Debates — Greater London Authority Act 2007

Committee stage in the Lords

09 May 200774 speechesView in Hansard ↗

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)I advise the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as s…
Speaker
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)Conservative
Quote
I advise the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume 10 minutes thereafter. Clause 31 [Mayor to determine certain applications for planning permission]:
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 92:
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
moved Amendment No. 92:
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamI have three amendments which follow on from Amendment No. 92 tabled by the noble Baroness. At the outset, I should say…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
I have three amendments which follow on from Amendment No. 92 tabled by the noble Baroness. At the outset, I should say that the whole issue of planning obligations being negotiated by the Mayor is fraught and I very much support what the noble Baroness said. Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 relate to planning obligations and raise a drafting query. A planning obligation is an obligation created by an owner of land, either unilaterally or by entering into an agreement with the local planning authority. Clause 32 refers to, “the function of agreeing a planning obligation”. Local planning authorities have no such function. They may agree to enter into a planning obligation. Alternatively, they may grant planning permission, having regard to a planning obligation whether or not they themselves have entered into it. Clause 32 is therefore misconceived in thinking that there is a particular power to agreeing a planning obligation. We have proposed removing these subsections for that reason. Amendment No. 99 is more significant. It supports what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said and seeks to prevent planning obligation payments being made to the Mayor in any event. It would delete the proposals that payments under a planning obligation can be made to the Mayor of London, which we would see as inappropriate, given that the Mayor should be playing only a strategic role. We do not believe that the Greater London Authority should be able to benefit in any way from planning obligations. Since I wish to move my amendments, I would like to say that the Mayor should not have any role in the planning obligations.
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Jenkin of RodingThere is a good deal of anxiety on the part of the City planning authority about the potential misuse of sums of money…
Speaker
Lord Jenkin of RodingConservative
Quote
There is a good deal of anxiety on the part of the City planning authority about the potential misuse of sums of money that might become available under Section 106 agreements. City developments often are very large and, consequentially, very large sums are due to be allocated under Section 106. It is naturally apprehensive that these may be put to uses that benefit perhaps the Mayor’s political ambitions rather than things that will directly benefit the area concerned. In the City, Section 106 payments have been used to provide local community facilities and environmental improvements, such as enhanced street furniture and things that will undoubtedly increase the attractiveness of the City for investment and the people who work there. If there was any thought that the money would be diverted to other uses—
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleI fear that I kicked something and caused that noise.
Speaker
Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleConservative
Quote
I fear that I kicked something and caused that noise.
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Jenkin of RodingI forgive my noble friend. My glasses, which are very sophisticated, occasionally make noises like that. If the City pl…
Speaker
Lord Jenkin of RodingConservative
Quote
I forgive my noble friend. My glasses, which are very sophisticated, occasionally make noises like that. If the City planning authority thought that the money would be diverted, I think that there would be considerable anxiety. So I very much endorse the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Hanham. We need reassurance on this and I wait with interest to hear the Minister.
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Campbell-SavoursI intervene briefly to oppose the view that is being taken on the other side of the Committee. My view is that the Mayo…
Speaker
Lord Campbell-SavoursLabour
Quote
I intervene briefly to oppose the view that is being taken on the other side of the Committee. My view is that the Mayor of London should have the maximum possible influence on these agreements, which are in the public interest. I am not satisfied that some local authorities in London are capable of understanding the possible benefits that are attainable if these agreements are properly drawn up.
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Turner of CamdenI support what my noble friend has just said. According to the briefing that I received from the Mayor of London, there…
Speaker
Baroness Turner of CamdenLabour
Quote
I support what my noble friend has just said. According to the briefing that I received from the Mayor of London, there is considerable support for the planning changes. He says that a recent MORI poll shows that Londoners support the proposals for the Mayor to approve major planning applications. A huge 83 per cent supported the Mayor’s target that 50 per cent of all new homes should be affordable for people on low and moderate incomes. I certainly support that view. We talked about this yesterday. The amendment tends to undermine the objective of the Bill, which is to give the Mayor the powers to conduct a London-wide strategy. That should be welcomed.
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews)I thank noble Lords for a useful debate, which enables me to explore a little about why planning obligations are import…
Speaker
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews)Labour
Quote
I thank noble Lords for a useful debate, which enables me to explore a little about why planning obligations are important and why the clause is important. Amendments Nos. 92, 97, 98 and 99 all relate to removing scope for mayoral involvement in planning obligations. I do not think it will surprise Members of the Committee to hear me say that I cannot accept any of those amendments. To do so would effectively leave the Mayor unable to grant planning permission for applications that he is responsible for deciding. That would not be in the interests of applicants or the proper planning of key development proposals in London. I will come to the drafting point that the noble Baroness raised in a little while. Noble Lords are well aware that there is a close and direct relationship between planning applications and planning obligations. Planning obligations are crucial to mitigating the impacts of individual development proposals, and without the mitigation provided through the obligation, in certain cases, the development would not be granted planning permission in the first place. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out the great local benefits that can come from planning obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed to the environmental benefits. That is absolutely the case. It is therefore right and necessary that where the Mayor becomes responsible for determining a planning application, he also becomes responsible for agreeing any obligation related to it. That is what Clause 32 provides and what Amendments Nos. 92 and 97 would undermine. The noble Baroness raised a drafting question about Clause 32 and the word “agree”. As I understand it, where the authority requires the obligation as a condition of the permission, it can require agreement or giving a unilateral undertaking. The wording of Clause 32 achieves that. I will ask officials to write to the noble Baroness to unpack some of that language so that there is no confusion. Amendment No. 98 would remove the requirement for the Mayor to consult the relevant London borough before agreeing any planning obligation. That is consequential to Amendment No. 97 and I cannot accept that amendment, and it would hardly stand in isolation anyway. That is for some very good reasons. Many of the impacts, even on very large schemes, are still local in nature, and there can be no doubt that boroughs are best placed to advise on those issues and how and whether they might be mitigated through planning obligations. Therefore, it is right and proper that the Mayor should consult the borough before agreeing any planning obligation. Clause 33 provides for the Greater London Authority to receive sums of money under the terms of a Section 106 agreement, and for the Mayor to enforce the terms of such an agreement and to recover costs associated with any such enforcement action. Concerns have been raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, about what that will mean. The concern has been expressed that the Mayor will seek to divert all the Section 106 moneys for his own schemes, ignoring local issues. However, I can put noble Lords’ minds to rest that this is simply not true. Current policy on planning obligations in England, as set out in circular 05/2005, requires fair, open and reasonable negotiation of planning obligations so that the obligations allow developments to go ahead which might otherwise have been refused.
