Joan
Ruddock: I am glad to hear that. It might have accounted
for a tremendous increase in the recycling rate if it had involved
bottles of wine or cans of beer. Nobody would dispute that it was a
good result but, as I understand, the rate of material that was
recycled as a consequence was 40 per cent. We already have local
authorities that are at the 40 per cent. level, so we must do
more.
Gregory
Barker: The hon. Lady is right; 40 per cent. is not the
summit of our ambitions. However, the point is that this was a
difficult metropolitan area. This country has some very poor
communities that recycle a fraction of their waste—I think
especially of Liverpool where the recycling rate is in low single
figures, perhaps as low as 3 per cent. During the experiment, recycling
in one area went from 7 per cent. to 40 per cent. in a short space of
time. It is not the only solution, but it is an interesting
scenario.
Joan
Ruddock: Indeed. We will discuss the hon.
Gentleman’s amendment shortly.
Amendment No.
108 requires authorities running waste reduction schemes to collect
residual waste at least once a week, and to collect all recyclable
materials. Clearly, we cannot accept that. It specifies,
“tetrapak
materials, polystyrene and all
plastics.”. As
the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border knows, at the moment,
such materials are not collected from the doorstep by the vast majority
of authorities. Requiring a local authority to operate a weekly
collection of residual waste and collect all the recyclables would
prohibit the majority of local authorities from coming forward to offer
a scheme at all.
David
Maclean: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady as I
initially spoke for much longer than intended. This is about pilot
schemes, not amendments to compel every authority in the land to
collect all Tetrapak and polystyrene. I am merely trying to build it
into the pilot schemes.
Joan
Ruddock: Indeed, but all local authorities are invited to
put themselves forward to undertake a pilot scheme. It would completely
distort any schemes that might come forward if that involved moving
into a different era and collecting 20 streams of recyclables.
[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman protests
too much.
The other
important point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Northavon, is
that if we specify that residual waste is to be collected every seven
days, no authorities that currently operate alternative bin collection
schemes will come forward at all. The amendment is unnecessarily
prescriptive and limits the options for authorities. What the right
hon. Gentleman proposes would effectively prevent any authority in
England from piloting one of those schemes.
Joan
Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) (Lab): I am concerned about
what my hon. Friend says in response to the amendments in view of press
reports that I read last week. I know that we should not believe
everything that we read in the press—that point was raised just
now—but I remember reading that the shadow Secretary
of State for Communities and Local Government was
intending to report local authorities for collaborating on some of
these pilot schemes. I am a little unsure about the comments coming
from the Opposition with regard to the Department for Communities and
Local Government. I wonder if there is a difference between the two
shadow Front-Bench spokesmen on that matter.
Joan
Ruddock: My hon. Friend is perceptive. The shadow
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has spoken
frequently about the schemes and threatened Conservative local
authorities, telling them not to collaborate with the Government. I am
delighted, however, that that is not the attitude of the shadow
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister who has joined us in the
Committee. It is for that party to sort out what on earth its policies
on those issues might be. We have certainly not been able to understand
them. Reference
was made to Tetrapak cartons, which have historically been difficult to
recycle, but industry is working hard to turn that around. We all hope
that that will happen, as they are such an important part of our lives.
While we encourage local authorities to continue improving the
recycling services they offer, we must recognise the complexities and
different circumstances they face on the ground. As the hon. Member for
Cheltenham indicated in a intervention, that is very much a case of
achieving the commercial contract, and local authorities have to do
that and gain an outlet, otherwise there is no point in collecting
it.
The powers
outlined in the Bill require an authority already running one of the
pilot waste reduction schemes to operate a good recycling service. As I
have said, that means a service that meets the standards specified for
the purposes of that definition in the guidance. The Department has
also recently published draft guidance on what constitutes a good
recycling service. That proposes that an authority must, as a minimum,
offer free kerbside collection of dry recyclates and at least two waste
streams. We have also said that additional priority in selecting pilots
would be given to authorities that collect plastics and food waste or
that plan to do so within 12 months. Food waste was not one
of the streams that the right hon. Gentleman suggested needed
collection, but I am sure that members of the Committee will have noted
the enormous amounts of food waste that we are putting out in this
country. Indeed, tackling the amount of food waste has become a
priority for the Government.
