House of Commons - Communities and Local Government Committee

Select Committee on Communities and Local Government Committee Fifth Report

3 COLLECTION METHODS

"The Government does not believe it is right to prescribe from the centre how collection is done in different parts of the country. That is a matter for local authorities."—Waste Strategy for England 2007[25]

"we are all different and we do know what is best for our own patches."—Councillor Gary Porter, Leader, South Holland District Council

24. The myriad refuse collection systems in operation across England became headline news as newspapers both local and national focused attention in April on councils facing local elections in May. In particular, those councils that have over the past decade or so introduced new 'alternate weekly' collection (AWC) systems came under the spotlight. Whether this had any impact on the local election results is both unproven and beyond the scope of this report, but it once again highlighted the deep concern and passion that the subject can arouse, as exemplified by the submissions the inquiry received from the Campaign for Weekly Waste Collection and the Collect Refuse in Oxford Weekly campaign.[26]

25. Around 60 per cent of England's collection authorities operate what might be termed a traditional collection method. Once a week (sometimes more), a truck collects bags or bins from households, possibly gathering all the refuse in a single pile for sorting later, or more probably now expecting some form of householder pre-sorted division of recyclable material and the rest of the household waste. Around 140 authorities, however, have introduced AWC, a blanket term covering a range of methods based around the idea that the collection authority picks up recyclable materials one week and residual waste the next. These schemes have frequently been characterised as being 'fortnightly'; in fact, in all cases, refuse is collected weekly, just not all refuse every week.

26. Local authorities are required by section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to collect household refuse without imposing any direct charge for doing so. They are also required to arrange for the collection of commercial waste where asked to do so, although they may charge for this. Charges are also permitted for collection of particular types of waste, such as bulky items (furniture, say, or fridges) and garden waste. The Household Waste Recycling Act 2003 requires all authorities to introduce collection of at least two types of recyclable waste from households by 2010. Since 2005, authorities have also had the power to issue fixed-penalty notices to householders who breach rules on how waste is to be presented for collection, including what may be put in bins. The Government is currently consulting on new financial incentive schemes for local authorities to encourage recycling, and it is expected that legislation will follow in the next parliamentary session.

Alternate weekly collection

27. Perhaps the most surprising thing about the recent controversy over AWC is its timing: the switch towards AWC has been happening across England for more than a decade, and many councils which have adopted the system claim substantial consequent increases in recycling, and by implication landfill diversion. The City of Lincoln District Council tripled its recycling rate; the Waste Partnership for Buckinghamshire cut landfill waste from 190,000 tonnes in 2005-06 to around 157,000 tonnes just two years later, at a time when waste volumes generally were still rising; and Uttlesford District Council saw recycling rise from 23 per cent to 50 per cent in a year, diverting an additional 7.7 tonnes from landfill in the process.[27] Many more local authorities have achieved similar change, and the Minister for Waste told us that 19 of the 20 English authorities with the best recycling rates had adopted AWC systems.[28]

28. The principle underlying these recycling increases is that AWC makes householders sort their waste into recyclable and residual waste, because the capacity to dispose of the residual waste is limited. With collection of only one or other type of waste each week, or with, in some areas, the introduction of relatively small bins for residual waste, householders either have to sort their waste carefully or see it piling up in their kitchens, gardens, sheds or other storage areas. Many councils quite openly use AWC to influence householder behaviour directly: "It is clear that an alternate weekly collection increases people's awareness of waste, making them more susceptible to waste reduction messages," noted St Edmundsbury Borough Council, a Suffolk collection authority operating a three-bin alternate week system collecting residual waste, recyclables, and garden and kitchen waste.[29] Shropshire Waste Partnership went further, saying AWC is "forcing [householders] to be aware of the different ways of dealing with their own waste."[30] Stephen Didsbury, Head of Waste and Street Services at Bexley Borough Council, told us AWC worked "Because [householders] are having to think about their waste. If they can just throw it away they do not have to think about it", but he preferred to "encourage" householders rather than "force" them.[31]

29. Two final points may be made about how AWC is expected to work positively. First, councils introducing the system should attempt to give householders separate containers for recyclable and residual waste with sufficient joint volume for total waste arisings, and to provide a bigger or smaller recycling box, bin or bag depending on the scale of the recycling service they offer. Secondly, one of the main benefits expected from AWC is that savings made in residual waste collection costs can fund greater investment in recycling services.

