The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Barker,
Gregory
(Bexhill and Battle)
(Con)
Benyon,
Mr. Richard
(Newbury)
(Con)
Butler,
Ms Dawn
(Brent, South)
(Lab)
Campbell,
Mr. Ronnie
(Blyth Valley)
(Lab)
Dorries,
Mrs. Nadine
(Mid-Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Gardiner,
Barry
(Brent, North)
(Lab)
Greenway,
Mr. John
(Ryedale)
(Con)
Gummer,
Mr. John
(Suffolk, Coastal)
(Con)
Horwood,
Martin
(Cheltenham)
(LD)
Kumar,
Dr. Ashok
(Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland)
(Lab)
McDonagh,
Siobhain
(Mitcham and Morden)
(Lab)
McDonnell,
John
(Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
Prentice,
Mr. Gordon
(Pendle)
(Lab)
Ruddock,
Joan
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs)
Ryan,
Joan
(Enfield, North)
(Lab)
Webb,
Steve
(Northavon) (LD)
Keith
Neary, Committee Clerk
attended the Committee
Twelfth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday
2 July
2008
[Mr.
Joe Benton in the
Chair]
Draft London Waste and Recycling Board Order 2008
2.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Joan Ruddock): I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft London Waste and Recycling Board
Order
2008.
As
always, Mr. Benton, it is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship.
This
draft order sets out the proposed constitution and membership of the
London Waste and Recycling Board. The boards purpose is to
improve the environmental sustainability of waste management throughout
London. It takes forward the Government's commitment, following the
review of the Mayor of London's powers, to set up a pan-London body,
including the Mayor and the boroughs.
During the
passage of the Greater London Authority Act 2007 through Parliament,
the Government agreed to put the body on a statutory basis, and
provision is made for that in the Act. That has support from all
interested parties, particularly from London Councils and the Mayor of
London.
The
board will be able to look strategically at waste and recycling issues
throughout the capital, and to help to drive improvements. In
particular, it will aim to improve environmental performance in waste
management, increase recycling and decrease the amount of waste sent to
landfill to ensure that London is well placed to meet European and
domestic targets. In view of the importance of tackling the top of the
waste hierarchy, the board's objectives also focus on minimising the
amount of waste produced and increasing
reuse.
The
Government have always considered that the board offers an excellent
framework for the Mayor and London boroughs to work together to achieve
those objectives. It recognises that the Mayor sets out the pan-London
vision in his regional strategies, but also respects the boroughs' role
in delivering waste services to their
residents.
The
Mayor and London Councils have recently written to me with a joint
proposal for an eight-member board, chaired by the Mayor or a
representative appointed by him. The remaining members of the board
will be four councillors from London boroughs, chosen by London
Councils, and three independent members from the private, community or
academic sectors. Two will be chosen by London Councils, and one by the
Mayor. The draft order reflects that jointly agreed
proposal.
The
Government have announced that they will make £60 million
available to the board over the next three years. That fund will be
managed by the board in whatever way it sees fits to meet its
objectives. There is widespread agreement that London needs additional
infrastructure, particularly for organics and food waste, and that the
fund should be able to facilitate that.
I welcome the
Mayor's personal interest in giving the board strategic direction. I
also welcome his commitment that the £24 million that has been
set aside for commercial waste projects by the London Development
Agency will now be managed by the board. It is expected that the board
will be able to work on both commercial and municipal waste streams,
and hopefully to identify synergies and
opportunities.
The
board will be able to identify when partnerships will be beneficial,
and to promote and facilitate them. Those could be partnerships between
boroughs, or between the commercial and municipal waste sectors, where
economies and efficiency savings can be made, or which realise the
potential for making things easier for
residents.
We
have adopted a flexible approach to the board determining its own
proceedings and operation, including the ability to appoint staff and
sub-committees to consider particular issues as it sees fit. To ensure
proper accountability and transparency, the board must set out its
priorities and strategies before it can award any funds. It must also
provide an annual report on its
activities.
To
promote openness, we have also proposed public access to the board's
meetings along similar lines to those used by local authorities. The
board will be audited by the Audit Commission, and its accounts will be
published.
Although
London's recycling continues to improve, much remains to be done to
transform London's waste management into an environmentally sustainable
operation. There is agreement on the need to move forward, and on the
direction of travel. The draft order will help to make that happen, and
I commend it to the
Committee.
2.35
pm
Gregory
Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): I thank the Minister
for her introduction. She is right: in the past few years there has
been a welcome shift in our approach to waste. Although the UK still
has one of the highest levels of landfill in the EU, and 22 per cent.
of this countrys methanea gas that has 23 times the
greenhouse effect of CO
2is emitted from decomposing
landfill, there has been steady but gradual progress in recycling and
composting.
