Joan
Ruddock: Let me try to respond to the numerous points that
have been made in the debate. I am being provided with more
information. In
his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said he
thought that there should be local solutions to local problems and that
local authorities should produce the results. He gave some examples of
that. We agree with that approach. At the heart of all the responses I
will give is that local boroughs will continue to assess the local
needs and will make appropriate local responses to them. Overlaying
that is the Mayor’s strategy. We hope that the board will bring
together thinking within the boroughs and analysis of the boroughs,
with the involvement of the Mayor. That will give a more strategic
approach. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the
measure. The
hon. Gentleman asked whether another level of bureaucracy will be
workable. I have tried to illustrate why and how it will be workable.
We currently have two levels with the boroughs doing their own thing.
However, some of them are now getting together, as my right hon. Friend
the Member for Enfield, North has remarked. We need a greater
involvement of London councils in coming together with the Mayor to
look at strategy. We think that this proposal will add to what is in
place. It is therefore a justifiable layer of bureaucracy. Importantly,
it is something that those involved have all wanted. As I said in my
opening remarks, the proposal has come
after widespread consultation. It was presented to me jointly by the
parties involved as something that they feel is appropriate and that
they feel will
work. The
hon. Gentleman asked what assessment has been made in meeting the
challenging targets and whether the proposal will divert priorities
away from what the boroughs are doing. The answer is that we think it
will assist in meeting the challenging targets. The recycling rate in
London is currently just 22 per cent. The latest figure for England is
33 per cent. Clearly, London has some way to go. It also has a way to
go in diverting from landfill. Once again, we believe that this more
strategic approach will be very
important. However,
there will be no diminution in the responsibilities of local
authorities. Through the framework of local authority indicators, many
boroughs are opting for waste as one of their priority indicators. A
number of local area agreements have clearly demonstrated that local
authorities in London are taking this issue very seriously. Many local
authorities have given their projections for the increases in recycling
that they expect. We have to reach a target of 40 per cent. of
recycling nationally by 2010 and local authorities have to make their
contributions. They have to continue, we expect them to continue and
there is every indication that they
will. The
hon. Gentleman asked about the possibility of consultation before funds
are handed out. There clearly will be consultation if the board is
working and thinking strategically. It will not hand out funds in the
same way as under the previous recycling fund in London, but will look
strategically at the best things to do. Some poorly performing
authorities might get particular help, but that will have to be
justified by the board. It cannot just be that they have been
performing poorly, but that there is a factor that will make a
difference. It is for the board to decide and not for me to pronounce
on what its priorities will be.
[Interruption.] I
am helpfully being told that a vote is expected shortly. I doubt that I
can get through all the answers and move the business to a conclusion
before the vote, but we can hope that I may do so. I think that I have
dealt with all the hon. Gentleman’s questions—he should
jump up if I have not. Obviously, by publishing the board’s
reports we are seeking transparency, and we see that funds are awarded
for strategic
purposes. The
hon. Member for Northavon first asked why there had been no impact
assessment on the sector as a whole. I am advised that the impact on
the private and community sector is expected to be minimal, in the
context of the board’s full operations. The money would also
have been available for waste activities directly via the boroughs, if
not via the board. Apparently, that is why no impact assessment is
required. As the hon. Gentleman will know, that is a legal matter and
not one on which I would make a
judgment. The
hon. Gentleman also asked about the 2020 target for waste produced in
the city—whether there is a London boundary and what assessment
we have been able to make of that. As I indicated, we know what our
national targets are—we have Waste Strategy 2007, as the hon.
Gentleman knows. London has to contribute to that, and we are doing so
through the local government indicators and the local area agreements.
We are confident that we will meet the 2020 target, but only if we get
sufficient infrastructure in place and keep up the progress that has
been made by local authorities. We are very
confident about the 2010 target, which is clearly already within our
sights. Regarding the London boundary, the hon. Gentleman will I think
know that at the moment there is no necessity for London’s waste
to be dealt with in London. However, we subscribe to the idea that the
closer waste can be dealt with—recycled, reused or disposed
of—the better, and we would always want to see that. However, I
stress that it will be for the board to decide how it invests, to
encourage any of that
strategy. The
hon. Gentleman also asked about independence. I thought that we did not
have any information on that, and I am now assured of it. There is no
information available on how the councillors will chose their
representatives—that is clearly a matter for the councillors.
The board is not meeting at the moment, so that is something that is
still to be done. The hon. Gentleman asked about the board having
committees and what kind of committees they would be. I am sure that he
will understand that that is a decision for the board. Because of the
need for transparency and accountability, the board should have the
power to have committees, and it may or may not choose to do
so. On
funding and research, my view is that there is a great deal of research
going on already that can be drawn on, not least Government-funded
research, part of which comes from the Waste and Resources Action
Programme. There is also much that will come from the private sector.
