Joan
Ruddock: Indeed; the hon. Gentleman has made a sensible
comment. We know that the schemes are operating in many other countries
that clearly have a spectrum of household composition and home types,
just as we have in this country. It would be for the local authority
that sought to pilot the scheme to look at all of that and at their own
demographics. It would perhaps
choose one part of the authority where it would do the pilot and decide
that other parts were not suitable. All of that is possible, and we
expect the authorities that come forward to take all those issues into
account. I
want to complete what I was saying on revenue neutrality. A further
protection for residents exists, as authorities will need to keep a
separate account of charges and rebates under the scheme, which will
allow residents to assure themselves that the revenue neutrality
requirement is being kept, which is enormously important. A huge amount
of hostile press has been generated, I am sorry to say, by the hon.
Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who speaks for
the Opposition on communities and local government. He has suggested
that this is some form of stealth tax and that people could be subject
to huge payments—I have ever seen a figure of £1,000 a
year quoted, which is absolutely ludicrous. We have made it clear that
we want the schemes to be revenue neutral and transparent, that it is
essential that residents buy into them and that there will be a
communications strategy. That is all very clear. Also, the indicative
amounts that we have mentioned for such schemes have been of the order
of £50, which is nothing like what has been suggested.
As I have
said, local authorities would have to take account of groups that could
be unduly disadvantaged, provide a good kerbside recycling service,
implement a fly-tipping prevention strategy and communicate with local
people. While providing a good level of protection for householders, we
are also keen to provide authorities with flexibility and options to
ensure that schemes are efficient and effective on the ground, as I
have indicated. Local authorities will be free to design schemes that
suit local circumstances and integrate rebates or charges with the
administration of a council tax system, if they so choose.
We have
really gone past the point when we can simply sit back and watch
landfill sites fill up and belch out methane emissions. We have to try
new measures, and it is only responsible for us to respond to the
wishes of local authorities that have proposed, like other countries in
continental Europe, that they should have the opportunity to have such
schemes. It is a matter of extreme regret that the hon. Member for
Brentwood and Ongar has warned local authorities in a letter that
councils that introduce “bin taxes” will be vilified in
the popular press and punished at the polls. He
stated: “Nationally,
we will not hesitate to criticise any supposedly-Conservative council
which collaborates with the Labour
Ministers”. I
hope that Opposition Front Benchers in Committee will disassociate
themselves from that threat to local authorities, which is nothing but
bullying and undermining democratic
accountability. 4.30
pm Piloting
is a sensible way of trying out these new measures and testing them in
a UK context, as it will add to our understanding and that of the
public and local authorities. After the pilots, we will be able to make
a well-founded decision on whether to make the powers available to more
local authorities.
I thought I
had answered all the questions, but it has been suggested that perhaps
I have not—helpful notes are being passed to me, but I think I
have dealt with the matter. However, I am told—this is a useful
point—that
the packaging directive targets will save more than
8 million tonnes of CO 2 this year alone. I should
also say something that I did not mention before: earlier this year, I
increased the recovery rates from forms of packaging in this
country. Miss
McIntosh: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and
Battle has just said from a sedentary position, this is a technical
amendment—unless I am confusing it with an earlier one. This has
been a timely and helpful debate. The Government got it
wrong—not in signing up to the EU landfill directive, but in
signing up and committing the United Kingdom to the landfill directive
before we had alternative waste disposal schemes in place. That is
something that is going to cost all of us
dearly. The
Minister’s response to the debate is a little bit unfair and
disingenuous on the householder, because the householder is not in
control of how products reach them—I accept that they are in
control of the amount of food that they waste. However, when a consumer
is shopping in a supermarket, they do not have control over the
packaging or what will ultimately be waste. Let us consider unsolicited
mail, which is a growing curse. Of course, I do not mean our election
leaflets, but, for example, the free newspaper that comes around or
other things that one does not wish to see cross one’s
door.
Joan
Ruddock: I assure the hon. Lady that we are trying to work
across every front on that issue. She is right, and we are discussing
that matter with the direct mail organisation. We hope to have new
agreements on that, and we are trying to discourage the proliferation
of material. The householder does have some control. Some people choose
to shop and buy loose goods rather than heavily packaged goods.
Clearly, we should boycott those goods that are most heavily
packaged.
Miss
McIntosh: To a large extent, we are in broad agreement. I
remember visiting a direct mail factory during one of my election
campaigns, which caused some consternation apropos my earlier remarks.
