Climate Change Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 183R: 183R: Schedule 5, page 57, line 14, after ““amount”” insert ““by weight”” The noble Lord said: I thank the Conservatives for moving the last amendment, which gave me a few moments out of the Chamber. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 183R and 183T in the group. There are some Conservative ones in the group as well, covering much the same ground. The first amendment here gives us an opportunity to discuss weight-based schemes. I am proposing that when the Bill says that the, "““charge under this paragraph ... must be related to the amount of residual domestic waste””," it should say ““by weight””, to make absolutely clear that this is a weight-based scheme; I am not sure it is otherwise. This is the sort of scheme which has given rise to a great deal of controversy in various tabloid newspapers and elsewhere, when people discovered that, in many places, the wheelie bins, which are in existence and use already, actually have a little chip in them. All sorts of amazing stories went round about the ability of this chip to do all kinds of things, such as analysing exactly what was in the bin as well as magically weighing it and telling who was putting stuff in and out. Clearly it is much simpler to identify whom the bin belongs to, so that it can be weighed as it goes on to the lorry; the chip will say which address the bin belongs to. However, even that greatly simplified scheme seems slightly fantastical and unlikely to take off in many parts of the country. I see how it can work practically in suburban areas where each house has a driveway and a gate and where the bin is identifiable not only by its chip but physically and geographically as belonging to a particular property. In many areas of the country, however, where wheelie bins work well, this is not the case. There are communal collection points at the end of the street or another designated place; everyone has to put their bins there, the bins are collected together and you take your bin back. In those circumstances, and even in areas where perhaps a bin is placed outside someone’s backyard behind a terraced block or in areas of flats where the bin might have some geographical identification, there will be a huge temptation, if you are charged by the weight of stuff in the bin, to put your stuff in someone else’s bin. This will happen all the time. People laugh when you say that, but it already happens. Because the council will take only what is in the bin and the lid has to be down for the bin to go on the vehicle, people put their rubbish into someone else’s bin. It is usually done with the neighbour’s consent. People do not mind as long as the rubbish has been packed in a nice, neat and clean way; it is a sensible way in which neighbours can organise the rubbish. However, if you are being charged for it, all mayhem will be let loose. Any council that goes in for this kind of scheme needs to be certified. I would like to hear from the Government where and how they think that this kind of scheme can possibly work. As I said, because this scheme has been put forward as the one that is likely to take place, it has already discredited the whole idea of charging. Amendment No. 183T was tabled to probe the whole question of charging in advance. When people move, can they come back to the council for a rebate? Would that be worth while if the rebate is only £25? The idea of an estimate on account or in instalments seems a nightmare of bureaucracy—an additional system of accounting and charging that councils could well do without. That amendment is essentially the same as the one tabled by the Conservatives, who might like to go into this in more detail. I beg to move.