Greater London Authority Bill

I cannot resist the temptation to respond. At the beginning of the Committee, I declared that I am a London borough councillor. I suppose now that I should confess, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, already well knows, that I was leader of a London borough council for 13 years. For all of the past 20 years, my council has been in the top two or three London borough councils for the rate of recycling, and it remains in that position. Perhaps I should also say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that I have never been a member of a joint waste authority. I have never consigned anyone to the outer darkness of a joint waste authority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, my authority is shortly to enter into such an arrangement, so perhaps we will then have the opportunity. This issue has been the subject of intense debate in London for many months. Unlike most of my borough colleagues, I started the debate with a genuinely open mind. As is often the case, there are good, sound arguments both ways and I was certainly willing to be persuaded. As I have listened to and taken part in the arguments over those months, I have become less and less convinced that a single waste authority is the answer to the problem which we all acknowledge exists. Noble Lords supporting the amendment have quoted extensively from the Mayor’s briefing, which, understandably, supplies figures that are no doubt accurate, but are there for the sole purpose of supporting the argument. Let me quote from the London Councils briefing which counters the arguments, but is, nevertheless, no less valid. I take issue with what several noble Lords have said, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about what is nowadays termed the direction of travel. London’s recycling rate has more than doubled since 2001. London is expecting to achieve a combined recycling rate of 24 per cent for 2006, which is a 15 per cent increase on the previous year. We have had comparisons with regions. I do not think that Greater London compares properly with any other region in this country, all of which contain significant rural areas and are of a quite different composition. Nevertheless, London is the second best region in the country for diverting waste from landfill and so on. We can all continue to quote figures that support our arguments. I can make international comparisons, not with much smaller cities than London, but with, for example, New York, which has a recycling rate that is considerably less. Tokyo’s recycling rate is only equal to London. Paris is the only broadly comparable European city and, again, it is worse than London. We can use figures. We can prove our cases with all the figures we want, but we need to try, as dispassionately as possible, to look for the solutions. In finding solutions, we have to understand the problem exactly. Part of the problem is the nature of the boroughs, the demography, the number of flat dwellers and so on, but I have always believed that the fundamental difference is one of political will and political priority. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was right that it is not a party issue. It is about the political priorities that that local authority has had, which is why some boroughs have been very much better and other boroughs with different priorities have been very much worse. That is one of the reasons why the situation is now changing. London borough councils have considerable financial incentives and penalties to have the political will and give it the political priority, which is why there is and will continue to be a step change—an expression which has been used—in London. The issue of waste minimisation has gone considerably up the political agenda right across London. I believe that, contrary to what some noble Lords have said, the direction of travel is getting significantly better and will continue to do so. If we look to solutions, if we are to challenge that direction of travel, we must have very good reasons for doing so. I have come to the conclusion that establishing a single waste authority, where the debate has been very much about control, is not the solution. I still do not understand exactly what a single waste authority will do to increase waste minimisation—if that is the right expression—in the London boroughs, particularly as they will retain responsibility for recycling and, quite rightly, responsibility for waste collection. One of the advantages in London is that we have combined collection and disposal. Separating them would be a retrograde step that would considerably erode it. The Mayor does not want waste collection—very sensibly, in my view—and no London borough would let him have it. They would fight to the death for that. Anyone involved in local politics knows that if you mess up refuse collection you are out at the next election, and that will always remain the case. The argument for a single waste authority is at best unproven and to impose substantial costs and disruption on boroughs that do not want it would be a retrograde move. We should welcome the step change that is happening in London and encourage it to progress. The boroughs and the Mayor should work together on the implementation of the Mayor’s waste strategy in order to tackle an issue that we all acknowledge is a very real and important one in London. I cannot support the amendment.