Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 199)
TUESDAY 22 MAY 2007
CLLR GARY
PORTER, MR
GARY ALDERSON,
MS NICOLA
BEACH AND
MR IAN
DAVIES
Q180 Mr Olner: They do pong when
you open the lid to put other stuff in!
Mr Alderson: That comes back,
Chair, to how the household manages their food waste and their
pet food waste going into the bin. We certainly recommend double
or even treble-wrapping the food waste which goes in. With any
food which is left exposed—and I again go back to pet food
left in bowls all day that is exposed to flies—you can get
fly eggs coming in and eventually maggots. What I would say is
the overwhelming majority of our residents cope with the system.
They wrap their food, keep it away from flies and have never had
a problem. In the very hot July, clearly odours arise as a greater
issue. We give a lot of advice to our householders on a whole
series of measures they can take to minimise any problems they
may have, from where they store the bin, to how you wrap things
and cleaning, if that is a problem for yourself. I would say that
the overwhelming majority of people do not have that problem.
My final comment would be that we did have some residents who
used to get maggots in their bins when it was a weekly collection,
so it is all down to how the householder manages their waste.
Q181 David Wright: Has anybody got
a view on the public health issues? Has anybody spoken to any
professionals in terms of direct public health, about potential
health impacts of an alternate weekly collection or the maintenance
of a weekly collection?
Cllr Porter: Could I just try
and put some of this straight? In Bedford's website it says, "The
problem of debate is not lack of participation but contamination.
In recent months up to 50% of recyclables have been lost due to
rejected loads". That was because residents did not have
their refuse picked up and chose to put that refuse into the recycling
bins, so that recycling was then contaminated and lost.
Q182 Chair: It is not necessarily
a health issue. Contaminated can mean the wrong thing in the wrong
place?
Cllr Porter: Yes, but the reason
why it has been contaminated is that people do not want flies
and maggots in their dustbins. Regardless of however you bag it
up and polish it away nicely the lifecycle of those flies is 10
days; that is why we introduced weekly refuse collection in the
first place. It's 10 days before you get a baby fly which turns
into an egg, which turns into a maggot, which turns into another
fly. Ten days: that is why we started with the weekly collections.
To say it is not a problem if you double or treble bag it and
all the rest of it is just a nonsense, an absolute nonsense. There
is a study being done in Northampton University now, by a chap
doing it for his doctorate, that should be published in June or
July this year, and the things we will be growing in our dustbins
are scary. They are not just inconvenient or smelly, they are
scary. They are Third World diseases that should never have a
place in this country and it is really scary.
Q183 Chair: Could you give the Clerk
a note afterwards of who that is in Northampton to see if we can
get in touch with him directly. That would be very helpful.
Mr Davies: I was just agreeing
with the point that the reason why it is a weekly collection is
based around the lifecycle of the fly, and it is all about reducing
maggots. This is not something you could possibly have in an urban
London Authority. Someone could not have a bag of refuse in their
house for more than seven days; I think the smell would be awful.
The potential health issues are debatable, I think. It is not
something I could really comment on.
Q184 David Wright: Is this something
the Government should be giving guidance on? Cllr Porter you said
earlier the Government should have a hands-off approach in relation
to what systems are run locally, and that people should be allowed
to develop a system generally. Do you think the health issues
are such that we should actually be giving guidance?
Cllr Porter: No. I think one way
the Government could help is by repatriating the extra taxation
we pay through landfill duty to local authorities to allow them
to take the food waste out as a weekly collection. Those authorities
who want to have a fortnightly collection still need to get their
food waste out of the system, and that can be done but it is expensive.
The Government are taking a fortune out of all of our pockets
in terms of landfill taxes. They are supposed to be additional
but not for income generation. They are supposed to help us recycle.
Fine, help us recycle; give local authorities the money back so
that we can spend it on trying to deal with the issues, and they
are going to be around food waste. I am sure people would not
care if their recycling was in a big bin for a month because it
is dry and it is not contaminated. I do not believe we would get
the best out of recycling if we did that. I think the way we do
it, as many products as possible in the quickest time as possible
in one container, is the best way forward. I think that is the
best way to get recycling done, but in terms of making fortnightly
collections of refuse more palatable to the public, then we still
need to get the really interesting part of the waste out, and
that is the contaminated food waste. You have that means, you
have the money. Give it back and we can deal with it.
