Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, I am grateful for that debate, which has not exactly repeated what was said in Grand Committee. I shall respond briefly. The amendment relating to the board was agreed to but with this amendment we are in a different scenario. I have come with a cut-down speech; it will not take long to deliver but it is important to put it on the record because there is still another stage to go. As noble Lords have said, this amendment is a variation on that which we discussed in Committee. Its ultimate aim is to create a single waste disposal authority—I stress that; no one is promoting a single waste disposal and collection authority. The amendment would place an ongoing duty on the Secretary of State to continually review whether existing structures are satisfactory in London. Where they ceased to be so, the Secretary of State would be able to use his existing powers to create a single waste disposal authority for London that would be controlled by the Mayor. When the Government undertook their review of waste governance structures in London, they commissioned research to assess a number of key criteria, such as achievement of the landfill directive targets against short, medium and long-term scenarios. The options that fared worst in the analysis—it is important to get this right, particularly in view of the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Warner—were those that did not integrate collection and disposal functions across the capital. This is one of the key reasons why the Government are opposed to a single waste disposal authority for London. There is no best-fit solution. The KPMG findings concluded that a London-wide option could be a good solution if it combined collection and disposal. Options that do not contain collection and disposal, such as the Mayor’s proposal, fared worse in the KPMG analysis. That is the point: a single waste disposal authority that was not a disposal and collection authority came out as the worst option. That is one of the reasons why the Government are opposed to a single waste disposal authority for London. Evidence suggests that the economies of scale and improved performance are more likely to be achieved where waste collection and disposal services are integrated. That also reflects the fact that we have moved over the past 20 years—we recognise that waste is a valuable resource that can be recycled or composted or from which we can recover substantial amounts of energy. This approach requires a greater synergy between collection and disposal arrangements. The Mayor’s proposal for a single waste disposal authority for London goes against this, separating the waste disposal arrangements into a body run by the Mayor, but leaving the collection services with the boroughs. Delaying the creation of such an authority will not alter this and could result in an even worse outcome for London than creating one now. We are at a critical stage in delivering this step change in the way in which we manage waste in the UK. I pay tribute to what has been achieved in recycling in recent years. In the list that I have, about two-thirds of London boroughs are not meeting their household recycling targets; some are exceeding them and some are meeting them. On that list, Sutton is number two, so well done there. London faces a tough challenge; there is no question about that. We are not complacent about the progress that must be made. In a separate amendment, which we have already approved, the creation of the new London Waste and Recycling Board is designed to accelerate the progress towards sustainable waste management. Many London boroughs—the majority of them—need to raise their game significantly, particularly on recycling. The problem is that introducing the threat of creating a single waste disposal authority that is governed by the Mayor at some point in the future is not an effective way of facilitating their progress—if anything, it could jeopardise that. London needs structural stability if it is to attract the necessary investment to further develop its waste management capacity. The boroughs, the waste management industry, their various financial partners and potential investors need security and to know that the business cases and contracts they put in place today, and in the future, are not going to require renegotiating with a new body some years later. Certainly being under the threat of continuous review is not a good way to get the investment going. That is the threat that lies behind the amendment. It is a compromise but not really a compromise at all. The amendment threatens a fundamental change of government at some unknown point in time and creates massive uncertainty in a multi-million pound industry that requires investment. That is a real problem. People need to know that we are not planning to set up a single waste disposal authority in London either in the long term or the short or medium term. Otherwise the investment will not come. The pressure on the authorities and their financial partners will be removed, and that pressure needs to be maintained. All the evidence that we have about the best way to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of managing London’s waste suggests that we should not go down the route of a single waste disposal authority. Creating a single authority for managing waste would also go against our approach to waste governance in England. The local government White Paper highlighted the need for local authorities to work together particularly in the two-tier areas in order to deliver improved accountability and leadership, increase efficiency and improve the outcomes. The strategy for waste in England, recently published in 2007, highlights the need for joint working on waste. At a time when the Government are encouraging integration between waste collection and disposal services, it would be quite wrong for the Government further to separate such services in the capital. We believe that the waste collection services are best managed at local level, where they are most effectively tailored and adapted to meet local needs. I have just moved from a house in a London borough to a flat in the middle of London, and although I am not bewildered, I have struggled to work out the difference—and it is different. The best people to provide local needs are the local authorities. There is no question about that. Many of the benefits of a single waste disposal authority, such as economies of scale and technology procurement, can be achieved through other means within the existing governance structures. Joint working on waste can deliver considerable efficiencies. The signs are that performance on waste disposal in London is moving in the right direction. Even those who have not met their targets are attempting to do so. Movement is under way, and we must be absolutely positive and supportive about that. The creation of a single waste disposal authority for London would be too disruptive of the good progress that all the authorities are seeking to make. This is a critical time and we need to focus our efforts on vastly improving performance in recycling. We have a long way to go. As I said in Grand Committee, around the world, authorities similar to London have achieved much better performance levels. We need to up our game to match those. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the amendment.