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamWhat happens if the local authority and the Mayor do not agree about the value of or necessity for a planning obligatio…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
What happens if the local authority and the Mayor do not agree about the value of or necessity for a planning obligation? Where does the final decision lie? I envisage plenty of situations in which a local planning authority does not like the application that has been put forward in any terms at all and would turn it down if it was given the opportunity. The application would need to make a very significant contribution to the local area for the local authority’s purposes. It is not always a question of money only; plenty of conditions come about through Section 106 that directly ameliorate an application. If the local authority believes that it would probably get a great deal more out of the applicants than does the Mayor, where does a final decision lie? The Mayor could approve an application that absolutely does not carry sufficient weight in Section 106 terms. Would the local authority have a right to appeal to anybody about that before the application was approved by the Mayor?
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsAs I understand it, there is a lot of scope for negotiation between the Mayor and the boroughs on the sort of benefit t…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
As I understand it, there is a lot of scope for negotiation between the Mayor and the boroughs on the sort of benefit that is wanted. As we have said, this must so far as possible be a local issue and of local benefit. To some extent, this depends a little on what decision is being taken and what stage the decision is at. As I understand it, if there is disagreement, the Mayor is responsible at the end of the day if he is the decision-taker with regard to the application. I am not entirely sure that I can go further at this point without being able to explain the context in which that might be the case, and I would prefer to write to the noble Baroness about this and about the rights of appeal, and so on. I began to explain from my notes the process that the Mayor must go through and the conditions that surround and contain those decisions, but I will write to the noble Baroness.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamI would be grateful if the Minister could write to me, because this is one of the reasons why these clauses on the Mayo…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me, because this is one of the reasons why these clauses on the Mayor taking responsibility for planning applications become even more contentious. It is very important that there is a process. This should end up being about what the local authority thinks the Section 106 agreement should be, and this should be what the Mayor implements. Otherwise, one runs into the sort of problem described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whereby the Mayor has his own Section 106 agreement and there is concern that the money will go elsewhere.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Campbell-SavoursMay I ask the Minister to ensure that that letter, which I think will be quite important, is circulated to all Members…
Speaker
Lord Campbell-SavoursLabour
Quote
May I ask the Minister to ensure that that letter, which I think will be quite important, is circulated to all Members of the Committee?
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsI will certainly do that. I refer again to the planning conditions set out in the circular, which lay down the proper p…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
I will certainly do that. I refer again to the planning conditions set out in the circular, which lay down the proper process for ensuring that conditions are satisfied in different ways. This is obviously an area where there is a lot of negotiation and where the conditions have to be adhered to.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleThe Minister is so courteous that I am sure I know what answer she will give. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Campb…
Speaker
Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleConservative
Quote
The Minister is so courteous that I am sure I know what answer she will give. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, will that letter come before Report?
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsAbsolutely.
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
Absolutely.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HamweePicking up that last exchange, I share the noble Baroness’s concern. Section 2D says that, “the function of agreeing a…
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
Picking up that last exchange, I share the noble Baroness’s concern. Section 2D says that, “the function of agreeing a planning obligation”, becomes, “a function of the Mayor”. New Section 2D(4) requires the Mayor to, “consult the local planning authority”. The obligation to consult suggests that he has to do no more than consult. I do not suggest that he should not listen to the local planning authority or not be required to have proper regard to what the local planning authority has to say, but the decision is clearly the Mayor’s. It is a little rough on the local planning authority that the new section ends with the obligation being, “enforceable by the local planning authority”, as the local planning authority may be stuck with enforcing something that it has not wanted in the first place.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Jenkin of RodingPicking up a point that the noble Baroness made earlier, when the Mayor does take a different view from that of the bor…
Speaker
Lord Jenkin of RodingConservative
Quote
Picking up a point that the noble Baroness made earlier, when the Mayor does take a different view from that of the borough or the city planning authority, should the Mayor be obliged to spell out precisely why he does not accept that advice? Perhaps we could consider this on Report.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HamweeThat would be good consultation practice. We discussed consultation in a different context at an earlier stage of the B…
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
That would be good consultation practice. We discussed consultation in a different context at an earlier stage of the Bill. We would certainly like the Mayor to have to do what the noble Lord suggests every time he consults. It struck me when listening to the Minister reading out the circular that it provides for the applicant and whichever planning authority is involved in a particular situation to disagree, and if the applicant wants to agree something different, it might be possible for the applicant to do so. I am not sure where that thought is taking me, but it is buzzing around in my head as a minor worry in a part of the forest somewhere here. Before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness opposite; that, because some local authorities do not conduct their affairs and deal with planning matters in the way that they, and possibly I, would like to see, the Mayor should deal with such issues. It is often helpful in such situations for those considering the matter to reverse the political roles and to think of a Mayor of a political complexion which is not so attractive to them. In other words, I will put it very bluntly, say that one has a Conservative mayor and a Labour local authority. Does that still apply for those who are saying that the mayor—any mayor—should have the rights proposed? One has to stand back and think how this would work with everyone’s worst fears as to who is holding that office.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Graham of EdmontonWhat the noble Baroness says is perfectly acceptable if we are arguing about the office and the authority, and not the…
Speaker
Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
Quote
What the noble Baroness says is perfectly acceptable if we are arguing about the office and the authority, and not the named individual and the political complexion. If it is just the process, what she says is eminently right. Also, it is perfectly possible to envisage the scenario that has been mentioned. However, we have all been around the local government circuit for some time and in this place. We must recognise not just that you win some and you lose some but that sometimes you get into a bind and you cannot ever see yourself winning. But there is the hope that one day you will be in your tormentor’s position. So far as I am concerned, we are now looking at the powers of the Mayor. The provisions in the Bill are perfectly acceptable to me. They may not be acceptable to people in the current political divisions, but that is the way it is, and I am very pleased.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamDoes the noble Lord agree that decisions made by the Mayor under the Bill will not last merely for a four-year term and…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
