---

London Waste and Recycling Board Order 2008

Article 4 applies specifically and exclusively to the mayor’s representative. However, the mayor must act reasonably at all times. You cannot act on a whim or a hunch. The mayor has appointed the representative and therefore must give a reason why he subsequently considers that the latter, "““has become unable, unfit or unsuitable to carry out that person’s duties””." As I say, the mayor must act reasonably at all times. The important point to note is that the mayor will be given the power to appoint the representative. It will be his choice. The overall figure for the current spending review period is £60 million. There is no commitment as regards funding under the next Comprehensive Spending Review, but that is the case as regards all other departments. This one is no different. The current profile spend of that £60 million is £19.8 million, £22.8 million and £17.4 million. That has been adjusted from the initial announcement, being mindful of pressure on the board in its crucial first year. Over half, some 52 per cent, will be capital funding. I turn to the test of success. The London boroughs are all on board with this, which is crucial, and the mayor has embraced it; I understand that he said so in his manifesto and gave a firm commitment. We are very pleased about that. We fully expect to see him in the chair, at least for the first meeting, and that he will have a representative appointed. I understand that procedures are under way; announcements have not been made at present, but they will be made quite quickly once Parliament has approved the order. The recycling rate in London has increased by more than 14 percentage points since 2001, so there has been success in the London boroughs. The inner ones are more difficult. I myself in the past 12 months have transferred from an outer to an inner borough, and I know how much more difficult it is to recycle. It needs to improve significantly. Twenty-two London boroughs have agreed to local area agreement targets that would result in an average recycling rate of more than 36 per cent between them by the year 2010-11; 10 London boroughs have proposed targets that would see a reduction in residual waste of around 10 per cent; six London boroughs aim to achieve an approximate doubling of their recycling and composting rates by 2010. In some ways the test is going to be, we hope, a dramatic improvement in recycling rates. The point is that the board can take a strategic look at London; it is not one-size-fits-all. That is the beauty of it. These waste authorities work hard and efficiently in the hands of the boroughs, but we need a pan-London view to ease their activities. Boroughs can work in combination where otherwise, if they worked without this kind of operation, one can imagine the paperwork that would flow between the treasurers about the split of money and so on. The private sector is also involved in these operations, so the board has incredible flexibility to get people to work together. I understand that the money is not new money; it is what goes to local authorities, many of which already receive it. In this case, it is sliced off for London so that we have a strategic pan-London view. That is quite important. Regarding our overall recycling rates, some boroughs will move quicker than others, but they have all been set targets. For the board to be in line for money from the next Comprehensive Spending Review, operated by the Government in three years’ time, it will have to show success in what it has done with the £60 million—or, effectively, £84 million, because there is about £20 million more coming from the London Development Agency. That has to be the test. The boroughs and the board are better placed than central government to decide these actions. That is crucial, and it is what came across in the Greater London Bill. It is important, we thought, for the mayor to be involved and to take that pan-London view. I do not want to go over all the debates about one London authority for everything. One size does not fit all; that was our view. There was a stakeholder event in January that showed support for the board and the associated fund. It identified some key priority areas, such as organics and food waste, as I have already mentioned, where there was an opportunity for the board to make a difference in London. It is the case that there is food waste—or, rather, surplus; ““waste”” is a bad word. There is at least one experimental plant in the country where food waste mixed with local authority green waste is running an anaerobic digestion plant of some 5,000 tonnes a year to see, experimentally, what the optimum size is. The person running it said that they thought that the optimum size would be about 15,000 tonnes a year. That needs to be organised. However, given that the waste is there anyway, the prize is electricity back into the grid and a product that can be used on the land. It is environmentally friendly all round. In other words, there is no incentive whatever to go to landfill. That really is a big prize. One would not imagine—I am thinking aloud—such plants in every borough. It would not be justified, given the planning conditions, the location and the amount of product. One has to look at that. A pan-London board could take a view on these issues. With a fairly substantial amount of money over three years, our expectation is that it could deliver real change. That will be the test: has there been real change over the three years? On Question, Motion agreed to.