Coming to a dustbin near you...

The Times is reporting that the Lyons Review into local government is toying with the idea of a "rubbish bag tax to encourage recycling".  The tax would in all likelihood be copied from models in force in Europe (they'll love that over at the EU Referendum blog ), typical charges could be "between 25p and 50p a kilo or up to £10 a month".  So that's only a 100% spread in the estimate between the lower and upper limits.

Spare a thought for a moment for Sir Michael Lyons.  After a lifetime's career in local government (Chief Executive of Wolverhampton Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and Birmingham City Council) he retired to spend more time with his knighthood and a few West Midlands charities.  Something seems to have gone wrong with Plan A.  In 2002 he was roped into the Fire Service Review; in 2003-4 he was working on a report on the relocation of civil servants out of London; and in 2004 he was studying the public sector's asset management policies. Then the ceiling really fell on him - since 2004 he has been conducting a review into the future funding of local government.  In his spare time Lyons is also on Gordon Brown's Public Services Productivity Panel (the suits who crack the whip over other suits to make them churn out memos faster).

One thing at least is clear about the Blair Reich's green credentials: they certainly believe in recycling their "independent" advisers.  I'm not sure with his track record that he would qualify as an "independent" director for stock exchange purposes, but let that pass. 

The following excerpts from Lyons' December 2005 Interim Report will give you a flavour:

"reforms to the funding of local government need to be based on a clear understanding of the expectations and responsibilities of local government, which continue to change.... weak public understanding of how local government is funded, and confusion over how the responsibility for the delivery of local services is shared.....if people do not understand how much services cost to deliver, they may have unrealistic expectations about what council tax pays for and how much local government can do....high degree of public confusion about who is responsible for setting the level of council tax and the reasons behind the annual increases in the tax.....There is no ‘golden key’ which will solve all the problems... Hard choices need to be faced.... there will be ‘winners and losers’...." (paras S.11-S.15)

This is Whitehall speak for: it's all a bloody mess and someone is going to have to pay for it, so we may as well carry out another fatuous reorganisation to camouflage what we're up to.

Lyons' track record suggests that what comes out of the other end of his sausage machine is likely to be whatever Gordon Brown wants.  The Times story could be the start of a softening-up campaign.  So we can expect a dustbin tax in the very near future - of at least 50p per kilo (or if you prefer 23p per lb) - with "caring" Gordon announcing tough action to reform council tax, probably coupled with reorganising all our town halls into unitary authorities and abolishing the shires.  This will be called a decentralising measure to cut waste (and the pun will be intended).  Will it do any good?

On decentralisation: of course not. This is the government which thought regional assemblies are a good idea - so "powers" will be "devolved" (i.e. the buck will be passed to councillors, very few of them now Labour) but central "guidance" will then control what councils can do.  Reorganisation costs will be funded via Treasury loan (northern cities of course will get special deprivation grants instead), so that's another sword Whitehall will hold over local government.

As for changing people's behaviour: of course it will.  Instead of driving to Essex to fly-tip his rubbish, White Van Man will now sling it over the fence into next door.  That'll teach your neighbour to complain about your playing loud music, won't it?  It's quite true that the UK lags well behind the EU in its recycling levels - but that's largely because the system at present does not reward recycling.  Charging would be an excellent Conservative measure for achieving this, assuming it was a genuine charge for a genuine service and not simply a means to plug a black hole in the finances - in theory this should be a self-defeating tax where success is measured by the absence of revenue because we're all recycling 100% of our rubbish.  The charging structure will have a critical impact.  (Remember: domestic rates, the poll tax, and council tax all started out as simple charges for services rendered.)

UK local government also lags behind the EU in the proportion of its funding raised locally, and it would be transformed if the source if funding were rebalanced.  But Lyons is effectively offering a "rebalancing upward", with new taxes slapped on top of already excessive council tax and central taxation. That will just reinforce failure.  Certainly another wasteful reorganisation into ever larger, ever more remote councils is the last thing anyone needs (or wants).

The correct approach would be "rebalancing downward": an across-the-board cut in central grants and the taxes which fund them, with each council being free to make up the difference as its electorate decides.  That would reveal more starkly the inefficient and incompetent councils who aren't providing a service. It could involve local black bag taxes.  Or local sales taxes. Or widely-differing council taxes.  It shouldn't be up to Gordon Brown to decide how your council pays its way.  We used to have things called ballot boxes to handle that.

STOP PRESS: On the Adam Smith Institute blog: "Hungry fungi solve plastic problem". Apparently scientists in Wisconsin have discovered a type of fungus which can digest plastic, with radical implications for rubbish handling and landfill.

William Norton

Comments

[Sally Roberts]

What a completely idiotic idea!! Surely it will only lead to increased fly tipping? What should be happening is the placing of incentives to encourage recycling. There will always however be items of waste which cannot be recycled and far better these go in dustbins in the normal way rather than being tipped into next door's garden or even left on the street.

