---

Refuse Collection

Poverty is no reason why people cannot recycle. People can avoid charges in such schemes by doing what is required of them. There is no reason why people with less money should not want to do their bit for society and to recycle along with those of us who have more money. Poverty is not an issue. Indeed, poorer people tend to have fewer products and expenditures, and probably less waste, although I have not carried out an analysis of that. However, I suggest that they are likely to have less waste than those of us with greater purchasing power. On larger families, we have said that pilots—this is another reason for piloting—need to consider those who might find it more difficult to increase recycling and reduce residual waste. That could include larger families, and we expect that to be looked at. In recommendation 20, the Committee raised the question of linking waste incentive schemes to council tax, which is a point that I myself raised when I took over the portfolio. I am glad to report that we have listened to stakeholders, including the Select Committee and the Local Government Association, on this point and that pilots will be able to administer waste rebates and payments through the council tax system if the authority wishes. Much of what has been said on this subject today is found in the Committee's second report of 21 February. The Government have yet to respond formally to that report, but will do so in due course. However, I think I can tell hon. Members today that we totally reject the Committee's 14 conclusions, all of which fly in the face of earlier responses to the Government's own information gathering on this subject. We remain confident that local authorities will want to pilot such schemes and I remind hon. Members that in our consultation 80 per cent. of respondents supported bringing in these powers. I am afraid that we will not agree—we will have to differ—and there is little point in going further over this well-trodden ground. Waste incentive schemes are being proposed in order to increase waste minimisation and recycling. Current measures have raised recycling rates to more than 30 per cent. and reduced residual waste going to landfill. We are on course to meet our 2010 targets and although we are not complacent, we are heading in the right direction in order to meet the 2013 targets. Things get harder as progress is made and we believe that local authorities are likely to want such schemes as they move to meet challenging targets beyond 2013. However, we continue to listen and to refine our proposals. In the Lords we are currently proposing amendments to allow schemes to be based on frequency of service and on identifying tags applied to bins or bags. We are also proposing an amendment requiring the Government to report to Parliament on all pilots within three years of Royal Assent, which is expected in the summer. The reports will be transparent, taking account of the fact that the pilots were supported by DEFRA funding, and we will work with stakeholders to establish success criteria by common consent. The Committee expressed concern about timing—the fact that pilots will not begin until next spring. We make no apology for that either, because we want to ensure that they are well designed. However, we will not require that all pilots be technically completed and wound up before we report on them. If pilots prove to be successful, we can act with appropriate pace to make the powers available to all local authorities, which is what the Committee wants. Whatever the differences between the Committee and the Government, I hope that members of the Committee, perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Beckenham, who spoke for the Conservatives, will reject the irresponsible reporting of some national newspapers on incentive schemes. Scaremongering that so-called bin taxes could cost ordinary families up to £1,000 a year is absolutely and utterly wrong. I hope that that was simply the product of an innumerate journalist but, of course, what was said has not been retracted. I shall address some of the points that Members made. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West made a number of points—she did not ask me any direct questions—and I shall comment on them. She asked about charging that is happening now and referred to the fact that the Government have written to the chief executive of every authority. She suggested that there was a grey area, but I must tell her that there is not. Charging for collection services is illegal, and that is what we have told local authorities. Under section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, authorities are allowed to charge for the provision of receptacles. It is on the interpretation of the provision of receptacles and the charging that she raises some questions for individual authorities—it is not for me to say. The hon. Lady referred to home composting services and said that she thought that they could be a disincentive. As she was speaking, I tried to work the issue out in my head and I concluded that a local authority does not have to collect home compost if it encourages home composting. If local authorities had a statutory recycling and composting rate imposed on them, they could argue that they needed the compost to reach a target. However, they will no longer have that target. If people compost at home, local authorities benefit because they have less to send to landfill. The hon. Lady said that it was a question of balance, and I agree, but it does not seem that there are contradictions.