| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
With regard to the actual metals, it is true that the overall figures are a success. The directive target for the UK, which we have to meet by 31 December this year, sets a minimum of 60 per cent recovery of all packaging waste and a minimum of 55 per cent recycling. The breakdown of that is 60 per cent for glass, 60 per cent for paper and board and 50 per cent for metals. We cannot achieve that without export; that is part of the issue before us. The target for plastics is 22.5 per cent, quite a precise figure, while for wood it is 15 per cent. The UK has an overall business target of 72 per cent recovery of packaging waste in 2008, of which 92 per cent must be recycling.
The noble Lord is also quite right about the cost of some of this. One probably would not get the metal dumped; it is only the people dealing with metal recycling who have made the point to us that there is a difficulty. I have the figures here, but I cannot find them. Aluminium is running at about £1,000 a tonne and steel at £200 a tonne, so quite a lot of money is involved. The energy saved by recycling aluminium is enormous and apparently you can continue to recycle it; it can be recycled an infinite number of times, as I deployed in answer to questions in the House.
With regard to where material is exported to, I am pleased to see that at least one of the places is in Europe: Germany, China, India, Thailand and Malaysia are the areas. These exports are regulated by the Environment Agency, which operates in a sense like a local authority by going out to check the environmental conditions. Metal would not be dumped anyway—it is too expensive, and one can get one’s money back. Where other waste is concerned, there are checks and balances to ensure that there is no dumping. Waste going abroad for dumping is illegal. That is crystal clear.
Here we are dealing essentially with metal. The noble Lord asked about what he heard on the news this morning. I regret to say that that is nothing new. I
8 July 2008 : Column GC97
The wording in paragraph 7.5, as the noble Lord picked out, is more akin to what is in the original European directive. We have taken out the bit that we found to be impractical. It was shown in the further evidence note of the Explanatory Memorandum that the cost to industry of producing the paperwork and tracing compared to the cost and the value of the business with regard to metal was so tiny that it would be difficult to achieve it. If we can give the Environment Agency a bit more discretion and it sticks within the rules of the directive, everyone is a winner. The Government—indeed, all of us—want what is exported within the rules to count against our target. Some of the metal is exported and not set against our target because it is too difficult for the end user to organise the paperwork and the certificates. If we can get that into line, what is exported will be counted against the directive and we will be less likely to suffer infraction proceedings. That is the whole point of the exercise.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: That was exactly what I suspected: that far more than 20-odd per cent of aluminium is being recycled but is not being recorded because it is not worth the hassle of having these chains of movement certified all the way along the line. In addition, I notice in the Explanatory Memorandum that there is sometimes a break in knowledge because an agency is involved that does not want to reveal where it is moving the stuff on to because it is making a profit out of it; it is then commercially confidential information.
In many ways, I am reassured that the Minister has been able to place on the record the background against which this regime operates. Opening the thing up is possibly quite wise because otherwise we would probably never achieve the targets as the exporting would go on but would never be recorded as UK recycling activity. However, I hope the Minister will agree that a careful eye needs to be kept on this in case it opens the door to illegal activity and to the pirates just as much as to the legitimate operator.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to keep a watch on this. I take that on board completely. Parliamentary scrutiny of the effect of the regulations will be pretty crucial.
I gave some figures when I talked about the targets, but I did not say what is being done and what is being sent abroad, although I gave rough locations. I shall give round figures. In 2007, 2.26 million tonnes of packaging waste—the regulations apply only to packaging waste—were exported for reprocessing, as were 1.5 million tonnes of paper, 217,000 tonnes of glass, 19,000 tonnes
8 July 2008 : Column GC98
We have a long way to go in many ways. I have no idea about the weight of aluminium cans, although I once did my sums for Parliamentary Questions. I had to work out how much energy recycled drinks cans would save to power a light bulb for a bit because we did not have to use the energy to smelt the bauxite. There is a big bonus here, but we have a long way to go. I am told that by and large, without the regulations, we do not have a prayer of meeting our targets on metals. We are not shifting the goalposts, we are bringing the rules more into line with the original intention, but I fully take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that we need to see how the regulations are implemented and what their effect is. As he said, the stuff is being exported, but we want it to count towards our targets.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
London Waste and Recycling Board Order 2008
4.10 pm
Lord Rooker rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the London Waste and Recycling Board Order 2008.
