Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
JOHN HEALEY
MP, MR GRAHAM
DUNCAN, JOAN
RUDDOCK MP AND
MR DANIEL
INSTONE
17 DECEMBER 2007
Q20 Chair: Another suggestion of
Sir Michael Lyons, when he was trying to broaden the basket of
taxes that local authorities might be able to use, different sources
of income, was that charging for refuse collection could be viewed
as an additional source of revenue to help towards dealing with
waste costs. The Government appears to have rejected that and
is only looking at waste charges being revenue neutral. Why exactly
did you reject that suggestion? Would it not have killed two birds
with one stone, because it would have more effectively sought
to change householders' behaviour and would also have raised the
issue of funds to deal with the increasing waste costs?
John Healey: Lyons saw two policy
objectives in the idea of waste charging. One was to create a
source of additional income for local authorities and the second
was to create an incentive to try to influence behaviour, particularly
the behaviour of householders but also the approach that local
authorities took. We believe the approach to incentive schemes
that we have set out will do the latter and we are interested
in pursuing that policy aim. We are not interested in pursuing
the first of Sir Michael Lyons' policy aims because we do not
wish to add to the charging tax burden of local population.
Q21 Chair: We were told in our inquiry—and
I think Mr Woolas who was then a minister confirmed it—that
the additional costs on council tax of getting rid of waste was
likely to be of the order of £130-£150 on council tax.
If the incentives are not sufficiently high to encourage enough
people to reduce waste, you are making all council tax payers,
even those who are reducing their waste, pay for those who are
irresponsible enough not to bother.
John Healey: I do not recognise
those figures. Obviously, if they are the figures he used, they
would have been pre the Comprehensive Spending Review. We believe,
on the other hand, that the sort of incentive scheme we are looking
for local authorities to pilot—and I think of the very good
work that Joan's department has done to look at what the experience
in other countries suggests—could have the sort of impact
on levels of recycling that we would want to see, and we would
share that aspiration with the Committee.
Chair: Perhaps we could move on to look
at the detail of the pilot schemes.
Q22 John Cummings: I have some questions
relating to the financial incentive schemes in the pilots. Why
will only five local authorities be chosen to participate in the
pilot schemes?
Joan Ruddock: We think five is
an appropriate number to—
Q23 John Cummings: Based on what?
Joan Ruddock: If I may continue,
five is an appropriate number to run pilot schemes because we
want to see in some depth just what would be the nature of schemes.
We want to offer local authorities the opportunity to come forward
with a variety of suggestions and we will pick from those five
schemes. On the Continent there are really three or four variations
of incentive schemes that we have been able to study, so we are
quite confident that five is a good enough number to give us a
range of different schemes which can then be monitored in depth
and from which we can learn sufficient to decide whether we want
to propose to Parliament that we roll out nationally such schemes.
Q24 John Cummings: How many local
authorities have expressed an interest in participating?
Joan Ruddock: At the last check,
14 authorities had made inquiries. The extent to which they will
or will not be interested when they know the details, clearly
we cannot predict, because, until we have the legislation in place,
it is impossible, but just the announcement of it led to a spate
of inquiries from local authorities. We are confident that there
is interest out there and that we will be able to run pilots appropriately.
Q25 John Cummings: Are the 14 authorities
who have expressed an interest evenly spread throughout the country:
north, south, east and west?
Joan Ruddock: Pretty evenly, I
think. At this stage it would be invidious to release any names
of councils or to go any further than I have because, clearly,
people can ring up/make a phone call/send an email and for all
we know they will not follow it through at a later date. I can
say to you, however, that the announcement itself produced inquiries
and that is sufficient for us to be confident that we will have
authorities coming forward when they know the details of what
is available.
Q26 John Cummings: Are you able to
tell the Committee whether they are predominantly rural or urban?
Large or small?
Joan Ruddock: At this stage it
would make no sense to tell you the nature of these inquiries.
Q27 John Cummings: It would make
sense to me.
Joan Ruddock: We do not know whether
these are inquiries which will lead to anything. If I were to
suggest at this stage that—
Q28 John Cummings: You say the inquiries
might not lead to anything?
