Clause 36
Greater London Authority Bill
5:30 pm
Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington North, Labour)
That is absolutely right. What is particularly powerful in that case is that because the Mayor has strategic responsibility for transport and has planning functions, he can combine the waste management, planning and transport strategies in the interests of a progressive climate change agenda, so as to get the maximum benefit and to cross-reference those policies so that they work together most effectively. Although that is still possible to some modest extent with the very diverse and unco-ordinated structures that we have at the moment, the opportunity that is being presented to us is not being taken as it would be were we to have a single authority and be able to combine the functions as one.
My hon. Friend is right, therefore. What this all comes down to in a sense is two words: climate change. We need, of course, to maintain a strong economic argument, and to focus on value for money for taxpayers at all times. However, if we are to ensure that the city of London is able to make the contribution that it can—through recycling, combined heat and power, making the best use of incineration, developing new technologies and putting them to use in other parts of our service delivery—that clear strategic responsibility needs to be vested in a single place: the position of Mayor of London.
I have also tabled amendments to ensure that London boroughs undertake street litter functions in general conformity with the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy. Like its performance on recycling, London’s performance on litter is the worst of all English regions. Although waste disposal is most appropriately managed at city level, street cleansing and waste collection is best managed at borough level. However, more needs to be done to ensure that high standards of cleanliness are achieved right across the city.
Given London’s importance as a tourism centre and the 2012 Olympic games, it is right that we should show it to be a clean city. The Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy can contain policies and proposals on litter, but under existing legislation, London boroughs do not have to have regard to it—nor, under the new clauses in the Bill, will they have to be in general conformity with it when undertaking street cleansing. My amendment seeks to address that issue while ensuring that boroughs remain in control of such local services. I propose that boroughs should be in general conformity with the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy when undertaking their functions on litter, and that they submit to the Mayor documentation on any proposed new street cleansing contract to ensure that it is not detrimental to his strategy.
To sum up, London needs strong, effective leadership on waste management. That requires not only a clear direction, but powers and funding to deliver it. Transport for London has demonstrated the benefits of a single, properly resourced organisation under mayoral leadership. A single waste authority will be able to attract world-class leadership, as has been the case with Transport for London. That is urgent and necessary, as the fines for missing the landfill regime loom nearer.
The benefits offered by a single waste authority proposal clearly outweigh any short-term difficulties presented by transition. It will make a positive contribution to the climate change agenda; help increase recycling dramatically; help deliver new and emerging recovery technologies for waste management; enable London to meet the requirements of the landfill directive; enable London to become regionally self-sufficient in the management of its municipal waste; ensure that waste is managed as close to the point of production as possible; reduce the risk of Government fines for failing to deliver under the landfill directive; improve the commercial attractiveness of the London waste market; promote economies of scale and the development of a single, resourced centre of procurement; and standardise contract conditions.
Ultimately, it comes down to risk. The Government contend that the structural change during the move from the existing arrangements to a single waste authority would place the arrangements at risk—