Does the noble Lord agree that decisions made by the Mayor under the Bill will not last merely for a four-year term and may then be overturned, but that they will last for generations? What is approved will be seen for 50 years. That is very different.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Graham of EdmontonI would not disagree, but we are not just talking about ephemeral timescales. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lad…
Speaker
Lord Graham of EdmontonLabour
Quote
I would not disagree, but we are not just talking about ephemeral timescales. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, fits this issue very well. If one simply takes away the personality aspect, which is there—we do not enhance our perceptions of people’s intelligence if we say that it does not play any part—then, as far as I am concerned, the Mayor, and of course the Mayor’s office, staff and structure, would need to think very carefully if he very quickly got into a situation where he always wanted his view ultimately to prevail. That would cause a grave reaction, not just in local government but in national government. If the Mayor always won in a dispute on what was right or wrong for Greater London, whatever the effect on a local borough, that would be a very bad political judgment.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HamweeThat is right. From the Liberal Democrat standpoint and the clear implications of the examples used so far in Committee…
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
That is right. From the Liberal Democrat standpoint and the clear implications of the examples used so far in Committee of two other political parties, I am giving a pretty objective point of view. But it is inevitable that in arguing from a briefing from the current Mayor, there are implications in that as well. I shall mention an example used in this debate: that of housing and the MORI poll, the results of which surprise me not a jot. People are desperately concerned about housing in London; it is the major issue in the capital. If they are asked a question which suggests that there may be a way through the horror of the lack of affordable housing, they will say “Yes”. One has to be careful about the conclusions one draws from any given poll. I have moved away a little from the subject matter of the amendment, but some of my comments are pertinent to the debate generally about the future balance of powers within London. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Time
16:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)Before calling the next amendment, perhaps I may remind your Lordships as gently as I can that while any amendment can…
Speaker
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)Conservative
Quote
Before calling the next amendment, perhaps I may remind your Lordships as gently as I can that while any amendment can and very often is debated ahead of its numerical sequence by way of grouping, no amendment can be moved until it is actually called. [Amendments Nos. 92A to 93B not moved.]
Time
16:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 94:
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
moved Amendment No. 94:
Time
16:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Campbell-SavoursOne of the problems with housing debates is that they bring out the sharp divisions that exist between us politically.…
Speaker
Lord Campbell-SavoursLabour
Quote
One of the problems with housing debates is that they bring out the sharp divisions that exist between us politically. I see the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in his place, which makes me think of the occasions over the past 20-odd years on which I have agreed with him about many issues that have come before Parliament. But when it comes to a matter like this, we are divided in our understanding of what is important in particular communities. It is unfortunate, although perhaps in part I have myself provoked some of those divisions. I want to comment on something that happened during the course of our debates yesterday. There is often a sense of, “Should we be dealing with specific cases or applications when considering legislation of this nature?”. Sometimes we used to have that in the Commons; people would frown on constituency speeches in the context of general legislation. I have always thought that the only way you can test whether legislation is going to work is by producing concrete examples. That is why the Westminster experience is absolutely critical to the whole debate. We would do well to reflect on what has happened in Westminster when considering this area of the Bill. I agree completely with Amendment No. 94, just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Indeed, I would say to my noble friend at the Dispatch Box that I hope we take it on board. My noble friend may say that this provision is effectively already in the legislation, but I like to see things laid down in cold print so that people understand clearly what is happening, who is to be consulted, and what will be the product of that consultation. I am even marginally sympathetic to Amendment No. 96, but perhaps that is something we could return to on Report. However, I can see no possible reason why we should not accept Amendment No. 94 which deals with what I regard to be the very legitimate concerns of those who may be wondering what we are doing here. I should like to add something to the amendment, under subsection (c), which states, “the member of the Assembly whose constituency covers the land subject to the application”. Going back to the Bowater application, Members of the Committee may recall that yesterday I drew attention to the problem of affordable housing provision made available offsite, perhaps half a mile or a mile away, but where local authority Members are not even aware of what is happening. That is because a Section 106 agreement is too general. The detail is in the minds of the planning officers in the authority. They know exactly what is going to happen, but what happens if the councillors in the ward where the provision is to be made are not aware of it? It is not that I object in principle to social and affordable housing provision being made all over Westminster. As I said yesterday, I am in favour of a balance in every community, but local councillors should know what is happening. The reason is this: if we are going to drive more affordable housing onsite as against offsite, you need the pressure from within the communities that are being asked to receive offsite those applications to help the authority argue the case for the affordable housing to be onsite. Perhaps I could correct something that I said yesterday. I referred to a flat costing £87 million. Actually, I was wrong: “London flat goes for a record £100 m”. I quote from an article: “If you’re struggling to get your foot on the property ladder spare a thought for a poor soul who is so far up it he needs an oxygen tank just to breathe. The world’s most expensive flat has just been sold in London for £100 million according to reports. Sheikh Hamad, the foreign minister of the Gulf State of Qatar, is behind the purchase of the penthouse home in the most exclusive block in the world—One Hyde Park. The apartment is one of 86 luxury flats being built on the edge of Hyde Park opposite Harvey Nichols in Knightsbridge”. The article goes on to tell the reader how wonderful the flats are. My case is very simple. The people in areas that are receiving offsite provision should be part of the lobby on the authority to drive the authority into making sure that the affordable and social housing provision is onsite. It takes us back to where we were yesterday, when the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, said: “When I saw the overall recommendation of the director of Shelter about what the percentage of affordable housing should be in such planning applications”— I hope the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is listening to me.