[steve e]

I like the idea of a black bag tax but as said only as a self-defeating tax.

6 months ago I recycled nothing now at least 75% is recycled and I try and buy products that are packaged in recyclable materials.

Although I wasn't threatened with a new tax, I just got on with it.

[VA]

The correct approach would be "rebalancing downward": an across-the-board cut in central grants and the taxes which fund them, with each council being free to make up the difference as its electorate decides.

Absolutely! But this seems unlikely under the current centralisers precisely because there are fewer and fewer Labour councillors.

I'm actually not opposed to the rubbish tax in principle, as I support a polluter pays approach. But - in practice is this really another stealth tax, what are the unintended consequences and just how much will this cost to adminster?

[Richard North]

Of dear! We love the landfill directive, do we?

[Patsy Sergeant]

It would not surprise me to learn that Brown had decided, in some way, to tax us when we get into bed at night.

When they (the government) have spent millions on advertising this new idea - or made local councils spend it, and then found that available spaces in the countryside or the towns become targets of flytippers, and have to spend more millions, both clearing up the mess (or instructing councils to do it!), then spend more millions to think up another scheme, and advertise it, we can console ourselves that it is just OUR money that is being ...........

[Chris Berryman]

Unless the cost is offset by a reduction in council tax for waste disposal this would surely be just another stealth tax?

The principle is reasonable enough. I have looked at how they do this on the continent an it seems to work.

By making a tangiable link between the cost and the amount a household throws out they can decide for themselves. If people want to throw more out then by relaising the direct cost they may think again.

As for the fly tipping element I am more concerned. This would need greater consideration.

I do however think the whole 'pay by the weight' idea is rather unmanageable. In Europe if a bag doesn't have a official "to be collected" sticker on it it is not collected - stickers can be purcased for say 2euros from local shops in bulk - surely this is a more sensible approach?

[Chris Palmer]

Surely we should be incinerating more of our waste. Burning the waste would also produce electricity, and a filter would be added to remove harmful fumes?

[Sally Roberts]

A "Bed Tax"! What an ominous thought, Patsy! Particularly if he decided to tax us on whatever we might decide to do there....!!!!

[Paul Kennedy]

I thought the Producer Responsibility (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, superceded by the new consolidated Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005, were meant to minimise the waste being produced, looking at how full my refuse bin gets I'm not sure that is the case.........and I do recycle as much as is reasonable to do. I suspect all these regulations have done is create a market/trade in packaging waste.

Interstingly if I was allowed to put envelopes and cardboard into my paper recycling bin ( collected monthly and always full), it would reduce the amount of rubbish that I do not recycle.

[Paul Kennedy]

"A "Bed Tax"! What an ominous thought, Patsy! Particularly if he decided to tax us on whatever we might decide to do there....!!!!"
18:15

And there might be some who would be quite "proud" to paying a high rate of such a tax! ;) Makes you wonder how they might enforce it.....a bed tax inspector or CCTV !

[Deputy Editor]

It depends how far you want to take it, the Zurich authorities introduced a similar thing and cut waste disposal by half in a year. I remember reading this article (I recommend you read it too, if you're interested in this kind of thing!) in the IHT last year for some reason. They have a highly, highly regulated waste disposal system - I was very intrigued at the time.

To work well, it would take a lot of enforcing and regulating though. Fly-tippers have to be really cracked down on which isn't so easy on a national scale.

The Zurich trash program employs teams of inspectors who sift through sacks of illegal household garbage, looking for clues as to the culprit. Fines are as much as 260 Swiss francs - and that for a first offense.

Basically, they have Zuri-Sacks which are official bin bags which cost a few euros each, and are the only way you can get your rubbish collected (the average family now only throws away one bin bag a week). Added to that, they have a very complicated rubbish pick-up timetable for specific materials - which forces people to organise their waste well. The cost of rubbish disposal has led to companies like IKEA putting less unnecessary packaging in their products - due to popular demand.

Other systems in Europe include paying according to how much is in your garbage can.

I'm open minded about these things. If it encourages recycling and responsible use of resources I'm all for it (so long as it isn't balanced out by the resources used to regulate the system!).

[spagbob]

i dont think the problem personally is anything to do with taxes or incentives. most of the time recycling is just not convenient or easy enough. you have to carry all the stuff to the nearest recycling point which is usually miles away. what they need to do is to give every household in the country a few boxes e.g. a red one for paper, a blue one for glass, a green one for plastic or whatever, e.t.c. and then the council should come round and collect them once a week or something like that. that will make recycling convenient and more people will be willing to recycle.

if that still did not cut it down enough, then they can think about charging for anything not recycled and take an average amount of the council tax bill as part of that.