It would be entirely up to the board to choose what moneys to spend on
research and what time to spend on analysing research going on
elsewhere. My
right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North talked about the
relationship between the board and local authorities, and whether her
local authority would have to consult with or inform the board if it
chose to do something such as close down a successful recycling centre.
The borough would, of course, take such a decision itself, and boroughs
will continue to take such decisions. The Government have made it very
clear that if local authorities are to satisfy all the needs of their
residents— 3
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House. 3.15
pm On
resuming—
Joan
Ruddock: I was in the middle of addressing the questions
that had been put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield,
North, who spoke about the closure of a successful recycling centre.
The Government and WRAP make a great deal of advice available to local
authorities on how such centres should be operated, because they have
to be operated for the convenience of the public and be easy to get to
and the opening hours must be suitable for people’s lifestyles.
Only by helping people to reuse and recycle their waste will we achieve
the reductions in residual waste that we want to see in this country.
We consider the provision of recycling centres to be extremely
important, and they should operate for the benefit and convenience of
local
people. My
right hon. Friend asked about how the board would relate, and I think I
mentioned that the board would not need to be consulted as such.
However, I
think that the board will want to look right across London, as the
Mayor’s strategy already does, to ask the questions on how
London will reduce its residual waste and increase its recycling rates.
In that sense, looking at such things as the provision of recycling
centres and how well that job is done across London must be one of its
concerns. She mentioned an increase in recycling, and a great deal of
advice is provided on that. We started to record fly-tipping rates
three years ago, and we have learned much over that period of time on
how to tackle and prevent it. I hope and expect that the board will
want to look at any impact on fly-tipping that might be thought to be
the result of particular waste collection
practices. Barry
Gardiner (Brent, North) (Lab): While the Minister is
discussing fly-tipping, would she care to give her opinion on the
effect of the recent £25 charge that the Liberal and
Conservative administration in Brent has placed on the collection of
bulky items, which used to be free? It now seems that, instead of
calling the council to ask them to collect those items, people are
fly-tipping them in the streets outside other people’s homes or
in back alleyways, which has resulted in a huge upsurge in fly-tipping
in the
borough.
Joan
Ruddock: First, there is no excuse for fly-tipping. No
matter what excuse is given, it is unacceptable. Fly-tipping is a
crime, and no one should fly-tip their own domestic waste. The
imposition of charges is a decision for local boroughs, and I should
have thought that a local borough would question whether the charging,
at whatever rate, would be a deterrent or incentive for people to deal
responsibly with their waste. Local councils certainly need to monitor
that when new policies are introduced, no matter what they are.
Monitoring is appropriate to see whether there are any unintended
effects of different policies or changes of policy.
My right hon.
Friend the Member for Enfield, North spoke about the seven north London
boroughs being involved together, and that is absolutely true. In
principle, we believe that the North London Waste Authority is a good
thing and that boroughs should work together, but clearly I cannot
comment on the impact that that
might have in her constituency. I hope that proper consultations will be
carried out with local people, because in every aspect of waste
disposal it is appropriate that people are consulted and see that
infrastructure, whatever it might be, is put in place with proper
regard to the local environment. I can tell my
right hon. Friend that the North London Waste Authority, the borough of
Lambeth, the West London Waste Authority, London Councils and the East
London Waste Authority were the five respondents to the consultation.
She asked whether that was a low level of response and is surprised. I
am not surprised, because there had been many prior consultations on
this subject. The boroughs had been involved through London Councils
and through consultations with the Government Office for London and in
many other ways. Much consultation had occurred and so at this final
stage it was not surprising that we had only five responses.
Interestingly, four of the five were a number of councils working
through their co-ordinating body. So it is not a surprise and is
perhaps an indication that they thought they had the most interest in
the formation of the
board. I
hope that I have dealt with the questions that have been raised in the
debate. I am grateful to members of the Committee for their comments.
We take it from the Committee that there is good agreement on the need
to tackle waste in London and on the need for the board to be set up.
As I said, London’s recycling rate is below the English average.
It is just 22 per cent. compared with 33 per cent. There is no London
borough in the top 20 councils for recycling in England. London has a
way to go. We need to reduce dramatically the waste that goes to
landfill from London because it is a clear burden. These are important
and substantial challenges for all of us in London. With the Mayor and
London Councils coming together we will, through this new recycling
board, have a means of at least adding to the action that we take on
tackling these particularly difficult but important issues of
waste. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft London Waste and Recycling Board
Order
2008. Committee
rose at twenty-two minutes past Three
o’clock.
| 
