Greater London Authority Bill

I wanted to hear what the noble Lord had to say. We have just agreed Clause 36 without any debate. Clause 36 is hugely significant in that it changes the way in which waste is to be dealt with by substituting ““have regard to”” with, "““act in general conformity with””," the Mayor’s waste management strategy. If used properly, that could lead to a considerable change in the way in which various parties work together. I do not think that this has been taken fully on board in the debate so far. The current Mayor’s briefing dismisses this, saying: "““The general conformity clause is a legal minefield and a recipe for deadlock””." We have just managed to avoid deadlock in the areas where general conformity has been required until now. The briefing continues: "““It could mean local authorities and the Mayor being continuously locked in judicial reviews, with London council tax payers footing both sides of the legal bill and critical delays in the delivery of sorely needed waste infrastructure and service improvements””." So says the current Mayor; I not sure whether that is a threat or a promise. The letter circulated by the Minister points this out. Indeed, he refers to the costs and risks of a single waste authority, and I very much agree with what he has said in that letter. We on these Benches do not say that all is well. Indeed, when the issue first became so very live, I felt that it was particularly important that the boroughs and the Mayor did not behave in a knee-jerk fashion and treat this as a matter of competing powers. The issue is much too important for it to be about who has what power; it should be about what the solutions might be and how one might reach them. I do believe that the boroughs are addressing the issue. My noble friend Lord Tope, from Sutton, may speak about the new consortium that Sutton, Kingston, Merton and Croydon have just entered into—I do not know; we have not discussed it. I talked to the London borough of Southwark and was struck by the difficulties and uncertainties encountered by potential contractors during the borough’s project for considerable investment and new facilities when the review of the Mayor’s powers started. Its project is now back on track. It has been in communication with both the Mayor and Defra, and has asked the Mayor what would happen to this major new project if a single waste authority were to be set up. The Mayor could say only that he would ask Defra to put fair and equitable arrangements in place. Defra could give no assurance that the borough would not lose out if the site was transferred to the single waste authority. I mention this because so much is going on in different parts of London in this area that if boroughs have to go back to the drawing board an awful lot will be thrown into confusion. There are some very big contracts in the pipeline. A couple of months ago, I asked the Mayor how, if there were to be a single waste authority, he would deal with existing long-term contracts. I did not receive a satisfactory answer. He referred to Transport for London having taken over a considerable number of organisations. That is interesting, but I am not sure that it translates to this situation. As I understand it, Mr Livingstone would wish to leave collection to the local authorities and, although they want it, that seems to be the difficult bit. There has been a lot of recent discussion about whether the public will accept fortnightly collections. It is almost a poisoned chalice to leave with the boroughs. It begs the question of what they would do, not just about reduction but about recycling. In parenthesis, I realise that there is a danger in talking about recycling in this debate as if it was a panacea, when we should be talking about reduction in the first instance. There has been some lobbying for a single waste authority. I have had a handful of letters. They used strangely similar terminology: three or four lines of exactly the same words. Somebody has suggested precisely what they might say. The Mayor could and should do some things whether or not there is a single waste authority. The main thing he can do is raise capital. A single waste authority would not change the profile of London’s housing stock—a particular difficulty when one is talking about recycling or collections from flats. A single waste authority without recycling would not immediately mean achieving targets. The Mayor may not have much power to deal with attitudes to waste, but he is in a good position to influence them. Waste minimisation is largely a cultural issue, as is recycling. The Mayor can provide facilities which help the boroughs without having a single waste authority. I have mentioned the recycling fund; there is also London Remade. The Mayor should be building on these. He must counter stories about materials being shipped around the world, which deter people from recycling. He must say that he is providing an alternative way for the boroughs to join in with dealing with materials, and focus on providing materials reclamation facilities so that materials become raw materials for new products. In other words, the Mayor can add a lot of value. It does not have to be with the major change the current Mayor seeks. Although I started by saying that we should see this as an important issue which needs addressing in itself and not as a power struggle, it has come to be seen as one. That is regrettable. If we can all move away from that, so much the better. I say that to the Mayor as I say it to everyone else.