Clause
32
Planning
obligations
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Michael
Gove:
For the illumination of the Committee, because we
lost the vote on that clause and because the other clauses are more or
less consequent on clause 31 we are now reluctantly content to allow
the other clauses the stand part of the Bill. As we lost the vote on
clause 31, we will not contest the other clauses, so with the
Minister’s permission and your permission, Mr.
O’Hara, we can move on to the next debate. The final point that
I wish to stress is that we and, I suspect, the Liberal Democrats may
wish to table further amendments on Report that deal specifically with
planning proposals. However, at this stage we acknowledge that the vote
has been won by the Government.
The
Chairman:
That is clearly understood and very helpful,
thank you.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 32
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
33 to 35 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
36
Duties
of waste collection authorities
etc
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Clause 37 stand
part.
Amendment No.
62, in
clause 39, page 41, line 45, at
end insert—
‘(iv) the London
Waste
Authority,’.
Amendment
No. 64, in
schedule 2, page 53, line 36, at
end
insert—
New
clause 35—London Waste
Authority
‘(1) After section
359 of the GLA Act 1999 (confidential information about waste
contracts)
insert—
“359A
London Waste Authority
(1)
There shall be a body corporate to be known as the London Waste
Authority.
(2) The London Waste
Authority shall have the functions conferred or imposed on it by this
Act, or made exercisable by it under this Act, and any reference in
this Act to the functions of the London Waste Authority includes a
reference to any functions made exercisable by it under this
Act.
(3) The London Waste
Authority shall
have—
(a) the functions
of the waste disposal authority for Greater London for the purposes of
Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43),
and
(b) any other such
functions as are conferred or imposed on it by this
Act.
(4) The London Waste
Authority shall exercise its
functions—
(a) in
accordance with such guidance or directions as may be issued to it by
the Mayor under section
359B(1),
(b) for the purpose of
facilitating the discharge by the Greater London Authority of the
duties under sections 353 to 361E of the GLA Act 1999,
and
(c) for the purpose of
securing or facilitating the implementation of the municipal waste
management strategy.
(5)
Schedule 29A shall have effect with respect to the London Waste
Authority.
(6)
The control of places provided for the deposit of
household waste in Greater London under section 1(1) of the Refuse
Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (c. 3) and 51(1)(b) of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) shall transfer to the London Waste
Authority.
(7) The authorities
established by Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the Waste
Regulation and Disposal (Authorities) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985/1884) are
dissolved, whereupon any remaining property, rights or liabilities are
transferred to the London Waste
Authority.
359B Directions
etc by the Mayor
(1) The
Mayor may issue to the London Waste
Authority—
(a) guidance
as to the manner in which it is to exercise its
functions,
(b) general directions as to the
manner in which it is to exercise its functions,
or
(c) specific directions as
to the exercise of its
functions.
(2) Directions
issued by the Mayor under subsection (1)(c) may include a direction not
to exercise a power specified in the
direction.
(3) The guidance or
directions which may be issued by the Mayor under subsection (1) may
include in particular guidance or directions as to the manner in which
the London Waste
Authority—
(a) is to
perform any of its duties,
or
(b) is to conduct any legal
proceedings.
(4) Any guidance
or directions issued under subsection (1) must be issued in writing and
notified to such officer of the London Waste Authority as it may from
time to time nominate to the Mayor for the
purpose.”.
(2) After
Schedule 29 of the GLA Act 1999 insert Schedule 29A set out in Schedule
[London Waste Authority] to this
Act.
(3) Schedule [London Waste
Authority - consequential amendments] shall have
effect.’.
New
clause 36—Powers and duties of the London Waste
Authority
‘(1) After section
359B of the GLA Act 1999 (inserted by section [London Waste Authority]
(1) of this Act)
insert—
“359C
Sustainable disposal of
waste
When exercising its
functions under section 51(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act
1990 (c. 43) (functions of waste disposal authorities), the London
Waste Authority
shall—
(a) do so in a
manner calculated to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable
development in the United
Kingdom,
(b) take into account
any policies announced by Her Majesty’s Government with respect
to climate change or the consequences of climate change,
and
(c) comply with any
guidance or directions issued to the London Waste Authority by the
Secretary of State or the Mayor with respect to the means by which, or
manner in which, the London Waste Authority is to perform the duties
imposed on it by paragraph (a) or (b)
above.
359D Publicity and
advice
(1) The London Waste
Authority may promote or undertake publicity in any
form.
(2) The London Waste
Authority shall
promote—
(a) the
reduction and reuse of waste in Greater London,
and
(b) the sustainable
management of waste in Greater
London.
(3) The London Waste
Authority may advise companies operating in Greater London on the items
referred to in subsection
(2).
359E Waste
management
The London Waste
Authority may apply for a waste management licence under section 36
(grant of licences) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43)
for the purposes of treating, keeping or disposing of waste that is
delivered to it by a person other than a waste collection
authority.
359F Power of the
London Waste Authority to promote or oppose Bills in
Parliament
(1) The London
Waste Authority—
(a) may
promote a local Bill in Parliament;
and
(b) may oppose any local
Bill in Parliament.
(2) Subsection (1)(a) applies
only if the Greater London
Authority—
(a) gives its
written consent to the Bill;
and
(b) confirms that consent
in writing as soon as practicable after the expiration of 14 days after
Bill has been deposited in
Parliament.
(3) If the Greater
London Authority does not confirm the consent as required by subsection
(2)(b), it shall give notice of that fact to the London Waste
Authority, which shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of
the Bill.
(4) If the Authority,
in giving notice under subsection (3), states that it confirms its
consent to the Bill if provisions specified in the notice are omitted
or are amended as so specified, the London Waste Authority may, instead
of withdrawing the Bill pursuant to subsection (3), take all necessary
steps for the omission or, as the case may be, the amendment of the
provisions in question in accordance with the
notice.
(5) Without prejudice
to subsections (2) to (4), the functions conferred on the London Waste
Authority by subsection (1)(a) are exercisable subject to, and in
accordance with, the provisions of Schedule
29B.
(6) Subsection (1)(b)
applies only if the Greater London Authority gives its written consent
to the London Waste Authority to oppose the
Bill.
(7)
If—
(a) the London Waste
Authority deposits a petition against a Bill in Parliament,
but
(b) the consent required by
subsection (6) has not been given before the end of the period of 30
days following the day on which the petition is
deposited,
the London Waste
Authority shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the
petition.
(8) The functions
conferred or imposed on the Greater London Authority by this section
shall be functions of the Greater London Authority which are
exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Greater London
Authority.
(9) Before
exercising the functions conferred on the Greater London Authority by
subsections (2)(a) or (b), (4) or (6), the Mayor shall consult the
Assembly.
359G Joint
exercise of functions
(1)
The London Waste Authority may discharge any of its functions jointly
with one or more local authorities and, where arrangements are in force
for them to do so,—
(a)
they may also arrange for the discharge of those functions by a joint
committee of theirs or by an officer of one of them and section 101(2)
of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) shall apply in relation to
those functions as it applies in relation to the functions of the
individual authorities; and
(b)
any enactment relating to those functions or the authorities by whom or
the areas in respect of which they are to be discharged shall have
effect subject to all necessary modifications in its application in
relation to those functions and the authorities by whom and the areas
in respect of which (whether in pursuance of the arrangements or
otherwise) they are to be
discharged.
(2) Arrangements
made under subsection (1) by the London Waste Authority and one or more
local authorities with respect to the discharge of any of their
functions shall cease to have effect with respect to that function if,
or to the extent that, the function becomes the responsibility of an
executive of any of the local
authorities.
(3) Subsection (2)
does not affect arrangements made by virtue of section 20 of the Local
Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (joint exercise of
functions).”.
(2) In
section 360(1) of the GLA Act 1999 for
“359”substitute
“359G”.
(3) In section 51(4A) of the
Environmental ProtectionAct 1990 (c. 43) after
“but” insert “in the case of a waste disposal
authority that is not the London Waste
Authority”.
(4) After
section 51(1) of the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990 (c. 43)
insert—
“(1A) It
shall be the duty of the London Waste Authority to arrange for places
to be provided at which persons resident in its area may deposit their
household waste to be reused or recycled and to make arrangements for
the reuse and recycling of such
waste.”.
(5) Section
48(2) (duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of
waste collected) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 shall not
apply to waste collection authorities in Greater
London.
(6) After Schedule 29A
of the GLA Act 1999 (inserted by section [London Waste Authority] (2)
of this Act) insert Schedule 29B set out in Schedule [Promotion of
Bills in Parliament by the London Waste Authority] to this
Act.’.
New
clause 37—Mayor to prepare minerals and waste development
scheme
‘(1) PCPA 2004 shall be
amended as follows—
(a)
in section 16(1) after “district council” insert
“and the Mayor of London”;
and
(b) in section 16(3)(a)
after “county council” insert “and the Mayor of
London, as
appropriate”.
(2) The
Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations
2004 (S.I. 2004/2204) shall be amended as
follows—
(a) in
regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) after “county council” insert
“and the Mayor of
London”;
(b) in
regulation 12(3) after “scheme” insert “prepared
by a county council”;
and
(c) after regulation 12(3)
insert—
“(4)
Where paragraph (1) or (2) applies to a minerals and waste development
scheme prepared by the Mayor of London, within 2 weeks he must send a
copy of—
(a) the scheme,
or
(b) the scheme incorporating
the revision,
to teach local
planning authority in Greater
London.”.’.
New
clause 38—Municipal waste management
strategy
‘(1) The GLA Act 1999
shall be amended as
follows—
(a) omit
“municipal”
in—
(i) section
353(2)(b) (the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy),
and
(ii) section 353(5)(e);
and
(b) in section 355 (duties
of waste collection authorities etc.) for “Part II”
substitute “Part 2 or section 89 of Part
4”.
(2) After section
357(4) of the GLA Act 1999
insert—
“(4A)
Where the Mayor has been notified by a waste authority under subsection
(1), (2) or (4) he shall consult the London Waste
Authority.”.’.
New
clause 39—London waste charging
scheme
‘After section 359G of
the GLA Act 1999 (inserted by section [Powers and duties of the London
Waste Authority] (1) of this Act)
insert—
“359H
London waste charging
scheme
(1) The Mayor may by
order make a scheme to charge waste collection authorities in London
for the delivery of waste to the London Waste Authority, to be known as
the London waste charging
scheme.
(2) An order under this
section may—
(a) specify charges for the delivery to the London
Waste Authority by a waste collection authority of
waste;
(b) impose a charge per
tonne of delivered waste;
(c)
impose separate charges for different types of waste based on the
technology or processes used to manage or dispose of such
waste;
(d) make different
provisions for different cases, including different provisions in
relation to different waste collection authorities, circumstances or
localities;
(e) provide for the
times at which, and the manner in which, the charges prescribed by the
scheme are to be paid;
(f)
revoke or amend any previous charging scheme;
or
(g) contain supplemental,
incidental, consequential or transitional provisions for the purposes
of the scheme.
(3) The power of
the Mayor to make an order under this section includes a power
exercisable by order to revoke, amend or re-enact any such
order.
(4) An order made by the
Mayor under this section shall not have effect unless and until it is
confirmed by an order made by the Secretary of
State.”.’.
New
clause 40—Transfer
schemes
‘After section 359H of
the GLA Act 1999 (inserted by section [London waste charging scheme] of
this Act)
insert—
“359I
Transfer schemes
(1) The
power conferred by subsection (2) is exercisable in connection with the
establishment of the London Waste
Authority.
(2) The London Waste
Authority may make one or more schemes for the transfer of property,
rights or liabilities from any body falling within subsection (3) to
any other such body as specified in or determined in accordance with
the scheme.
(3) Those bodies
are—
(a) the London
Waste Authority,
(b) any
subsidiary of the London Waste
Authority;
(c) any local
authority in Greater London;
and
(d) an authority
established by Part 2, 3, 4 or 5 of Schedule 1 to the Waste Regulation
and Disposal (Authorities) Order 1985 (S.I.,
1985/1884).
(4) On a date
specified by a scheme as the date on which the scheme is to have
effect, the designated property, rights or liabilities are transferred
and vest in accordance with the
scheme.
(5) A scheme under this
section shall not take effect unless and until it has been approved by
the Mayor.
(6) Where a scheme
under this section is submitted to the Mayor for his approval, he may,
after consultation with the London Waste Authority, modify the scheme
before approving it.