We all want less waste to go to landfill, but the Government have
wasted an opportunity, because they could have educated the public on
alternative means of waste disposal, particularly incineration, energy
from waste, combined heat and power, or anaerobic digestion—I do
not care what we call it. The public seem to go into freefall whenever
a local council comes out with a policy that involves smoke or burning,
whether it is in Guildford, where bizarrely the Liberal Democrats
opposed an incinerator, or in Sheffield, where they proposed
one.
Joan
Ruddock: The hon. Lady is right; there is a need for
public education. It is now accepted that no serious health effects
result from incineration. That has been dealt with—not least, by
Government. In addition, £2 billion of PFI credits
are available for waste infrastructure and there is no prohibition on
any form of scheme. Some are coming forward as incinerators, and
£10 million is available for anaerobic
digesters.
Miss
McIntosh: I have recently received a briefing from North
Yorkshire county council, and councils seem to be well apprised. The
Minister has referred to the need to guard against fly-tipping, which
causes great concern in rural areas.
The
Chairman: Order. I remind the Committee that we are
talking about waste reduction, not waste disposal, either through
incineration or
fly-tipping.
Miss
McIntosh: I hate to say, “I told you so”, to
the Minister. There were two warnings about the problems that clause 60
could bring, which the Government do not seem to have heeded. One
warning was in the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government
report on refuse collection, which was issued on 16 July 2007. The
Committee
was “not
convinced that enough work has been done or guidance given to local
authorities on how to prevent such risks from blighting areas and
causing
disputes.” The
same Committee’s second special report on “Refuse
Collection: Waste Reduction Pilots” in February this year
recommended
that “the
Government withdraw its financial incentive pilot proposals from the
Climate Change Bill and reconsider devolving the power to introduce
schemes to local authorities
themselves.” Would
the Minister like to comment on why she did not follow their
advice?
Joan
Ruddock: What we saw in the CLG Committee reports was far
greater ambition than has come from local government. The suggestion
that there should be a specific waste-charging system, analogous to a
utility, is not one that has found favour with local government. That
is why local government, in presenting suggestions to central
Government about what might be done, has looked to do something that is
clearly much more of a halfway house than the CLG Committee would have
wished.
Miss
McIntosh: Finally, just for the record, I believe that the
Government’s approach of having a limited trial and a limited
pilot project—I think that five are ongoing—for which the
Government have been criticised, has allowed hostile media
coverage.
Joan
Walley: Despite the recommendations in the CLG Committee
report, is there not a real sense of urgency about not only carbon but
the availability of landfill sites? It is important that we make a
start and see how those pilots can inform what is
needed.
Miss
McIntosh: That is a helpful intervention. As I said at the
outset, the problem is that the Government signed up to impossible
targets. I am in total agreement about reducing waste going to
landfill, but it is impossible to ask councils to meet those targets,
if there are not alternative sites. If we look at what is happening in
Naples, I can only assume that the Italian Government are having
exactly the same difficulty as our
own.
Joan
Ruddock: We are on target for the reduction in waste going
to landfill from households for 2010, and we are entirely optimistic
about 2013. The reason why we are making so much money available to
encourage much greater provision of waste disposal infrastructure is
because the 2020 target is challenging. However, we are content that we
know what we are doing, and we certainly have no expectation of ending
up in a Naples situation.
Miss
McIntosh: The Minister will be aware that my colleague,
whom I now refer to as David Davis, called his by-election, which will
take place on Thursday one week hence, precisely on issues such as
intrusion by inspectors, which relates to these proposals. I hope that
the powers given to local council inspectors for policing the
arrangement will not come back to haunt the
Government.
Joan
Ruddock: There is no suggestion that this scheme will be a
massive intrusion into people’s lives. There is no suggestion
that this scheme will be a massive intrusion into people’s
lives. As I have stressed, it has been done across Europe and north
America. Residents have accepted such schemes perfectly well in other
countries. When the proposals were put to people in a poll, we found
that about 60 per cent. of people felt them to be entirely
fair. I
bring the hon. Lady back to the purpose of this measure: people who do
their duty by recycling and reducing their residual waste should be
rewarded, and those who do not subscribe to the law could have a charge
placed on them, if the local authority so
chooses.
