---

Refuse Collection

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the initial increase in landfill tax of £3 was hypothecated and has provided considerable sums to support a range of waste minimisation and other waste strategies. That programme was designed, through the business resource efficiency and waste programme, to last three years, and it has done enormously good work. Although there is to be a substantial increase in the tax, the money from it will not be dealt with in the same way. It is important to remember that the increase will be the major driver of diverting waste from landfill. We have talked a lot about household waste, but commercial and industrial waste represents the majority of waste, as hon. Members have said. Lurid reports of vermin infestations as a result of alternating collections continue to be reported in the media. We cannot find evidence of such infestations, and the National Pest Technicians Association has just reported that there has been a significant decrease in rodent numbers. Its belief is that the use of rodent-proof wheeled bins is the probable cause of that. That bears out what WRAP, the Committee and the Government have said: that there must be appropriate receptacles if food waste is to be collected and waste left for longer than we have been used to. That is an important lesson, and the Government continue to say that good management is the key. Clear information and education for householders, and particularly the provision of sealable containers for food and kitchen waste, must be at the heart of a successful programme. In that context, I am delighted to report that 19 councils are participating in the DEFRA-funded weekly food collection trials that are being carried out by WRAP. Early results of the trials have shown that separate collection of food waste is popular, with 60 to 80 per cent. participation and about 3 kg of food waste collected per household per week. I turn to the most contentious issue in the first report and the subject of the second: the Government's proposals to remove the general prohibition on charging for waste. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, noted, the UK is the only country in the EU15 that has that rule. In recommendation 24, the Committee asserts that:"““Breaking the link with council tax and establishing refuse collection as a utility, like gas or sewerage, might have the radical impact the Government say they want.””" My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) mentioned that point. If our plans are judged against such a radical departure from current practice, of course they will not find favour—that is absolutely clear. But there is no evidence, including from the Committee, to suggest that such a dramatic change is supported in local government, or even less by the public. I make no apology for restating the Government's intention to go ahead with piloting waste incentive schemes. Let me be clear about taxation, on which hon. Members had a little sport at my expense in the report, although not in the debate. There could be reward-only schemes—those based only on rewards, not on charges. Deciding on such things is the point of having pilots. Where charges are applied, they will not behave in the same way as traditional tax. When I gave evidence to the Select Committee, on 17 December last year, I had not been advised that the charges could be deemed to be a tax. The Treasury has now clarified that they will, and that information was conveyed to the Committee by the Department for Communities and Local Government in a letter on 20 February. Unlike other taxes, no revenue will accrue to the Treasury or the local authority, because the schemes will be revenue neutral. Money collected from those who fail to recycle will be paid back to all those who do. We have found in our consultations that people believe that that is intrinsically fair. It is accepted that if people do what society requires of them, they will get that service free through their council, but that if they do not comply, it is reasonable to be charged.