(7) The
transfers which may be made by virtue of a scheme under this section
include transfers taking effect before, onor after the
dissolution of the joint waste authorities under section
359A(7).
(8) Schedule 12 (which
makes further provision in relation to schemes under this section)
shall have
effect.”.’.
New
clause 42—Litter
‘(1)
Section 360 of the GLA Act 1999 (interpretation) is amended as
follows.
(2) In the definition
of “waste contract” in subsection (2) for “Part 2
of that Act (waste on land)” substitute “Part 2 (waste on
land) or section 89 of Part 4 (Litter etc.) of that
Act”.’.
New
schedule
1—
‘London
Waste
Authority
This
is the Schedule that is to be inserted as Schedule 29A to the GLA Act
1999—
“Schedule
29A
London
Waste
Authority
Part
1
Establishment
Status
and Capacity
1 (1) The
London Waste Authority shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of
the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the
Crown.
(2) The members and
staff of the London Waste Authority shall not be regarded as civil
servants and the property of the London Waste Authority shall not be
regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the
Crown.
(3) It shall be within
the capacity of the London Waste Authority to do such things and enter
into such transactions as are calculated to facilitate, or are
conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of its
functions.
Membership
of the London Waste
Authority
2 (1) The London
Waste Authority shall consist of fifteen members appointed by the Mayor
of whom no fewer than six have been nominated by, and (at the time of
their appointment) are elected members
of—
(a) a London borough
council, or
(b) the Common
Council of the City of
London.
(2) The Mayor may
determine the process of nominating and appointing members under
sub-paragraph (1).
(3) The
Mayor cannot appoint himself as a member of the London Waste
Authority.
(4) In appointing a
person under sub-paragraph (1), the Mayor shall have regard to the
desirability of ensuring that the members of the London Waste Authority
between them have experience
in—
(a) running a
business,
(b) delivering large
capital programmes,
(c)
regeneration,
(d) waste
management, and
(e)
recycling.
(5) The terms and
conditions of appointment of a member of the London Waste Authority
(including conditions as to remuneration) shall be such as the Mayor
may determine.
(6) The Mayor
may, by notice to a member of the London Waste Authority, remove that
member from
office.
Chairman
and deputy
chairmen
3
The Mayor shall
designate—
(a) one of
the members of the London Waste Authority to be chairman of the London
Waste Authority, and
(b)
another of the members to be deputy chairman of the London Waste
Authority.
Staff
4
(1) The London Waste Authority may appoint such staff as it considers
necessary for assisting in the exercise of any of its
functions.
(2) The staff of the
London Waste Authority shall be appointed on such terms and conditions
(including conditions as to remuneration) as the London Waste Authority
shall
determine
Proceedings
of the London Waste
Authority
5 (1) Subject to
the provisions of this Schedule, the London Waste Authority may
regulate its own procedures and that of the committees of the London
Waste Authority and sub-committees of such committees (and in
particular may specify a quorum for
meetings).
(2) The validity of
any proceedings of the London Waste Authority shall not be
affected—
(a) by any vacancy among the members or in the
office of chairman or deputy chairman,
or
(b) by any defect in the
appointment of any person as a member, or as chairman or deputy
chairman, of the London Waste
Authority.
Membership
of committees and
sub-committees
6 (1) A
committee of the London Waste Authority or a sub-committee of such a
committee may include persons who are not members of the London Waste
Authority.
(2) A person who is
a member of a committee of the London Waste Authority or a
sub-committee of such a committee but is not a member of the London
Waste Authority shall be a non-voting member of the committee or
sub-committee.
General
powers
7 (1) The London
Waste Authority may form, promote and assist, or join with any other
person in forming, promoting and assisting, a company for the purpose
of—
(a) carrying on any
activities which the London Waste Authority has power to carry on,
or
(b) carrying on such
activities together with activities which the London Waste Authority
does not have power to carry
on.
(2) The London Waste
Authority may enter into and carry out agreements with any person for
the carrying on by that person, whether as agent for the London Waste
Authority or otherwise, of any activities which the London Waste
Authority has power to carry on (and, in particular, with respect to
the disposal of waste).
(3) The
London Waste Authority may also enter into and carry out an agreement
with any person for the carrying on by that person (“the
contractor”) of any activities which the London Waste Authority
does not have the power to carry on if the agreement includes provision
for one or more of the following,
namely—
(a) the carrying
on by the contractor of such activities as are mentioned in
sub-paragraph (2);
(b) the
provision by the contractor to the London Waste Authority of services
ancillary to the disposal of waste;
and
(c) the use by the
contractor of land or other property owned by the London Waste
Authority, or transferred to the contractor by the London Waste
Authority, for the purposes of the
agreement.
(4) Where an
agreement has been entered into under sub-paragraph (2) or (3), the
powers conferred on the London Waste Authority by that subsection
include power to enter into and carry out other agreements with other
persons for the purpose
of—
(a) fulfilling any
condition which must be fulfilled before the agreement can have effect;
or
(b) satisfying any
requirement imposed by or under the
agreement.
(5)
Where—
(a) a company has
been formed in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-paragraph
(1) (whether by the London Waste Authority alone or by the London Waste
Authority jointly with some other person);
or
(b) the London Waste
Authority has entered into an agreement with any person in exercise of
its powers under sub-paragraph (2) or
(3),
the London Waste Authority
may enter into arrangements with that company or person for the
transfer from the London Waste Authority to that company or person, in
such manner and on such terms (including payments by any of the parties
to the arrangements to any of the other parties) as may be provided for
by the arrangements, of any property, rights or liabilities of the
London Waste Authority relevant to the purpose for which the company
was formed or (as the case may be) to the performance by that person of
his obligations under the agreement.
(6) The London Waste Authority shall have power to
enter into and carry out agreements
with—
(a) any of its
subsidiaries; or
(b) any person
with whom it has entered into an agreement by virtue of sub-paragraph
(2) or (3),
providing for the
London Waste Authority to give assistance to the other party to the
agreement by making available to that party any services, amenities or
facilities provided by, or any works or land or other property
belonging to, the London Waste Authority, on such terms (including the
reciprocal provision by that other party for similar assistance for the
London Waste Authority) as may be agreed between
them.
(7) The power of the
London Waste Authority under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) to enter into an
agreement as there mentioned is exercisable notwithstanding that the
agreement involves the delegation of the functions of the London Waste
Authority under any enactment relating to any part of its
undertaking.
Delegation
by the London Waste
Authority
8 (1) Subject to
any express provision contained in this Act or any Act passed after
this Act, the London Waste Authority may arrange for any of its
functions to be discharged on its behalf
by—
(a) any committee of
the London Waste Authority,
(b)
any sub-committee of such a
committee,
(c) any wholly owned
subsidiary (within the meaning of section 736(2) of the Companies Act
1985) of the London Waste
Authority,
(d) any member of
officer of the London Waste Authority,
or
(e) any body of members or
officers, or members and officers, of the London Waste
Authority.
(2) Where the London
Waste Authority makes arrangements under this paragraph for the
discharge of any function, the person or body by whom the function is
to be discharged shall exercise the function subject to any conditions
imposed by the London Waste
Authority.
(3) Arrangements
made by the London Waste Authority for the discharge of functions under
this paragraph shall not prevent the London Waste Authority from
exercising those
functions.
Delegation
by committees, sub-committees,
etc
9 (1) Where the London
Waste Authority makes arrangements for the discharge of any function by
a committee under paragraph 7, the committee may (subject to any
conditions imposed by the London Waste Authority) arrange for the
discharge of the function on its behalf
by—
(a) any sub
committee of the committee,
(b)
any member or officer of the London Waste Authority,
or
(c) any body of members or
officers, or members and officers, of the London Waste
Authority.
(2)
Where—
(a) the London
Waste Authority makes arrangements for the discharge of any function by
a sub-committee under paragraph 7,
or
(b) a committee of the
London Waste Authority makes arrangements for the discharge of any
function by a sub-committee under sub-paragraph
(1),
the
sub-committee may (subject to any conditions imposed by the London
Waste Authority or the committee) arrange for the discharge of the
function on its behalf by any member or officer of the London Waste
Authority, or any body of members or officers, or members and officers,
of the London Waste
Authority.
(3) Where a
committee or sub-committee makes arrangements under this paragraph for
the discharge of any function, the person or body by whom the function
is to be discharged shall exercise the function subject to any
conditions imposed by the committee or
sub-committee.
(4) Arrangements made by a
committee or sub-committee for the discharge of functions under this
paragraph shall not prevent the committee or sub-committee from
exercising those
functions.
Joint
committees with local
authorities
10 (1) The
London Waste Authority shall be treated as a local authority for the
purposes of the following provisions of the Local Government Act 1972
(c. 70) (arrangements for the discharge of functions of a local
authority by joint committees with other local
authorities)—
(a)
section 101(5),
(b) section
102, apart from subsection (1)(a) and subsection (4), to the extent
that it would permit the London Waste Authority to appoint a committee
that is not a joint committee,
and
(c) section
103.
(2) Nothing in section 13
of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42) (voting rights of
members of certain committees: England and Wales) shall require a
person to be treated as a non-voting member of a committee appointed by
the London Waste Authority and one or more other local authorities by
virtue of section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 if that
person—
(a) is appointed
to the committee by the London Waste Authority,
and
(b) is not a member of the
London Waste
Authority.
Minutes
11
(1) Minutes shall be kept of proceedings of the London Waste Authority,
of its committees and sub-committees of such
committees.
(2) Minutes of any
proceedings shall be evidence of those proceedings if they are signed
by a person purporting to have acted as chairman of the proceedings to
which the minutes relate or of any subsequent proceedings in the course
of which the minutes were approved as a correct
record.
(3) Where minutes of
any such proceedings have been signed as mentioned in sub-paragraph
(2), those proceedings shall, unless the contrary is shown, be deemed
to have been validly convened and
constituted.
Application
of seal and proof of
instruments
12 (1) The
application of the seal of the London Waste Authority shall be
authenticated by the signature of any member, officer or member of
staff of the London Waste Authority who has been authorised for the
purpose, whether generally or specially, by the London Waste
Authority.
(2) In sub-paragraph
(1) the reference to the signature of a person includes a reference to
a facsimile of a signature by whatever process reproduced; and, in
paragraph 13, the word “signed” shall be construed
accordingly.
Documents
service etc. on the London Waste
Authority
13 (1) Any
document which the London Waste Authority is authorised or required by
or under any enactment to serve, make or issue may be signed on behalf
of the London Waste Authority by any member, officer or member of staff
of the London Waste Authority who has been authorised for the purpose,
whether generally or specially, by the London Waste
Authority.
(2) Every document
purporting to be an instrument made or issued by or on behalf of the
London Waste Authority and to be duly executed under the seal of the
London Waste Authority, or to be signed or executed by a person
authorised by the London Waste Authority for the purpose, shall be
received in evidence and be treated, without further proof, as being
made or so issued unless the contrary is
shown.
(3) Any notice which is
required or authorised, by or under any provision of any other Act, to
be given, served or issued by, to or on the London Waste Authority
shall be in writing.
Members’
interests
14
(1) If a member of the London Waste Authority has any interest, whether
direct or indirect, and whether pecuniary or not, in any matter that is
brought up for consideration at a meeting of the London Waste Authority
he shall disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting; and, where
such a disclosure is
made—
(a) the disclosure
shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting;
and
(b) the member shall not
take any part in any deliberation or decision of the London Waste
Authority, or any of its committees or sub-committees, with respect to
that matter.
(2) A member need
not attend in person at a meeting of the London Waste Authority in
order to make a disclosure which he is required to make under this
paragraph if he takes reasonable steps to ensure that the disclosure is
made by a notice which is read and considered at the
meeting.
(3) The Mayor may,
subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate, remove any
disability imposed by virtue of this paragraph in any case where the
number of members of the London Waste Authority disabled by virtue of
this paragraph at any one time would be so great a proportion of the
whole as to impede the transaction of
business.
(4) The power of the
Mayor under sub-paragraph (3) includes power to remove, either
indefinitely or for any period, a disability which would otherwise
attach to any member, or members of any description, by reason of such
interests, and in respect of such matters, as may be specified or
described by the Mayor.