The case against AWC

30. Criticism of AWC has focused largely on three aspects—the perception that fortnightly collection of some forms of refuse is a reduction in service, the idea that councils are saving money by 'cutting' the number of collections, and the idea that having refuse uncollected for up to 14 days results in health risks or considerable nuisance from increased numbers of flies, maggots and vermin, and can cause unpleasant odours. A further, less explored question is whether the link made between AWC and increased recycling is a proven one.

31. It is clear that AWC has not always proved popular with residents in areas in which it has been introduced, although WRAP argues that nor is it generally seen by householders themselves as being any less convenient than traditional weekly collection. Sparse, a Local Government Association interest group representing largely rural authorities, said, for example, that the scheme's implementation in Uttlesford "did meet some resistance".[32] The Minister for Waste told us there were "clear examples where local authorities have blundered into introducing alternate weekly collections without proper consultation, without proper planning."[33] In many other areas, however, the adoption of new systems appears to have been generally accepted, particularly where the council concerned made strong efforts to inform residents of what they were doing and why. Melton Borough Council, in Leicestershire, was one of several authorities that ran "door-stepping" campaigns—"resource hungry in terms of labour and time but […] very effective in changing the habits of householders. General information campaigns on 'how and why' to recycle are not as effective as personal engagement."[34] Given the sensitivity of local opinion when it comes to changes in the ways refuse is collected, we recommend that the Government develop clear, straightforward best practice guidance on information provision to householders, using examples both of those local authorities that have introduced alternate weekly collection systems without prompting local concern and those who have, in the words of the Minister for Waste, "blundered into introducing alternate weekly collections without proper consultation, without proper planning".

32. The perception that AWC means fortnightly collection is the truth but not the whole truth. In short, waste collection is still weekly, just not for all waste every week. Stephen Didsbury, for the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management, told us: "Alternate week collection is a global name for quite a lot of different sorts of collection system. Not all of them are one week refuse, one week recycling. Generally, the common theme is that residual waste is fortnightly but not all of them do fortnightly recycling collections; some do weekly recycling collections. It is a name which is used generally but does not mean the same in every place."[35] Nor is the practice universally applied across those authorities which have adopted it: many councils (the City of Lincoln, for example) retain weekly collections of all types of waste where particular local circumstances warrant it—for urban areas or for blocks of flats, for example[36].The Minister for Waste said that the pattern of AWC implementation would "lead one to the impression that it is easier to do in rural, semi-rural and suburban areas than it is in inner city areas of high-density housing with multiple occupancy and blocks of flats".[37]

33. There appears to be some evidence that councils can save money by introducing AWC systems, partly through economies of scale and more efficient collection systems. In the short term, those savings may be used to pay for investment in the new recycling services required to make AWC work, but in the longer run savings should build as councils avoid paying landfill tax or fines for breaching landfill allowance limits. Gary Alderson, Director of Environmental and Planning Services for Mid-Beds Council, told us his council saved £700,000 in its first year of AWC, partly because splitting collection vehicles to collect both residual and recyclable wastes allowed it to reduce the number of vehicles needed.[38] Further cost savings are achievable through authorities co-operating across district council boundaries (a point to be covered in more detail in Chapter 6 on Joint Waste Authorities). Essex Waste Partnership, for example, predicts savings of up to £1 million a year from joint collection by four of its 12 authorities.[39]