Q185 Chair: Disposable nappies, incontinence
pads and all that lot. What do we do with those, which are equally
revolting?
Mr Alderson: I must just correct
my colleague. He has quoted a contamination rate of 50%; what
the website says was "certain loads" had that level
of contamination. We launched a campaign to decontaminate and
the contamination rate across the entirety of the collection is
down to well below 15%, which is perfectly acceptable for this
kind of system. Contamination in this case does not just mean
nappies, it means non-target recyclables, like other plastics
etc.
Ms Beach: As I have said before,
Uttlesford and Braintree both collect food waste weekly. Given
the level of satisfaction, the recycle rate seems to be working
very well with our local residents.
Q186 Chair: Disposable nappies?
Ms Beach: Disposable nappies are
an interesting one! That always gets a giggle, I find! We in Essex
have been running a cloth nappy campaign really to highlight to
people there is a choice, that is the first point; and we have
had a tremendous take-up on that, growing year-by-year with health
professionals on board as well. We do not force people. It is
about giving them a choice and making them aware of the alternatives
that are available.
Q187 Martin Horwood: How does the
scheme work?
Ms Beach: It has evolved over
the last five years really that we have been doing it. It started
with us giving out trial packs of cloth nappies to any member
of the public, grandparent, parent or whoever, with advice and
so on; and we have gradually evolved it to working with maternity
units in hospitals, health professionals, midwives and so on,
with a healthcare pack. It is held up as best example, I believe,
one of the best examples in the country. It is about giving people
choice. It does not work for everyone. There is also a nappy laundry
service as well which is available. With regard to disposable
nappies, yes, there is a tremendous problem with a huge amount
going into landfill. With regard to waste collection and health,
I think if properly wrapped, we have certainly not had any reports
of problems, nor have my colleagues, in doing the alternate weekly.
It really is the food waste element of the bin that seems to cause
the difficulty. If that is addressed on a weekly basis, with all
the benefits that brings in terms of diverting biodegradable waste
from landfill, if you put it to anaerobic digestion you get biogas
and so on, I am sure you heard about this maybe yesterday; there
have been reports out very recently about the benefits of that.
It is certainly something embedded in the Essex Project and I
think it is win:win overall.
Q188 Sir Paul Beresford: I have two
local authorities in my constituency, one does weekly and one
does fortnightly. The interesting thing is that it depends on
how it is handled by each authority because each authority seems
to manage their particular system very well. What has been difficult
is a misunderstanding by some of the public on handling of waste
and wrapping it as you are suggesting. Two questions: first, you
came up with the fly cycle and of course the important part of
the fly cycle is egg to maggot which, as I understand it, is three
to five days so that would affect the weekly just as much as the
fortnightly. Secondly, there has been in a number of areas a campaign
by the local newspaper, which has been desperately short of campaigning
issues, that has raised it. Has that happened in your area in
particular, and have you noticed that the 300 complaints one year
were the same identical individuals in many cases when it was
309 the following?
Mr Alderson: Yes, Chair, certainly
as you say it is a good issue for local newspapers because you
have got arguments on both sides and it is very contentious. We
had a very large amount over a sustained time period of negative
press coverage, I would say. We also got a small proportion of
residents writing in to counteract and say, "For goodness
sake, what's all the fuss over? I manage perfectly well. We've
got to hit these targets. We've got to stop waste going to landfill".
Bedfordshire has historically taken a huge amount of London waste,
so we have tried to set an example of having our own waste going
back that way. We had all out elections in May of this year and
there has been no change at all in the party stakes. It was the
big local election issue on the face of it, certainly in the media,
but had no effect overall. Could I just touch on Mr Wright's question?
Before we started we had environmental health officers do a risk
assessment and give us information on the health issues which
they felt were not an issue provided the food was wrapped, et
cetera. It also points to the Enviros and Cranfield University
recent research study into health effects of alternate weekly
collection. Cranfield is actually in Mid Beds and they have come
out firmly saying there are no health effects provided these simple
measures and precautions are taken. I would say, we have had it
in 54,000 households over two years now and we have not seen epidemics
and new diseases coming. Waste goes into a bin and it should stay
there until it is collected. With simple precautions, education
and support, it is not a problem. Getting it in is very difficult
because of all the hoo-ha, comments, worries and concerns that
people genuinely have. Once it has been established it is very
straightforward. I am sure we will move on to food waste collection
shortly, but we are starting to trial that now across 6,000 houses.