(5)
Where the Mayor exercises the power under sub-paragraph (3) to remove a
disability—
(a) he shall
notify the London Waste Authority that he has done so, and of this
reasons for doing so, and
(b)
the removal of the disability and the Mayor’s reasons shall be
recorded in the minutes of the London Waste
Authority.
(6) If any person
fails to comply with the provisions of sub-paragraph (1), he shall for
each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding
level 4 on the standard scale unless he proves that he did not know
that the contract, proposed contract or other matter in which he had
the interest was the subject of consideration at the
Meeting.
(7) A prosecution for
an offence under this paragraph shall not be instituted except by or on
behalf of the Director of Public
Prosecutions.
(8) The London
Waste Authority may provide for the exclusion of a member from a
meeting of the London Waste Authority while any contract, proposed
contract or other matter in which he has such an interest as is
mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) is under
consideration.
(9) Section 95
of the Local Government Act 1972 (pecuniary interests for the purposes
of section 94) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as it
applies for the purposes of that
section.
(10) Section 96 of
that Act (general notices and recording of disclosures for the purposes
of section 94) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph, but
taking—
(a) any
reference to a proper officer of the authority as a reference to an
officer appointed by the London Waste Authority for the
purpose;
(b)
any reference to a member of the authority as a
reference to a member of the London Waste
Authority;
(c) any reference to
premises owned by the authority as a reference to premises owned by the
London Waste Authority; and
(d)
any reference to section 94 of that Act as a reference to this
paragraph.
(11) Subsections (4)
and (5) of section 97 of that Act (disregard of certain interests for
the purposes of section 94) shall apply in relation to this paragraph
as they apply in relation to section 94 of that Act, but as
if—
(a) the members of the London Waste Authority were
members of a local authority;
and
(b) in subsection (5), for
“a pecuniary interest” there were substituted “an
interest (whether pecuniary or
not)”.
(12) Section 19
of the Local Government and HousingAct 1989 (members’
interests) shall apply as
if—
(a) the London Waste
Authority were a local
authority;
(b) the members of
the London Waste Authority were the members of that local
authority;
(c) an officer
appointed by the London Waste Authority for the purpose were the proper
officer of that local
authority;
(d) any reference to
a pecuniary interest were a reference to an interest, whether pecuniary
or not; and
(e) any reference
to section 94 of the Local Government Act 1972 were a reference to this
paragraph.
15 (1) Subject to
the following provisions of this paragraph and paragraph 16, the
Secretary of State may authorise the London Waste Authority to purchase
compulsorily any land which is required by the London Waste Authority
or a subsidiary of the London Waste Authority for the purposes of the
discharge of any function.
(2)
The Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (c. 67) shall apply to any compulsory
purchase by virtue of sub-paragraph
(1).
(3) The London Waste
Authority shall not by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) submit to the
Secretary of State a compulsory purchase order authorising the
acquisition of any land in accordance with section 2(2) of the
Acquisition of Land Act 1981 unless the Mayor has given his
consent.
(4) Subject to
sub-paragraph (5), the power of purchasing land compulsorily in this
paragraph includes power to acquire an easement or other right over
land by the creation of a new
right.
(5) Sub-paragraph (4)
does not apply to an easement or other right over land which forms part
of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment within the
meaning of section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act
1981.
16
The London Waste Authority does not have power to acquire land (or any
interest in land) for purposes which are not related to any of the
activities, other than the development of land, of the London Waste
Authority or any subsidiary of the London Waste
Authority.”.’.
New
schedule
2—
‘London
Waste Authority—consequential
amendments
The
Greater London Authority Act
1999
1 (1) The GLA Act
1999 shall be amended as
follows.
(2) For section
353(5)(b) (the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy)
substitute “(b) the London Waste
Authority”.
(3) In
section 353(5)(d) for “waste disposal authorities in Greater
London” substitute “the London Waste
Authority”.
(4) In
section 355 (duties of waste collection authorities etc.) for
“each of the waste disposal authorities in Greater
London” substitute “the London Waste
Authority”.
(5) In
section 356(1) (directions by the Mayor) for “a waste disposal
authority in Greater London” substitute “the London Waste
Authority”.
(6) In
section 360(1) for “359” substitute
“359B”.
(7) In
section 360(2) (interpretation of sections 353 to
359)—
(a) in the
definition of “municipal waste” for paragraph (b)
substitute “the London Waste
Authority”;
(b) in the
definition of “waste authority” for paragraph (b)
substitute “the London Waste Authority”;
and
(c) in the definition of
“waste disposal authority in Greater London” omit
“in Greater
London”.
(8) In section 424(1)
(interpretation) in the definition of “functional body”,
after “(b) the London Development Agency” insert
“(ba) the London Waste
Authority”.
The
Environmental Protection Act
1990
2 (1) The
Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) shall be amended as
follows.
(2) For section
30(2)(b) (authorities for the purposes of this part) substitute
“in Greater London, the London Waste
Authority”.
(3) In
section 44A(5)(a) (national waste strategy: England and Wales) after
“Agency” insert “and the London Waste
Authority,”.
The
Joint Waste Disposal Authorities (Recycling Payments) (Disapplication)
(England) Order
2006
3
In article 2 of the Joint Waste Disposal Authorities (Recycling
Payments) (Disapplication) (England) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/651) for
“an authority established under regulation 2(1) of the Waste
Regulation and Disposal (Authorities) Order 1985 and named in Schedule
1 to that Order” substitute “the London Waste
Authority”.
The
Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act
1978
4 (1) The Refuse
Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (c. 3) shall be modified as
follows.
(2) Section 3(6) shall
have effect as if—
(a)
“whose area is included in the area of a London waste disposal
authority” were omitted,
and
(b) for “the
authority in question” were substituted “the London Waste
Authority, the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority or the
Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority, as the case may
be”.
(3)
Section 3(8) shall have effect as if for “a London waste
disposal authority” were substituted “the London Waste
Authority”.
(4) Section
4(8) shall have effect as
if—
(a) for “in
the area of a London waste disposal authority, that authority”
were substituted “in Greater London, the London Waste
Authority”, and
(b)
section 4(8)(b) were
omitted.
(5) Section 5(4) shall
have effect as if for “whose area is included in the area of a
London waste disposal authority, that authority” were
substituted “, the London Waste
Authority”.
(6) Section
5(5)(a) shall have effect as
if—
(a) “whose
area is included in the area of a London waste disposal
authority” were omitted,
and
(b) for “the
authority in question” were substituted “the London Waste
Authority, the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority or the
Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority, as the case may
be”.’.
New
schedule
3—
‘Promotions
of Bills in Parliament by the London Waste
Authority
This
is the Schedule that is to be inserted as Schedule 29B to the GLA Act
1999—
“Schedule
29B
Promotions of Bills in
Parliament by The London Waste
Authority
Preliminary
requirements
5
No Bill may be deposited in Parliament by virtue of section 359F(1)(a)
until the requirements of paragraph 2 have been complied
with.
Consultation
on draft Bill
6 (1) The
London Waste Authority
shall—
(a) prepare a
draft of the proposed Bill (“the draft
Bill”);
(b) send copies
of the draft Bill to the bodies and persons specified in sub-paragraph
(2); and
(c) consult those
bodies and persons about the draft Bill.
(2) Those bodies and persons
are—
(a) the
Mayor;
(b) the
Assembly;
(c) every London
borough council; and
(d) the
Common Council.
(3) Where the
London Waste Authority sends copies of the draft Bill to those bodies
and persons pursuant to sub-paragraph (1)(b), it shall also give those
bodies and persons notice of the time within which, and the place at
which, they may make representations about the draft
Bill.
Publicity
for, and exposure of, the draft
Bill
7 (1) Throughout the
consultation period, the London Waste Authority shall take such steps
as in its opinion will give adequate publicity to the draft
Bill.
(2) A copy of the draft
Bill shall be kept available by the London Waste Authority for
inspection by any person on request free of
charge—
(a) at the
principal offices of the London Waste Authority,
and
(b) at such other places as
the London Waste Authority considers
appropriate
at reasonable hours
throughout the consultation
period.
(3) A copy of the draft
Bill, or of any part of the draft Bill, shall be supplied to any person
on request during the consultation period for such reasonable fee as
the London Waste Authority may
determine.
(4) In this
paragraph “the consultation period” means the period
which—
(a) begins with
the first day after the requirements of paragraph 2(1)(b) have been
complied with; and
(b) ends
with the time notified pursuant to paragraph
2(3).
Deposit
of the Bill in
Parliament
8 (1) If, after
the requirements of paragraph 2 have been complied with, a Bill is
deposited in Parliament by virtue of section 359F(1)(a), that Bill must
be in the form of the draft Bill, either as originally prepared or as
modified to take account
of—
(a) representations
made pursuant to paragraph
2;
(b) other representations
made within the consultation period;
or
(c) other material
considerations.
(2) In this
paragraph “the consultation period” has the same meaning
as in paragraph
3.
Bills
affecting statutory functions of London local
authorities
9 (1) If a
Bill proposed to be deposited in Parliament by virtue of section
359F(1)(a) contains provisions affecting the exercise of statutory
function by a London local authority, the Bill shall not be deposited
in Parliament
unless—
(a) in a case
where the exercise of statutory functions of one London local authority
is affected, that authority has given its written consent to the Bill
in the form in which it is to be so deposited;
or
(b) in a case where the
exercise of statutory functions of two or more London local authorities
is affected, at least 90 per cent. of all London local authorities have
given their written consent to the Bill in that
form.
(2) In this paragraph
“London local authority”
means—
(a) a London
borough council; or
(b) the
Common
Council.
Publicity
for the deposited Bill
10
(1) This paragraph applies where a Bill (“the deposited
Bill”) is deposited in Parliament by virtue of section
359F(1)(a).
(2) During the
period of 14 days following the day on which the deposited Bill is
deposited in Parliament, the London Waste Authority shall take such
steps as in its opinion will give adequate publicity to the
Bill.
(3) A copy of the deposited Bill shall be kept
available by the London Waste Authority for inspection by any person on
request free of
charge—
(a) at the
principal offices of the London Waste Authority,
and
(b) at such other places as
the London Waste Authority considers
appropriate,
at reasonable
hours throughout the period the Bill is in
Parliament.
(4) A copy of the
deposited Bill, or of any part of the deposited Bill, shall be supplied
to any person on request during that period for such reasonable fee as
the London Waste Authority may
determine.”.’.
Michael
Gove:
For the convenience of the Committee, the most
material changes to the Bill are contained in the amendments and the
schedules consequent to the amendments that stand in the name of the
hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. As the most
radical changes to the Bill are contained in the proposal that stands
in her name, any response from ourselves and from the Government should
follow on from that Member making her case and I am happy to let her do
so if that is convenient to you, Mr.
O’Hara.
Ms
Buck:
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to
clauses 35 to 40 and 42 and amendmentsNos. 62 and 64 and the
consequent new schedules. I apologise to the Committee in advance for
what will be a failure to rise to the giddy heights of the previous
debate when every 12 members of the Cup Winners cup team were
mentioned. I have managed to include subtly within my speech a
reference to every one of Britain’s entries to the Eurovision
song contest between 1964 to 1977, with the exception of Lulu’s
1969 entry “Boom Bang A Bang” , which was frankly just
too difficult. It is fair to say that I am surprised to be introducing
these amendments, because a cursory glance at my website would reveal
that waste disposal in London has not featured in my top 500 policy
interests to date. None the less, having attended a Mayor’s
briefing on this issue, armed with hot pins to retain my sense of
purpose, I was completely converted to the case that was put to me.
With your forbearance, Mr. O’Hara, I will spend a few
minutes outlining the key
points.
The
central issue—establishing a single waste disposal authority for
London—stems from the recognition that the existing arrangements
and changes proposed by the Government are not capable of bringing
about the step change in waste management that will be necessary if we
are to offer Londoners the most efficient and effective waste
management strategy and avoid liability for potentially extensive fines
for landfill in future. Such an authority will enable us to drive
further improvements on the waste hierarchy, reducing landfill and
incineration, particularly without incidental benefit, and increase
recycling capacity, helping us make further progress on the
climate-change
agenda.
