for both the industry and the public.
Q.21 Do you agree or disagree that businesses removing third party waste produced in the course of their business should be required to apply for a permit?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 334 (79%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a registered exemption | 34 (8%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a non-registered exemption | 14 (3%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under some other control | 9 (2%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 35 (8%) |
There was a clear majority in support of this proposal although many of those that agreed expressed a desire to see a more proportionate approach depending upon the quantities and types of waste.
Local waste collection authorities that agreed were supportive of not introducing unnecessary complexity to the process. There were concerns however that this option could leave residents with waste that would then become the responsibility of the local authority.
Q.22 Do you agree or disagree that the distinction and risks between scenarios (e) and (f) are sufficiently clear to require two different regulatory approaches?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree- they should be treated differently | 256 (60%) |
| Disagree- they should be treated the same | 170 (40%) |
There were very few comments supporting answers to this question. Almost all of the various respondent categories closely reflected the overall picture. The majority of those that disagreed and thought they should be treated the same favoured a permit.
Q.23 Do you agree or disagree that those transporting or controlling waste from mines and quarries should be required to operate under a registered exemption?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 157 (37%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a permit | 137 (32%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a non-registered exemption | 3 (1%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under some other control | 12 (3%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 117 (27%) |
Responses were largely split between those that agreed and those that wanted either a permit or some other control. Comments supporting the latter seemed to suggest they were in fact in favour of a permit.
Support for a permit focussed on the likely large quantities of waste and its type being more suitable for a permit as well as a desire to see a level playing field. Others expressed confusion as to why mining waste would not be permitted in the same way as construction and demolition waste and pointed out that there would likely be a distinction between types of mining waste.
Q.24 Do you agree or disagree that companies transporting or controlling agricultural waste should be required to apply for a permit?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 295 (69%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a registered exemption | 29 (7%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a non-registered exemption | 5 (1%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under some other control | 20 (5%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 77 (18%) |
There was a clear majority in support of this proposal reflected across respondent categories. Supporting comments focussed on the potentially large quantities and types of waste.
Many of the comments from businesses that supported a registered exemption, or some other control seemed to in fact be supportive of a permit. Those comments that expressed support for a registered exemption questioned why certain types of agricultural waste would need a permit.
Q.25 Do you agree or disagree that farmers should be required to operate under a registered exemption if they are only transporting their own agricultural waste?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 242 (57%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a permit | 76 (18%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a non-registered exemption | 13 (3%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under some other control | 14 (3%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 81 (19%) |
Local authorities expressed the strongest support for this proposal. Supporting comments noted that now was not time to burden farmers with additional requirements given the pressures the industry is under. It was however felt that farmers should be able to quickly prove their authenticity when challenged by regulatory bodies to prevent criminals from masquerading as farmers.
Many individuals and businesses supporting a permit focussed on the desire to see a blanket requirement for a permit when transporting any waste. Many could not see a difference between a farmer transporting their own waste and a 3rd party transporting it.
Q.26 Do you agree or disagree that those who transport or control only animal by-products should operate under a non-registered exemption?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 135 (32%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a permit | 137 (32%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under a registered exemption | 39 (9%) |
| Disagree – they should be required to operate under some other control | 18 (4%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 97 (23%) |
While 32% of respondents agreed with this proposal 45% thought that those who transport or control only animal by-products should operate under a greater control with most preferring a permit. Supporting comments were consistent across all respondent types in that they felt that the material was potentially harmful and that there was too much abuse in this area. Some detailed situations where transport of this material causes problems and how a permit would potentially help. Others wanted to see a level playing field with all waste movements requiring a permit.
Implementation
Recognising that these proposals represent a big step change to the industry, this section asked questions about providing both industry and regulators with sufficient time to prepare.
Q.27 Do you agree or disagree that those who currently hold an upper tier registration should be required to apply for a permit at the time when this registration is due to be renewed?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 333 (78%) |
| Disagree | 45 (11%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 48 (11%) |
While there was strong support for this proposal supporting comments expressed concerns regarding ongoing delays with the processing of permits. Others had concerns about the time and resources required to update references on annual season tickets within the first 12 months. Others felt there should be a provision drafted that an operator cannot renew their existing licence before its expiration so as to prevent circumvention of the implementation approach. There were also calls for the Environment Agency to be sufficiently resourced to be able to carry out identification checks.
