Proceeding contribution from David Evennett (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 27 February 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Greater London Authority Bill.
Greater London Authority Bill
No. I have only just started and I would like to make a few points first. We have listened to the debate with interest. Bexley has been tremendously successful in waste and recycling over many years. That success has been based on the integration of collection and disposal in one authority. My fear is that setting up a single waste authority would remove that disposal function from the council, thereby making it less effective for the people of our borough. There are many flaws in the new clause and the arguments that the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) put forward. The timing of the proposal, so close to the first landfill directive target year of 2009-10, would delay progress towards reaching recycling targets and removing waste from landfill, because it would introduce uncertainty into the management of waste in London. I accept that many boroughs and parts of London are not meeting targets or doing as good a job as Bexley; they should therefore look at Bexley and learn from that example, so that they can emulate that success. Establishing a bureaucratic overarching system, as the hon. Lady wants to do, would achieve the reverse effect. The centralising of waste disposal would reduce the requirement for communities to take responsibility for their waste, as set out in the revised ““Waste Strategy 2000”” and planning policy statement 10, entitled ““Planning for Sustainable Waste Management””. Under such a scheme, the cost to Bexley is likely to be significantly more than if the present system remained unchanged or was made to work more effectively. The new clause does not set out how a single waste authority would work in co-operation and partnership with the boroughs; rather, it requests additional powers of direction. Of course we want boroughs to co-operate, and more recycling and waste disposal, but this is not the way forward. The ““need”” case as set out in this proposal is based on old or flawed data. We in Bexley would lose control of Foots Cray and Thames Road re-use and recycling centres, which would disrupt the council’s recycling and composting operations. Neither we in Bexley nor the Mayor are in favour of the waste energy incinerator in Belvedere that the Government have thrust on us. Local people and experts—and even the Mayor of London—have spoken out on this issue, yet the Government are imposing the incinerator. We fear that if the new clause is accepted and we have such an overarching authority, Bexley will be disadvantaged.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 457 c806-7
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Access Costs City of London Council tax Housing Finance Environment Greater London Greater London Authority Infrastructure Functions Landfill Incinerators Local government Planning permission Powers Public appointments Planning Members Railways Recycling Property development Mayor of London Training Transport Waste disposal Waste Underground railways Transport for London London Assembly London Waste Regulation Authority River Thames Pedicabs
- Legislation
- Greater London Authority Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:31:20 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_380291
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_380291
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_380291