Under
the current proposal, the waste disposal arrangements for London remain
cumbersome and unco-ordinated with no single body responsible for
recycling and disposal operations at city level. The proposals do not
alter the fundamental weakness in the system that has left London
trailing in this country and internationally and allowed it to slip
further down the league table of
comparable city regions in recent years. However, all parties
fundamentally agree about what we would like to see. We need efficient
and effective management of the system and proper value for taxpayers;
a dramatic reduction in landfill for environmental purposes and to
avoid liability for landfill tax; incineration should be offset by the
use of energy used for heat and power; the distance travelled during
waste disposal should be subject to the maximum reduction possible;
environmentally friendly transport methods should be used; and there
should be increases in recycling and value for taxpayers. The
Government’s favoured approach does not best place us to realise
those objectives. That statement is based on past performance and on
objective and independent research on the effectiveness of the strategy
to date. There are
three key arguments, among many, which I should like to spend a few
moments discussing. First, on the coherence of the existing
arrangements, the Government have stated that creating a single waste
disposal authority would mean separating functions of waste collection
and disposal, which would make it more difficult to manage waste
effectively and could cause confusion for residents about who was
accountable for their services. That is a bizarre argument, given that
21 of London’s boroughs already have a two-tier waste management
system, under which collection and disposal are
separated.
The single
waste disposal authority that I propose would have local political
representation on its board. The proposed structure for the single
waste disposal authority means that many of its day-to-day operations
would be undertaken sub-regionally. Local residents tend to be aware of
their local recycling and waste collection services, but waste disposal
remains largely out of sight for the public. A single organisation
responsible for waste disposal and accountable to the Mayor of London
is likely to have a far higher public profile than existing waste
disposal authorities and would be directly accountable to the people of
London through the Mayor, rather than through joint waste disposal
authorities that collectively process and dispose of between 60 and 70
per cent. of London’s waste. Those are little better than
quangos, with no direct accountability to the people whom they serve.
Waste management is separated between county councils, and between
district councils in the shire counties, yet their recycling
performance does not suggest that this makes waste management more
difficult. The average household recycling rate in two-tier areas in
2005-06 was 31 per cent., compared with 23 per cent. in unitary
areas.
The United
Kingdom’s largest waste management company, Biffa Waste
Services, in its response to the consultation on the Mayor’s
powers,
stated:
“We
believe that time is rapidly running out to achieve sensible decision
frameworks for one of the most significant flows of waste in the UK
economy. London could be a benchmark for the entire UK economy by
demonstrating boldness in its economic, technological, and
socio-political decision making framework. It is unlikely that such
vision can be achieved within the current framework compared to the
strategic vision offered by the Mayor’s
office”.
All of that
broadly finds favour with the public,50 per cent. of
whom—pollings rated 2:1—favour the strategic approach
over the mess that we have
now.
5.30
pm
I accept that
the structure proposed by the Government is, in some ways, a
strengthening of the extant position, but it is a diagram—I know
that we are not allowed to introduce visual aids, Mr.
O’Hara—that Heath Robinson would reject for its
unnecessary complexity. I am absolutely confident that anyone looking
at that bowl of spaghetti would favour the clarity that a single
authority would bring. What matters is not the bureaucratic structure
but the extent to which a structure is capable of delivering on the
environmental objectives of effective waste
disposal.
I think we
all agree that at the heart of this is the desire to reduce landfill
for economic and, above all, environmental reasons. In support of the
current delivery mechanism, the Government say that local authorities
are on track towards reducing their use of landfill and therefore are
not at risk of incurring the fines that will befall them if they do not
meet their objectives. That is prayed in aid as a case for not needing
the significant and radical change of having a single waste authority,
but I do not accept those arguments.
London has two large-scale
waste incineration plants that manage 20 per cent. of London’s
waste between them. That is significantly more than in any other
region, which has led to there being false confidence in
London’s ability to meet landfill targets, particularly after
2010. The real tipping point with landfill targets will come between
2010 and 2013, but many London authorities have no plans or
procurements to ensure that there will be an infrastructure in place to
cope with that tipping point. The GLA estimates that four fifths of
London’s authorities are at high or medium risk of not meeting
their landfill obligations. Even the construction of the Belvedere
incinerator would not substantially alter that position.
About two thirds of
London’s waste is buried in landfill sites, and most of that
amount is taken to sites in the surrounding counties. The Mayor has set
a target that London should be 80 per cent. self-sufficient in managing
its municipal waste by 2020. That level of self-sufficiency is needed
to meet landfill directive targets and avoid landfill fines of up to
£1.7 billion between now and 2020.
By 2020, London will need four
times its existing capacity for recycling and three times its existing
capacity for waste treatment. A GLA assessment indicates that four
fifths of London waste disposal authorities are at risk of failing to
deliver the landfill directive targets. Whilst the Government are
concerned in the short term about changing governance arrangements and
the risk of failing to deliver on early landfill directive targets, the
real challenge is in the medium to long term. Estimated fines for
landfill could be £35 million in 2010, rising to £139
million in 2013 and £232 million by 2020.
The Government have completely
missed the point by focusing only on short-term landfill directive
targets, because the targets will become progressively harder to meet.
Waste disposal authorities in England must collectively reduce the
biodegradable waste that they send to landfill to 75 per cent. of their
1995 levels by 2010, 50 per cent. by 2013 and 35 per cent. by 2020. It
is because the real risk to London, in terms of failing to achieve
targets, is in the medium to long term that I
believe, as does the Mayor, that it is essential to make the radical
changes needed to allow London as a whole to meet those targets by
putting in place the support and investment mechanisms required to
enable us to avoid those
risks. Both the amount
of landfill and the risk of receiving fines could be reduced in several
ways. Currently,20 per cent. of London’s waste is
incinerated, and that level is set to rise to between 33 per cent. and
38 per cent. depending on whether the Government’s or the
GLA’s figures are accepted. That is a substantial proportion of
the UK total.
We need
to take care that incineration does not drive out the scope both for
new technologies, such as gasification and pyrolysis, and for
recycling. The new technologies always sound to me like particularly
unpleasant stomach complaints, but they are at the cutting edge of
alternatives to landfill and incineration and produce a number of
beneficial side products that, among other things, permit creation of
heat and energy and provide scope for hydrogen production to feed
London’s bus fleet.
It is absolutely clear that, on
the basis of current developments, the scope for investing in new
technologies and in plant to boost recycling is at risk of being driven
out by the emphasis on incineration. Recycling as it stands is
unsatisfactory and London’s performance is poor. Some London
boroughs are performing well, but many others are not. Overall, London
is the poorest-performing region for its recycling of household and
municipal waste, recycling just 21 per cent. of household waste as
against the English average of 27 per cent. Just one London borough is
in the upper quartile of local authority recycling performance, and 18
London authorities are in the lower quartile.
Some argue that London faces a
unique challenge, and that that should be taken into account when
considering its recycling. However, although it is true that there are
particular challenges to recycling in London, I do not believe that
they are insurmountable. The best-performing European cities outperform
London significantly. Hamburg recycles 57 per cent., Munich 42 per
cent., Milan 39 per cent. and Berlin37 per cent. In north
America, San Francisco recycles more than 50 per cent. of household
waste and Seattle recycles 58 per
cent.
As part of the
consultation on the Mayor’s powers, the Government asked waste
disposal authorities to forecast recycling rates up to 2020. The
answers to that question show a total lack of ambition. Just one
authority stated that it planned to meet the London plan’s
target of recycling 45 per cent. of municipal waste. Collectively, the
recycling rate forecast for 2020 was less than that for Europe’s
best performers now, with some authorities aiming no higher than 25 per
cent. That approach, coupled with a hunger for incineration, means that
unless a different approach is taken now, the waste management system
in 2020 will continue to lag 30 years behind.
A press
release from London Councils on Monday stated that London should be
compared with urban authorities in England and is therefore doing
acceptably well. London Councils have trawled through the available
research on recycling, and all that they have managed to show is that
half of London councils are recycling less
than Barnsley. It is my contention that London should be aiming to be a
leading international city on recycling, and should be benchmarking
against the best in the world, yet London Councils show the real lack
of ambition that is the present
position.
Ms
Dawn Butler (Brent, South) (Lab):
On
that point concerning ambition, does my hon. Friend agree that climate
change is paramount to renewable energies and that the Mayor’s
idea of renewable fuels fuelling London buses is a way of showing the
thinking of the
future?
Ms
Buck:
That is absolutely right. What is particularly
powerful in that case is that because the Mayor has strategic
responsibility for transport and has planning functions, he can combine
the waste management, planning and transport strategies in the
interests of a progressive climate change agenda, so as to get the
maximum benefit and to cross-reference those policies so that they work
together most effectively. Although that is still possible to some
modest extent with the very diverse and unco-ordinated structures that
we have at the moment, the opportunity that is being presented to us is
not being taken as it would be were we to have a single authority and
be able to combine the functions as one.
My hon. Friend is right,
therefore. What this all comes down to in a sense is two words: climate
change. We need, of course, to maintain a strong economic argument, and
to focus on value for money for taxpayers at all times. However, if we
are to ensure that the city of London is able to make the contribution
that it can—through recycling, combined heat and power, making
the best use of incineration, developing new technologies and putting
them to use in other parts of our service delivery—that clear
strategic responsibility needs to be vested in a single place: the
position of Mayor of
London.
I
have also tabled amendments to ensure that London boroughs undertake
street litter functions in general conformity with the Mayor’s
municipal waste management strategy. Like its performance on recycling,
London’s performance on litter is the worst of all English
regions. Although waste disposal is most appropriately managed at city
level, street cleansing and waste collection is best managed at borough
level. However, more needs to be done to ensure that high standards of
cleanliness are achieved right across the city.
Given London’s
importance as a tourism centre and the 2012 Olympic games, it is right
that we should show it to be a clean city. The Mayor’s municipal
waste management strategy can contain policies and proposals on litter,
but under existing legislation, London boroughs do not have to have
regard to it—nor, under the new clauses in the Bill, will they
have to be in general conformity with it when undertaking street
cleansing. My amendment seeks to address that issue while ensuring that
boroughs remain in control of such local services. I propose that
boroughs should be in general conformity with the Mayor’s
municipal waste management strategy when undertaking their functions on
litter, and that they submit to the Mayor documentation on any proposed
new street cleansing contract to ensure that it is not detrimental to
his strategy.
To
sum up, London needs strong, effective leadership on waste management.
That requires not only a clear direction, but powers and funding to
deliver it. Transport for London has demonstrated the benefits of a
single, properly resourced organisation under mayoral leadership. A
single waste authority will be able to attract world-class leadership,
as has been the case with Transport for London. That is urgent and
necessary, as the fines for missing the landfill regime loom
nearer.
The benefits
offered by a single waste authority proposal clearly outweigh any
short-term difficulties presented by transition. It will make a
positive contribution to the climate change agenda; help increase
recycling dramatically; help deliver new and emerging recovery
technologies for waste management; enable London to meet the
requirements of the landfill directive; enable London to become
regionally self-sufficient in the management of its municipal waste;
ensure that waste is managed as close to the point of production as
possible; reduce the risk of Government fines for failing to deliver
under the landfill directive; improve the commercial attractiveness of
the London waste market; promote economies of scale and the development
of a single, resourced centre of procurement; and standardise contract
conditions.
Ultimately, it comes down to
risk. The Government contend that the structural change during the move
from the existing arrangements to a single waste authority would place
the arrangements at
risk—
Mr.
Pelling:
I am very aware that the hon. Lady is coming to a
conclusion. However, would it not be possible for the boroughs
themselves to capture such economies of scale? That approach is being
taken in south London, between boroughs from Croydon to Richmond, under
the new waste contract that they are considering. Surely it is better
to give the initiative to local authorities, which are aware of the
concerns about performance on waste in
London.
5.45
pm
Ms
Buck:
It is certainly true that partnerships between local
authorities can produce greater economies of scale than when they act
on their own. However, the counter-argument boils down to this: given
relative performance in London, that has not happened in recent years
since the abolition of the Greater London council and the clarity of
structure that existed then. Across a range of indicators, such as
recycling and other aspects of performance, not only have London
authorities failed to meet that challenge, but in the much tougher
environment of the coming years and the stricter regimes that will
apply—the fines and other pressures that will bear down on such
authorities—there are no realistic signs of their being able to
meet the challenge.
In
conclusion, it is clear to me that the risks of making the changes to
the structure are more than heavily outweighed by the Mayor’s
proven track record of delivery on comparable services, as well as by
the necessity of ensuring investment in recycling plant and new
technologies and ensuring that although incineration has a part to
play, it is promoted only when it has other beneficial side effects.