Food waste

34. The most widespread criticism of AWC systems has focused on the disposal of food waste, largely on arguments that non-collection for up to 14 days could result in health risks from increased fly and maggot populations, from bags being torn by birds or foxes, and from unpleasant smells. Kitchen waste is around one fifth (about 6 million tonnes) of all household waste, but is comparatively low on the list of waste streams councils collect separately for recycling or composting, with only around 50 English authorities doing so by last December.[40] The Government believes there are "strong arguments for encouraging more separate collection of food waste", and the Government-funded WRAP is supporting a number of local trials over the next year to identify how best to do that.[41]

35. Around one third of all food bought in the UK is not eaten but disposed of, says WRAP.[42] Reasons may include poor household meal planning and over-purchase of foodstuffs, including those with soon-to-pass sell-by dates and perishable goods, such as fruit, on two-for-one or half-price offers. Launching the Government's new Waste Strategy, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Rt hon. David Miliband MP, told the House of Commons that "about £400 a year is being wasted by families, so that waste is actually hitting people in their pockets, as well as affecting their local environment."[43] WRAP plans to launch a campaign in the autumn to raise awareness of food waste and of simple measures that could be taken to reduce it.[44] Up to one third of food purchased is disposed of without being eaten, perhaps the most shocking example of utter waste revealed during our inquiry. Householders are throwing away £400 a year. Councils are forced to waste their time and our money clearing up our leftovers, which are often the most problematic part of domestic waste. We recommend that Government set specific targets for food waste reduction and follow through on the Waste and Resources Action Programme's autumn food waste information campaign by promoting some simple measures households can take such as menu planning and improved storage, and by encouraging supermarkets and other retailers to help customers avoid waste by, for example, packaging perishable goods in sizes suitable for both single and family households.

AWC and public health

36. Less frequent collection of food waste has also prompted fears about public health. Local campaigning organisations such as the Campaign for Weekly Waste Collection (CWWC) and Collect Refuse in Oxford Weekly have supplied examples of emails from householders across the country who have experienced difficulties with rats, flies and maggots. Doretta Cocks, who set up the CWWC following the introduction of AWC in her home town, Eastleigh in Hampshire, wrote: "people were experiencing fly and maggot infestations on a regular basis and almost all residents commented on foul odours emanating from bins in warm/hot weather conditions."[45] A substantial proportion of the 835 members of the public who telephoned or emailed BBC Radio 4 following our Chair's appearance on the "You and Yours" programme also raised fears about health or simply highlighted the nuisance of having food waste around for up to a fortnight.

37. In response, DEFRA has said there is no evidence that AWC increases health risks. The main survey conducted into the health impacts of AWC, the Wycombe report carried out with DEFRA funding by Enviros Consulting and the University of Cranfield in February 2007, concludes: "The research indicates that no significant adverse health effects are likely to be caused by alternate week waste collections of residual and biodegradable waste."[46] Gary Alderson, Director of Environmental and Planning Services for Mid-Beds Council, said "we have had [AWC] in 54,000 houses over two years now and we have not seen epidemics and new diseases coming."[47] The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health agrees there is no evidence of health risk, provided food waste is adequately dealt with.[48] And the Minister for Waste stressed that in spite of media concern about perceived health risks the Department of Health had made it clear that there was none.[49] We recognise that research conducted to date into the health impacts of alternate weekly collection systems has found no evidence of adverse health impacts. Given the strength of public concern, however, allied with the wealth of anecdotal evidence about increased populations of flies, maggots, rats and other vermin associated with AWC systems, we strongly recommend that the Government commission further and more detailed research if the public is to be persuaded that there is no appreciable risk.

