Agenda item

The Assistant Chief Executive outlined the procedure for the fifth occasion where the Council had a Haringey Debate.

The opposition spokesperson – Councillor Solomon gave an introduction of the debate on the issue of waste and waste disposal and where the Council currently is with disposal and techniques, what is likely to happen with waste disposal in the future, and what the options are for solving any associated problems.

Councillor Solomon introduced Dr Andrew Tubb – from the University of the West of England.  

Dr Tubb addressed the meeting and stated that one of the disadvantages of a 25-year contract was that you would be unable to take advantage of emerging technologies, and would be tied into what was in place when the contract was issued. It was not possible to predict what would happen in the next 25 years, and long term contracts were unable to take this into account. The level of risk associated with such a contract would depend on the estimates that had been made regarding anticipated waste amounts for the duration of the contract. Dr Tubb provided information on different waste technologies and their value for money, and indicated that MBT ranked among the lowest for value for money delivered. There were many factors which contributed to the level of waste generated, and the trend for a reduction in waste was likely to continue and even accelerate. It was possible, with the right technologies, to divert 95% of waste from landfill – these solutions were all open to the Council.

Following this the Mayor announced that there would be 45 minutes for debating, with a maximum of 3 minutes speaking time for each speaker.

A 45 minute debate then took place.

In response to a question from Cllr Stanton regarding how the assertions made in his presentation could be tested, Dr Tubb advised that a full life cycle analysis of the various options was the only way to really test them, but that this might be difficult to undertake without assistance from external expertise.

Cllr Erskine highlighted that there were a number of ways in which people could individually reduce the level of waste they produce, by choosing to buy products with less packaging, by buying less, by reusing and by repairing. People could always look back at the supply chain of products, and ask companies what they were doing to make their products more recyclable.

Cllr Wilson stated that it was important to bring people with you when introducing changes, and that to this end, consultation was essential. This had not happened when the fortnightly waste collection was rolled out; there should have been a specific pilot, with feedback taken into account and lessons learnt from. As a consequence, work by scrutiny indicated that 40% of residents were not satisfied with the new arrangements. There was a need to recognise that a one size fits all approach was not appropriate across the whole borough, and this had led to issues, which could no longer be called teething problems.

Cllr Jenks advised that he was awaiting a clear answer on the democratic accountability of the NLWA and its exact role, and also asked what Haringey was able to do regarding the present situation. It was suggested that there should be a greater focus on the recycling of street waste, as debate generally centred on domestic waste arrangements, and it was suggested that a study be commissioned around how street waste recycling levels could be improved. It was felt that Haringey should be looking at all the possible options around increasing the level of recycling.

During the proceedings at 21.55hrs, the Mayor advised that he would use his prerogative and extend the meeting end time to 22.10hrs to allow the remaining Members who had indicated their wish to speak to address the meeting.

Cllr Bull stated that he was in favour of fortnightly waste collection in principle, but that there was a need for a more flexible approach in order to address particular issues in particular areas of the borough. As an example, the Council should be able to work with HMO residents regarding the number of bins they actually needed, rather than allocating a bin per unit, and liaise with residents where bins were identified as overflowing to see if allocating an additional bin would help. Culture change was difficult, but there were positive examples of recycling across the borough; it was necessary to do everything possible to encourage recycling, and to promote the items that could be recycled to raise awareness.

Cllr Hare raised a specific issue with regards to glass recycling, as the current method being employed was felt to be wasteful. It was requested that the Council given special consideration as to how to process glass more efficiently, taking on board technical advice in order to make the best decisions for local residents and the environment.

The Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Social Inclusion addressed the Council on behalf of the Cabinet Member for the Environment, as Cllr Canver had a personal interest in this matter. Cllr Strickland advised that the procurement exercise for the contract was objective-based, with a target of recycling 50% of waste by 2020 and a reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill to less than 15% of current levels. The contract did not bind the Council to a particular technology; waste disposal technology was an issue the NLWA was looking into and the Council would work with the waste authority to ensure that they were able to take advantage of new technologies as these emerged. The points raised during the debate would be fed back to the NLWA. Haringey’s target was to be recycling 40% of waste by 2015 and the Council was on track to meet this target. There were lessons for everyone to learn from the introduction of fortnightly collections, which would require culture change across the borough. It was not a consistent position to be in favour of increasing recycling levels, but opposed to fortnightly collections, and the Opposition were asked to reconsider their approach to this issue. This was a priority for all political parties, and it was necessary to work together on getting it right.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Mayor invited Councillor Solomon to respond.

Cllr Solomon agreed that this should not be a political issue, and that the objective of the debate had been to raise awareness of an issue that many people may not have given a lot of consideration to. If people were better informed, they would know the right questions to ask. There was a need to start changing behaviours from the bottom up. Waste had to be considered as a resource, and this was something that had not seriously been addressed to date. There should be an audit around reuse and recycling in order to get a better picture of the current situation. Publicity on these issues was limited, and could be improved. It was felt that the Council should work together with the NLWA, but should also have its own independent expertise on these issues and develop good practice, in consultation with all councillors. Communication with residents was a crucial matter, and it was not possible to adopt a one-size fits all approach if this were to be successful.

The Mayor thanked members for their participation.