Incineration should not be allowed to squeeze out other
technologies—there is a risk of
that.
Stephen
Pound:
Does my hon. Friend have some sympathy with the
point made by the hon. Memberfor Croydon, Central? Is my hon.
Friend aware thatin 1985 the Minister with responsibility for
local government, Lord Baker, referred to extensive discussions and
imminent co-operation between boroughs such as Bromley, Croydon,
Sutton, Merton and Kingston upon Thames? Is she aware that,20
years later, that co-operation has not taken place and that the tide
seems to be flowing in the other direction, as demonstrated by the
capital standards mayoral initiative? The five boroughs that initially
refused to join that scheme are about to be joined by three boroughs
that since May 2006 have announced their intention of leaving. Is not
the move away from a voluntary coming together and towards a more
fissiparous model?
Ms
Buck:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for rightly drawing
my attention to those facts. I was reaching a conclusion, which is
this: we need urgently to rise to the environmental, value-for-money
and economic challenges of this agenda, but there are few signs that
London boroughs, either individually or collectively, can do that. That
is the case often for good reason, but it is sometimes because, as he
says, we are moving in opposite
directions.
If the
Government were to recognise that the well intentioned but messy and
ineffective proposals on the table are not sufficient to allow us to
rise to those challenges, it would be a timely and necessary step. I
hope that Ministers are willing to be persuaded by the Mayor’s
argument and to make changes to their proposals, even at this late
stage.
Tom
Brake:
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the
Mayor’s proposals for a London strategic waste authority, which
were so enthusiastically endorsed by the hon. Member for Regent's Park
and Kensington, North. If only the enthusiasm of Labour Members for the
Mayor’s policies were reciprocated by the Mayor in relation to
Government policies. I understand that this morning the Mayor described
the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as the
carbon kid. There is a danger that the Mayor’s actions will mean
that London becomes the worst performer in Europe on recycling rates. I
am afraid that the process of enthusiasm and endorsement goes one way
between Labour Members and the
Mayor.
I agree with
one point that that hon. Lady made: the performance of a number of
London boroughs on recycling is pathetic. There is no other way to
describe the situation. We agree on the need for
LondonCouncils to run with the issue much more
enthusiastically.
The Mayor is
seeking a fifth functional body—the London single waste
authority—which would operate like the London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority. He wants responsibility for disposal but not for
collection, although interestingly he has said that he wants
appropriate oversight of waste collection contracts. I shall return to
that shortly. The body would be funded by central Government grants and
the Greater London authority precept. That would introduce a disconnect
between what local people pay in tax and the disposal of their waste,
which is a significant issue.
I can see that
there are arguments in favour of the proposal—the idea of
London-wide co-ordination, the possibility of improving performance
through pooling resources and expertise, increased investment in
sustainable waste management, and, possibly, long-term cost savings,
although the Government’s investigation of that suggested that
the costs may rise rather than
fall.
The perceived
benefits of the single waste authority are outweighed by the arguments
against it and the comparisons that have been made are not terribly
helpful. London councils are generally doing well compared with other
metropolitan counties and, as I said earlier, there is potential for
the proposal to incur greater costs than currently apply. There is a
lack of cohesion, which I have already referred to, if a break is made
between collection and disposal. Such a disconnection has already
happened in other parts of the country, where it has not always been
helpful. There is a loss of accountability at a borough level when the
precept is raised by the Mayor, with local people feeling that they do
not have any great say over what is being spent locally.
Many boroughs’
performance in areas such as recycling plays a significant part in
success or otherwise at elections. That would be lost if the Mayor was
to exercise what he suggests is appropriate oversight over waste
collection contracts. There is also the potential for disproportionate
regional impacts. If a scheme is organised on a London-wide basis,
there is the possibility that certain parts of London will find a lot
more waste disposal activity going on in their patch. That link between
collection, disposal and recycling should be local, because only on
that basis will people accept the way in which their waste is dealt
with.
Siobhain
McDonagh:
I would like to ask for clarification,
because I may have misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
Surely the purpose of recycling is not just to make councils look good,
but to ensure that we take account of the very serious environmental
issues that are affecting us as people who live in an ever-expanding
city. We have to redouble and retreble our recycling efforts, rather
than merely feeling that we are being warm and friendly about it and
that that makes us look
good.
Tom
Brake:
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention
and I am sorry if I gave the impression that recycling should be done
only for appearances’ sake. Certainly, that is not the case for
my own local authority, which has done very well on that
score.
The best way to
respond to the hon. Lady’s proposal is to look at what can
happen on the ground. I had a conversation earlier today with
Councillor Colin Hall, who leads on environment issues for Sutton,
which has a very good track record in this respect. First, many
boroughs are already delivering on recycling. The economies of scale,
which were highlighted in an intervention made from the official
Opposition Benches, can be achieved
already.
Kingston,
Croydon, Merton and Sutton are in a voluntary agreement to look at
waste procurement, and Sutton is taking the lead on that issue. There
is a legitimate concern that a pan-London proposal would neglect the
importance of dealing with issues at a very
local level. In Sutton, for example, research demonstrates that in
Cheam, which is part of the borough, people will recycle bottles door
to door. Therefore, there is perhaps a case for expanding that service
at a very local level in the Cheam area. In St. Helier, however, the
provision of extra bottle banks or additional facilities for paper or
cardboard may be appropriate to help to boost recycling efforts. That
is the sort of knowledge that the Mayor cannot
have.
Mr.
Slaughter:
From what I have read on climate change, I was
beginning to think that China was the big problem. However, if Cheam
could solve the difficulties of climate change, I would be greatly
relieved. Is this not an example of the tail wagging the dog? I know
that the Liberal Democrats do not have many party activists now, but is
Councillor Scroggins, or whatever his name is, to dictate national
policy? I am afraid that Cheam on its own, however commendable its
record, would not solve London’s waste problems, and the hon.
Gentleman needs to look at things on a slightly bigger
scale.
Tom
Brake:
The hon. Gentleman should be very careful. He has
just maligned the residents of Cheam, who I am sure will be very
interested to hear what he has to say. In all his interventions, he has
neglected his own constituents, preferring to refer repeatedly to
Hammersmith and
Fulham.
To address the
hon. Gentleman’s serious point, I am talking about what happens
at a ground level. If something is effective, it should be allowed to
continue and there is no need for the Mayor to
intervene.
Mr.
Pelling:
I am sure that the hon.
Gentleman is not suggesting that there is an excess of
bottles—wine or otherwise—in Cheam. Has not the
experience in Sutton demonstrated how local politicians can be much
more sensitive to the controversies over waste collection? I recall
that a previous Member for Sutton and Cheam, Lady Olga Maitland, became
known as the bin lady owing to her concern about recycling. Surely, the
way in which the council eventually gave way before significant
pressures, particularly from local activists, including Conservative
councillors, showed that such decisions are best made locally, rather
than
regionally.
Tom
Brake:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful
intervention. He is, of course, right that local politicians and
councillors are best placed to make those decisions. However, I would
not recommend the approach adopted by the lady to whom he referred and
who, I think, conducted most of her campaigning on the basis of the
number of maggots in wheelie
bins.
Siobhain
McDonagh:
On the hon. Gentleman’s
point that such matters are best dealt with locally, what would he say
to councillors in Kingston, Havering and Redbridge who are so far down
the London councils recycling league table? I am sure he would agree
that some councils, given the nature of their housing and other
problems, are restricted and perhaps would perform less well than a
suburban borough such as Sutton or my borough of Merton. But it seems
unforgivable in Kingston, Havering and
Redbridge.
Tom
Brake:
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. In my
opening comments, I said that all local councils have a responsibility
to do better, whether it be Sutton, which aims to achieve 50 per cent.
by 2010, or the local authorities to which she referred, which might be
trailing and at the bottom of the
league.
Ms
Buck:
The point has been made by the hon. Gentleman and
other Opposition Members about local politicians being best placed to
respond to local needs. There is a lot of truth in that, but is the
problem not that on matters such as waste disposal, one local authority
can take decisions that impact deleteriously on another? It is
something of a free for all: for example, the city of Westminster sends
much of its waste by road to Lewisham, sometimes via Wembley. That is
not necessarily a case of local politicians responding to local needs;
those in one area take decisions that might be fiercely opposed by
local people in another. No one has overall
responsibility.
Tom
Brake:
I thank the hon. Lady for making a very important
point linking the origin of waste with where it is dealt with. Her
point is valid, but the concerns that she expressed about the current
situation might be exacerbated by a single waste authority under which,
with the greater concentration, it will be entirely possible for waste
to travel even further to larger
sites.
Robert
Neill:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that
the point made by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington,
North might have more force were it not for the fact that the
Government, whom she supports, approved the building of an enormous
waste incinerator at Belvedere, in the London borough of Bexley, to
deal with waste being carted over from west London, despite the fact
that Bexley has one of the best recycling records in London and that
there was all-party opposition from the council and local
residents?
6
pm
Tom
Brake:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his
intervention—it is now on the record—but I risk straying
down the route of individual anecdotes about Hammersmith and Fulham or
Belvedere, and I will avoid that for the purposes of keeping my
comments brief.
The Mayor can
already set the direction of travel on waste. He has a municipal
strategy that local authorities should be delivering, and I encourage
him to do everything that he can to ensure that they do. I apologise
for being parochial, but I think that it is worth referring to examples
of best practice. In Sutton, the Mayor fully endorsed the local
authority’s approach by granting it £4 million to develop
a site on which composting tunnels and a new Dano drum could be built.
He has already expressed his support for what individual local
authorities have done. That is the right approach. We all need to put
pressure on local authorities to deliver on his agenda, but the
creation of a monolithic pan-London waste authority run by the Mayor is
not the best way to maximise recycling in London. It is down to the
local knowledge of local boroughs to deliver on the
agenda.
Mr.
Slaughter:
I shall be brief, because my
hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North
eloquently put the case for why the boroughs are not doing a very good
job and why some of the Mayor’s powers and the structure under
which he would operate
would be a substantial advance on the status quo. A brief example will
illustrate that. A body called the Western Riverside waste authority
comprises four London boroughs: Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth,
Wandsworth and Hammersmith and Fulham.
Mr.
Hands:
Not Ealing,
though.
Mr.
Slaughter:
I shall come to Ealing.
Since the authority was set up,
it has disposed of those four boroughs’ waste. I have had a
fruitless association with that body for more than 20 years. Indeed,
when I was the vice-chairman of the dustbin and drain sub-committee in
1986, I was a voting member. This is how it worked: because there were
eight members—four Labour, four Conservative—and because
it previously had a Conservative majority and thus the chair retained a
casting vote, for about12 years every vote was decided in
favour of the interests of the two Conservative boroughs and against
that of the two Labour boroughs. They were the most fractious and
long-winded meetings that I have ever been to, and I have been to quite
a few.
If we move
forward 20 years through some pretty horrific decisions, mismanagement
and incompetence by that body, we come to June 2005. I quote the first
paragraph of a report by the Western Riverside waste
authority:
“Last
autumn, the authority instigated judicial review proceedings against
Wandsworth
council”—
one of
its constituent
bodies—
“in
respect of decisions made about commercial waste collection. The
authority agreed, at its meeting in November 2004, to suspend the clerk
and the treasurer to the authority for the duration of the dispute
because of the conflict of interest arising from their employment as
chief officers at
Wandsworth.”
Here
we have a waste disposal body suing one of its constituent member
councils and, in the meantime, suspending its senior officers because
they are also the senior officers of that member council. I need not go
into the causes of the dispute—suffice it to say that it was a
characteristic attempt by Wandsworth council to bend the rules of
commercial waste collection to avoid paying the same penalties as the
other three boroughs—but what an absolute farce that a body
charged with such a responsible task should operate in that
way.
I say that
because we have heard some complimentary things about the boroughs from
Opposition Members. I have no doubt that some boroughs, in isolation,
are trying to do a good job, or that many boroughs wish to do a good
job. However, in many cases that is not working, and boroughs are not
up to the job.
I must
briefly respond to a plaintive letter that I and my hon. Friend the
Member for Ealing, North received from the Conservative leader of
Ealing council. He asked me to support the Government on this issue
and, as he is a reasonable, one nation sort of chap, I am minded to go
along the route he suggests, despite all my reservations. It is
unfortunate that the council leader was provoked to write only at the
instigation of my hon. Friend, the Minister for Local Environment,
Marine and Animal Welfare, who first wrote to him. That story is
getting confused in the telling.