Q.28 Do you agree or disagree that those who currently have a lower tier registration should be required to either register an exemption or apply for a permit within 12 months of the system going live?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 326 (76%) |
| Disagree | 33 (8%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 67 (16%) |
While there was strong support for this proposal supporting comments were keen that the Environment Agency noted any significant movements to registered exemptions as well as any significant drops in overall numbers. Many of the comments again called for the Environment Agency to be sufficiently resourced to be able to carry out identification checks.
Demonstrating competence for permitted activities
This section of the consultation asked questions around the introduction of mandatory technical competence for those dealing with waste, who should be required to have it, how it should be demonstrated and what sort of implementation period would be appropriate.
Q29: Do you agree or disagree with introducing technical competence as a controller or transporter permit requirement?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree -but only for controller permits | 80 (9%) |
| Agree- but only for transporter permits | 6 (1%) |
| Agree- for both transporter and controller permits | 245 (58%) |
| Disagree | 37 (9%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 58 (14%) |
Overall 70% of respondents agreed technical competence should be introduced for the proposed transporter and controller permits, with the majority (58%) considering it should be introduced for both types of permit. Only 1% considered it should be introduced for transporter only permits, and 9% for controller only.
This was reflected across all respondent categories.
Q30: Do you agree or disagree that a regulatory approach to assuring technical competence is likely to be the most effective in achieving a good standard of competence in waste controllers and transporters?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 295 (69%) |
| Disagree | 57 (13%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 74 (17%) |
69% of respondents agreed a regulatory approach to be the most effective way of achieving a good standard of competence in waste controllers and transporters.
This was reflected across all categories, except local waste disposal authorities where 50% agreed and 50% disagreed. The sample size for this category, however, was small at 6, and only one respondent commented on why they disagreed. Their view was the proposed approach would not necessarily ensure an increase in compliance and therefore competence.
Q31: If you are a business that handles waste, which of the following waste technical competence qualifications do you or your employees hold?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| CIWM and WAMITAB Level 1 Award or Certificate | 19 (4%) |
| CIWM and WAMITAB Level 2 Award or Certificate | 20 (4%) |
| CIWM and WAMITAB Level 3 Award or Certificate | 21 (5%) |
| CIWM and WAMITAB Level 4 Award or Certificate | 104 (23%) |
| Energy and Utility Skills Competence Management System | 7 (2%) |
| Other – please specify | 38 (8%) |
| We currently do not hold any technical competence qualifications | 142 (31%) |
| Do not know or not applicable | 101 (22%) |
One third of respondents (31%) said they did not hold any technical competence qualifications. Of those that did, 23% held CIWM or WAMITAB Level 4.
Looking at the different groups, a third of individuals running or working for a waste business did not have any qualifications, and 42% of those who manage waste as a secondary activity did not have any qualifications. 39% of those who manage waste as their primary activity had CIWM or WAMITAB Level 4.
Looking at the differing size of business, 53% of individuals and 50% of those with less than 10 employees responded they do not currently hold any qualifications. Similarly, these two groups only have 5% and 17% with CIWM or WAMITAB level 4. In contrast, a larger proportion of those businesses with 10 staff and above hold level 4 (42% of those with between 10 to 49 employees, 57% of those with between 50 and 250 employees and 35% of those who employ more than 250 employees. In these groups there is also lower percentages of businesses who have no qualifications.
Other qualification held by respondents were: ADR and CPC Driver training, CIWM continuing competence through training courses they offer, IEMA, graduate or post graduate degree in related field and NEBOSH.
Q32: Who do you think should be required to hold a full level of competence? (tick all that apply)
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| The permit holder (this can be an individual or a legal entity) | 224 (53%) |
| Nominated person(s) | 197 (46%) |
| All individuals in the business who handle, direct or transport waste | 66 (15%) |
| Nobody | 20 (5%) |
| Something else – please specify | 20 (5%) |
| Not sure or no opinion | 62 (15%) |
Respondents were split between the permit holder (53%) or nominated persons (46%) being required to hold a full level of competence.