Time
16:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleI am hanging on every word.
Speaker
Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleConservative
Quote
I am hanging on every word.
Time
16:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Campbell-SavoursI will continue: “I could not see how Westminster would be able to achieve it. I knew the district valuer’s views on la…
Speaker
Lord Campbell-SavoursLabour
Quote
I will continue: “I could not see how Westminster would be able to achieve it. I knew the district valuer’s views on land values in Westminster and the implications that they would have for how much affordable housing could be afforded and where it would go”.—[Official Report, 8/5/07; col. GC156.] The reason we have such high land values in parts of Westminster is that we are driving the affordable and social housing offsite into other areas. We are creating more and more exclusivity in certain zoned parts of Belgravia, Knightsbridge and SW1 generally, with the effect that prices are going up and up. If you want to stabilise those prices, you should more equitably distribute affordable and social housing throughout the whole of the community. That is what we should be doing. That is why I have argued repeatedly that the Mayor has to have those powers, otherwise you end up with authorities such as Westminster coming up with the kind of drivel-ridden Section 106 agreement that Westminster City Council drew up over the Bowater development. I say to my noble friends that if we are going to go down the Amendment No. 94 route, as I hope we are, where it talks about, “the member of the Assembly whose constituency covers the land subject to the application”, there is consultation with members in areas where offsite affordable and social housing provision is to be made available. That way we will develop the argument for driving affordable and social housing onsite, where it should be and should have been in the Bowater application.
Time
16:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord HanningfieldPerhaps I may intervene on this one. As the leader of a local authority, this is something for the Local Government Bil…
Speaker
Lord HanningfieldNon-affiliated
Quote
Perhaps I may intervene on this one. As the leader of a local authority, this is something for the Local Government Bill that is coming up rather than for this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has rather gone on about one particular planning application, and I do not think that one planning application makes the whole process for London. There is no doubt that although I am the leader of a large council, I do not always get all the information about what is happening in my area. I represent a large constituency in Essex, and I do not get informed about all the planning applications that are happening in that patch. We ought to put it into the Local Government Bill that local authority members ought to be informed. I am trying to find mechanisms for doing that in Essex, and it means having a team of officers looking at all the information to supply to members. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said yesterday that local members did not know much detail about the planning application. There ought to be some mechanism whereby local authority members are involved. If you are not involved in planning, and you are busy looking after elderly people, you sometimes do not know about the planning applications in your patch. The noble Lord has a valid point that local authority members, certainly those for large London boroughs and large counties, do not always know what is going on in their patch. It might be different for smaller authorities. There ought to be some statutory requirement to allow elected members for that patch to know what is going on in their area.
Time
16:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness ValentineI have no quarrel with the strategic intent of Clauses 31 to 35, as I think that I suggested yesterday. My concern is a…
Speaker
Baroness ValentineCrossbench
Quote
I have no quarrel with the strategic intent of Clauses 31 to 35, as I think that I suggested yesterday. My concern is about the practical implications and how these would work in practice. For now, I shall focus on slowing down the process. Perhaps I may suggest that, rather than substantial redrafting of Clauses 31 to 35, the Government undertake to review how they have worked in practice in, say, two years’ time. The danger of substantial redrafting is that one lays oneself open to legal challenge on some of the proposed wording. I have a specific point which relates to Amendment No. 94 and the hearings. Clearly, one wants to take account of the views expressed on all sides, but I am extremely concerned about a two-tier planning system. If the boroughs are taking hearings, will the Mayor also take hearings? Is it absolutely necessary to take them as hearings? Can they be tackled as written representations or be heard by an officer rather than the Mayor? My concern with Amendment No. 94 is one of slowing processes down, which I do not think any of us wish to do under Clauses 31 to 35. We would be very concerned if this amendment had that by-product.
Time
16:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HamweeWhile supporting the general principle of Amendment No. 94, perhaps for any future amendments I may ask the noble Baron…
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
While supporting the general principle of Amendment No. 94, perhaps for any future amendments I may ask the noble Baroness to remember the London-wide members of the planning authority. Paragraph (c) refers only to constituency members, which is a detail on the principle. The noble Baroness made some very important points and makes the correct distinction between hearing representations and the process of arriving at the decision, which is behind much of what she said. The hearing of representations process should be open to the public. Webcasts, new technology and so on is not the same as articulating in public how one arrives at a decision. It is precisely because of the “Here is what I decided in the shower this morning” scenario that the processes are really important and need to be explicit. The noble Baroness also raised the important matter of a code of conduct. There is a lot of interest in how the Mayor will deal with applications in particular from functional bodies, which, as it were, are his own creatures. Local authorities have processes for dealing with their own applications. I believe that the Government share the view that the Mayor should not take over applications on which he has made a public statement, which he might have done as chair of a functional body, or about any application. I hope that the Minister will confirm that and will explain what would happen not just if the mayor takes over the application, but also where he retains a power to direct refusal, because, although the issue might not be quite as sharp, it exists. I have heard the comment that it will be interesting to see whether any mayor—I am personalising this, but it could probably apply to any person—or his or her advisers would be able to resist commenting on particularly interesting applications. I am not aware of a mechanism to prevent a mayor taking over an application when his or her office has commented and who would police this. Perhaps the Minister can assist us. As we are all aware, the difficulty is that the holder of the office of Mayor of London does not have another politician to whom to delegate a planning decision if the Deputy Mayor is caught up in a debate. We are in the odd situation in which the current Mayor delegates to the Chief Executive of the Greater London Authority decisions on applications for the Olympic Games sites. I would be interested to hear from the Government what ought to happen when a Mayor is “conflicted out”.
