Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 104A: 104A: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause— ““Arrangements for waste disposal authorities in London In section 10 of the Local Government Act 1985 (c. 51) (joint arrangements for waste disposal)— (a) in subsection (1)— (i) omit ““Greater London””, and (ii) after ““county”” insert ““, and the Mayor in the case of Greater London””; (b) after subsection (1)(b) insert ““or (c) that any arrangements in place for that purpose have ceased to be satisfactory,””; (c) in subsection (2) after ““State”” insert ““and the Mayor””; (d) in subsection (3) after ““by an order”” insert ““by the Secretary of State””; (e) after subsection (3) insert— ““(3A) An authority established by an order by the Mayor under subsection (1) above shall consist of such number of members as the Mayor may determine, of whom— (a) a bare majority shall be members of the London borough councils for whose areas the authority is established, appointed by the Mayor on the nomination of those councils acting jointly, and (b) the remainder shall be appointed by the Mayor. (3B) An order by the Mayor under subsection (1) above may make provision for enabling the Mayor to require the authority established by the order to submit to him a scheme for the winding up of the authority, and the transfer to those councils of its functions, property, staff, rights and liabilities. (3C) An authority established by an order by the Mayor under subsection (1) above shall exercise its functions— (a) in accordance with such guidance or directions as may be issued to it by the Mayor, and (b) for the purpose of securing or facilitating the implementation of the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy produced under section 353 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29). (3D) 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.””; (f) in subsection (5) after ““State”” insert ““and, in the case of Greater London, the Mayor,””; (g) in subsection (6) after ““State”” insert ““or the Mayor, as the case may be,””; (h) after subsection (7) insert— ““(8) In this section— ““bare majority”” means— (i) in the case of an even number of members, half of two more than that number, and (ii) in the case of an odd number of members, half of one more than that number; ““the Mayor”” means the Mayor of London; and the Common Council of the City of London shall be treated as if it were a London borough council.””.”” The noble Lord said: When I first learnt that the Government were going to review the powers of the Mayor, it seemed to me desirable so to do, as I explained at Second Reading. It also seemed to me that in the area of waste disposal and strategic waste management more powers for the centre in London was a bit of a no-brainer. There are two reasons for that; first, previous policy, and secondly, the performance of London in this area. In terms of recycling, London is the worst region, and in relative terms it is getting worse. It has a huge amount of waste per capita, and it unloads a large amount of that waste to landfill outside the capital. It has a higgledy-piggledy structure of waste disposal authorities in which half of London is covered by a two-tier system and half by a single-tier system. The position of many of the individual London boroughs has been appalling; many are among the bottom performers in the whole of the country. Moreover, London’s performance in this area relative to other north European cities and some well-performing cities in North America is also fairly appalling. Most noble Lords will know those facts. When the Mayor ran for election last time, on that occasion as a Labour candidate, it was part of his commitment that he would look at establishing a single strategy authority. I may be betraying party processes rather than governmental, but that position was reached in a manifesto that was agreed with the key Ministers in the department of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in what was then the ODPM. What has changed? If anything, London’s waste performance has got worse. Recycling was 4.4 per cent behind the average in England in 2004; it is now 6 per cent behind. Yes, in absolute terms there has been some improvement and there has been a welcome reduction in the past full year in relation to the amount going to landfill. But it is still substantially higher than it was three years ago, and some of the performances by individual London boroughs are still pretty bad. Some boroughs are in the bottom 10 per cent, and some have missed their most recent targets by over10 per cent—including boroughs which were and are controlled by all political parties. The performance of London overall indicates the need for a new impetus and a new structure. Further, the infrastructure and logistical planning for the transportation of waste across London that is required indicate that a more strategic view is necessary. Indeed, in moving the last amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, recognised that if the forum—the Government’s preferred way forward at the moment—is to work, a more strategic approach is needed and there has to be greater prioritisation of the funding that goes to waste disposal within the capital. What has changed since the Mayor first proposed this? To be frank, not a lot. If anything, the performance has got worse, and while politically there has been a change of control in a number of Labour boroughs, frankly that will not really make much difference in any call for a reorganisation of the structure of local government. That call tends to be non-partisan, because the current incumbents will defend the existing structure. I do not think that it is any different here. The other thing that the Minister may argue has changed is that we have had a consultation which, as he puts it, has revealed a range of opinions. But since showing an interest in this area, I have received substantial support from the waste disposal industry and from the environmental bodies—both pressure groups and the industrial environmental bodies. I have already declared an interest in the Environment Agency, which sees great benefit in this area being centralised in London. Further, there is considerable support in the general range of businesses in London for taking a more centralised approach. In the letter distributed by my noble friend, he states that the reason for not going down this road is that London is doing well in relation to landfill. Perhaps, but it is certainly not doing nearly as well as the rest of the country in meeting recycling targets. A further argument against this proposal is that at three years off, we are fairly close to the first legally binding European target. If we were to change the structure, it would be disruptive and there would be significant transitional costs. I find that a strange argument, because it is essentially about timing. As Sir Nicholas Stern and others have pointed out, it is much better to act sooner rather than later in relation to environmental problems, all of which are linked to the wider problem of climate change. If the structure is wrong, we should change it as early as possible. There may be some disruption costs, but the real targets that we should be worrying about are the second and third targets under the European legislation. In any case, we are going to miss the first. It is important to have in place a structure and delivery mechanism in a central strategic authority that can help to deliver the investment and planning required in order to meet those subsequent targets. A third argument is hinted at in the Minister’s letter, indicating that there is a bit of an argument between central government and the Mayor over the situation of energy from waste. The Mayor tends to argue that energy from waste could squeeze out recycling. That is an argument about strategy, not about delivery. The question of whether we build a significant number of energy-from-waste plants—the pejorative term is ““incinerators””—rather than go for recycling away from landfill is one of the second order and can better be approached on a strategic, cross-London basis than individually, borough by borough. The result of leaving this to individual boroughs and the few areas where there are two-tier authorities—there is a multiplicity of organisations, some 16 in all within Greater London—is that inevitably we will end up with sub-optimal investment and logistical movements and confusion over who is actually responsible. In the debate on the last amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that one of the things that would follow her amendment, which the Minister has agreed to look at again, is public accountability. At the moment, there is no clear public accountability in London for the strategic disposal of waste and the development of waste disposal plans. A single waste disposal authority would solve most of these problems. If the issue is one of timing, perhaps the Minister will consider putting this on to a contingency basis, with the timing to be decided, rather than providing the Mayor with full authority as my amendment proposes. If the issue is one of principle, the Government have the wrong principle here. I am surprised at the opposition among the London boroughs and some in the GLA, because one of the biggest environmental problems facing London is its waste disposal problem—a problem that can be resolved only if we establish a structure, a delivery mechanism, a funding mechanism and an accountability mechanism at the London level. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve. The Minister may argue that there are better ways of achieving that, but unless we give clear, statutory authority for such a development, we will end up missing all the targets, not just the immediate target for recycling and moving away from landfill in London. I beg to move.