38. The Wycombe report also contained a rider to the statement that there was no evidence of health risk, recommending that householders should take a series of "common-sense steps" to prevent odours or maggot infestations. These steps include: cleaning waste containers with disinfectant; keeping them out of sunlight if possible; keeping all waste tightly wrapped or in containers; and ensuring that containers holding kitchen waste are kept closed.[50] The Minister for Waste told us "It is pretty blindingly obvious that if you leave bags out in the street they are more likely to be torn by seagulls, rats and urban foxes than if you put waste in a wheelie bin."[51] Perhaps less blindingly obvious is the fact that even if most of the councils that have switched to AWC use hard-sided bins, there are a few, according to Stephen Didsbury of the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management, that still use bags.[52] Increasing rat, fly and maggot populations are a considerable nuisance to individual householders, a point that should not be overshadowed by greater concern about public health risks. If councils are to collect food and kitchen waste only once every two weeks as part of an AWC system, Government guidance must stress the absolute necessity to provide householders with sealable containers, such as hard-sided wheeled bins or boxes.

39. Even more than encouraging householders to take common-sense steps to deal with food waste, however, it may be desirable to ensure that food waste is collected from households every week wherever possible and practicable. Councillor Porter, Leader of South Holland Council, said he was "sure people would not care if their recycling was in a big bin for a month because it is dry […] we still need to get the really interesting part of the waste out, and that is the contaminated food waste."[53] Nicola Beach, Essex County Council's Head of Waste and Recycling, also said food waste caused the most difficulty with AWC, suggesting it should be "addressed on a weekly basis, with all the benefits that brings in terms of diverting biodegradable waste from landfill".[54] WRAP "suggests that separate collection of food waste on a weekly basis should be seen as a preferred option on environmental grounds for most local authorities."[55] And the Minister for Waste pointed up the desirability of more separate collection of food waste, adding that "Food waste going to landfill is one of the worst waste materials going to landfill because it biodegrades and creates methane which is a very potent greenhouse gas […] there are good arguments for separate food waste collections and […]research shows that where you have separate food waste collections it makes sense to have them weekly".[56] While those comments are welcome, it remains the case that a comparatively small proportion of local collection authorities do collect food waste separately. Food waste represents nearly a fifth of the total household waste stream and is a particularly significant contributor to greenhouse gases when sent to landfill. We recommend that Government encourage more local authorities to adopt both separate food waste collection and at least weekly food waste collection.

Minimisation measures

40. An allied issue arising from the discussion of AWC and health impacts is the size and type of receptacles used for household waste. In December 2002, Dr Julian Parfitt, a principal analyst for WRAP, noted, following the widespread introduction of wheeled bins in the UK that householders with the largest standard-size bins, 240 litres, were putting out more waste for collection than others (although this may have been qualified by their taking less waste to civic amenity sites for disposal).[57] Councillor Porter, staunchly defending both weekly household collection of all waste and the use of bin bags, argued that providing wheeled bins may actually increase the amount of refuse householders put into the waste stream. He also pointed out that it is far harder for householders using bags rather than bins to hide things they shouldn't be throwing out—bricks, garden waste or builders' rubble, for example.[58] The widespread introduction of wheeled bins from the early 1990s may therefore have had, at least in the short term, perverse unintended consequences. As Gary Alderson, Director of Environmental and Planning Services at Mid-Beds Council, said, "there was a challenge, 'Could you fill your wheelie bin?'. There was a whole different era of waste minimisation: it was waste maximisation in those days."[59]

41. Interestingly, councils introducing AWC schemes have frequently taken the opportunity to reverse that by introducing smaller bins or boxes. In addition, several—e.g., City of Lincoln, East Lindsey (Lincolnshire) and four of five District Councils in the Cambridgeshire Waste Partnership—did not collect 'side waste' that did not fit into bins as a further measure intended to force householders to reduce what they put out for collection.[60] East Lindsey noted that it "specifically chose small (180 ltr rather than 240 ltr) bins to encourage people to throw out less."[61] It appears almost to be a given in many local authority areas that simply reducing householders' physical ability to put refuse into the waste collection stream by restricting the size of bins or boxes or by setting non-collection policies for additional waste is in itself a waste minimisation measure. Others have sought to achieve the same limitation by fixing the number of bags each household may use, and charging for any additional bags; North Dorset District Council, for instance, charges £1 per extra sack.[62] We presume that authorities making such extra charges have legal advice that these practices are lawful, but we suggest that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in preparing any further legislation, clarify the legal situation on additional charges for rubbish sacks and that the Department learn from the knowledge those authorities have developed of the practicality and efficacy of such systems. As we shall see later, however, simply removing waste from household collection does not necessarily mean there is less waste. For example, waste not placed in a household bin may end up in a fly-tip.