Miss
McIntosh: We are grateful to have had the opportunity to
place our concerns on the record, and I am grateful to the Minister for
her
response. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
5Waste
reduction
schemes
The
Chairman: I note that the right hon. Member for Penrith
and The Border is not available to move amendment No. 108. Does another
member of the Committee wish to move
it?
Gregory
Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in
schedule 5, page 69, line 3, at
end insert— ‘(d) the
authority proposes to collect residual domestic waste at least once in
every seven days, and (e) the
authority proposes to collect all recyclable material, including
tetrapak materials, polystyrene and all
plastics.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 109, in
schedule 5, page 69, line 32, at
end insert ‘but no
charges for residual domestic waste can be imposed unless the authority
has made provision to collect all other materials not less than once
every 14 days, including, (i) all plastics of whatever type, (ii)
polystyrene, (iii) paper and card of all descriptions including
tetrapak, (iv) glass and (v) metal and
aluminium.’. Amendment
No. 107, in
clause 70, page 33, line 19, at
end insert— ‘(c) does not
include a power to create a criminal penalty on any householder for
non-compliance with any aspect of a waste reduction
scheme.’. New
clause 18—Waste authority’s power to reduce amount of
council tax
payable— ‘After section
13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14) there is
inserted— “13B
Power to reduce amount of tax payable in relation to household
waste
(1) Where a person is liable to
pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling and any day, any
waste collection authority or waste disposal authority may require the
billing authority for the area in which the dwelling is situated to
reduce the amount which he is liable to pay as respects the dwelling
and the day to such extent as it thinks
fit. (2) The power under
subsection (1) may only be exercised in connection with measures to
reduce the amount of residual domestic waste produced in the
authority’s area. (3)
The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to
particular cases or by determining a class of case in which liability
is to be reduced to an extent provided by the
determination. (4) Where an
authority exercises the power under subsection (1) the authority must
pay or allow to the billing authority if requested an amount equivalent
to the total reduction in the amount of tax payable each year as a
result together with the reasonable administration costs of making such
reductions.”’.
Gregory
Barker: My right hon. Friend has been delayed in the main
Chamber, but this is an issue that he feels strongly about. I am sure
that he would want some discussion of it in the
Committee. There
is little doubt outside the Committee that waste is an issue that
always seizes the public interest—my constituents certainly talk
about it. Locally, there is still concern about the regularity of
collections, about what one can and cannot put in the recycling bin and
about the ever-increasing amount of waste that our homes seem to
produce. Overall, I am always struck by how genuinely enthusiastic most
people are about recycling. People like to do it. Parents enjoy showing
their children what they can put in the compost, the recycling bin and
the waste bin. There is a certain generation that never lost the
recycling habit, having grown up in the thrifty post-war years. It
makes people feel that they can do something tangible and practical to
lead towards a greener lifestyle. They feel that recycling is an
inherently good thing, leaving aside the climate change
agenda. The
enthusiasm for recycling is something that we must encourage and
nurture in every way we can. We must help people to do the right thing,
because it is the right thing to do. Additionally, as the Minister has
said, we still send far too much waste to landfill. The UK currently
produces 28 million tonnes of municipal waste every year, a whopping 83
per cent. of which ends up in landfill. We signed up to the EU landfill
directive to try to get that figure down, and it sets targets for the
reduction of biodegradable waste sent to landfill. We must achieve 75
per cent. of the 1995 level by 2010, 50 per cent. of that
level by 2013 and 35 per cent. of it by 2020. We have some considerable
work yet to do in this country, which is why we need a clear
collaboration between Government, local government and the
public. In
that spirit, I welcome the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the
Member for Penrith and The Border. His proposals go right to the heart
of many of the issues that my constituents find most frustrating about
waste. They say that they want to recycle as much as they can, but not
if it means that their residual domestic waste will be collected less
frequently than once a week. They are happy to recycle, but they ask
why they cannot add so many plastics and waste products. For example,
only in a few places, and none that I know of, can one recycle Tetra
Pak cartons. So many of the juices and liquids that we buy are packaged
in such containers, and they all go to landfill. Why is it that so many
people cannot include polystyrene and other kinds of plastics in their
recycling bins?
If we are
going to ask people to increase their recycling rates and, more
importantly, if we are going to threaten them with financial penalties
if they do not do so, we must make it as easy as possible to recycle,
which is the objective of amendments Nos. 108 and 109. In the interests
of public participation and acceptance, we must not threaten to
criminalise people who do not yet have the recycling habit or fail to
comply with their
local— 4.45
pm
| 
