" I am worried that we will be held to account a few years down the line by Londoners who will be waking up to the challenge of recycling and to the environmental consequences of not considering new waste disposal technologies and not moving up the waste hierarchy. They will say, “Why were you so complacent?” I am afraid that we are far too complacent in the face of the challenge, and I am sure that we will return to the matter in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion"
Karen Buck, Member of Parliament for Regent’s Park and Kensington East
In a debate yesterday on the Greater London Authority Bill, Karen Buck moved the second reading of amendments to Clause 1 of the Bill which were aimed at the introduction of a London wide waste authority.
However it was fairly clear that the ‘die was cast’ at an early stage when there were few participants, with the vast majority of MPs representing London Boroughs, many of which oppose the Mayor’s proposals and hence the amendments, sitting in the opposition benches.
Though Ms Buck argued eloquently on the broader strategic picture, the Borough MPs demonstrated that there was currently little political will for change in the Borough areas.
In the face of overwhelming opposition from MPs present, with only small support from the few labour MPs on Government benches, Ms Buck was forced to withdraw the motion.
In fact perhaps it is not surprising as the group of MPs putting forward the motion for change did so against Government policy on the issue and inevitably the majority of MPs representing the Boroughs involved were against the proposals which would remove powers from their Borough Councils. This, coupled with the disinterest of MPs not having a direct involvement meant almost inevitable defeat despite the quality of argument put forward by Ms Buck.
Karen Buck said:
“The most important issue is that the present system is failing to deliver, and that it has been doing so for the past 20 years. The arguments put forward by the Government and the Opposition that incline the Government to believe that we are about to see a radical change are implausible, given that failure to deliver. A dynamic 21st-century London is still managing its waste as if it were in the Victorian era, with 16 different waste disposal authorities".
She continued, “Our capital city faces a step change in the way in which it manages its waste. A creaky and declining infrastructure, based on exporting waste to landfill, must be replaced by a new and rapidly expanding infrastructure that is based on recycling and the recovery of renewable energy from London’s waste.”
There were many responses in opposition to Ms Bucks presentation including that from Simon Hughes. Mr Hughes said:
“One of the problems with a London-wide system is that it might result in more transportation of waste, and more transportation by road than by river. I have long argued for more transportation by river, as the river is out there waiting to be used. For a long time, I have had battles with Westminster city council, which transports its waste through Southwark on the way to landfill sites further away in the south-east.”
He continued, “ In this case, we are talking about sites that are not to the north of the city, but elsewhere. There is a strong argument for minimising journeys, to make sure that we keep activity as local as possible, rather than shipping things to a sub-regional or regional centre, or taking it to boroughs on the edge of London such as Bexley, where there are facilities for landfill, incineration and so on.”
Many members could not accept that there was a need for a single London waste authority and that things were not as bad as painted by Ms Buck. In fact great steps forward had been taken by Authorities, though comparisons on recycling would best be made with other metropolitan authorities on a like for like basis. There was a worry that the better performing authorities might be brought down by being part of a single authority. Also there was a concern that with the first landfill target year looming, the major disruption of proposed changes could deflect authorities from focussing on the targets
By the end of the debate on the Clause 1 amendments it was clear to all that the proposed amendments would be voted down.
Ms Buck made her concluding comments:
“Although I will not press new clause 1 to a Division, for obvious reasons, I do not think that we have heard the last of this matter. The arguments that were put forward did not show a grasp of the scale of what is confronting us.”
She continued, “I am worried that we will be held to account a few years down the line by Londoners who will be waking up to the challenge of recycling and to the environmental consequences of not considering new waste disposal technologies and not moving up the waste hierarchy. They will say, “Why were you so complacent?” I am afraid that we are far too complacent in the face of the challenge, and I am sure that we will return to the matter in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.