The split was closer when looking at the various groups, with local waste disposal and collection authorities and consultancies all attributing an even split between permit holder or nominated persons. Individuals and businesses that manage or handle waste marginally had the permit holder as their highest, whilst only trade associations and ‘other’ types of organisations had nominated person as their highest. Across all groups however, permit holder or nominated persons were the two highest answers ticked.
Q33: Do you agree or disagree that having a nominated person responsible for cascading competence through the workforce is a proportionate approach for companies to demonstrate that their staff are at a suitable level of competence?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 317 (74%) |
| Disagree | 38 (9%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 71 (17%) |
74% of respondents agreed that having a nominated person responsible for cascading competence through the workforce was a proportionate approach, and this was reflected across all groups. Respondents did note however that competence against one person can often lead to issues (holidays, sick leave etc) so depending on size it would be sensible if numerous people can be nominated.
Q34: to what extent are you in favour of a workforce-based competence scheme, such as the existing Energy and Utilities Skills scheme, being considered as an approach for waste controllers and transporters?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Strongly in favour | 53 (12%) |
| Somewhat in favour | 61 (14%) |
| Neither in favour nor against or no opinion | 57 (13%) |
| Somewhat against | 16 (4%) |
| Strongly against | 24 (6%) |
| I do not know enough about the scheme | 215 (50%) |
50% of respondents did not feel they knew enough about the scheme. Of those who did, 14% were somewhat in favour, 12% strongly in favour with 13% having no opinion.
Similarly, 47% of individuals and 50% of businesses that handle waste responded they did not know enough about the scheme, and this was a similar picture across most of the other groups.
There were comments that there should be an option of which route organisations wished to take, of which this should be one approach but not the only approach.
Q35: Do you agree or disagree that an online ‘assessment’, which needs to be completed as part of the initial application process, should be introduced as a way of demonstrating competence when applying for a permit?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 296 (69%) |
| Disagree | 53 (12%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 77 (18%) |
69% agreed that an online assessment should be introduced as a way to demonstrate competency, and this was mirrored across all groups.
Q36: Do you agree or disagree that those operating under a registered exemption should still be required to hold an appropriate level of transporter or controller technical competence?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 314 (74%) |
| Disagree | 32 (8%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 80 (19%) |
74% agreed that those operating under a registered exemption should still be required to hold an appropriate level of technical competence. This was the same across all groups.
Respondents commented that operators holding an exemption should be sufficiently aware of their responsibilities and hold appropriate competencies but there was general agreement this needs to be proportionate to the activity and level of risk.
Q37: If you agree, do you agree or disagree that some form of basic online assessment, possibly forming part of the registration process itself, would be a proportionate approach?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 306 (73%) |
| Disagree | 37 (9%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 74 (18%) |
73% of those who agreed that operators registering an exemption should be required to demonstrate competence went on to agree that some form of basic online assessment would be a proportionate approach.
The numbers who agreed varied slightly across the groups, with 54% of consultancies or similar agreeing and other groups ranging from 65% (individuals) to 95% local waste collection authorities.
Transition period for the introduction of competence requirements
Q38: Do you agree or disagree that there should be a phased introduction of the competence requirements?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree, there should be a phased implementation | 332 (78%) |
| Disagree- there should not be any competence requirements | 22 (5%) |
| Disagree- there should be full competence from day 1 of implementation | 37 (9%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 35 (8%) |
78% of respondents agreed that there should be a phased implementation of competence requirements
This was reflected across all groups, with businesses having the highest percentage (81%) agree.
Q38 sub question: If you agree, how long do you think operators should have to provide evidence of full competence?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Three months | 26 (6%) |
| Six months | 64 (15%) |
| Twelve months | 206 (48%) |
| Another time period | 88 (21%) |
Of those who agreed there should be a phased implementation, 48% thought this should be twelve months, 15% thought it should be six months.
Across the groups, 12 months was the most popular choice, with only local waste disposal authorities responding 6 months (67%, with the remaining choosing another time frame) however it should be noted the small sample size of this group.