We
believe that the proposals represent a good balance between ensuring
that householders within a scheme are provided with a good collection
service and that the requirements are not so prescriptive as to limit
the types of authority that can participate in the scheme. The key
issue is to ensure that the pilots provide us with robust evidence
about the impact of incentives on behaviour. We have seen that similar
schemes work elsewhere, which is why we want to trial them in England.
Excluding large numbers of local authorities from coming forward to
undertake a pilot by including over-prescriptive requirements, which is
what the amendment would do, would hinder us in the task, so we
obviously oppose it.
Amendment No.
109 is nothing but a wrecking amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman
must know that no local authority would be able to collect waste
from all of the recycling categories that he has
specified. The hon. Member for Northavon, when speaking to amendment
No. 112, which he tabled, suggested that we should let 1,000 pilots
bloom. I think that he will know that that is a slight exaggeration,
even of what he
proposed. Steve
Webb: A figure of
speech.
Joan
Ruddock: A figure of speech, but I reiterate that what
really matters in these pilots is that we should be able to retrieve
the evidence systematically and analyse and record it properly. That
limits the numbers that we should properly put in place. The hon.
Gentleman might have an opinion that there should be more pilots, but
we have decided that five is appropriate, and I ask him to accept that
we need a robust and useful evidence base for deciding whether to roll
out those powers to other waste collection authorities. If he thinks
that all authorities ought to have the opportunity to do that, that is
for a later stage in the
proceedings. 11.45
am
Steve
Webb: I cannot understand why the Minister needs to tie
her hands with legislation. It is almost as though she does not trust
herself, as if she has to pass a law to stop herself saying yes to six.
Surely she should see what she gets in, and if there are six damned
good ideas, she should take six, and if there are four, she should take
four. Why does she have to pass a law to ban herself from doing
something that she might want to
do?
Joan
Ruddock: I have a great deal of confidence in myself,
thank you very much. We wanted to settle on a number, and we put that
number in the Bill. That gives clear certainty to local authorities. It
is also a case of looking to what financial support will be provided.
If we had a completely open-ended number, we would have to have a
completely open-ended budget. There will be financial support from the
Government. We want to get the evidence. We believe that we can do it.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be impossible
anyway to test every conceivable type of scheme in every conceivable
type of
authority.
Joan
Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman says six, but someone else
would say, “Yes, but there are already four types of scheme and
20 types of demography”. The hon. Gentleman should accept that
we have decided on five. We certainly will not have an open-ended
number, as he proposes in the amendment. That will be
resisted. Amendment
No. 107 would prevent the Government from making any regulation that
would create a criminal penalty on any householder for non-compliance
with any aspect of a waste reduction scheme. Unless I am mistaken, that
amendment has not been spoken to. I will not tempt the right hon.
Member for Penrith and The Border. He might like to be tempted. No, his
colleagues say that they would not like him to be
tempted.
David
Maclean: I did not speak to that amendment. Similarly, I
did not address in detail some of the other amendments. I got so bogged
down by interventions on
the principle of the clauses, and on some of the minutiae, that I did
not test it. I shall not attempt to speak to it now in a brief
intervention, but I support the concept underlying the amendment. I do
not believe that householders in a pilot test should get criminal
penalties if they make a
mistake.
Joan
Ruddock: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman made that
point. Iit is appropriate for the record that I deal with the
amendment, even though he did not. I am sorry to tell him that he
failed to notice that there is no provision in the Bill to use any
regulation to create any criminal penalty. I hope that with those few
words he will be entirely satisfied. I echo the comments made by my
hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North. The right hon.