I am sure that the borough of
Ealing will do the best that it can on recycling. All the boroughs wish
to do their best on recycling, but some have better schemes than
others. The diversity of the schemes and the co-operation between
collection and disposal is the Achilles heel in the fractious scheme
that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington,
North described. It looks like we will end up with a continuation of
that fractured scheme for longer. That is a complacent route to take,
and it will not in the end deliver the waste disposal network that
London
needs.
Ms
Butler:
I want to make a brief contribution to the debate
as my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington,
North covered many of the main points.
Brent is ranked in the top 10
of the worst performing boroughs for recycling. In 2004-05, under a
Labour administration, Brent was collecting around 8 per cent. By 2006,
that had increased to 20 per cent. The hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington referred to the campaigning potential of recycling. That
makes sense in Brent, because the council is now run by a Lib Dem-Tory
administration—
Michael
Gove:
A sign of things to
come.
Ms
Butler:
Well, actually it is. In Brent, the administration
is known as the “Fib Dem-Con” administration because of
all the promises it makes but fails to deliver. Recycling is a case in
point, because the “Fib Dem-Con” campaign promised to
double the amount of recycling collection achieved by the Labour
administration. As a result, Brent went from a record 20 per cent. to
20.2 per cent. Last week, a resident of Willesden complained that they
had still not had their Christmas recycling collected, so we may yet
see a reduction of that 20.2 per cent.
Although Brent is below the
national average, and while Opposition parties see recycling as having
campaigning potential and as a subject for political point scoring, we
may never see collection levels at the 40 per cent. we would like to
see. The fragmented system means that waste collection may never amount
to the 40 per cent. that we could see under a single waste authority
for London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and
Kensington, North said, we have to consider climate change, and if we
are totally serious about that, we need to consider having a single
waste authority for London.
Siobhain
McDonagh:
I, too, rise to support the amendments tabled by
my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington,
North, but in doing so I find myself in a strange position. I do not
necessarily see myself as a close political ally of the Mayor, or
indeed as somebody who would normally oppose the Government’s
provisions. My concern is that the Government may have backed away from
their new Labour credentials, which are about public service reform,
tackling issues of concern, and standing up to the establishment. The
provisions in the Bill do not do those things and do not follow the
tradition that has been incredibly successful in the
Government.
Recycling
and environmental issues are not about nice little photo opportunities,
feeling good about things, or somehow achieving an increase in the
opinion polls; they are about the future for us and our children. If we
are serious about this, we must start now and press now. It is all very
well wanting to tax people’s flights or to restrict
people’s quality of life, but by recycling and changing how we
get rid of our waste, we can make substantial differences that benefit
everybody and improve the quality of everybody’s life.
In 2005-06, London produced
almost 1 million tonnes of non-household waste. Only 9 per cent. of it
was recycled, compared with England’s figure of 30 per cent.,
and 22 of the 37 London waste authorities failed to meet their
recycling targets. I have a great deal of respect for Sutton’s
traditions and for its record, but this is not about being the best but
about being the worst. It is about lifting everybody up, because the
problem has an impact on all of us.
I was lucky enough to sit on
the 1998 Standing Committee that scrutinised the great new Labour
measure to introduce an executive Mayor for London. I believed that an
executive Mayor would bring about a significant changes to London by
virtue of his or her powers to do so. Irrespective of what party the
executive Mayor for London represents, they can bring a substantial
change in waste management in London and better all our environments.
Even more importantly, they can avert the impending problem of being
fined because we cannot do enough with our waste to prevent it going to
landfill.
Tom
Brake:
The hon. Lady said that the
proposal for a single waste authority was the new Labour agenda and
that the Government should endorse it. Does she not see, however, that
it contradicts another Government policy that the Department for
Communities and Local Government advocates, which is devolution? Her
proposal is anti-devolutionary.
Siobhain
McDonagh:
The proposal would tackle recycling and waste
management in London. We are the only city in Britain to have more than
one waste authority, we lag substantially behind other prominent
European cities, and we must tackle the problem. Again, it is not about
photo opportunities or about being seen to be good on such matters; it
is about doing the right thing. I am interested in doing rather than
posing, and the proposal would do that.
Michael
Gove:
It is a pleasure to speak after a fascinating debate
in which several important issues were raised. The hon. Member for
Regent’s Park and Kensington, North made a coherent case,
underlining the way in which no one who takes climate change seriously
can afford to ignore the impact of waste management. She also outlined,
with a mixture of passion and authority, how a single waste authority
for London might make a difference.
I should like to support the
hon. Lady, but I cannot. Before I explain why, and why logic guides me,
I shall say a few words about the other contributions. The hon. Member
for Brent, South also spoke with passion and commitment about the
importance of recycling, emphasising the way in which we cannot take
climate
change seriously unless we take recycling seriously. Brent’s
Lib-Con alliance is in its infancy, and if it has made an
improvement—albeit small and modest—to recycling, all I
can say is that we ain’t seen nothing yet.
I notice that the
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington flinched slightly when I
suggested that Liberal-Conservative co-operation was the future. I
acknowledge that such a view is not shared by all Liberal Democrats,
but I am informed that more cerebral Liberal Democrats see it as the
path to the
future.
6.15
pm
The speech by
the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden was brief. Nevertheless, in its
own way it was all the more effective for being sincere and from the
heart. Unless I am much mistaken, although she confirmed such matters
earlier in our deliberations, she is Parliamentary Private Secretary to
the Home Secretary. The Government’s position is clear. They
believe that a single waste authority is wrong. The Secretary of State
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it clear that he
considers it to be a misguided measure. The Minister who deals with
waste at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has
also made that clear. The hon. Lady’s speech is a clear example
of her departing from the doctrine of collective responsibility. I have
a great deal of admiration for her courage in so doing, but a new
precedent has been set. If she remains on the Government payroll after
the debate today, a significant coach and horses has been driven
through the doctrine of collective
responsibility.
Siobhain
McDonagh:
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am on
nobody’s payroll other than for a Back-Bench
MP.
Michael
Gove:
I take it from that that the hon. Lady has announced
her resignation as the Home Secretary’s Parliamentary Private
Secretary. If not, she is bound by the principle of collective
responsibility. She will be aware that last September several
Parliamentary Private Secretaries wrote a letter to the Prime Minister
encouraging him to hurry up the process of resigning. They, in turn,
had to resign as a result of putting their name to that letter. The
doctrine of collective responsibility should
apply.
Siobhain
McDonagh
indicated
dissent.
Michael
Gove:
I am well aware that the hon. Lady is shaking her
head. She may well be attached to the novel reinterpretation of the
doctrine of collective responsibility that the Labour party now seems
to be pioneering. The reinterpretation allows Ministers to campaign
against the Government’s policy if it suits them in their own
back
yard.
Siobhain
McDonagh:
That is a myth that is being peddled. The hon.
Gentleman is referring to the reconfiguration of health services. That
is determined locally. I suggest that it is the duty of all Members of
Parliament, irrespective of party, to represent their constituents and
to work on their behalf.
Michael
Gove:
I appreciate the doctrine that an MP’s duty
is to his constituency. Indeed, I take it seriously. I also take
seriously the constitutional principle that in a Government the
doctrine of collective responsibility applies. However, the Labour
Government seem to be pioneering a new doctrine that, if a Minister
does not happen to like how a nationally set policy affects his
constituents, he has absolute freedom to campaign against
it.
Stephen
Pound:
The hon. Gentleman’s words are
jewels—perfectly polished, glittering and attracting many
admirers. However, does he really have to take the subject of
today’s discussion so seriously to recycle a comment that was
fairly tendentious when it was first aired in Committee last week? If I
may say so with respect, it has little to do with the substance of the
matters that we are discussing this
afternoon.
Michael
Gove:
I can understand why the hon. Gentleman appeals to
procedure, when so much significant political cleavage has been made
apparent. Conservative Members will certainly go into much greater
detail about the Mayor’s plans for a single waste authority and
the weaknesses of those plans. It is significant that a Parliamentary
Private Secretary to someone who is a Cabinet Minister and a potential
leadership challenger has signalled that she considers that the
judgment of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs is deficient on the central question of waste management. She
is on the record as saying that he is wrong. In crude tabloid terms, it
is a Government split. There is no other way in which to dress up the
matter.
Tom
Brake:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the doctrine was
pioneered by allowing the present Mayor to stand as the Labour
candidate for Mayor?
The
Chairman:
Order. We really are departing from the main
substance of
debate.
Michael
Gove:
Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. I wish to
turn briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and
Shepherd's Bush. In the early part of the 18th century, Jacobites
furnished the hope that one day there would be a rising in the north
and the west, and that the Scottish Jacobites would find themselves
joined by individuals who proclaimed their allegiance to the king over
the water on each occasion that it was safe to do so. But when push
came to shove, those Jacobites found that their swords remained in
their
scabbard.
Thinking of
those Jacobite lords, I am inevitably reminded of the hon. Member for
Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, because the burden of his speech was
an attack on the current system of waste management and the Western
Riverside waste authority. I thought that he was gearing himself up to
take his sword from his scabbard and to join the rebel band led by the
hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, which has recently
enjoyed the adherence of the hon. Members for Brent, South and for
Mitcham and Morden, but at the final moment he kept his sword in his
scabbard and said that he would vote with the
Government. Implausibly, he asked us to believe that that was the result
of a nice letter that the Conservative leader of Ealing borough council
had sent him. We all know that the leader of that council is a
persuasive individual. Nevertheless, I suspect that the hon.
Gentleman’s decision might have rather more to do with the
tender and persuasive powers of the hon. Member for Chatham and
Aylesford, or possibly the prospect of a vacant PPS-ship—for
example, that of the hon. Member for Mitcham and
Morden.
Stephen
Pound:
He already is
one.
Michael
Gove:
I am reminded by the hon. Member for Ealing, North
that the hon. Gentleman already has a PPS-ship. Perhaps there is some
other plum dangling in front of him that he is anxious to
taste.
Mr.
Slaughter:
I am sorry if I confused the hon. Gentleman,
because I was seeking to do the exact opposite. Throughout the debate,
I have tried to cut through and bring a little light into his elaborate
but sometimes misleading discourse. I shall get in my retaliation
first. I believe that we will hear a lot about the single waste
authority, which is probably wrong, and about the boroughs, which are
also wrong. I was trying to indicate that not all is necessarily well
in the boroughs as they stand, just as all was not necessarily well in
the Jacobite court of the 18th century. I do not know whether as an
Aberdonian he is siding with the Duke of Cumberland, which would be an
unusual course to take, or whether he is declaring his support for the
Stuart
king.
The
Chairman:
Order. Much as I am truly enjoying the extended
allegory, I would like to get to the centre of the
debate.
Michael
Gove:
Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. As I said,
the case for a single waste authority was put with passion by the hon.
Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, but I am afraid that
the detail behind her argument does not hold up to the same degree of
scrutiny that I and others might wish it to. We ask ourselves what is
the evidence for a need for change, and the hon. Lady says that it is
the poor record of recycling in London. I agree that many boroughs in
London have a poor recycling record. One of the worst is Tower Hamlets,
which has the second-worst recycling rate in the country after
neighbouring
Newham.
We
should be aware that both of those local authorities are run by Labour.
Last year, Tower Hamlets recycled only 7 per cent. of its waste, well
below its target of 18 per cent. If a local authority fails in that
way, central intervention might be required or considered under this
Government, with their adherence to targets and centralisation, and
with hit squads being sent in to rescue residents when local
authorities fail. But when a suggestion of intervention was raised, an
official from the Government office for London said that the Government
could not possibly intervene in the case of Tower Hamlets because the
chief executive was married to a Minister—I shall spare his
blushes and not name him—and another Minister who had a relevant
interest
in the case was the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the
hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is the
Minister for London. So the Government acknowledge that Labour local
authorities are failing but at the same time are sometimes reluctant to
take the steps that might be necessary to bring them up to the
mark.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Jim
Fitzpatrick):
The hon. Gentleman realises, I am
sure—although he stopped short of advising the Committee, which
may not be aware of it—that the official was taken to task and
that rebuttals were issued by the Government office for London and
Tower Hamlets, as well as the Department for Communities and Local
Government. They said that action would be taken if it were necessary,
regardless of the MP or connections to
Ministers.