21% of respondents suggested other time periods of: 2 years (12 responses), up to 3 years (5 responses), 18 months (1 response), 5 years (1 response)
Q39 Do you agree or disagree that those operators applying for a transporter or controller permit with no existing CBD registration should be required to provide evidence of full competence at application stage?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 269 (63%) |
| Disagree | 55 (13%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 102 (24%) |
63% agreed that those operators applying for a transporter or controller permit should be required to provide evidence of full competence at application stage if they have no existing CBD registration.
This varied significantly across the different groups with 90% and 100% of local waste collection and disposal authorities agreeing, 75% of trade associations and 64% of businesses also agreeing. Individuals and consultancies or similar had the lowest percentages agreeing, with 55% and 46% respectively.
Ongoing competence
Q40: Do you agree or disagree that there should be a requirement to demonstrate continuing competence?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 327 (77%) |
| Disagree | 33 (8%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 66 (16%) |
77% agreed that there should be a requirement to demonstrate continued competence.
This was reflected across all groups.
Q41: If we were to introduce a requirement for demonstrating continuing competence, how often do you think this should be undertaken?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Every year | 34 (8%) |
| Every 2 years | 86 (20%) |
| Every 3 years | 132 (31%) |
| Every 4 years | 5 (1%) |
| Every 5 years | 90 (21%) |
| Some other time period – please specify | 28 (6%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 51 (12%) |
31% thought continued competence should be undertaken every 3 years
This varied across the different groups. 29% of individuals, 36% of businesses, 46% of consultancies, 32% of trade associations and 31% of other types of organizations chose 3 years, 48% of local waste collection authorities chose 2 years and local waste disposal authorities were split 33% between 2 years and 33% another time period.
Other time frames offered were 10 years, in line with permit renewal periods if that is applied or if there are any major legislative, best practice or staffing changes.
Q42: Do you agree or disagree that there should be some sort of accredited third party assessment as part of this continued competence?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 210 (49%) |
| Disagree | 96 (23%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 120 (28%) |
Just under half of all respondents (49%) agreed there should be some sort of accredited assessment as part of any continued competence. Just under a third (28%) did not know or had no opinion.
This was reflected across all the groups, however with a higher percentage of local waste disposal authorities (100%), collection authorities (80%), trade associations (63%), other organisations (58%) and 54% of consultancies agreeing. 44% of individuals and 45% of businesses that mange waste agreed.
Waste exporters
Q60. Are you an exporter of waste, and are you currently registered as a broker or dealer in England or elsewhere? For the purpose of this consultation ‘exporter’ is defined as ‘any natural or legal person who intends to carry out a shipment of waste or intends to have a shipment of waste carried out on their behalf.
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| I am an exporter of waste and I am currently registered as a broker or dealer with the Environment Agency in England. | 44 (10.33%) |
| I am an exporter of waste. I am not currently registered as a broker or dealer with any of the UK regulatory agencies. | 2 (0.47%) |
| I am an exporter of waste and I am currently registered with SEPA, NRW or NIEA but not with the Environment Agency in England. | 1 (0.23%) |
| No, I am not an exporter of waste. | 379 (88.97%) |
Only 11% of respondents were waste exporters, of which 10% were registered as a broker or dealer with the Environment Agency in England. No campaign group responded to any questions in this section of the consultation.
Q61: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that operators exporting waste from England must hold a permit?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree with the proposal – all operators exporting waste must hold a permit. | 303 (71.80%) |
| Partly agree with the proposal – most operators exporting waste must hold a permit, but some exemptions should also be allowed. | 13 (3.08%) |
| Disagree with the proposal – no operator exporting waste should have to hold a Permit. | 2 (0.47%) |
| Do not know or no opinion. | 104 (24.64%) |
Most of the responders (71%) agreed that all operators exporting waste must hold a permit. However, almost a quarter of the responders were unsure or had no opinions on this. This trend was consistent across most respondent groups.