Gentleman has probably been reading too many of those press releases
from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles),
who is always saying that people are being made into criminals by the
proposals for proper waste collection
policies. Our
advice to local authorities is that they should first communicate well
with their citizens and explain clearly what is expected in response to
waste collection policies, and that they should not need to have to
penalise people. However, where people will not accept the advice and
will not co-operate, the provision exists for the fixed penalty notice.
That is what local authorities can issue. As the right hon. Gentleman
knows, a fixed penalty notice does not make a person a criminal. I am
sure he has occasionally had a fixed penalty notice himself, not in
respect of waste, but perhaps in respect of a vehicle. He would be
unusual if he had
not.
David
Maclean: I may have picked up many fixed penalty notices
for parking offences, and they were richly deserved where the evidence
was clear. Who will judge whether a householder has got it wrong with
recycling? Will the hon. Lady tell us the type of mistake that could
lead to—I am glad that it will not be a criminal record—a
fixed penalty? Would those mistakes include putting the wrong sort of
card or paper in the wrong
box?
Joan
Ruddock: As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman,
communication between local councils and householders is crucial in all
these things, leaving aside the pilot schemes authorised by the Bill.
If people put materials in the wrong bins, the council should explain
what they are supposed to do. I expect councils and those who operate
their policies to understand the position of the householder.
We would all
expect common sense to prevail. For example, if a blind person made
such a mistake, a fixed penalty notice would be inappropriate. We need
common sense, courtesy and proper communication. We know perfectly well
that some people persistently do the wrong thing after receiving an
explanation and having been treated politely. Some people are abusive
to the refuse collectors. A line must be drawn at some point. That is
how I believe we should
proceed.
David
Maclean: We are getting into rather dangerous territory. I
am glad that we are pursuing this line of questioning. I take the point
that only a crazy local council would penalise a blind person. That is
an extreme
example. I am more concerned about the millions of householders who have
to deal with something that appears to be a cardboard box and do not
realise that it is lined with plastic or foil, as with a
Tetrapak. I
come back to the point that I have been making. If we do not have
simple, standard definitions that are advertised by the Government in a
national campaign, we will catch millions of innocent householders.
They might not be blind, they might have perfect sight and they might
be reasonably intelligent, but they still might not realise that the
material in their hand is the wrong sort of material. They might not
realise that their little district council will refuse to collect it
and penalise those who put it in the wrong box. That is the
mischief.
Joan
Ruddock: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the
general point about waste collection is that we all have to do more and
we all have to learn to do it better. In the vast majority of cases,
common sense prevails and such difficulties do not occur. If we cannot
decide on these things, councils will not be in a better
position.
David
Maclean: It will not stop
them.
Joan
Ruddock: Well, in general, common sense prevails and these
things are dealt with
appropriately. To
come back to the Bill, we are talking about only five pilots. Perhaps
this is a case in point for the Liberal Democrat amendment tabled by
the hon. Member for Northavon. In the pilots, we will work closely with
the local councils through the Waste and Resources Action Programme to
give advice and ensure that the communications work. We will test some
of the hypotheses put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in a proper
way. Under
the existing mechanism local councils can issue fixed penalty notices.
It is not Government policy to make non-payment of a waste charge a
criminal offence. Under the regulation-making powers we cannot create
criminal offences for non-payment of a waste charge. On the basis of
that reasoning, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to
withdraw the amendment, as it is
superfluous. On
new clause 18, I agree entirely with much that the hon. Member for
Bexhill and Battle said. Of course we want to give people incentives,
to learn from the practices undertaken elsewhere and to do all we can
to incentivise and increase recycling. However, new clause 18 is a
puzzle. It would not remove schedule 5, which might have been a logical
move. Instead, the new clause would be additional to the powers of the
schedule. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham pointed out, what is
proposed can already be done under the Bill. We therefore do not
believe that the new clause is
needed.
| 
