---

Refuse Collection

I am grateful to the Communities and Local Government Committee and to the Liaison Committee for the opportunity to debate the vital matter of waste collection, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), for the manner in which she presented the report. Since the publication of the report and our response to it, there has been a second report. In between, we responded to further requests for information. Most of the points made in the reports and in further questions have been repeated in the debate, and I need to repeat some of the Government's responses, which are already on record. I shall also attempt to respond to the points that have been made in the debate and update Members on recent developments. Recommendations 1 and 9 in the report endorse the Government's plans for local authority indicators on waste and recommend that they should be prioritised by local government. The three main waste indicators that we said we would bring in have been included in the new performance framework, and we have given particularly strong encouragement to poorly performing authorities to include them in their area agreements. A technical consultation has been completed since we last corresponded with the Committee, and the final indicators are due to be published tomorrow. Recommendation 2 endorsed the Government's recognition of local authorities' autonomy, but recommended that the Government commission research and evaluate best practice. DEFRA's waste and resources evidence programme has funded the Waste and Resources Action Programme to undertake such work, and its report will be published at the end of next month. We expect it to include new advice to local authorities on food waste and related matters. Recommendation 4 relates to WRAP's ““Love Food Hate Waste”” campaign, which I helped to launch some time ago. I am pleased to report that the campaign is already identifying early indications of measurable behaviour change. A growing number of local authorities are actively engaged with the campaign, and although figures will not be validated until April, indications are that well over 1 million additional households are committed to reducing the amount of food waste that they produce. Recommendations 3, 5, 6, 7 and 12 are all on the type and frequency of household collections—a matter, as we have heard, of some controversy in the media, but on which, I am glad to say, the Committee and the Government substantially agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, will probably agree that whoever coined the phrase ““alternate weekly collections”” did a huge disservice to waste management. It implies that services are reduced. Far from it; the changes would better be labelled ““alternating collections”” or ““multiple collections””. As hon. Members are aware, and have said today, they are designed to give a better service through the collection of dry recyclables one week and residual waste another, thus preserving a weekly service. As the Committee recommended, it is crucial that they are introduced properly. Comprehensive advice on them is available from WRAP. Although my hon. Friend expressed the Committee's finding that there was no direct correlation between alternate weekly collections and an increase in recycling, it is a fact—the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) mentioned this—that of the top 20 recycling authorities in England, 17 have such collections. I think that he said 19, but 17 is the up-to-date number. In the other three, which are county councils, the majority of districts have alternating collections. Cost-cutting has been mentioned in the debate. I can assure the Committee and its members that that is not the motivation of local authorities, and there is no direction about it from the Government. Of the total efficiency gains that local authorities have reported, they put about 0.1 per cent. down to alternating collections.