Greater London Authority Bill

While I do not want to introduce a note of party politics to this, it is the first time in my six years in your Lordships’ House that it is basically me, the Tories and the Liberals against the Back-Benchers. It is on a London issue as well, so it is a bit tricky because I have always kept away from those. I have a wonderfully long response here which I intend to make because it is important to put the Government’s view on the record. First, however, I shall use my notes before I move on to the speech. I want to make one or two points in response to what has been said by my noble friends Lord Harris and Lord Whitty. The Government have never supported a single waste disposal authority for London. I came to this some weeks ago with a neutral view, but soon came to realise that it is Defra’s baby and something of a problem. We undertook a public consultation on a range of options without stating a preference. It was clear from that consultation that no single option emerged as a clear preference. We also commissioned research into a number of the options. A single waste disposal authority came out as one of the worst choices for managing London’s waste. That brings me to the first point I want to answer. My noble friend Lord Warner asked about the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The Government commissioned KPMG to look at the cost benefits and risks in a number of options for London’s waste. The report is available on Defra’s website. It found that the Mayor’s proposal was one of the worst options. The report formed part of the input into the Government’s decision. Work has been done on this issue and it is all there in the public domain. Many boroughs work together on a sub-regional basis. A quick count shows that around two-thirds of the London boroughs are in consortia, and only one operates completely on its own. The others undertake joint work in the area of waste disposal. Indeed, some London boroughs are among the largest authorities in the country, so it is not as if we are dealing with minnows. I was curious about how the local authority deals with my own rubbish—that is, the rubbish I do not take to its very well run recycling site. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, pointed out, there is no question that there have been major changes in recent years, and that big improvements have been made. A London Councils briefing shows that the city is doing well in comparison with some cities. It is fair to look at London with comparable cities such as Paris, Tokyo and New York, but it is not fair to compare it with others that are not comparable. While major improvements are needed, performance is going up—it is moving in the right direction. A single authority would not be likely to improve recycling rates because that responsibility would remain with the boroughs. We therefore have some serious problems with the amendment. We are committed to all the targets of the landfill directive, but the earlier targets for 2010 and 2013 are likely to be harder to achieve because of the large improvement needed over a short timeframe. It is not a question of focusing on one to the exclusive ignorance of the other. We do not accept that poor performance. I am very careful about trying to translate what my noble friend Lord Harris said about the capacity and quality of the councillors—if I can put it this way—dumped on joint bodies as in the past. Waste disposal and recycling are politically sexy today; they were not 10 years ago. There has been a major change. It is tied in with the agenda of environment and climate change; these things come together. I suspect that there are much more senior councillors taking an interest in these authorities than was the case in the past. I have no doubt that that will also change in the future as the penny drops; there is no question about that. I hope that I will not repeat some of the points that have already been made. The new clause introduces a requirement on London waste collection and disposal authorities to act in general conformity with the Mayor’s municipal waste strategy, in Clause 36. Under Section 353 of the Greater London Authority Act, the Mayor of London is required to prepare and publish a document known as the municipal waste management strategy, which sets the strategic direction for London’s waste activities. Section 355 requires waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities in London to have regard to the Mayor’s strategy. Clause 36, in amending that, as has been referred to, requires the authorities to act in general conformity with the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy when exercising any of their waste functions. That duty has an effect, to the extent that it does not impose additional excessive costs or require an authority to breach or terminate a contract, which would not be good value for money. The clause includes a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the definition of general conformity and excessive additional costs. The announcement of the Mayor’s powers to require waste authorities to deliver services in general conformity with the strategy, along with his existing power of direction, will help to ensure that the strategic vision that the Mayor sets out for London is delivered on the ground. That is very important. Clause 37 strengthens the requirements for authorities to inform the Mayor before putting new waste contracts out to tender and updates the Act following changes to the public procurement legislation. Under existing legislation, it is not always necessary for London waste authorities to inform the Mayor before putting waste contracts out to tender. Clause 37 introduces a new duty on authorities so that where they are not obliged either to send the European Commission a first information notice of their intention to tender a waste contract, or publish on the authorities’ buyers profile, but are obliged to send a second information notice, they must inform the Mayor of their intention to tender. They are required to notify the Mayor 108 days before issuing the second information notice. The amendments will ensure that the Mayor is informed of all important waste tenders in advance. Strengthening the requirement for the boroughs to inform the Mayor if they are going to tender a contract will ensure that the Mayor has a role in procurement decisions and will ensure that the vision and policy set out by the Mayor are implemented locally in the way in which waste authorities deliver certain functions. That is part of the background. In other words, this new clause must not be seen in isolation as a new idea for an extra power or function for the Mayor. It has to be looked at in the context of the changes that are being made in the Bill, which have been approved. On the amendment, after decades of relying on burying waste in large holes in the ground we are in the process of a fundamental shift in how we manage waste in the UK. To reduce the environmental impact of our waste and especially to take account of climate change impacts, we have got to reduce the amount that we sent to landfill, increase recycling and invest in new facilities to deal with our waste in more sustainable ways. We are at a critical stage in delivering this step change in how we manage waste in the UK. We face our first EU target to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste we send to landfill in just three years’ time, which poses a real challenge for local authorities. I am pleased to say that early indications show that London is responding positively to this challenge. Figures for 2005-06 show that as a region it is second to only the West Midlands in terms of reducing the amount of waste going to landfill. Recycling is