Time
16:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleThe noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was kind enough to introduce me back into the debate for the remarks I made yest…
Speaker
Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleConservative
Quote
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was kind enough to introduce me back into the debate for the remarks I made yesterday. I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a moment, but if we are to have this ping-pong, it seems appropriate that it should be two-sided rather than one. The noble Lord was my constituent—indeed, an excellent one—and I am delighted to say that he continues to take an interest in the affairs of Westminster. I declare retrospectively an interest of long ago. I made myself extremely unpopular with my constituents in the summer of 1978 when I was serving on the Finance Bill. An amendment was tabled proposing that Arabs should not be allowed to buy houses in London; and, notably, that they should not be allowed to buy them in the centre of London. As a Back-Bench Member of the Committee, I argued that that was wholly wrong; that we had always run a maritime and open society and that we were in danger of being retaliated against if we did not allow others to trade in this country—or, indeed, to live here—though they had the right to do so. I am conscious that in not supporting that Back-Bench amendment in 1978 I may be in some small part responsible for the upsurge in London house prices 30 years later. The point has been made, rightly, that we should not in this Bill legislate for a particular man or for a particular council. We should be producing legislation that can be understood and interpreted, and followed and used, by all the councils in the land. I am in no sense being defensive about the issue. As I said yesterday, I have no brief from Westminster City Council and I hold no brief for it. It must resolve the dilemmas of running its planning policy in a central London area where Russians and Arabs appear to wish to live in significant quantities, and it has to cope with that as best it can. Perhaps I may say in defence of the Government that they have seen fit to knight the leader of Westminster City Council, which is an unusual decision by any Government in the context of a local government leader of a party other than their own. Westminster has consistently been among the 24 best administered local authorities in the country under the Audit Commission.
Time
16:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsThis has been an important debate on an important set of issues. I entirely share the intention behind many of these am…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
This has been an important debate on an important set of issues. I entirely share the intention behind many of these amendments. We are all agreed that there must be openness and transparency in the way that the Mayor makes decisions on planning applications. While I cannot accept all these amendments, I hope that I can demonstrate that there is not a large gap between us. I agree that it is crucial that the manner in which the Mayor makes decisions on planning applications is robust and transparent and is seen to be so by the public. It is good for him, it is good for the process and it is certainly good for London. That is the case, not least so that the Mayor, as a democratically elected decision maker, can be held accountable for his decisions. I turn first therefore to subsections (1) and (2) of Amendment No. 96. They would require the Mayor to exercise his powers to direct refusal, or to determine planning applications, in public meetings. While, as I have said, openness and transparency are important, the manner in which decisions are made is equally important because who is making the decision makes a difference. These decisions will be made by a single person rather than a committee, as is the case with the local planning authority. That is where some elements of the provision become surreal, because a single decision-maker making a decision may simply sit in silence reading the papers and reports and considering the issues. There will not be a debate, other than perhaps an internal one, such as that which takes place in planning committees. To put it simply, there is nothing for an audience to see. That is why we consider that it would be wholly artificial to require the Mayor to take his or her decisions in public. However, we share common ground on some aspects of the amendment. We have previously agreed that any meetings at which the Mayor hears from the applicant, the relevant borough or other parties will be open to the public. The amendment also seeks to apply to the Mayor the provisions of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 on openness and access to information that apply to local planning authority decision-making. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, rightly said, I did say on Second Reading that we are committed to applying the relevant principles of the 1972 Act, and will do so through the Mayor of London order. I cannot give the precise details at the moment, as they are currently being drafted, but I will be in a position to say more on Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, asked what constitutes a hearing. When we talk about hearings, we do not mean court hearings or planning inquiries; we are saying simply that the Mayor must hear the representations from the applicants, the local authorities, and so on, which he chooses to allow. They do not imply cross-examination. Amendment No. 94 proposes a list of individuals and organisations, to be set out in the Bill, which must be given an opportunity to be heard by the Mayor before he determines a planning application. Again, there is no substantive difference between us on the principle of the amendment, which I hope assures my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours; we differ on how best to achieve this. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, spoke about delays in procedure and the need to be flexible. Let me be clear that we think it more appropriate to set out any detail in this area in secondary legislation rather than in the Bill. In doing so, noble Lords might recognise that we have gone further than the requirements that we place on local planning authorities, which are not required to hear representations from parties at planning committee meetings. We also agree that it is necessary to be clear about who could be involved in decisions on applications decided by the Mayor. However, other than setting some basic minima, which might include hearing from the applicant and the relevant London borough, should they so wish, we do not think that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to dictate to the Mayor lists of people from whom he must hear. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, have already given us various candidates to be added to those lists. We must remember that the Mayor is not some unelected quango; he is directly elected and directly accountable for his own actions. He will therefore be well aware of the high level of scrutiny given to his exercise of his powers. It is not in his interests to follow secretive practices. Subject to setting the basic minima, it is right that the issue should be left to him. However, to ensure that there is clarity, we will require the Mayor to publish a document setting out those persons whom he will permit to appear before him and to be heard, and we have provided for this in Article 10 of the draft Mayor of London order. I suspect that there will be agreement in the Committee on this, which is why, in common with our proposal, the amendment provides discretion for the Mayor to choose to allow other parties to speak as he thinks is relevant and necessary. For the same reasons, we do not think that it is necessary to set out detailed requirements for how the Mayor will exercise his powers through a code of conduct, as sought by Amendment No. 102. However, under Article 10 of the draft mayoral order, we require the Mayor to prepare a document setting out the procedures to be followed for considering oral representations. We also propose to require the Mayor to give at least 14 days’ notice of any hearing and to publish agendas and relevant reports and other documents at least seven days ahead of that meeting. In addition, we will publish a revision of Circular 1/2000, which deals with strategic planning in London and which will give clear guidance that reinforces many of the messages that I have set out today and previously. These are sensible safeguards. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made the general point about potential conflicts of interest, where there is some difference between parties. We do not expect a mayor who has a conflict of interest, or who has expressed his public support or, indeed, opposition for an application, to decide that application. That is the bottom line and fundamental to the clear principle of natural justice, which underpins the law of planning. However, I will read carefully what she said. In any case, many technical questions were raised.
