---

Refuse Collection

That would be difficult to demonstrate; that is the point. Every time AWC has been introduced, there have been a large number of changes and it is difficult to decide which was responsible for the change in household behaviour and the improvement in recycling. However, the one thing that the Committee could say was that any council thinking of introducing AWC needed to involve itself in an extensive, effective public information campaign. Otherwise, it would be highly likely that the scheme would descend into chaos with—as we all saw on our television screens, although I cannot remember which council was involved—people on an estate pursuing a refuse lorry and throwing their rubbish at the refuse collectors, such was their frustration at the introduction of AWC, which was clearly, in that case, done without the necessary public education or back-up. The Committee was not convinced that AWC is essential to improve recycling rates, but recognised that many councils introduced it because they believed that it would improve those rates. We debated whether it was simply a cost-cutting measure. That is difficult to work out. Essentially, when a council moves from an ordinary weekly collection to AWC, it is giving the householder the option of putting rubbish out in lots of different bags or boxes; if it does not introduce AWC, it will need twice as many refuse lorries as it had in the first place. Accordingly, introducing the change to AWC and having more separate collections can be done without doubling the number of vehicles. It is not so much that councils save money through AWC, but that they reduce the additional investment needed to start collecting glass, plastic, paper and residual waste separately. To that extent there is a cost saving, but mainly the additional costs that those councils would otherwise have had to meet are reduced in respect of a system that allows them to recycle more.