That
progress has been due in no small part to the hard work of local
authorities, including those in London. Indeed, successful provision
for waste and recycling is an excellent example of how best-fit, local
solutions can deliver real results. Wandsworth has cut tax while
increasing recycling rates by 123 per cent., and Hammersmith and Fulham
has increased collected mixed recyclables by 128 per cent. since 2003
through innovative new kerbside collection
schemes.
However,
Greater London provides some additional challenges for waste management
and recycling. Demands on space, the high density of dwellings in
inner-city boroughs and the constraints of the transport infrastructure
mean that it seems sensible that some mayoral oversight should inform
waste and recycling over the whole of the Greater London
area.
The
London Waste and Recycling Board has been put together to provide that
very oversight and to find a balance between effective local authority
action and the need for a joined-up approach to Londons waste
and recycling, particularly in respect of the planning issues around
waste facilities; for example, where the Mayors
enhanced role can allow the sensible location of waste processing and
recycling facilities that might be best employed in serving several
boroughs.
The
boards structure has been conceived to reflect that balance. As
the Minister will know, we are broadly in support of the board and,
accordingly, of this instrument. However, the introduction of yet
another decision-making body should be carefully scrutinised,
particularly in London, where the complicated relationships between the
different bodies has been the subject of much consultation and
disagreement in the
past.
London
is a city with unique governance arrangements. The London Mayor is
expected to provide a strategic direction for London, primarily through
his eight statutory strategies covering transport, economic
development, spatial development, which includes planning and land use,
culture, municipal waste management, biodiversity, noise and air
quality. The Greater London Authority Act 2007 brought into law a
package of additional powers for the Mayor of London and the London
Assembly, including increased powers in respect of planning and
waste.
The
Act was the result of a good deal of consultation, not least the
Governments July 2006 review of the powers and responsibilities
of the Mayor of London and the Greater London authority. It is
therefore of some note that the Government feel that further
legislation is now required, so soon after the Act. Can the Minister
reassure us that the introduction of another layer of bureaucracy in
decision making in the waste sector really will produce a better, more
streamlined and best-fit
outcome?
It
is also important that structural changes are examined in the light of
the relevant targets. Last year, the Government stated that a key
benefit of maintaining the current structure and responsibilities of
waste authorities was to ensure the stability that they need to
continue their ongoing investment in waste services and facilities, and
to help the UK meet the challenging targets set out in the EU landfill
directive for 2010, 2013 and
2020.
What
assessment has been made of the effect of the board on meeting those
challenging targets? Indeed, what assessment has the Minister made of
the risk that the formation of the new board will divert attention and
resources away from our priority of switching to more sustainable waste
management options and, in so doing, pose a threat to meeting the EU
landfill targets? Does the Minister still support the view that, to
minimise the risk of failing to achieve our landfill directive targets,
we should ensure a strong strategic role for the Greater London
authority while allowing current authorities to maintain responsibility
for delivering waste services? If that is the case, and if the board is
designed to change that relationship, how does she envisage it
improving the status
quo?
The
board may provide financial assistance to London boroughs for the
purpose of providing facilities
and
conducting
research into new technologies or techniques for the collection,
treatment or disposal of
waste,
in
respect of their waste management and recycling responsibilities.
Although the board has a duty to publish details of the London waste
and recycling fund annually, what possibility is there for consultation
before funds are granted? Will the Minister assure us that funds will
be allocated transparently, with the sole intention of
helping us reach our targets through investment in a more effective
waste infrastructure, and will not be used to bail out failing local
authorities?
I
look forward to hearing the Ministers response. I hope that the
board will deliver on its promise to facilitate a strategic direction
for our capitals waste and recycling, without treading on the
toes of hard-working and increasingly successful local
authorities.
2.40
pm
Steve
Webb (Northavon) (LD): The Liberal Democrats are broadly
sympathetic to the order. My noble Friend Baroness Hamwee, when this
issue was discussed in another place on 9 May 2007, supported a
Conservative amendment that would have created a London waste and
recycling forum, which is a predecessor of the body that we are talking
about
today.
I
shall ask one or two questions to enable me to understand exactly how
the new body will work. A strategic body that engages the Mayor and the
authorities working together will have a higher political profile than
the individual authorities would have with regard to the relevant
issues. That is a potential
benefit.
The
explanatory note
says:
A
Regulatory Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument
as it has no impact on business, charities or voluntary
bodies.
I
am puzzled by that, because I would have imagined that a London waste
body would have some impact on the private sector; otherwise, it would
not be doing its job properly. Perhaps the Minister can clarify what
that
means.
On
a few points of detail, the aim of the board
is
to
help London reach its 2020 target of managing 85% of waste created in
the
city.
