Greater London Authority Bill

I agree with the noble Baroness that London is a very different city. It is the greatest city in the world, and that is fine. But I wonder why it is therefore assumed that some of the recycling targets are going to be so impossible to meet. I note that in Europe, Hamburg recycles 57 per cent of its waste; Copenhagen 54 per cent; Munich42 per cent, and Milan 39 per cent. In the United States, San Francisco—a very different city—recycles 50 per cent, and Seattle 58 per cent. The figures are possible. It can and should be done. Again, I wonder why we are being so modest in our proposals. The present arrangements are not accountable to Londoners. Because there are so many different waste authorities and the arrangements in some cases are baroque and complicated, they are not transparent bodies. Not only is there administrative incoherence and perhaps a limited capacity so far as the 16 waste disposal authorities are concerned, but there is also a gap in democratic accountability. The implementation of any waste strategy will require a major effort across a number of levels of activity in London, and that is where a single authority under the control of the Mayor and working with his functional bodies will play a critical role. The necessary skills and experience have to be brought together, along with the power to ensure that the necessary changes are made. I am conscious that one of the implications will be to look at how freight movements are dealt with in the city. Indeed, I spent a couple of hours this morning talking about the city’s freight policy with representatives at Transport for London. There is enormous potential for energy saving strategies in this area. But I wonder whether those changes will happen if we continue with a system of 16 waste disposal authorities and do not take up the opportunity provided by this amendment. I have mentioned the problems of capacity. Partnerships UK, a body formed in 2000 by the Treasury, is all about supporting the delivery of high-quality public services and the efficient use of public assets. It has responded to a consultation by highlighting the issues related to the fragmented nature of management and disposal responsibilities and saying that that results in relatively small package and contract sizes that reduce access to economies of scale in plant, equipment and financing structures, produces multiple public sector counterparties to contracts, thus increasing their complexity and perceived risk, with a corresponding impact on market appetite and the price offered. There is also a lack of central expertise or critical mass of skills and experience. Those are the challenges we face if we do not support the amendment of my noble friend. I want to make a final point about hazardous waste. At the moment, some 10,500 tonnes of hazardous waste are produced by London householders, but only 200 tonnes are collected by the Hazardous Household Waste Collection and Disposal Service administered by the Corporation of London on behalf of the London boroughs. That is the extent to which waste disposal collaboration between 16 waste disposal authorities works at the moment, so I put it again to my noble friend who will be replying: where is the step change going to be made in order to ensure that we see the improvement in performance that is necessary?