Michael
Gove:
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that
clarification, but the fact remains on the record that Tower Hamlets
and Newham have particularly bad recycling records. However, it is not
my intention fruitlessly to criticise the local authority or the
Government, because most local authorities in London have unique
problems when it comes to recycling. It is right to compare London
boroughs on their recycling records, but it is also appropriate to
recognise that the situation is slightly easier in Sutton than it is in
Tower Hamlets. One reason for that is that central London boroughs are
more likely to have multi-storey developments, and we all know that
flats and tenement blocks are the sorts of development in which it is
more difficult to achieve higher recycling
rates.
Ms
Buck:
To return to some of the
statistics that I quoted in my speech, it is surely also true that the
majority of the residential properties in many European and American
cities are in high-rise apartments. Those cities have the same
architectural structure as London, if not the same socio-economic
structure.
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Lady makes a valid point in inviting us to
consider what happens in Europe. There are certain things that we can
learn from Europe and the United States about improving waste
management. However, to stick to the United Kingdom, it is unfair to
demonise London. London counts as a region and has a form of regional
government, but it is the only effective city region in the United
Kingdom. Comparing the performances of London boroughs with other
metropolitan boroughs is the only effective level of comparison. Doing
so shows that the highest-performing boroughs on recycling are all
London boroughs, although I do not want to be partisan about that. Some
of the best-performing include boroughs such as Camden, which were
until recently under Labour control, although the best-performing is
Bexley. Other metropolitan boroughs outside London, in Liverpool,
Wirral and—it pains me to acknowledge this—Knowsley, are
not performing as well as they might.
Ms
Buck:
The hon. Gentleman has undermined his own argument.
He has made the case that London deserves not to be compared with other
cities because of the nature of our communities, but is it not also
true that it includes the most deprived communities, which are more
likely to have estates and therefore to face the most severe challenges
in recycling, as compared with the leafy
suburbs?
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Lady amplifies one of my
points, which is that one needs to take account of the problems that
exist where there is a high level of high-rise blocks in an area.
However, even the most urban boroughs in London tend to outperform as
compared with the most densely populated urban boroughs in the United
Kingdom, which either are similar socio-economically or have a similar
architectural pattern. Overall, it is unfair to demonise London. We can
acknowledge—as I have acknowledged, and as I suspect the
Minister will acknowledge—that there is underperformance in
certain London boroughs. However, when we consider the global picture
of London overall, it is wrong to compare it with other UK regions.
When we consider not only recycling overall, but dry
recyclables—acknowledging the fact that little composting is
going on in London—it is even more appropriate that
London’s performance should be seen to be even stronger. That is
a distinction that we should
acknowledge.
Having
acknowledged that London’s performance is less bad than
advocates of change would paint—indeed, it is better than that
of comparable metropolitan boroughs—we need to consider what
London is doing with its waste. London’s performance on
recycling is more impressive than one might think from the
Mayor’s briefing and the arguments of his allies. However,
recycling is not the whole answer, as we know. There must be a method
for waste disposal. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden pointed out
that landfill is an inadequate way of proceeding, but only one London
borough failed to meet its landfill target in 2005-06, which is the
last year for which there are figures, while five metropolitan boroughs
outside London failed to meet theirs. Again, when it comes to
respecting the need to avoid landfill, London boroughs are doing better
than one might think from the Mayor’s arguments. Also, many
London waste authorities have landfill surpluses. The landfill trading
system allows those that do well to have trading surpluses, and two
authorities have traded their excess allowances. Again, London boroughs
have exceeded the level of performance that central Government have
asked of
them.
6.30
pm
One
of the ways in which such boroughs have attempted to do that is by
embracing incineration. I take the point that the hon. Member for
Regent's Park and Kensington, North made about incineration as
currently practised not necessarily being everyone’s answer to
the waste problem. I note with interest the comments that my hon.
Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made about the Belvedere
combined heat and power plant in south-east London. Having an
incinerator in south-east London is perhaps not the best way to deal
with waste coming from central London. However, the Belvedere proposal,
which the Secretary of State approved and which the Mayor objected to,
went to judicial
review, when the Mayor’s objection was branded
“hopeless” by the judicial body charged with overseeing
that decision. That should give us pause for thought when considering
whether the Mayor is the appropriate person to oversee this
strategy.
Stephen
Pound:
I am reluctant to intervene on the hon. Gentleman,
because he is making an important point. However, for the record, the
Belvedere plant is not a CHP
plant.
Michael
Gove:
My apologies. I understood that it was an
incineration plant that was capable of generating energy. I am grateful
for that
clarification.
It is
important to recognise that incineration is one of a range of tools
that can be used in dealing with waste. It is not my favourite
method—I suspect that it is few Committee members’
favourite method—but it has to be included in our range of
proposals because, as the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington,
North said, the one thing that we want to avoid is landfill, for
various reasons, including European regulation and various
environmental factors that I suspect most Committee members agree
with.
To avoid
landfill, the Mayor invites us to consider a form of gasification and
pyrolysis, but although that is a potentially attractive way of dealing
with waste, the technology is relatively in its infancy. There are few
examples of combined gasification and pyrolysis operating in the United
Kingdom. Woking borough council, which advanced a proposal for
consideration in Surrey, acknowledged that it was a revolutionary
method to use in the UK. Gasification and pyrolysis might yield
significant benefits, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member
for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, but the burden of my argument
is that we cannot be certain that it will do so. We know that we cannot
rely on landfill. Therefore, incineration has to be one of the methods
at our disposal. Yet the Mayor has made it clear that, as far as he is
concerned, incineration is out of the
picture.
Ms
Buck:
I do not think that the difference between us is as
great as the hon. Gentleman imagines. Surely, the Mayor’s
preference is for a balanced strategy for waste disposal and, clearly,
a recognition that there will be incineration capacity in that strategy
for sometime. However, given London’s heavy reliance on
incineration and the proportion of the UK’s total incineration
capacity used by London, the central point is that new and developing
technologies that require encouragement and investment get squeezed out
by incineration, which deals with the waste that has shifted over from
landfill.
Michael
Gove:
I take the hon. Lady’s point. She may be
right: the difference may be less than I depicted. However, it is
instructive that the Mayor has not only opposed the Belvedere
plant—albeit other Committee members might think that he had
good reasons for doing so—but lobbied against an extension of
incineration in Edmonton and expressed concernabout certain
western boroughs sending waste for incineration near Slough, in
Berkshire. At every point when boroughs have attempted to use
incineration to
avoid transgressing landfill targets, the Mayor has been on the side of
preventing them doing so, which is a matter of
concern.
Stephen
Pound:
The hon. Gentleman mentions Slough. The Mayor of
London is concerned that Slough has recently signed contracts for
disposal with Poole in Dorset and Wiltshire county council. One of the
problems with the unco-ordinated approach is that waste is trucked
along the M25 from Wiltshire and Dorset to Slough. That is a critique
not of the plant at Slough, but of the system that allows specialist
centres to draw in rubbish from outside their own area. That is a
severe
problem.
Michael
Gove:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that
point. It might fall outside the scope of the Committee—that has
not stopped us in the past, though—to discuss whether local
authorities in the west of England should be sending their waste to
near Slough to be dealt with. That is only a couple of kilometres
beyond the boundary of Greater London, however, and seems to be an
appropriate place to be used by authorities in Hillingdon, Brent,
Hounslow, Harrow and Richmond—the authorities currently using
it. Yet the Mayor seemed unhappy for reasons to do not with London, but
with his broader approach to waste. Again, that makes me think that we
should be a little cautious about accepting the arguments advanced so
ably by the hon. Member for Richmond
Park.
Tom
Brake:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, under a single
waste authority, the risk of the Mayor setting up a very limited number
of key waste disposal sites, and thereby increasing the number of
journeys required to transport refuse to those points, would be the
same?
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point: there is
no automatic link between the Mayor’s powers under a single
waste strategy and a necessarily short journey from collection to
disposal, be that by incineration or another
means.
Having
established that the Mayor has shown an antipathy towards incineration
and has, as it were, bet the recycling ranch on untested technologies,
we should be cautious about giving him those powers. More than that, it
is appropriate to recognise that, if they were granted to him, the link
would be broken between the collection and disposal of waste. The hon.
Member for Mitcham and Morden was right in acknowledging that. There is
a division already in rural areas such as shire counties and
boroughs.
One of the
successes of the London boroughs that have reformed their recycling
rate and dealt effectively with waste has been the way in which
collection and disposal have been effectively integrated. More broadly,
the integration of collection and disposal in London boroughs brings
together street cleaning and the tackling of litter. Although we are
all aware of the problem of grime, dirt and litter in London, it has
moved down the agenda and list of issues that concern London voters.
That is a reflection of the way in which certain boroughs—I
shall refrain from making partisan political points—have made
their streets brighter.
We are not denying the Mayor an
important voice in shaping how London deals with waste. Indeed, the
Bill gives him the power to amplify his voice through his waste
strategy. It talks about the need for London boroughs to co-operate
effectively with the Mayor when discharging their responsibilities in
order to conform to the strategy. As we discussed on the previous
planning legislation, the Mayor has an enhanced role in dealing with
waste plants. He has greater freedom to intervene. One might expect
Conservative Members to be concerned about that—legitimate
concerns could be raised—but in the spirit of achieving
cross-party consensus on the vital issue of climate change, we
recognise that the Government make a decent case for their proposals.
However, the Mayor still has a number of levers to pull in encouraging
a more effective waste strategy and we do not believe that we should
move to a single waste authority while those levers are still in
place
Finally, the
Government have talked about what might happen when the London waste
and recycling forum is set up, to which they have allocated potentially
£25 million. That money can be spent only on improving waste
management and recycling and only if boroughs, the assembly and the
Mayor can get onwith the job as defined in the Bill, not the
amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington,
North. Impressed as I was by the focus that she has brought to the
debate and admiring as I was of the passion with which she spoke, I
fear that the largest Opposition party will not vote for her
amendment.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair
again this afternoon, Mr. O’Hara. I am grateful to my
hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North for
moving her amendment, which has allowed us to have this discussion. The
usual channels thought that the whole day may be taken up with
planning, so I am grateful that we have managed to reach some of these
items. Possibly the only point of agreement between she and I, however,
is that we both want to see some improvement in performance—a
point on which I am sure that no one dissents.
It is regrettable that the
Mayor has decided to resort to name calling on the subject of this
discussion. PA describes his disagreement with the Secretary of State
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as a personal attack. I find
that slightly strange because I know that the Mayor has a high regard
for my right hon. Friend, and I hope that the discussion can take place
in the same spirit as the one in which the amendment was moved by my
hon. Friend.
The
Government want to enhance the Greater London authority’s
strategic role in dealing with London's waste. Through clauses 36 and
37, we have proposed amendments to the Greater London Authority Act
1999 which will strengthen the GLA's role further. We are at a crucial
stage in delivering a step change in how waste is managed nationally,
in order to reduce the environmental impact of our waste and to meet
challenging European targets for diverting waste from
landfill.
It is clearly important to be
aware of the distinction between landfill diversion and recycling.
There are many ways to avoid landfill, including reducing waste
production in the first place, recycling, and treatments to convert
waste into energy. We face significant fines if we do not achieve our
EU landfill diversion targets, but I am pleased to say that early
indications are that London is rising to the challenge. Figures for
2005-06 show that London is outperforming other regions. In fact,
London is second best only to the west midlands in making progress
towards meeting its allocations for 2010. Recycling is of course also
very important. Performance on it in London is mixed. Two London
boroughs—Sutton and Bexley—have been awarded beacon
status on waste and recycling, whereas Tower Hamlets, as has been
mentioned, is at the bottom of the national waste recycling league
table. Some boroughs need to make major improvements, and the
Government are working with them to ensure that that
happens.
Some of
London’s success on landfill diversion is due to its
above-average use of energy from waste technology. Data from other EU
member states demonstrates that use of incineration is completely
compatible with high recycling rates. Denmark, Sweden and the
Netherlands, which are considered to be green countries, all have much
higher recycling rates than the UK, although they rely on incineration
technologies as well. Belgium is another example. It recycles 60 per
cent. of its waste and incinerates 30 per
cent.