also very important in reducing environmental impacts, especially its role in reducing the ““carbon footprint””. London’s recycling has doubled since 2001, but performance is mixed within the capital. While two London boroughs, Sutton and Bexley, have been awarded beacon status on waste and recycling, Tower Hamlets is at the bottom of the national recycling league table. Many London boroughs need to make major and substantial improvements. The Government are working with them to make sure that this happens and are prepared to use formal intervention if necessary. At Second Reading, a number of concerns about London’s waste performance were raised. A number of noble Lords expressed the view that a single waste disposal authority would provide a more effective and efficient means of addressing the problems. We now have before us an amendment that, while it differs slightly in substance from the amendment tabled in the Commons, is aimed at a similar outcome. I suspect that the amendment we will get on Report will be slightly different because one adjusts as we go through the scrutiny of legislation. The arguments put forward in favour of a single waste disposal authority are based on the premise that London will fail to make the necessary step change towards sustainable waste management, including achieving the landfill diversion targets and that a single waste disposal authority would improve performance across the capital and deliver efficiencies. However, the evidence does not support this view. London, like every region of England, needs to boost recycling and reduce waste to landfill, but recent data on landfill diversion indicates that London is making progress—for example, a new mechanical biological treatment plant recently opened in Newham. In only three years we face the first of the EU landfill targets and significant fines if they are missed. The creation of a single waste disposal authority for London at this important stage would be incredibly disruptive to the efforts that are going on. The efforts and resources need to be focused, not on the establishment of a new authority and issues such as the transfer of staff and assets, but, more importantly, on working to ensure that the necessary waste infrastructure is in place. Proponents of the single waste disposal authority have also argued that it is needed to improve London’s recycling rate. We agree that some London authorities need to do much better on recycling. However, it is important to make clear that a single waste disposal authority would not have responsibility for recycling. That point has to be answered by the proponents of a single authority. Under the amendments tabled, waste collection would remain a borough responsibility, so the single waste disposal authority would have little impact on recycling rates in the capital. Furthermore, the proposed amendments would split control over collection, recycling and disposal responsibilities between two different political bodies, which could make it more difficult to manage waste in an integrated manner. For example, if the Mayor wanted to introduce anaerobic digestion for the disposal of London’s waste he would need specific collection arrangements—that is, separate collection of food waste—but he would not have control over collection arrangements. The economies of scale that could be gained from managing London’s waste disposal contracts at a larger scale are minimal. The Government and the GLA are agreed that it would not be desirable or practical to have a single waste disposal contractfor all of London—the city is too big—and most authorities in London are already working together in sub-regional groups. We have four statutory joint waste disposal authorities encompassing 21 boroughs—two-thirds of boroughs. Many of the remaining boroughs are already working together to identify and procure joint waste disposal solutions. The South London Waste Partnership is a good example of this, bringing together the boroughs of Merton, Croydon, Kingston and Sutton. Our analysis suggests that any further efficiency gains from a single waste disposal authority would be small, and could be outweighed by higher administrative costs. Waste and recycling are a priority, as I have said, and we welcome the opportunity to debate how we can improve arrangements in London. However, having examined the detailed evidence following a consultation, the Government have come to the view that a single waste disposal authority would not deliver improvements in waste management or cost efficiencies. A single waste disposal authority could result in extra costs to the Government and to the boroughs, and could put our landfill diversion targets at risk. If the UK failed to meet its targets, the resulting fines would be likely to be passed to London’s council tax bills. This is a crucial time for waste management in London, as it is for the rest of the UK. The fundamental change that the amendment would make to the governance structures for the capital’s waste would threaten the good progress which the latest figures show London is making, and would divert attention and resources, putting at risk our performance and our achievement of our EU targets. We do not want to be complacent about the scale of the challenge ahead and the further progress needed on landfill diversion. Significantly changing the governance structures of London’s waste at this important time would undermine and delay the urgent work that we need to do. Waste services are best operated at local level. Efforts and resources should be focused on improving diversion and recycling performances within the current structures, which can fully reflect local needs and circumstances. One size does not fit all; that is the essence of local government in many ways. Waste collection is, as the noble Lord said, fundamentally a local government issue. Some areas are already beating their targets for household waste recycling and composting. As has been said, the London borough of Bexley has reached 37.7 per cent. Its revised target was 30 per cent. I shall give a few plugs to other boroughs that have succeeded. Hillingdon, which is a member of a consortium, has reached 27.7 per cent. Its target was 21 per cent. Bromley, which had a target of 21 per cent, achieved 27.3 per cent. These targets are all low compared with the recycling targets of 50 per cent that have been quoted, but the fact is that these boroughs are exceeding their current targets. The North London Waste Authority had a target of18 per cent, but reached 20.9 per cent. Haringey had a target of 18 per cent, and achieved 19.2 per cent. There is movement, although we know that some boroughs have far to go. Time is short, and I am coming to the end of my remarks. The Government’s proposals to enhance the Mayor’s powers, along with his existing power of direction, will help to ensure that the strategic vision which the Mayor sets out for London is delivered on the ground. Taken in the round, the changes made by the Bill mean that local authorities will have to pay greater regard to the Mayor’s strategic plans, and we think that they are the way forward. The massive disruption that would be caused by accepting the amendment would be counterproductive. As I said in response to the first intervention from one of my noble friends, the cost-benefits and risks for a number of options for London’s waste were considered in a report by KPMG, which is on the website. The report found that the proposal that is implicit in the amendment was one of the worst options. One cannot say better than that. It is a bad option in terms of money, collection and recycling, and a very bad option if we are to meet our targets within three years. I ask my noble friend to think again about pushing this amendment.