Hansard

In the next 10 minutes or so, I would like to take the committee through the objectives, scope, findings and recommendations of the study. I will then be happy to answer questions on the presentation or on the report.

The first slide is about the refuse collection study objectives. There were three main objectives. The first was benchmarking. With the introduction of best value, some refuse collection services have not been subject to market testing for seven years. Therefore it is appropriate to undertake a comparison exercise on cost and quality to reassure councils that they are getting best value from the refuse collection service. Also, this is a benchmarking opportunity to find out how far council refuse collection has progressed in the past 10 years.

Another key role is in assisting councils. We have assisted councils by giving them comparative information on named councils to allow them to undertake like-for-like comparisons with their peer councils. To enable them to do that we gave them COMPARE interactive software, which allows councils to formulate their own family groups and establish peer group comparisons that challenge them to improve to the best standards. In December, we met refuse collection managers and gave them the outcomes of the study, so they have been working with the data for the past five or six months. We expect managers to prepare action plans. As Bill Magee said, local auditors will ensure that those plans come to fruition. Through the commission's performance indicators, we have to track council action in the narrow context of refuse collection performance.

The next slide sets out the framework of refuse collection, which is an integral element of any council's waste management strategy and sits alongside recycling initiatives as well as refuse disposal. The slide sets out the three elements of refuse collection. First, there is the mainstream collection—the domestic uplift, which is basically weekly. There are also commercial collections by councils, whose frequency can vary from daily to once a week. Secondly, there is the uplift of special and bulky items, such as white goods—the large items that cannot be routinely collected with the mainstream collection. Thirdly, there are separate collections of waste paper and all the other recyclable items that need to be separated at source for recycling to take place.

What is shown below on the slide is what happens to the refuse. About 99 per cent of it is taken to landfill sites. Some of it is taken there directly by refuse collection vehicles and some of it is taken to transfer loading stations, where the refuse collection vehicles stop their activity and it is taken to the tip by less expensive haulage vehicles. There is also the opportunity for material recycling, which we will examine later.

We also considered civic amenity site provision. Although civic amenity sites are not part of the refuse collection function, they provide a useful opportunity for householders to take their waste to be recycled. Civic amenity sites will form an important part of the equation when we consider the context of how much is recycled.

The main study findings reveal a good news story in a refuse collection context. There have been substantial improvements in the performance of councils during the past 10 years. Costs have increased by 9 per cent in a period of 40 per cent total inflation—so that is a real reduction in cost.

The number of operatives has reduced by 44 per cent and the number of vehicles has reduced by 25 per cent, which is really connected to the larger vehicles that are being introduced now. Tonnage collected has increased over the past 10 years. There is a point there, bearing in mind recycling targets and the fact that we are working back to a baseline of 1995. Tonnage is increasing year on year.

As for productivity, the tonnage collected by operatives has doubled. Each operative now collects about 925 tonnes a year. All those improvements are on the back of the introduction of the wheel bin system, which almost all councils now use to an extent.

However, we identified a problem with the commercial refuse collection service. It is Executive policy that councils should be aiming to recover all their costs, but councils do not know how much the service costs because they do not maintain separate trading accounts for commercial trading collections. We had to estimate the cost of collecting and disposing of refuse. On the basis of the tonnage collected, we estimated that it would be something like £30 million a year. Councils know their income: £20 million a year. That leaves a shortfall of about £10 million a year, which falls on council tax payers. In some measure, commercial premises' avoiding payment for the uplifting of commercial refuse contributes to that.

The final point shown on the slide—I will go into it in detail in a moment—is the level of recycling in councils in Scotland, which is about 4 per cent, against a target for 2000 of about 25 per cent. The next slide covers the detail. In England and Wales, the figure for recycling is 8 per cent, and it is higher on the continent. Some councils in Scotland are doing better than others: examples include Argyll and Bute, Angus, and Perth and Kinross, where the figure is more than 10 per cent—so there are examples in Scotland of better practice.

The diagram headed "Exhibit 3" is an analysis of the sources of recycled waste. Much of the recycled material is sourced from separate collections and civic amenity sites. Separate collections are very expensive. They are about twice the cost of mainstream collections: £66 a tonne as opposed to £32 a tonne. Because of that, and because of the lack of a market, councils are withdrawing from separate collections—which is an issue for the committee to consider.

Less than half of councils now operate waste paper collections. Civic amenity sites offer a useful disposal opportunity for householders to support recycling, but the level of their provision varies enormously between councils.

I will now consider the council action points. The first main point is that councils use the information that we have provided to them. Potential reductions in sickness absence are common to most councils, and we are aiming to get councils to achieve a target of below 5 per cent.

Less than half of councils have reviewed their bonus schemes for some time—there is opportunity for review. We are asking councils to identify costs and income for commercial collection by establishing trading accounts and to aim to break even on their costs. We are also asking them to take steps on the avoidance of charges. Recent examples include the action taken by Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Their review indicated that 10 per cent of premises in the city, and 50 per cent of premises elsewhere, did not have an arrangement—a statutory duty of care, in technical terms—for the disposal of their commercial refuse.

If landfill targets are to be met, waste management needs to be given a higher priority. Any solution to come out of this is likely to involve increased costs.

As I said, the level of recycling is currently 4 per cent. The committee will be aware that by 2006 we are aiming for 75 per cent of the 1995 level. It seems a long time away, but the figure is to be increased to 25 per cent of the 1995 level by 2020. There is a strategic role for the Scottish Executive in encouraging councils to perform better in that area. The outcomes from the area waste strategies will likely identify some of those points. Because of the scale involved, to achieve the targets an infrastructure will have to be created to support recycling and the minimisation of waste. There will have to be a material recycling facility, incineration plants and separate collections. Things are already starting to happen. There is a material recycling facility at Polmadie, and Dundee and Shetland are expressing an interest in getting incineration plants on-stream.

Costs are likely to rise. The report drew on the experience of Lancashire County Council to give a feel of the millions of pounds that will be associated with taking the issue seriously. The issue is not only about money; it is also about education, training and culture. About half of the population do not use civic amenity sites or contribute to recycling initiatives. Householders need support if there is to be a separate streaming of waste.

Targets and time scales need to be agreed. We need interim targets so we can take comfort from progress that is being made by councils to achieve the Executive targets of 2006 and beyond. We are in a position to track and report on councils' progress.