Joan Ruddock: Exactly. The inquiries
that these particular authorities have made may not mean that
they come forward with a proposal to be one of the pilots. It
could be any other authority in the country that comes forward.
At this stage we have nothing more to tell you, only our confidence—
Q29 John Cummings: You are working
in the blind, Minister.
Joan Ruddock: Not at all.
Q30 John Cummings: So you do have
the information.
Joan Ruddock: We do not yet have
the legislation in place. Until it is in place, clearly authorities
are not going to come forward with a worked out suggestion.
Q31 John Cummings: I did not ask
that. I have asked a simple question. Are they large or small,
rural or urban, and could you tell me whether they are predominantly
district councils or unitary authorities?
Joan Ruddock: I could turn to
the page and look them out but I do not think it would be advisable.
I can tell you that they have come from all parts of the country
and, indeed, we have a mix of rural and urban.
Q32 John Cummings: You do know the
sizes, then. It is a simple enough question. Good gracious me,
why the secrecy, Minister?
Joan Ruddock: There is no question
about secrecy; it is about how sensible it is to make declarations
when we know these are absolutely the most initial inquiries.
The authorities that may come forward in a year's time might be
a completely different set of authorities and those who bring
their proposals forward could be a different set again.
John Healey: It is very, very
early days, Mr Cummings. The earliest the pilots are likely to
start is April 2009, which is what we want to see, so we are 16
months away from that. The reassurance in general terms that you
might wish for is that we are setting up the scope to do these
pilot schemes very much because local government says it wants
it and we expect, therefore, quite a level of interest in these
schemes. As Joan has said, it is very early days, but clearly
the point of piloting is that we will want to see a range of schemes
tried and that is likely also to involve a range of authorities.
Q33 John Cummings: Are you reassuring
the Committee that there will be a correct balance of the authorities
or are you not?
Joan Ruddock: Of course. When
I said to you five, we think that will cover the possible range
of types of scheme. Also, we clearly want to do rural and urban,
we clearly want to do different areas of the country, and within
five pilots we expect to have sufficient scope.
John Cummings: We are 75 per cent of
the way there. All we need now are the names.
Q34 Emily Thornberry: Do you expect
there to be interest expressed from inner city authorities, particularly
areas in which a very large proportion of the citizens might be
sharing refuse chutes and so on; where fly-tipping, when you have
so little space, would be dreadful; and where people are already
having terrible problems with rats?
Joan Ruddock: The evidence of
schemes that have been introduced in other countries does not
suggest to us that fly-tipping increases automatically follow.
They do not. In a study in the U.S in some cases, there was no
increase in fly-tipping in the round: in just over half the cases,
no increase, and, in some, even a decrease. There is no absolute
correlation there. We will be clear that any pilot which did go
forward would only be approved if it had a proper fly-tipping
strategy in place. We encourage all authorities to have fly-tipping
strategies in place; we have a fly-capture reporting system. In
the case of these pilots, that clearly would be part of the criteria
on which a judgment was made. As to whether we would have inner
city areas where people share refuse chutes: clearly, if they
are sharing refuse chutes then it would be much more difficult
to do incentive schemes—but not impossible, and an interesting
scheme might be if an incentive could be created for a whole block
of flats or for a whole community. It is not out of the question
that a very imaginative authority might come forward with such
a proposal. The other thing to bear in mind is that the scheme
has to be appropriate in the judgment of that authority. Many
inner city authorities will have areas where they have street
homes, individual collections and multi-storey blocks. In the
street homes they might decide they wanted to offer that for a
pilot and not the whole of their authority. Again, that could
be considered.
Q35 Mr Betts: Given the importance
of recycling and the role it can play in the general approach
to trying to deal with climate change, there is not exactly a
great deal of urgency about this, is there? We are not going to
get a pilot until 2009 anywhere; then we are going to have three
years to evaluate it; and at some stage we might get some legislation
to broaden the scheme out. We are probably talking, as we sit
now, of six or seven years before we get an effective roll-out
across the country.
Joan Ruddock: I do not think it
necessarily need be as long as that but we cannot anticipate at
this stage. Certainly the legislative timetable is that we expect
and hope we will have Royal Assent by next summer. Then, because
of the consultation, the coming forward of schemes, it would really
not be realistic to expect a scheme to start before the financial
year beginning 2009. It would not be realistic.