Q189 Mr Olner: One of the things
which causes real doubt amongst local people is that you guys
are saying "We are going for alternate weekly collections
because that will help boost our recycling targets" but the
truth of it is you are saving money by doing the residual waste
only once a fortnight.
Mr Alderson: We were very clear
from the start, Chair, there were environmental benefits and cost
savings and, as I say, as the fifteenth lowest taxing authority
our residents as a generality want the lowest possible council
tax, so we put both messages together.
Q190 Mr Betts: Can I move on to an
issue which is a matter Sir Michael Lyons reported on and that
is pressure from the Local Government Association to give local
authorities the power to introduce variable charging for waste
rather than simply paying an amount in council tax? Have any of
your authorities thought about the possibility of introducing
this power if it is available?
Mr Alderson: Certainly we have
thought about it and the officer recommendation is not to go down
that route.
Q191 Chair: Why?
Mr Alderson: The costs for Mid
Beds would be set-up costs of around about half a million pounds.
The ongoing administrative costs to manage the system, the risk
of neighbours tipping waste into each other's bins and those sort
of issues far outweigh the benefits. For the householder the actual
payback is going to be very minimal. Whilst a number of people
feel they pay out £2,000 a year council tax to get the bins
emptied, in my authority you are paying £50 a year, so even
if you were to make a substantial reduction in the amount of waste
you were generating, the amount of cash refund you would get would
be very small indeed. From the other measures we have taken, we
have seen waste minimisation/increase in recycling, so we do not
feel that is an appropriate way for us in Mid Beds, however if
other authorities wish to trial it or wish to take it forward,
I am perfectly happy for them to trial that route.
Cllr Porter: We have discussed
it informally at our council and we would not consider introducing
it for ourselves but it is quite right for the Local Government
Association to ask for the power, providing it does not come with
a duty. That is our concern with the power to be able to charge
variably. If that is what local authorities want to do, if they
think that is best for their own areas, fine, as long as it does
not come with a duty on the rest of us to have to do it.
Mr Davies: I would certainly agree
with that. One of the big issues for an inner London authority
would be the set-up costs and we are not using, as we have already
talked about, hard bins, so to weigh the waste is going to involve
putting a slave bin on to the back of the refuse vehicle which
is going to cause all sorts of problems in terms of the size of
their rounds and the speed of their collections. On top of that
you have the risk associated with it all going wrong. We have
used some weighing equipment in the past to do some survey work
around recycling and we found that the equipment is relatively
fragile, it breaks quite easily, it is very difficult to use in
many ways and if that goes down when you are in that scheme, you
are going to be in quite a difficult position without your charging
mechanisms. There are all the administrative costs associated
with it, reconciling all of the waste, and you have the managing
of it. I think the managing of the process would be particularly
difficult in an inner London authority and there would be significant
costs associated with that. The current cost of household waste
collection in Hammersmith & Fulham is £38 per household,
so you go back to how much you are actually saving people by doing
this. It needs to be very carefully thought through and it is
not something we would be looking to introduce.
Q192 Mr Betts: One of the things
said in favour of the argument of charging is that many countries
on the Continent do it quite successfully but we apparently have
insuperable obstacles to introducing it anywhere.
Mr Alderson: Chairman, bringing
in AWC is a significant challenge for local government and clearly
we have seen that through and it is in place successfully. All
we can say is at the moment the cost benefit seems so disproportionately
weighted on the cost side for the local authorities and the residents
will be so disappointed by the rebates they get that we do not
feel in Mid Beds it has legs to run with.
Q193 Mr Betts: Have you done a detailed
analysis of what you think the administrative costs will be as
well as the set-up costs?
Mr Alderson: Yes, it was half
a million pounds set-up costs, then you have 54,000 houses so
54,000 bill generations per year, you are going to have all the
appeals and concerns around that and administrative staff, so
I would say you are looking at at least £100,000 to £150,000
a year administrative costs for Mid Beds.
Q194 Mr Betts: Then you have the
possibility of non-payments, non-recovery and presumably as well
the issue of fly-tipping. Is that an issue you look at as well,
what the proliferations of that might be?
