I always try to get the good news in first; I am happy to take this amendment away and consider it before the next stage. I shall have a look at it with the interested parties to see whether we can reach a solution to meet the noble Baroness’s concerns, but not necessarily through the statutory route. I fully appreciate the delay that has occurred but we shall not be dismissive about the matter.
This fund was announced last July as part of the Government’s package on the review of London’s waste governance. As the noble Baroness said, the aim of the forum is to bring stakeholders together to deliver improved performance on waste minimisation and recycling, promote collaborative action and link waste with other London priorities around climate change, transport and employment. We also announced a London Waste and Recycling Fund to be administered by the forum in support of its work. The size of the contribution to the fund is subject to the Comprehensive Spending Review, but based on current figures, it is expected to be about £19 million in 2008-09. Nobody will be surprised at that figure. The two linked amendments would create a corporate body called the London waste and recycling forum and fund. Its functions would be similar to those proposed by the Government. The main difference is that it would have a statutory basis setting out its functions.
This brief debate is important. We are not convinced of the benefits that a statutory footing for the forum and fund would bring and we have some particular concerns about parts of the amendment. However, I shall not go into that as it would be nitpicking. We agree with the principle. We believe that a non-statutory forum would comprise a lighter touch and be more flexible. When I was on the Back Benches I never believed Ministers who said that if you put a measure in primary legislation it is much less flexible, but it is actually true. In this case, it is important that the interested parties of the London boroughs, the GLA and the Mayor get to discussing things in detail. Hopefully, they can do that quite quickly, and if we can bring something back at the next stage of the Bill, we will seek to do so.
I am not giving a commitment to place the forum and fund on a statutory basis, but the issue needs to be pushed forward a bit faster than it has been hitherto. Maybe the amendment and the Government’s response can facilitate discussions in the very near future. I do not know when the next stage of the Bill will be, but these things have to be discussed, and if something is to be put in the Bill it will have to go through the government machine and parliamentary counsel. If we miss the deadline, we miss the opportunity. I understand that there is some good will and the initial approaches have already been made. If discussions can be opened up, that will be to the good. So, on that basis, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Greater London Authority Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Greater London Authority Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c209-10GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:45:55 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395613
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395613
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395613