Q36 Mr Betts: This is a pull back,
is it not? Initially, the Government's plans, when they came to
the Committee before, were that there was going to be a general
power and authority to get on with it.
Joan Ruddock: Indeed. We have
had to listen to all of the feedback that came from the initial
proposals. As you will know, we have made some changes. I personally
think changes for the better have been made over the period of
consultation and coming forward with the legislation. Having said
that, we now want to do the pilots. If we get the pilots right
and we do go for roll-out, there will be much greater confidence,
based on much better information because we have had to make judgments
based on schemes abroad. In all these ways, we cannot do it faster.
We may have a pilot that is working so well that within a year
perhaps we will be able to make some judgment. We will do the
best we can. Let me also say to you that over the last few years
local authorities have increased recycling rates very considerably.
Great progress is being made in some authorities and in Defra
we are making huge efforts to bring the worst performing authorities
up to meet the average. There is still scope, even without incentive
schemes of this kind, for local authorities to do much more and
we are working extremely hard to ensure that they maximise the
contribution that they can make within existing schemes.
John Healey: I think it would
be a fair criticism if this was the only policy that was designed
to increase recycling rates, but the fact that Defra and other
sources have provided such important advice and assistance to
authorities—we have the landfill allowance trading scheme;
the increase in the landfill tax rate; the PFI capital investment
that is available there for authorities and a range of other things—means
that it is not entirely fair criticism in those circumstances.
Joan is right: the fact that last year recycling rates for local
authorities were up 31 per cent, the fact that the National Audit
Office in their survey of disposal authorities this summer found
that 70 per cent of them were confident or very confident of meeting
their 2013 targets is (a) encouraging and (b) grounds for believing
that we are beginning to put in place the sort of policy framework
that will have the results that we need. But this incentive scheme
has an important part to play as long as we get it right.
Q37 Mr Betts: Given that there is,
as you say, considerable progress being made on improving recycling
rates anyway and initiatives going on in addition to any pilot
that might be introduced in an authority. How are you going to
evaluate properly the effectiveness of these pilots and distinguish
between the improvement in recycling rates that there might be
without the pilot and the specific contribution by the pilot in
an authority with the charging policy?
Joan Ruddock: You can be on a
trajectory which you can measure and you can create a baseline
from which you start. We would expect, if the incentives really
work, that you would alter the course of that trajectory and there
would be a bigger improvement. This is why the design of pilots
will take some time and will be very important. One of the things
we do know is that once a local authority starts talking to people
on the ground and putting in information and education, you automatically
get an increase in recycling rates. The fact you would have to
explain the scheme to people in itself brings up the rate. You
could do that by other means. It is a complicated field, but we
have confidence, because when these schemes are being done in
other countries and other cities they have driven up and made
a really significant change.
John Healey: The counterfactual:
"If this were not in place, what would happen?" is always
very difficult. But one of the advantages of piloting is that
you have control areas which are comparable against which you
can compare the impact of those areas that do have the incentive
schemes.
Q38 Mr Betts: Presumably you are
going to get a range of authorities. Presumably you have a plan
B if you do not, say, get a major city or a London borough that
wants to participate.
Joan Ruddock: We are pretty confident
we are going to get an appropriate mix. No doubt you can question
us again, Mr Betts, when we are at that point.
John Healey: Also, the Local Government
Association have been very strong in their welcome for the announcement
that Joan made in November. They have described it as good news
for councils and local people and they have said they want to
work with us and with local authorities in helping to get it off
the ground. The conditions are such that we are pretty confident
that we will be able to choose five good pilot areas.
Q39 Mr Betts: When the pilots are
set up, will there be publicly published criteria at the beginning,
about how you are going to evaluate the scheme, so that it will
be clear what the success is?
Joan Ruddock: Absolutely. We have
undertaken that this will all be reported to Parliament. It has
to be absolutely clear, what we are doing and why we are doing
it. Not least, of course, it will be essential for the accountability
and transparency of the local authority that is piloting that,
and all that is in the public domain vis-a"-vis their
own population.
| 