Mr Alderson: Certainly in terms
of making sense of the system I would want to work on a rebate
system where you pay your council tax as normal and if you under-use
your allowance you get some kind of rebate. That is the flip side
of charging for the amount you create.
Q195 Mr Betts: Is that a serious
possibility? Are you examining that as a possibility?
Mr Alderson: We have examined
it but we are not progressing it because we do not believe it
is a runner at all. What was the second part of your question?
Q196 Mr Betts: I was asking whether
the rebate system had been looked at as well as the charging system.
Mr Alderson: That is the system
we have looked at in Mid Beds. We have looked at both sides. To
weigh every bin and send out bills is perfectly feasible, the
technology exists and it can be done. Because we have wheelie
bins it is very straightforward because as the bin is tipped at
the back of the vehicle it is weighed automatically and the micro-chip
in the bin sends a signal to the cab, so there is no delay to
the staff on the collections, so as a practical proposition on
the collections front that is fine. However, then there are the
issues around, "Others put that refuse in my bin, so that
is not my charge, that is not fair" and those kind of issues
will come out. Fundamentally, you work really hard for a year
and you reduce your waste by 20% and you are getting £10
back in Mid Beds. You would not feel particularly good about it
and I fear the cost of administration would eat into that £10
quite significantly.
Q197 Mr Betts: Is there any disagreement
on that?
Ms Beach: Rather than making a
direct comment on variable or direct charging—and there
are certainly good examples in Europe—I understand entirely
the reservations colleagues have and I have been involved in some
debate about the practicalities of it. Essex's position is that
we have had an informal discussion as a partnership, we certainly
have not reached a formal position and there is a view that if
you are achieving very high performance at the kerbside with the
system you have, do you wish to disrupt it by introducing a different
charging scheme? All I would say from a county council perspective—and
I would be interested in my colleague from Lincolnshire's comments
on how Lincolnshire County Council working with the districts
are going to meet some of the affordability issues, and I cited
it in my paper—the issue is that we are basically getting
waste too cheaply in this country. We do not pay enough for it,
we do not realise the environmental and social costs of it. We
have a huge affordability gap to reach, not just in Essex but
across the country as well. We have landfill diversion targets
to meet which, if we do not meet them, will bring significant
financial penalties. There is every reason to believe that would
be millions of pounds for Essex. So I am not saying we would wholly
support some sort of variable charging, my question is how would
we meet that gap if we do not. One aspect that certainly Essex
is interested in is having perhaps a separate waste precept, so
if we do need to show more transparently those costs and why they
need to change it is clearer. As my colleagues have said, there
is a big misperception by the public that council tax is purely
for refuse collection and street lighting. There is an issue here
about how are we going to shift away from landfill, invest in
the new facilities we need and how is that going to be paid for.
Q198 Mr Betts: So what you are saying
is in terms of waste we ought to see the totality and not just
collection and disposal?
Ms Beach: I was trying to look
at it from a more strategic level. I am not representing a waste
collection authority, I am here representing Essex Partnership.
I entirely understand all the difficulties of that and I am not
disagreeing with what colleagues have said, but there is a question
still for the UK of whether we are going to meet these new targets
and start managing resources better rather than seeing it as just
waste management. My question is, how are we going to meet the
cost of doing that?
Q199 Mr Betts: Is there any way you
can bring financial incentives relatively easily into this process
to produce a situation where you have less waste at the end for
your landfill?
Ms Beach: I think there is an
issue here about private sector partnership, about producers,
retailers and manufacturers taking on more responsibility. Most
of the waste we deal with comes out of their doors and I do not
think we have seen the full impact of that fact in some of the
legislation which has come in. I am not saying in Essex we would
wish to introduce variable charging—that is a matter for
the Partnership to fully debate and a matter for each district—but
there are schemes in Europe where you retain in effect the council
tax payment because you need some revenue stability, otherwise
that would be a very difficult situation and your variable bit
is maybe for £50 and those who are performing well and recycle
well and you could charge on the entire amount they produce or
just on the residual waste would pay £50 and those who do
not would pay less and so on, and so it starts to balance out.
There are lots of practical issues about measuring it, collecting
it, enforcing it which I entirely understand. We have to look
in a more strategic sense towards how in this country we pay for
our municipal waste because at the moment it is not valued highly
enough for the impact it has.
| 
