Refuse Collection

Sorry for this rather long post, however this is a summary of a report on the possible future of refuse collection by the House of Commons, Communities and Local Government Committee,
Refuse Collection, Fifth Report of Session 2006–07.


Refuse collection is one of the most routine activities of government and one that generates most public interest. For many, having their bins collected is the most important thing local government does, and a major reason why they pay council tax. Responsibility for collection and disposal belongs to around 400 local authorities in England and the historical development of such a disparate system means practice varies widely on timing and frequency and the types of materials collected and recycled. European Union landfill restrictions, designed to combat climate change, have driven a shift towards greater recycling as councils seek to avoid paying substantial fines.
Recently, alternate weekly collection (AWC) systems have proved controversial, often wrongly characterised as fortnightly collection. In fact, the schemes, adopted by about 40 per cent of English authorities, are meant to force or encourage householders to recycle by providing collection of waste one week and recyclables the next. Our strongest conclusion is that local councils are better placed than anyone, central Government included, to know what will work best for their local areas. AWC plainly works in some places—recycling rates have risen, and there is little public opposition. In other places, it has worked less well, notably where councils have “blundered into” introducing it without adequately informing local householders and council tax payers.
AWC equally clearly is not suitable everywhere: in cities and urban areas, congestion and limited storage space rules against it. Most controversy has arisen over food waste, with householders concerned that storing leftover food for a fortnight means more rat, fly and animal activity, with consequences for public health. Research has found no public health risk from AWC, but wider research is required to convince the public.
Changing systems allied with the enormous variety of collection and recycling schemes in existence have left the public confused, and we recommend moving towards a clear,
understandable definition of what the public may expect.
The Government proposes to let councils operate financial incentive schemes aimed at rewarding positive recycling behaviour. The proposals fall short of recommendations made
by Sir Michael Lyons and appear complex and timid. Rewards of as little as £20 a year are
unlikely to prompt mass recycling, and as every winner will require a loser, those who end
up paying even £20 more for a service most believe they pay for through taxation are likely to be significantly more aggrieved than the gainers are pleased. The schemes may have perverse effects, too, potentially increasing fly-tipping.
Finally, for all the political heat it generates, municipal refuse represents only 9 per cent of the total national waste stream. While its high profile guarantees media attention and policy focus, it is easy to forget far more can ultimately be achieved by reducing, recycling and reusing commercial, industrial and construction waste products and we recommend government gives increasing emphasis to the commercial waste sector.

For anyone wishing to read more a link can currently be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16_7_07_bincollections.pdf