Perhaps
the Minister will give us an idea of where we are starting from in
respect of that goal and whether there is any requirement that the
waste be processed and recycled within London or whether the board is
simply a London body that can do what it wants to do where it wants to
do it. Is there a London boundary set on
that?
With
regard to the boards membership, there are independent and
non-independent members. Will the Minister tell us a bit more about how
those non-independent members have been selected, in terms of the
balance between, for example, inner and outer London and representation
from different political parties? Are we confident that this is a
representative board in that
sense?
Is
the board already up and runningeffectively in shadow
formand was that done in the confidence that this statutory
instrument would be agreed to, with those involved just wanting to get
on with it? Such things are always slightly intriguing. I appreciate
that sometimes the world cannot wait for Parliament to go through its
processes, but it would be interesting to know whether the body has
already been
created.
Paragraph
8
states:
The
Board may establish
committees.
It
is slightly strange that we should need to legislate to allow a body
like this to have committees, because one imagines that such bodies
have committees all the time. Why is that provision included and what
kind of committees are we talking about? Why is it necessary to have
some
statutory basis for that, rather than just have a group of people who
work for the authority getting together to talk to one another? What
does that
mean?
Finally,
on paragraph 15(b)(ii)touching on a point that the hon. Member
for Bexhill and Battle mentionedthe funding for
research into
new technologies or techniques for the collection, treatment or
disposal of
waste
is
a good thing. Does the Minister have a sense that that will be an
important part of what the board or the fund actually does? I assume
that it is a matter for them rather than for the Government. However,
does she envisage the body having a significant role in funding such
research or is that a marginal and peripheral aspect of what it does?
We would certainly want it to encourage new technologies in this area,
because, as we know, waste management done well can be a source of
renewable energy and a positive thing, environmentally, but done badly
it can be dreadful. I hope that the Minister reassures us that this
body will actively be pursuing new, innovative ways of tackling the
problem.
2.44
pm
Joan
Ryan (Enfield, North) (Lab): I support the formation of
the board, but we in Enfield have some major concerns about recycling
and its future, in terms of the placing of new waste sites in north
London and the seven north London boroughs and how those will impact on
Enfield. I want to ask my right hon. Friend about the relationship
between the board and the local authorities. She is aware, because I
have raised the matter with her before and she was very sympathetic,
that a couple of years ago Enfield Conservative council closed a
successful recycling centre in Carterhatch lane. That has caused huge
problems for residents. Enfield is bounded by major roads. There is the
M25, the A10 goes through the middle and the North Circular is on the
other side. So we are somewhat trapped in the middle of a major road
network. A lot of traffic can travel through Enfield and so getting
from one side to the other, although not much of a distance, can take a
good 45 minutes. So, having to put recycling material into ones
car and spending that length of time to get to the other side of the
borough now to the only remaining recycling centre, which is not
terribly accessible, is a big problem. What would be the role of the
board in a situation like that? If it has a strategic role to increase
recycling across London, it would surely want to be consulted on such a
catastrophic decision. That decision has meant that in eastern Enfield,
which was the population that would most use that recycling centre, we
have seen quite an increase in fly-tipping.
Our local
authority is always patting itself on the back, saying how good it is
at bringing prosecutions. I understand it was 18 last year. The local
population do not think that 18 is very many in view of the amount of
fly-tipping that goes on. I feel that our council is looking good by
comparing itself with very poor councils. Closing our recycling centre
was not a good idea and I wonder how the board could help the people of
Enfield. I do not want to take decision making away from the local
authority, as it is accountable to the people and we can
elect or unelect it, but I wonder whether the board would give us
another port of call when decisions like that are
made.
The
subject is important now because the North London Waste Authority is
putting together its preferred options for its strategy in the coming
years. Those options will be published next February. There is a huge
concern in Enfield that consultation has been very poor. It did not
take place in the area where some of the waste sites might be located.
Enfield might well become a dumping ground for seven north London
boroughs.
I
believe that we should recycle as close to source as possible and that
London boroughs cannot justify shipping their waste out to the midlands
or anywhere else. They need to recycle it themselves if that is at all
possible, and I believe that it is, to a large extent. Equally, I do
not think that Enfield would be happy to be a hazardous waste recycling
centre for seven other London boroughs. I therefore thought it
opportune to raise the matter with my right hon. Friend. She may not be
able to cover those points in detail now, so I will be happy for her to
write to
me.
The
only other point that I wish to make is that the explanatory memorandum
states that the informal consultation took place between January and
February 2008 and that only five responses were received. That seems a
very low figure, which chimes with things I hear from my own council:
lots of fine words, but perhaps not as much in reality to back it up. I
should be keen to know which councils responded and whether Enfield was
one of them. I would be pleased if it was, but not too surprised if it
was not. Was the Minister disappointed that the figure was that low?
Hopefully, we can look to the board to increase engagement on these
important
issues.
2.49
pm