The noble Lord said: The draft order sets out the proposed constitution and membership of the London Waste and Recycling Board. The purpose of the board is to improve the environmental sustainability of waste management across London.
I am reminded by officials, by the way, how much the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Hamwee, pressed the point when the original legislation was going through. They got that spot on.
The order 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 through Parliament, the Government agreed to put the body on to a statutory basis, and provision is made for this in the GLA Act. This has support from all interested parties, in particular from London Councils and the Mayor of London.
The board will be able to look strategically at waste and recycling issues across the capital, and help 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 re-use.
The Government have always considered that the board offers an excellent framework for the mayor and London boroughs to work together to achieve these objectives. We recognise that the mayor sets out the
8 July 2008 : Column GC99
The mayor and London Councils have recently written to us with a joint proposal for an eight-member board, chaired by the mayor or by 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 and academic sectors, two of whom will be chosen by London Councils and one by the mayor. The order reflects this jointly agreed proposal, and has been welcomed by all parties in the other place. Unlike the first order, this one went through the other place last week.
The Government have announced that we will make £60 million available to the board over the next three years. The fund will be managed by the board in whatever way it sees fit to meet its objectives. There is widespread agreement that London needs additional infrastructure, in particular for organics and food waste, and that the fund can facilitate this.
We very much welcome the new mayor’s personal interest in giving the board strategic direction. I also welcome his commitment of £24 million to the board, which has been set aside for commercial waste projects by the London Development Agency. It is therefore expected that the board will be able to work on both commercial and municipal waste streams and, we hope, to identify synergies and opportunities.
The board will be able to identify where partnerships will be beneficial, and potentially to promote and facilitate them. These could be partnerships between the 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. In order to ensure proper accountability and transparency, the board must set out its priorities and strategy before it can award any funds. It must also provide an annual report on its activities.
In order to promote openness, we have also proposed public access to the board’s meetings along similar lines to those used by local authorities. I am always reminded that the access of the public to local authorities was the result of a Private Member’s Bill proposed way, way back by a very young Member of Parliament then called Margaret Thatcher—a good case of freedom of information there, when you think about it. I shall not say anything else. The board will be audited by the Audit Commission, and its accounts will be published.
Although London’s recycling continues to improve, much still needs to be done to transform London’s waste management to an environmentally sustainable operation. There is agreement on the need to move forward and on the direction of travel, and the order will make that happen, and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
8 July 2008 : Column GC100
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the London Waste and Recycling Board Order 2008. 22nd report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Rooker.)
4.15 pm
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We welcome this proposal. Within the UK, the Greater London region poses particular challenges as regards local decision-making and regional co-ordination and strategy-making. I understand that various options were considered to find a way forward. The trick is not to divert waste authorities from their task of increasing waste recovery and recycling while reducing the use of landfill in line with the EU landfill directive and providing a co-ordinated waste strategy.
What assessment has been made of the ability of the London Waste and Recycling Board to meet these challenging targets? How does the Minister envisage that it will interact with the borough waste authorities to ensure that that strategy is reinforced and that investment is made without deflecting them from their key role? Presumably, dialogue will take place between the board and the boroughs.
I am sure that the Minister recognises the delicate balance that this order represents. We believe that a single waste authority which undermined the progress made by London boroughs would be a mistake. The advisory and co-ordinating role of the London Waste and Recycling Board is a sensible compromise and, like the Minister, we are delighted that London’s mayor will chair it. If we get this right, London can become a world leader in urban waste management.
Lord Teverson: We on these Benches welcome this order. As the Minister said, my noble friend Lady Hamwee very much welcomes it. She has asked me to remind the Committee that the board should be, in her words, “tough and ambitious”, and I am sure that will be the case.
I may have failed to hear the Minister mention the relevant figure as regards the Government’s financial backing for the board and I should be grateful if he would repeat it. Under Article 4(7)(c) of the order, the mayor’s representative may be removed if the mayor believes that he has,
Does that mean that the mayor can more or less get rid of that person as he or she sees fit, or would these criteria be applied much more tightly? In what circumstances would that sub-paragraph be used?
What criteria will the Government use to judge the success of the board? What do they expect it to achieve in the next couple of years?
Lord Rooker: 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,
8 July 2008 : Column GC101
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
8 July 2008 : Column GC102
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.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn): That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. The Committee stands adjourned.
- The Committee adjourned at 4.26 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |