UK Parliament / Open data

Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, the ““general conformity”” point would make a significant change. As years go by, that will be seen to provide the Mayor, not necessarily wrongly, with a very strong position. On Amendment No. 56 and the provision of financial assistance which the board will be able to make, dealing with waste is a very capital-intensive process. It is very welcome that the board will be able to provide financial assistance, including for providing waste facilities, research and so on. The new clause states: "““The Board does not have the power to borrow money””." I am not sure whether the £19 million and the£6 million to be made available to the board refer to the budget for the next year or to the starting budget and then seeing how it goes. I spoke at the last stage about the enormous importance of a change in culture and of convincing people that the waste authority should be responsible in how it deals with waste. I hope that the board will be able to play a part in that. It means not just good arrangements locally to collect waste for recycling, but also how the waste is dealt with; that is, using waste to make new materials and making products out of those new materials. All that will require more than the sorts of money being talked about. As time goes on, if the parties—I hope that they will—make an effort to make the new board work, there will be a change. I would be interested to know why there is that restriction. We might be told that it will be a matter for individual authorities to make major investments. However, the new clause says that the board can provide financial assistance towards providing facilities, "““in connection with the collection, treatment or disposal of waste””." The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised an important point about the chair. Generally, it is best for a board to appoint its own chair, but in this world one becomes rather used to the chair being designated as a particular office holder. For the board to work productively, it is important that its members are in agreement on the chair and who best can take them along together. I accept that Amendment No. 57 is not necessary because of the possibility of extension underClause 4, but I felt that it was important to draw attention again to the particular position of the Mayor in being able to make appointments and that those appointments should be subject to public scrutiny and understanding.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c509-10 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top