Time
16:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Campbell-SavoursPerhaps I may take the Minister back to Amendment No. 94. She said “we”. I presume that “we” means my noble friend. The…
Speaker
Lord Campbell-SavoursLabour
Quote
Perhaps I may take the Minister back to Amendment No. 94. She said “we”. I presume that “we” means my noble friend. The brief probably says “Resist” and the civil servants will have made a recommendation that we should not proceed on this list of persons and/or organisations. Who is consulted as to whether we should resist this amendment? Were the boroughs or the Mayor of London consulted? Who is actually objecting to a list of that nature being drawn up? The list is very clear and sets out precisely those who at least would know they have a statutory right to have their case heard over any discretion or guide. My noble friend referred to a “note” or “guidelines” that the Mayor might be required to produce. Who actually is resisting this? Would my noble friend perhaps take the matter back to the department to consider whether it is possible to go down that route?
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsIn my experience of dealing with legislation in this House, there is nearly always an argument about putting any list i…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
In my experience of dealing with legislation in this House, there is nearly always an argument about putting any list in a Bill. Lists can be exclusive, and there is constant pressure to add or subtract people, institutions or organisations. Having something in the Bill makes it, by definition, difficult to amend and more rigid. That is one reason why we specify in secondary legislation that there is a better opportunity to be more responsive and flexible. I will repeat what we said because it deals with what the noble Lord wants to improve on. We will require the Mayor to publish a document setting out those persons he would permit to appear before him and be heard. We have provided for that in the draft order. That achieves a balance between us not dictating to the Mayor and ensuring that he is under genuine discipline to determine to whom he will listen. I think that that is the proper balance.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HamweeOn the issue of decisions being made in public, perhaps I may put something into the Minister’s mind. Traditionally, ap…
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
On the issue of decisions being made in public, perhaps I may put something into the Minister’s mind. Traditionally, applications are heard by local planning authorities, which have public agendas containing recommendations from planning officers. Those are known by everyone who attends the meeting—the applicant, members of the public and members of the committee. They can listen to a debate between members who may or may not accept the recommendations made by planning officers. One hopes—although it is not always the case—that their reasons, particularly for rejection, are clear in that debate; that the debate will be minuted; and, indeed, that the committee clerk will insist on the clear reason being part of the minute. We have a very different situation here. Of course it is difficult to provide for an individual to take a decision at a particular point and not to have thought about the thing before. That is nonsense. Members of the planning committee going to a meeting will have considered the issue. I know that the Secretary of State will take a decision if he calls in an application. However, in the very unusual situation of an individual taking the decision, it seems to me that we must try to be imaginative about making the whole of the decision process as accessible as possible. That is the thought. I come to my question because I realise that I am not clear about the matter from the draft order or from what the Minister said. What will be the extent of the decision to be published by the Mayor? It is one thing when he refuses an application now; I think that it is qualitatively different when he may approve an application. Will he be required to issue a decision letter or decision notice setting out the reasoning in the same way as the Secretary of State normally does?
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamI am grateful to everybody for this debate as we are discussing an extremely important aspect of the Bill. The Minister…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
I am grateful to everybody for this debate as we are discussing an extremely important aspect of the Bill. The Minister referred to the matter when she said that the Mayor is a single decision-maker. I do not refer to his being a single decision-maker as regards somebody putting up a chicken shed in their back garden but rather on an application to build something which may comprise an enormous tower block of considerable proportions that will affect an enormous number of people. In order to make that decision, he must be seen to have taken into account everything that anybody wants to say to him that might affect the ultimate decision. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 94. I hear what the Minister says about not creating lists but that has been done in much legislation. The Government may have resisted that but a lot of legislation contains lists. I like my list and I like it better than the draft order, which simply states: “The Mayor must prepare and publish a document setting out a list of any persons whom he will permit to appear before him”. The Mayor cannot be placed in the position of permitting somebody to come before him. He should not be allowed to make the decision on that basis. There must be a cohort of people who are entitled to come and give their views on an application. They are contained in the list in Amendment No. 94. I would prefer to see that list in the legislation. The Minister says that the provision will appear in secondary legislation. Presumably, it will be affirmative secondary legislation so that we shall have the chance to discuss it. However, as the Minister is very well aware—as are we—the number of changes that ever get made to secondary legislation is absolutely miniscule. Therefore, we must get this right in primary legislation. As I say, I am attracted to my amendment, which will appear again at a later stage. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to consider further how we can get it included in the legislation. I also hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, said about not holding things up. However, if this process is just to be seen as a developer’s “quick-me-up”, the whole thing ought to be stopped at this stage. I know that there is pressure from developers to quicken the planning process and that they face difficulties when they have to make applications to more than one borough. However, the process works perfectly well. Boroughs have to say what their views are on an application on many occasions. The process must not be seen as one which aims simply and solely to get developers’ plans up and running more quickly. It must be seen as so important that it is above and beyond the local boroughs dealing with it. If that is what the Government believe should happen, the process should be at that level—absolutely at the height of importance. It must not be just a case of a developer believing that something is important and wanting to get it moving. The process will have to ensure that people have the right to give their views. Those views should be seen to be taken into account extremely seriously. The question I have not asked the Minister, which is not yet clear in this clause, is whether there is, presumably, a right of appeal to the Secretary of State over the Mayor’s decision. If not, there will be by the time we have finished the Bill. There must be a right of appeal, as is currently in legislation on any planning application. This is very important. It takes local authorities’ current powers to determine applications out of their hands and puts them into those of one person. Whether that person is advised by a whole host of town planning advisers or not, the decision ultimately rests on his shoulders. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, the trouble is that any planning permission will not melt away like the snows of winter: we are stuck with it for ever more. As the applications are likely to be of considerable size, decisions must be seen to be taken against a background of best possible practice. We are trying to ensure that we get a requirement in the Bill that the Mayor conform to best possible practice, that he is seen to be the one taking the decision and does not delegate it to an officer of the Greater London Authority. I am sure that he will have to talk to an officer, but he should have to make that decision himself in public, before those who wish to come and hear it. Again, I would expect that decision not to be issued by letter but in person. The Mayor must be up front with this, and be the person seen to be taking it—he is the only elected person, as the Minister has said—so that when the trial date comes, people know who is there and who has made the decision. I have spelt out as clearly as I can the points behind these amendments. I have no doubt that that we will come back to them at the next stage.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsI will reply quickly to two points. On the other constraints around the Mayor and the requirement upon him to be open,…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
I will reply quickly to two points. On the other constraints around the Mayor and the requirement upon him to be open, he must publish all relevant information seven days ahead of any meeting so that there is good notice of the content and purpose of the meeting. He must also publish sufficiently detailed reasons for his decision under the general development procedure order. There is already a requirement upon him to do that. On the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, there is a right of appeal against any refusal he should make, governed by planning laws as all local planning authorities are. On the order and the notion of who will speak, we have in general gone further than local planning authorities. Local planning authorities can choose who they allow to speak; some do not allow anyone to come and speak at their planning committees. By doing what we are, we are going beyond that. As the noble Baroness concluded in her speech, however, the Mayor is directly elected. That is one reason why things are done slightly differently. I look forward to having this debate again on Report.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamWill the Minister answer the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about whether the Mayor will be required to have…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
Will the Minister answer the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about whether the Mayor will be required to have the hearing against a background of a recommendation being before him?
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsI am not sure that I have not answered that point. Was it about the Mayor being in a position of conflict?
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
I am not sure that I have not answered that point. Was it about the Mayor being in a position of conflict?
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HamweeI was drawing a comparison with a local planning authority—a normal one, not the Mayor—being seen and heard in public t…
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
I was drawing a comparison with a local planning authority—a normal one, not the Mayor—being seen and heard in public to be debating professional advice. That sums it up as well as I briefly can.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsIs that on the back of reports and recommendations the Mayor has from his officers? I will have to write to the noble B…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
Is that on the back of reports and recommendations the Mayor has from his officers? I will have to write to the noble Baroness about that. I cannot give a quick answer.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamI beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 100:
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
moved Amendment No. 100:
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness AndrewsAs the noble Baroness has said, Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 principally relate to the requirement, for borough unitary…
Speaker
Baroness AndrewsLabour
Quote