42. Finally, the way in which garden waste is treated provides a useful example of both the variety of collection methods used by councils and the perverse incentives that can sometimes be thrown up by the way in which we measure municipal waste.

43. Some councils collect garden waste as residual waste, others deal with it as a separate stream and others still charge for its collection. South Holland District Council, for example, argued that charging for garden waste both encouraged householders to compost it in order to avoid paying and reduced the total amount of household waste the council had to collect.[63] Shropshire Waste Partnership, which did provide separate green waste collection, nonetheless agreed that that could increase the total waste to be collected and processed.[64] Differences in approach to the collection of this one waste stream highlight a potential problem both with having numerous authorities operating differently and with the way in which waste is measured. Ian Davies, of Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council, pointed out that urban authorities such as his have small amounts of garden waste arising when compared with more leafy, rural areas.[65] The smaller proportion of garden waste in the stream means, of itself, that the proportion of waste which can be composted is smaller. That results in the percentage of recycled/composted waste in such authorities being lower than it is elsewhere, not as a result of performance but simply because of the type of material being collected. It also discriminates against local authorities which actively promote home composting instead of garden waste collections. While the current best value performance indicators (BVPIs) distinguish between dry recycling and composting rates, the clear implication is that collection levels and composting and recycling rates cannot always be accurately compared from one area against another because of differences in what is considered municipal or household waste. Local autonomy may, in this case, make it difficult to achieve holistic, nationwide goals.

Recycling: pre-sorted versus co-mingled waste collection

44. Just as there is no common collection system and no common practice on the use of bins or bags for refuse, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to recycling. The spread and growing acceptance of kerbside schemes creates a fundamental debate on collection methods however: whether waste should be collected all together—co-mingled—and then sorted on the dustcart or at a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF), or whether householders should be encouraged to separate their waste into as many streams as possible before collection. Once again the myriad factors that explain the kaleidoscope of collection systems in place across England is relevant: multi-streamed pre-sorting by a householder is likely to be much easier in a rural house with a back garden or yard than it is in a one-bedroomed upstairs flat in the centre of a city. Stephen Didsbury of the CIWM told us that his own local authority, Bexley, collected refuse from flats two or three times a week, using communal bins, because of lack of space to store waste for any longer.[66] Ian Davies, Assistant Director, Public Protection and Safety, at the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, ruled out AWC as a viable option for a highly urban area: "If you live in a one-bedroom flat or a studio flat there simply is not room […] To expect somebody to store waste in their property for up to ten or 14 days while they are waiting for an alternate weekly collection is simply not going to happen in an urban environment where you have got small properties."[67] For that reason, some urban councils favour the simplicity of co-mingled collection: "it makes it much faster. In a dense urban environment, there is lots of traffic and you cannot have a situation where a refuse vehicle is parked in the street and they are sorting refuse into the back of that vehicle".[68] As yet, AWC has been introduced mainly in rural areas, although cities such as Cambridge, Carlisle, Exeter and York, and two of London's 32 boroughs, Harrow and Kingston-upon-Thames, have done so.[69] None of the major, densely populated metropolitan areas has an AWC system. Further constraints on sorting waste are its ultimate destination: South Holland District Council, for example, co-mingles collection because the whole lot goes to landfill in the absence of any local MRF.[70] And, as that example shows, this depends strongly on the planning decisions local authorities have already made about how their waste should be dealt with: those collection authorities whose disposal authorities have built or approved MRFs have different choices from those where incinerators or landfill are the available options. The long-term nature of such choices—WRAP notes that it can take 12 to 18 years to repay investment in an incinerator, for example—means that planning decisions made a decade or more ago can constrain what councils can do now.[71] Equally, decisions taken now will affect waste collection and disposal policy in decades to come.

45. There is nevertheless a clear trend towards encouraging householders to sort more of their waste before it reaches the dustbin. Following Barnet Council's lead in March 2005, a significant number of local authorities now operate some form of compulsory recycling scheme, requiring separation into specified containers, under powers contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. By 2010, all authorities will have to provide means of recycling at least two materials. The LGA has suggested local authorities should be given statutory minimum recycling levels.[72] In April, the Government set performance standards on recycling and composting for all local authorities for the year 2007-08, setting a minimum performance standard of 20 per cent across the country.[73] We note that the Government has set recycling performance targets for local authorities and that the Local Government Association argues for statutory performance targets. We endorse the Government's devolutionary intent to allow collection authorities as much freedom as possible to implement waste policy, but recommend that Government enter into discussion with local authorities about the creation of statutory targets.

46. The Government is currently consulting on the introduction of financial incentive schemes to encourage householders to recycle more, and has said authorities introducing schemes would have to provide facilities for kerbside recycling of five waste streams, possibly including paper, glass, cans, plastics and food waste.[74] ENCAMS, the environmental charity which runs the Keep Britain Tidy campaign, notes that "the public are willing to recycle if the facilities are in place to enable them."[75] WRAP has entered a note of caution in supporting the need for good-quality recycling services to be in place before any authority moves to introduce incentive charging, but recognising that recycling collections are significantly more complex to organise and that "There remains an absolute shortage of experienced officers to manage the more complex systems."[76] The number of fully trained and experienced local authority recycling officers remains low, restricting the spread and sophistication of schemes available. The continuation of statutory local authority recycling targets, rather than any shift towards merely residual waste targets, would help drive more officer training and development of greater expertise.

Confusing the public: multi-coloured collection

47. Several witnesses highlighted the confusion that the existence of varying systems of collection, varying types of what may or may not be recycled, and varying provision of bags, boxes and bins in many and differing colours can cause. The National Association of Residents' Associations wrote of serious problems resulting from the "provision of several containers for re-cycled materials, the introduction of selective collections of the different types of waste, the frequency of such collections and the penalties for non-compliance with the imposed regimes".[77] A number of councils specifically ruled out the introduction of variously coloured bins on the grounds of keeping their systems simple and easy to understand. Councillor Paul Bettison, Chair of the LGA's Environmental Board, pointed out that while "the media make a big issue about confusions […] Most people in this country only have one home so they only have to come to terms with one set of colour bins". Councillor Bettison also accepted, though, that: "If we were starting from day one I am sure we would have a national colour code. Regrettably we are not".[78] INCPEN, the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment, also regretted that "It is clearly too late to impose national standards on collection schemes […] It is not even practicable to require authorities to move towards using a nationally consistent colour system when replacing their collection containers in future."[79] The Minister for Waste doubted whether some kind of national system for recyclables might be appropriate: "People say, 'Why can we not have the same system everywhere?' […] it would be nice and more simple […] It would be hugely expensive, however, to force local authorities that have either invested in MRFs or in kerbside recycling to change their systems."[80] Nonetheless, some confusion exists from area to area about the timing and frequency of collections, and about the type of materials that may be recycled. It is true that most people need only know the system that prevails for their household, but we all move from time to time and from area to area, and the fact that our families and friends may be able to recycle entirely different materials in entirely different ways or that the authority next door might collect, say, newspapers in green boxes while our council collects in brown boxes can create uncertainty. If simplicity is the key to recycling success, this is one area for obvious attention. Indeed, WRAP has already developed a national Recycle Now campaign suggesting a standard set of symbols and colours to identify containers for recyclable materials, using stickers if replacing the containers themselves is too expensive or otherwise impractical. About three-quarters of English authorities have adopted some parts of the campaign.

