---

Refuse Collection

I assume that we have a low representation of Back-Bench Members, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), because it is Thursday afternoon and there is only a one-line Whip today. It might also reflect the fact that there has already been enormous and extensive debate on the subject of this report. I shall get the joke in before anyone else does, which is that we are all going to be talking rubbish this afternoon—more so than usual. There has been enormous debate on the reports both within and outside Parliament, and perhaps people feel that the points that need to be made have been exhausted. The debate is on the fifth report of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, but we also draw hon. Members' attention to our sixth report of 2007-08 on the much narrower topic of waste reduction pilots, which is also relevant. I shall start by putting the fifth report in context. Although refuse collection is the responsibility of local authorities, and therefore of the Department for Communities and Local Government, it sits within the Government's general waste strategy, which is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The waste strategy places an imperative on us all, but particularly on local authorities, to reduce the amount of waste generated, to reuse and recycle, and only then to think about using landfill. There are several powerful incentives for local authorities to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. Such a reduction would make an important contribution to protecting the environment and to reducing energy use, thereby helping the country to meet its commitments on climate change. We are landfill junkies in this country, and if we carry on using landfill at the current rate, we will use it all up within 12 years. That fact alone—holes in the ground are going to run out—means that councils have to do something about reducing the amount of waste going to landfill. There are also two financial imperatives on councils, the first of which is the landfill tax. The tax has been operating for some time, but the charge has been escalating, so it is becoming ever more expensive to put waste into landfill. The second is the landfill allowance trading scheme and the imperative that every council has to reduce, by 2010, the amount of waste that it sends to landfill against an individual ceiling. That ceiling is set by the past performance of that local authority area, and if it is not met by 2010, the relevant authority will receive large fines, which will end up being paid by council tax payers. Although much of the debate about refuse collection and charging has focused on the so-called bin taxes, people must bear it in mind that if we do not collectively reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, we will all pay more to our councils anyway. The issue is more about whether we can reduce excess charges than whether we should add charges, or whether all council tax payers should pay or only those who do not make much effort to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. The report, which was published in May 2007, covers refuse collection policy in England, because the DCLG is responsible only for England in these matters. It touches on several points on which I shall not expatiate because I want to concentrate on relatively few. I have made the point about cost pressures on authorities. If we continue to produce waste at the current level, there could be an extra £150 on everyone's council tax bill. The report looks at the various ways in which councils have responded to that challenge. One of the most interesting parts of the inquiry was the sitting attended by representatives from different local authorities, all of whom had taken different decisions in response to the situations in their areas. They argued the case out in front of us, each trying to explain why they had made those choices and why they thought other councils had made other choices. That was particularly interesting because it was not a party political matter. There were huge differences of opinion between council leaders, but, without knowing, it would have been difficult to say which ones were from which party. People feel strongly about this subject, but it is not party political.