We have not seen
any convincing evidence to suggest that a single waste authority for
London will deliver improvements in waste management or cost
efficiencies. In fact, we believe that we have seen contrary evidence,
suggesting that a single waste disposal authority could result in extra
costs to the Government and extra costs to the boroughs, and could put
our landfill diversion targets at risk. If the UK failed in its
targets, the resulting fines could be equivalent to as much as 5 per
cent. on the council tax bills of Londoners.
The proposed amendments would
not give the Mayor full control of recycling, and so may do little to
help to boost recycling rates in the capital. Instead, they would split
control over collection and recycling, and dispose of responsibilities
between two, different political bodies. That is why the vast majority
of London boroughs, irrespective of political colour, are opposed to a
single waste authority for
London.
The first EU
landfill diversion target is just three years away, and we face
significant fines if it is missed. The creation of a new single waste
authority could threaten the good progress that the latest figures show
London to be making. During the transition to a single authority,
Londoners would have no incentive to drive forward investment in the
new waste facilities that are needed in London.
Over the past year, the
Government have thought long and hard about London’s waste. Our
position has been informed by public consultation and by a number of
detailed consultancy reports, and our considered view is that to
reorganise waste arrangements now would divert attention and resources
at a crucial time and lead to a performance dip that would put
achievement of our EU targets at risk. We therefore see
little benefit in making significant and costly changes to the way in
which waste functions are delivered at local and regional levels.
Instead, efforts and resources should be focused on improving diversion
and recycling performance within current
structures. 6.45
pm
I shall return
to the detail of the amendments and new clauses, but first I shall set
out the Government’s proposals in clauses 36 and 37. Clause 36
introduces a requirement on London’s waste collection and
disposal authorities to
“act in general conformity
with”
the Mayor’s
municipal waste management strategy when exercising certain functions.
Section 353 of the 1999 Act requires the Mayor of London to prepare and
publish a document known as the municipal waste management strategy,
which sets the strategic direction for London’s waste
activities. Section 355 requires waste collection authorities and waste
disposal authorities in Greater London to “have regard
to” the municipal waste management strategy when carrying out
their waste functions.
Clause 36 amends section 355 of
the 1999 Act, and it requires waste collection and waste disposal
authorities in Greater London to
“act in general conformity
with”
the Mayor’s
municipal waste management strategy when exercising any of their waste
functions underpart 2 of the Environmental Protection Act
1990. The duty has effect only to the extent that it does not impose
additional excessive cost or require an authority to breach or
terminate a contract.
The clause includes a
transition provision to deal with contracts in procurement when the
Bill is enacted. To ensure greater clarity, we are considering amending
the wording of the clause. Further, if the Mayor revises his municipal
waste management strategy, no authority should have to breach a
contract, and a borough would need to be only in general conformity
with the strategy that existed when contracts were made.
The clause includes a power for
the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the definition of general
conformity and excessive additional costs. The enhancement of the
Mayor’s powers to require waste authorities to deliver services
in general conformity with his strategy, along with his existing power
of direction, will help to deliver the strategic vision that the Mayor
sets out for London.
Clause 37 amends section 358 of
the 1999 Act on information about new waste contracts, and it updates
the Act following changes to public procurement legislation. It will
strengthen the requirement for authorities to inform the Mayor before
putting waste contracts out to tender.
Under existing legislation it
is not always necessary for London waste authorities to inform the
Mayor before putting waste contracts out to tender. The clause adds a
provision so that where authorities are obliged neither to send the
European Commission a first information notice of their intention to
tender a waste contract nor to publish the authorities’ buyers
profile, but they are obliged to send a second information notice, they
must inform the Mayor of their intention to tender. They will be
required to notify the Mayor
108 days before issuing the second information notice. The amendments
would ensure that the Mayor was informed of all waste tenders in
advance. By
strengthening the requirement for boroughs to inform the Mayor if they
are to tender a contract, we will ensure that the Mayor has a role in
procurement decisions and that the Mayor’s vision and policies
are implemented locally when waste authorities deliver their
functions.
Amendment
No. 64 would extend the Mayor’s power of direction so that he
could direct London waste collection and waste disposal
authorities’ management of waste past the second information
notice stage of their tendering for a waste contract. Extending the
Mayor’s power of direction beyond that stage would create
uncertainty and it might make the waste industry less willing to engage
in procurement with authorities. For that reason we oppose the
amendment.
Amendment
No. 62, new clauses 35, 36, 39 and 40 and new schedules 1, 2 and 3 seek
to amend the 1999 Act to establish and give powers and duties to a
single waste disposal authority for London—the London waste
authority. It is obvious that we do not accept them. I have already set
out in detail our position on the matter. The amendments would
fundamentally change how London manages its waste, and the Government
firmly believe that waste services are best operated locally, as I and
many hon. Members from all parties have described.
On new clause
37, it is difficult to understand what purpose would be served by a
minerals and waste development scheme for London, because the Mayor
does not have responsibility for preparing the associated development
plan documents on minerals and waste. That is the responsibility of the
boroughs. Clearly, the purpose of the amendment is that the Mayor
should prepare a MWDS and take responsibility for site-specific
plan-making for waste and minerals sites, but that is also the wrong
balance of decision making. Site-specific plans should be made by
boroughs, which have the required intimate local knowledge, while the
Mayor should maintain a strategic policy direction.
If the
concern behind the amendment centres on the timetabling and speed of
plan-making at borough level, a MWDS for London, prepared by the Mayor,
would add no benefit because the proposed new planning
powers—for example, in clause 30—to allow the Mayor to
direct changes to boroughs’ LDSs give the Mayor sufficient
influence over the timetable for the production of minerals and waste
policies by boroughs throughout London.
Now that the Mayor has
published a suite of strategic waste policies in his early alteration
and draft alteration to the London plan containing a borough-level
apportionment of waste—both were both published in December
2006—boroughs have a clear framework for local plan-making that
they did not have in the past. They are now expected to implement the
strategic framework set out in the London plan, and by allocating sites
for waste facilities they will encourage planning applications to come
forward, leading to the delivery of facilities on the
ground.
The purpose of
the amendment may be to ensure that the timetable for the review of the
Mayor’s strategic minerals and waste policies is produced. The
Mayor’s special development strategy—the London
plan—incorporates regional strategic policies on minerals and
waste which can be amended and updated as necessary, as they were in
the early alterations to the London plan published in December
2006. The timetable
for review of the London plan in the form of an LDS-type document is
unnecessary. The arrangement for timetabling the SDS is set out in
Government office for London circular 1/2000 and involves establishing
an indicative target time scale and resources, and publicly adopting
the timetable at the outset. That approach has been effective and is
comparable with the arrangements for other regions outside
London.
New clause 38
would amend sections 353, 355 and 357 of the 1999 Act. Section 353
relates to the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy. The
relevant amendment would widen the scope of the strategy to include
litter. The Government believe that litter policies are also best dealt
with at local level and in accordance with local needs and
circumstances. The proposed amendment to section 355 would require
waste collection and disposal authorities to act in general conformity
with the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy when
clearing litter and refuse. However, the removal of litter and refuse
from land under existing duties involves a variety of other agencies,
including statutory undertakers, the Crown and governing bodies of
educational institutions, as well as local authorities. Therefore, it
is appropriate that strategies for dealing with litter are developed
locally in London, as elsewhere. There are already sufficient
partnership arrangements in place through the capital standards
programme to allow for co-ordination at regional level. On the
amendment to section 357, the new clause proposes a single waste
authority, on which I have already explained the Government’s
position. For those reasons, I must strongly resist this new
clause.
Finally, on
new clause 42, litter functions are dealt with at local level by the
boroughs working closely with partners and others that have
responsibility for clearing litter and refuse. Currently, they do not
have to provide any information to the Mayor before putting street
cleansing contracts out to tender. The new clause would enable the
Mayor to have oversight of procurement activity for street cleansing
and thereby assist him in promoting and encouraging best practice with
inner London boroughs.
I have some sympathy with the
principle of the amendment, and would welcome the opportunity to
consider it further. With that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend
will not press it to a Division. I have explained that I cannot accept
his other amendments.I said that London is improving its
recycling arrangements, but the amendments would leave waste collection
services, including the recycling service, with the boroughs, so they
would not change the current
arrangements.
My hon.
Friend suggested that boroughs do not have plans to meet 2014 targets.
Restructuring now would increase the risk of fines by delaying plans
that are already in place—for example, the mechanical and
biological treatments in Havering and Newham, which
should come online with full capacity this year, and the Belvedere
energy-from-waste facility, which is due to come online in
2010. On splitting
collection and disposal, there are problems in shire areas, as some
districts are not providing counties with the data they need to meet
their obligations under the landfill directive. Joint waste disposal
authorities are run by the borough representatives, as my hon. Friend
knows, and so reflect local needs. Splitting collection and disposal
between completely separate political bodies could cause problems
because new technologies need the integration of collection and
disposal.
I hope that
I have been able to reassure hon. Members of the robustness of the
Government’s approach to managing London’s waste. I urge
my hon. Friend not to press her amendments and new clauses to
Divisions, and I hope that clauses 36 and 37 will stand part of the
Bill.
Ms
Buck:
I shall be brief. The comments
made by the Minister and by Opposition Members fall into two
categories. The first is that we are basically doing all right, so any
fundamental changes such as those I have proposed would pose a risk to
the objectives, which I think we broadly share. The second, stressed by
the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, is that there is a
conflict between the Government’s devolutionary intentions and
the centralising of responsibility involved in the creation of a single
waste authority.
I do
not accept either of those arguments. We are not doing well enough. It
is fair to say, as the Minister did, that there has recently been a
degree of improvement in recycling performance and that the core
responsibilities for collection and recycling would remain with the
boroughs. However, we face a number of challenges, across the spectrum,
that will only intensify as targets bite more severely, and that
entails the fundamental risk that authorities will be faced with fines
or landfill charges.
There has been a degree of
improvement on recycling, but we are being asked to accept mediocrity.
In the face of both external challenges, such as population growth, and
the fundamental policy objective of rising to the test of climate
change, we need to do something that is better than mediocre. We must
make London as great a city on these issues as we seek, in many ways
successfully, to make it on a number of other fronts. That point was
drawn out by my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, South and for
Mitcham and Morden. I thank them for their contributions.
As I tried to illustrate, I
accept the devolution argument, but we must make a pragmatic and not an
ideological judgment about which duties fit most comfortably at the
strategic level and which fit
locally.
Tom
Brake:
I just wonder whether the hon.
Lady can explain why she is so certain that a single waste authority
would create the dramatic improvements that she seeks. Is it not the
case that, in the initial stages, the mere setting-up of such an
authority would undoubtedly have an impact on boroughs’
abilities to recycle, because they would be focusing on
reorganisation?
7
pm
Ms
Buck:
The hon. Gentleman is advancing an argument against
any change ever. When there is structural change, there is always the
risk that during the period of reorganisation those involved are not
focusing on their core functions. That argument does not apply to
anything else that the Government are doing, but let us put it to one
side.
Of course
there is an element of risk. The issue lies in the fact that a single
authority would be able to commission, to ensure that there is an
ability to be strategic, to examine planning capacity for recycling
plants, to take decisions to invest in new technologies London-wide, to
ensure that contracts for procurement across the entire city are
economic and efficient and allow the development of recycling and new
technologies to help to meet our environmental objectives, in a way
that some boroughs are simply not able to do as they handle only 50,000
tonnes of waste a year.
The other
point is on devolution. As I said in my example about Westminster, what
is in the interests of one borough and what may have the support of
residents in that borough may not necessarily be in the strategic
interests of Londoners, including future Londoners
affected by climate change, or in the interests of those other boroughs
through which the rubbish collected by borough A may have to be driven
in order to be taken to plants in other parts of the city or even
outside the city. I am not convinced by that
argument. We need to
make a step change in order to rise to our climate change targets and
to ensure that we do not fall foul of landfill tax fines. I am not
convinced that the Government’s approach will enable us to make
that step change. It is complex and bureaucratic matter. Indeed, it
enshrines the sort of conflict that my hon. Friend the Minister said
that he hoped to avoid.
I have failed to convince my
hon. Friend and the Government to my way of thinking. Judging by the
remarks made by Opposition Members, I have failed to persuade them. Not
being of a martyr tendency, and wishing to return to the subject, I
shall resume my seat.
Question put and
agreed to.
Clause 36 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 37 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Jonathan
Shaw.]
Adjourned
accordingly at two minutes past Seven o’clock till Thursday 18
January at half-past Nine
o’clock.
| 