48. For a variety of historical, geographical, economic and other reasons, practice on the collection of recyclable materials has grown in a piecemeal, haphazard fashion across England over the past decade and more, resulting in myriad local systems and some public confusion. A national recycling system is clearly not feasible in the short term, and the imposition of such a system from the centre would run counter to the Government's proper desire to let councils implement collection strategies suitable to their own areas and electorates. Nonetheless, we urge the Government to evaluate means of achieving more public understanding and co-operation by reducing random and unnecessary differences in practice across local authority boundaries. In particular, wider application of WRAP's national colour-coded recycling system for paper and card, glass, metals and food waste would give not just clarity and simplicity, but substantial long-term economies of scale.

Does AWC increase recycling?

49. Proponents of AWC claim its major benefit lies in the increased recycling rates it allows councils to achieve. As noted above, 19 of the top 20 rates for recycling are achieved by those using AWC. The LGA has been particularly robust in offering this figure as evidence that AWC is essential to improved recycling.[81] Two factors need to be set against this: first, AWC simply is not suitable for all areas as the evidence outlined above shows; and, there is not necessarily a causal link between the adoption of AWC and a council's success in recycling. For one thing, as the 19 from 20 figure itself demonstrates, there are councils achieving the highest rates while still operating weekly collection of all waste. Secondly, as the Minister for Waste pointed out to us, those councils achieving high rates of recycling after adoption of AWC may well already have been among the best performers. Thirdly, the adoption of AWC invariably goes with a new local emphasis on waste diversion and recycling—information campaigns, the provision of new bins or boxes. It is not, therefore, the only factor in improving local recycling rates. The adoption of alternate weekly collection systems in around 140 local authority areas has been accompanied in most of them by rapid and substantial increases in local recycling. Whether there is a direct causal link between those two facts is, however, unproven: AWC, where it has been introduced, is always part of a package of measures aimed at encouraging householders to sort more of their waste for recycling. AWC is clearly not appropriate to all areas, particularly highly urban areas characterised by much shared accommodation. Whether a weekly or alternate system is best for a particular area is a matter of local circumstance and a matter for local choice.

Confusing the public: terminological obfuscation

50. One further simple point can be made about alternate weekly collection. In the run-up to England's local council elections in May, much controversy centred on AWC, with the system frequently characterised in newspaper reports as "fortnightly". It is, to say the least, unfortunate that the range of systems encompassed by the term alternate weekly collection have been landed with a name that is cumbersome, bureaucratic and capable of misinterpretation. Nicola Beach of the Essex Waste Partnership thought 'alternate weekly' "a slightly misleading phrase because it implies that the householder is only actually visited every other week and that is not the case; it is actually a weekly collection of waste; and it is just that not all the waste is taken away at once so that I think the phrase the media have picked up on is quite misleading."[82] Councillor Paul Bettison offered a simple alternative, used by his Bracknell Forest District Council, of "alternate bin collection", adding that this let them use the slogan "It's as easy as ABC".[83] The phrase 'alternate weekly collection' is bureaucratic and confusing, and a good example of how a potentially effective policy can be damaged by jargonistic terminology that is meaningless to most householders. Local councils would do well to find more straightforward descriptions of their own local arrangements.

Local needs, local choices

51. On 22 May 2007 we took evidence from representatives of three collection authorities and a disposal authority, all of which operated systems particular to their own geographical, social, environmental imperatives, and all of which had stories to tell of successes gained and improvements yet to be won. Councillor Porter, Leader of South Holland District Council, spoke for all in saying, "I think one thing which has clearly come across today is that one solution will not work for local government; we need to have the freedom to be able to pick and choose what works best in our own areas. I think the most reassuring thing from this conversation is that at least we are all different and we do know what is best for our own patches."[84] Our clear conclusion on collection methods across England is that there is no single system suitable to all authorities in all the range of local circumstances that pertain.