[Annabel Herriott]

Where does the packaging industry come into this lot eh? Who provides all the damn rubbish in the first place. Who asks for junk mail to be put through their letter box for them to chuck out? Tell you what. Stand beside your car in Tesco/ sainsburys/ Waitrose/ Somerfield/ delete as appropriate, rip off ALL the packaging, and leave it for THEM to deal with, in THEIR bin! We can cope with composting all the veg matter, at a pinch, you could leave all the outside leaves behind, but a dim view may well be taken. Now if we ALL did this, I wonder what would happen??
Im off to North Wales for 5 days, so you wont be putting up with MY rubbish until then.

[Sally Roberts]

Very well said, Annabel! I have a friend who deals very effectively with all the junk mail she receives through the post. She merely sends it all back to the address from whence it came - without a stamp!!!

[Andrew Woodman]

I agree about the recycling spagbob. Where I live, you have a green box which you can only put tin and glass bottles in (very rare that I use either of these), and a blue bag for newspapers. The items I have that I can recycle (normal paper, plastic bottles, card ect), I have to drive to the local supermarket to recycle. Why there can't be recycle points at the end of streets I don't know. Even better, a bin where all recyclable items can be put in.

[James Maskell]

The first person to come into the shop who I mentioned this to immediately said "We pay Council tax for this. Why must we pay twice?"

This idea is rubbish (pardon the pun) and I suggest strongly that Cameron oppose this.

[Penultimate Guy]

The correct approach would be "rebalancing downward": an across-the-board cut in central grants and the taxes which fund them, with each council being free to make up the difference as its electorate decides.

Is this Conservative Party policy? If so, I missed the announcement.

[Andrew Woodman]

After the reaction today, Labout won't folow through with the policy I'm quite sure.

[YorkshireLad]

"Where does the packaging industry come into this lot eh? Who provides all the damn rubbish in the first place. Who asks for junk mail to be put through their letter box for them to chuck out?"

Quite.

This is why local authorities need to pass by-laws allowing unsolicited junk-mail to be made illegal.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I am afraid it is all very well to say that these sort of schemes work in Europe, but if you compare European cities to English cities or indeed to country towns or villages, or trains and buses, the European variety is clean and neat compared to ours - though I hate having to say that. People have siad before - that this is probably because in general the Europeans have more pride in their cities.

I am generalising, but you cannot deny that we have beome very slovenly in a public sense, and it already costs a lot - I am sure - to clear up regularly after dirty, lazy people! And now just to get one up on the Conservatives (so that it can be said that labour has green issues up front, as well of course as clawing back some more money for Mr. Brown - whats new), we have the perfect opportunity presented to have even more rubbish strewn around.

I am NOT a betting person, but in this instance I would be prepared to bet that that is what will happen!

[Richard]

Oh no, not another tax. Don't we have enough as it is?!

[SimonNewman]

"if you compare European cities to English cities or indeed to country towns or villages, or trains and buses, the European variety is clean and neat compared to ours"

It varies by country - towns in Germany are incredibly clean and neat, Greek not so much. London is dirty, but Amsterdam is pretty filthy now too. There isn't a single European standard that we fall short of.

[Deputy Editor]

Large parts of Italy are pretty scruffy too.

[Dr Dan H.]

Imagine this common scenario: In the morning, I put my bin out back to be emptied by the binmen. The bin is 3/4 full, and quite light. I then depart for work.

Later I am billed for the collection, which seems to have consisted of a mixture of lead, depleted uranium, and osmium garnished with neutronium. Extremely heavy, in other words.

Could it be that a neighbour has something heavy to dispose of, and simply goes looking for a part-empty bin to stick it in? Surely not!

How do I then dispute such an incident?

Must I point a CCTV camera at my bin to trap such malefactors, then take civil action against them for this theft of my money?

Can taxation get any stupider than this?

[Jack Stone]

Any inquiry into council tax should have as its main concerns how to make the tax fairer, which it isn`t at present, and how to control and make more efficient council spending.
It shouldn`t be about apparantly thinking up all sorts of ways to tax council tax payers more.

[Geoff]

...between 25p and 50p a kilo...

That's one of those euro-thingies, isn't it? What does this mean in real measurements? How many tons?

[Patsy Sergeant]

Dr.Dan H. @ 11.07 - THAT is a very sobering, hypothetical scenario. YES WHAT COULD WE DO IN A CASE LIKE THAT??? Do WE just pay up, or is it yet another case of lawyers being able to make yet more money from the ordinary taxpayer?

[William Norton]

Geoff: "between 25p and 50p a kilo..." That's one of those euro-thingies, isn't it? What does this mean in real measurements? How many tons?

In the article I estimated 50p per kilo works out at roughly 23p per lb, but using a more accurate conversion ratio gives you between £254.01 and £508.02 per ton. Or, if you prefer, between 5,080/2d and 10,160/5d in old money.

[Geoff]

William, you are a gentleman, Sir. My thanks.