Proceeding contribution from Joan Ruddock (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 28 February 2008. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Refuse Collection.
Refuse Collection
We need to be very clear about this. First, there has not been a consultation on AWC, which has been subject to an FOI. Secondly, there has been a consultation—obviously—on incentive schemes. It is correct to say that on that consultation, concerns were raised. The Government never failed to acknowledge that. What we have said is that it would be essential in any scheme—again this is why pilots are important—to have a good fly-tipping strategy in place. That is common sense and a good recycling service would have to be in place, otherwise such a scheme would make no sense. As to fly-tipping, we acknowledge that the data show an increase. However, one also has to look at one's own experience. In my borough, in which there is a very good strategy for tackling fly-tipping, fly-tipped waste is collected very fast. We are seeing much better outcomes than some years ago. At that time, when there was much more visible fly-tipping on my streets, no data were being collected at all. It is the collection of data on crimes that makes it appear that incidents of fly-tipping have gone up.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 472 c351WH
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Costs Biodegradability Landfill Domestic waste Incinerators Local government Pollution Powers Waste management Waste disposal Nappies
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 02:40:16 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_450349
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_450349
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_450349