Of the individuals and businesses that agreed with the proposal for exporters to hold a permit (72% and 69%, respectively), some commented on the potential benefit of using a permitting system to improve levels of technical competence or due diligence. Individuals, businesses, waste collection and disposal authorities also noted that adequate supporting enforcement and compliance measures, alongside a permitting system, would be necessary to effectively tackle inappropriate disposal of exported waste. Some businesses commented that increased enforcement and compliance activity would be necessary to prevent a permitting system from becoming a punitive measure against legitimate operating exporters. Individuals who agreed however noted that there could be a case for exemptions from the requirement to hold a permit in some instances.
Businesses who were in partial agreement (4%) thought that exporters of certain materials, such as End-of-Waste substances under quality control, should be exempt from a permitting requirement. Conversely, businesses that disagreed commented that multiple permit and registration requirements across the CBD and exporter regimes would be disproportionate. Others suggested that a permitting requirement for the export of non-hazardous wastes could restrict economic freedom.
Trade associations which agreed (84%) or partly agreed (8%) commented that more responsibility for the fate of exported waste should be placed on exporters. Other organisations agreed that all exporters should possess a permit but that there was a need for CBD requirements to maintain consistency with future producer responsibility reforms.
Q62: If we were to require operators exporting waste from England to have a permit, do you agree or disagree that the permit should be time limited?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 250 (59.52%) |
| Disagree | 24 (5.71%) |
| Do not know or No opinion | 146 (34.76%) |
60% of respondents agreed that permits should be time limited whilst 6% disagreed.
For responders who agreed, varying renewal timeframes were suggested across categories with individuals suggesting a range of options from 12 months to 3 years, and businesses suggesting options between 12 months and 5 years.
61% of the individuals agreed that permits should be time limited, commenting that staffing, activities, or competence levels could change, so some form of monitoring would be necessary to create a uniform regulatory approach and prevent abuse. Individuals who disagreed (5%) noted that there were no time limits imposed on site-based EPR permits and noted that permits should be treated similarly.
61% of businesses that agreed noted that renewable permits would allow for greater scrutiny of competency in an ever-evolving waste export market and would help maintain alignment with changes in government’s export policies. Businesses that disagreed (5%) highlighted a number of issues: the permit renewal process becoming time-consuming, it would become a duplicative exercise for exporters of notifiable hazardous wastes as notifications are already time framed, that requiring renewable permits would deviate from other waste-permitting regimes, that permits valid for 1 to 3 years would not be proportionate with the waste quantities exported as opposed to 5 to10 year timeframes, that self-declaration without verification could increase non-conformance risks and that regulators should use ongoing subsistence fees to focus on regular inspections of registered permit holders.
Whilst the level of agreement varied across consultancies (38%), Trade Associations (61%), local waste collection authorities (62%) and disposal authorities (83%), those who agreed noted that due to the rapidly evolving waste export market and changes to receiving countries’ requirements, permits would need to be time limited. They further noted that regulators need to monitor non-renewed permits and that permits should be able to be suspended if required. 23% of the consultancies that disagreed stated that there was no justification for having a time limited permit. 11% of the Trade Associations that disagreed, some stating that it should only be time limited if there was evidence of a breach.
Q63: Do you agree or disagree with the principle of including a requirement for applicants to demonstrate technical competence as a requirement to hold an exporter of waste permit?
| Response | Number |
|---|---|
| Agree | 311 (74.22%) |
| Disagree | 6 (1.43%) |
| Do not know or no opinion | 102 (24.34%) |
Whilst most responders across categories agreed that permit applicants should demonstrate technical competence, a quarter of the responders were uncertain.
68 to71% of the individuals and businesses agreed, reasoning that it would help maintain a high barrier to entry thereby reducing instances of illegal waste exports and ensure that operators understood waste classification and consignment systems whilst maintaining a level playing field for all those involved in domestic and international waste movements. Whilst no individuals disagreed, 2% of businesses disagreed, stating that operators were sufficiently experienced and fully compliant.
85 to 100% of the consultancies, Trade Associations, local waste collection and disposal authorities in agreement, commenting that exporters should be able to demonstrate the same level of competency as those managing waste domestically to maintain uniformity but also noted that regulators would need to be well resourced to monitor this requirement. Trade Associations suggested that technical competence for exporters should extend beyond knowledge of contamination tolerances, waste classification and legislation to minimise non-compliant exports.