Setting a standard

52. Even so, and allowing for the freedom and variety that exist, there is a strong case for moving towards a basic understood standard, if not for collection methods or timings or frequency or type, at least for what the householder who pays, at least in part, for refuse collection through his or her council tax should be able to expect from the local authority. As already mentioned, the Government is developing performance standards through the local government performance framework and has already set minimum recycling targets for authorities. WRAP argues that the move from services based simply around the idea of "collect and dispose" to more variable and complex recycling services, has led to many people losing their understanding of what a good-quality service is and being unsure of what they are entitled to expect of their local authority. It is encouraging the Government to go further, and to set out a core standard, based around the principles of "simplicity, reliability, adequacy, flexibility, effective communication and 'consent first, compulsion last'.[85] We recommend that the Government work with the Waste and Resources Action Programme and local government to agree a core definition of what householders should expect from their refuse collection. This should include no complicated rules, rubbish collected when the council says it will be and schemes that suit every household from the largest rural home to the most crowded urban area.

Packaging waste

53. Packaging waste represents nearly a fifth of the refuse householders put in their bins. Packaging from groceries alone is estimated at 5 million tonnes a year.[86] Beyond not buying over-packaged goods, there is little that householders themselves can do directly; once the plastic wrapping comes off the meat or the fish, and once the yoghurt in the pot has been eaten, they need to be disposed of somehow. Nor directly can collection authorities, the local councils, do much about packaging once it arrives in dustcarts, except recycle it, burn it or bury it, although they may be able at least to persuade local producers to reduce packaging, through their procurement strategies—for schools, for example—and through their connections and partnerships with local businesses.

54. Reduction of packaging waste lies largely beyond our scope, since the place where it can happen lies a stage back from collection at production by the packagers themselves. The proportion of packaging waste recycled is already higher than for most other types of waste, at between 50 and 60 per cent.[87] The EU Packaging Directive requires the 60 per cent figure to be achieved by next year, and regulations require firms to reduce unnecessary packaging and allow for prosecutions—by local trading standards authorities—of those who do not; just four such prosecutions have occurred to date, and the maximum fine possible is only £5,000. The Minister for Waste told us that the Government is pressing for stronger regulations.[88]In addition, the Courtauld Commitment, a voluntary agreement involving about 90 per cent, by market share, of the UK's major food producers and supermarkets, requires signatories to design out growth in packaging waste by next March, and to achieve an actual reduction in packaging waste by March 2010. Several retailers which have signed the commitment aim to reduce their own packaging by a quarter by then.[89]

55. What local authorities can do is inform local residents of how to minimise the waste they send for collection. WRAP has conducted research suggesting that the English public is little aware of the waste hierarchy—reduce, re-use, recycle, recover (as in energy from waste, or incineration) and dispose (as in landfill).[90] One of the perverse outcomes of the welcome, heavy and successful stress on recycling in the past decade has been that the messages on re-using resources without having to smash or crush and then reconstitute them or on simply preventing waste from arising in the first place have been to some extent lost. Essex Waste Partnership neatly made the point that continued overall increases in the amount of waste generated in England display the point that the prevention and minimisation of waste have not been as successfully achieved as the recycling of matter already in the waste stream.[91] Several councils have spoken of a need to change the attitudes of residents so that they accept responsibility for the waste they produce rather than seeing it simply as something the council will come and clear up. If there is such a need, the change can only come from councils themselves, implying that they need to develop programmes to educate, inform and persuade the public of the need to cut household waste. They have argued that they are best placed to choose how, when and what to collect in their local areas; the clear corollary is that they share with central Government the responsibility for persuading their council tax payers how to minimise waste in the first place and how to influence retailers and others.