As the noble Baroness has said, Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 principally relate to the requirement, for borough unitary development plans and local development documents respectively, to be in general conformity with the spatial development strategy. Simply put, they would amend the Town and Country Planning Acts in a manner that does not have much to do with the provisions of the Bill we have brought forward. Amendment No. 100 was tabled in the other place but not discussed. The practical outcome of these amendments would be to diminish the requirement for boroughs to look beyond their borders and do their part in helping to meet the wider challenges faced by London for housing and other development. We had a major debate on that yesterday, covering both planning and housing. The noble Baroness will not be amazed that I cannot accept her changes. I will explain why the principle of general conformity is so important. As I said earlier in Committee, we have a plan-led system in England and Wales with a hierarchy of development plans setting the framework of policies against which individual development proposals are considered. At the national level, the Government publish planning statements setting out key policies that must be taken into account at the regional and local level in preparing development plans. The London Plan is the strategic plan for London, creating an overarching framework for development in the capital. The London boroughs are closely involved in its preparation and the requirement for general conformity is intended to ensure that unitary development plans and now local development frameworks at the local level take proper account of wider regional and national priorities. Again, I am going to repeat myself: general conformity does not mean that there must be slavish adherence to the London Plan. Planning Policy Statement 12, which sets out the Government’s policy on preparing local development frameworks, makes it absolutely clear that the test is of general conformity and not one of conformity. By that we mean that only where an inconsistency or omission in a borough plan would cause significant harm to the implementation of the London Plan would it be considered not to be in general conformity. The fact that a borough plan is inconsistent with one or more policies in the London Plan, either directly through the omission of a policy or proposal, does not mean that the plan itself is not in general conformity. The test is how significant the inconsistency is from the point of view of the delivery of the plan. I want to make an important point here: it is not the Mayor who is the final arbiter of general conformity, it is the independent inspector who examines the borough’s draft plan. The Mayor can give his formal opinion to the examination of whether he considers the plan to be in general conformity, but it is the inspector who determines the issue. Outside this Bill, as an administrative change, we intend that the Mayor’s opinion on general conformity should be the starting point for the inspector’s consideration of local development frameworks, but again that does not affect the fact that general conformity, while it is an important principle, allows for local distinctiveness and difference. I turn now to subsection (8) of the proposed new clause set out in Amendment No. 100, which certainly does relate to the provisions of this Bill. It would remove the existing power of the Mayor to direct a borough to refuse a planning application that was contrary to the London Plan. Not surprisingly, I cannot accept this either. The Mayor is responsible for ensuring that the strategic planning interests of London are taken into account in the policies and decisions of the London boroughs. The success or otherwise of many London Plan policies will depend on the decisions made on individual planning applications. The Mayor’s power to direct a borough to refuse a planning application if it is contrary to the London Plan has proved in the past to be an appropriate and useful tool, preventing development that goes against sound strategic planning in London. Again, as I said previously, it is to the credit of the Mayor that he has exercised this power with great care and restraint. Over six years, there have been 18 directions across London—an average of three a year. That is hardly a heavy-handed use of the power. We are convinced that this power has proved itself and we propose to maintain it under the new arrangements in the Bill. Where the Mayor exercises his new power to take jurisdiction of an application, he will need to approach it with an open mind and subsequently could either approve or refuse it. However, as now, there will be occasions when, having followed the progress of an application and considered all the relevant issues, there is no doubt in the Mayor’s mind that the application in its current form should not be given planning permission. Maintaining the power to direct refusal without having to go through the process of taking over jurisdiction is a practical measure to ensure speed and avoid bureaucracy, and I am sure all noble Lords want that. Subsection (9) is consequential on subsection (8). It would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to award costs against the Mayor or other parties for unreasonable behaviour on a planning appeal arising out of a mayoral direction to a borough to refuse an application. Following on from the fact that I cannot accept subsection (8), I cannot accept this subsection either. The ability to award costs is undoubtedly a powerful disincentive against unreasonable behaviour, whether on the part of the Mayor or any other party, and we need to retain it. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will be persuaded that she can safely withdraw her amendment.
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamI am not at all surprised by the Minister’s response. It demonstrates the gulf between us over what the Mayor should be…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
I am not at all surprised by the Minister’s response. It demonstrates the gulf between us over what the Mayor should be able to do with regard to overriding local boroughs, particularly in the controversial area of planning, an area about which most boroughs can feel very wound-up, to put it that way. I hear what the Minister says. I am very conscious that we will probably break quite soon for a Statement in the House, but I shall just draw attention again to what I said when I spoke to Amendment No. 101. Amendment No. 100 would amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and all the documents and development plans that come out of it will gradually be phased out, although not very quickly. As I said earlier in our proceedings, I understand that only two local development frameworks have been fulfilled within the timescale. Many, many more will dance up the line at some stage, but the unitary development plans will be in place for a very considerable time. There is an existing duty for documents to have regard to the strategy, which seems merely to conform to my amendment. We are not going to agree about this, and I shall withdraw the amendment today, although I do not promise not to return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinI suggest that the Committee adjourns while my noble friend Lord Rooker repeats the Statement on Northern Ireland in th…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
I suggest that the Committee adjourns while my noble friend Lord Rooker repeats the Statement on Northern Ireland in the Chamber. Perhaps we can watch the Annunciator and return to Committee when the Statement has finished.
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff)Thank you. The Committee stands adjourned until we are recalled by the Annunciator, whoever he or she may be. [The Sitt…
Speaker
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff)Liberal Democrat
Quote
Thank you. The Committee stands adjourned until we are recalled by the Annunciator, whoever he or she may be. [The Sitting was suspended for a Statement in the House from 5.12 to 6 pm.] Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to. [Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 103:
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
moved Amendment No. 103:
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord TopeI support Amendment No. 103 and speak to Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 in the name of my noble friends. The noble Barones…
Speaker
Lord TopeLiberal Democrat
Quote
I support Amendment No. 103 and speak to Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 in the name of my noble friends. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, gave very good reasons why the Mayor should have a water strategy. I want to endorse that and to add another very good reason. Support for the Mayor to have a water strategy comes not only from all five parties represented on the London Assembly, but from the Mayor and, perhaps even more remarkably, in a joint letter written two weeks ago to the Secretary of State, signed by both the Mayor and the then chairman of the London Assembly. That is an almost unique event. I will read that letter to the Secretary of State, as it is fairly brief: “There is a strong case for the Mayor to have statutory strategic powers in relation to water issues in the capital, particularly in terms of London’s sustainability and the city’s response to the challenges of climate change. It is vitally important that links are made between water, waste, energy and buildings. Placing the water strategy on the same statutory basis as the London Plan and the Mayor’s environmental strategies would go some way to achieving this. We therefore ask you to re-think the Government’s position on this issue so that the GLA Bill includes provision for a statutory Mayoral water strategy by the time it completes its passage through the House of Lords”. That letter was written and signed by both the Mayor and the chairman of the Assembly with the agreement of all the parties in the Assembly. That is nearly as powerful an argument in support of it as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I hope therefore that the Government will give serious consideration to it and if they are not able to accept the amendment today that they will at least not close the door—I was going to say turn the tap off—on it and will give further thought to how such a unified position can be recognised as the Bill pursues its passage through the House. Amendment No. 119 would give the London Assembly power to require the water and energy regulators to appear before it to be questioned and to give evidence. In fact, Ofwat has appeared before the Assembly and its committees, and it has given welcome and helpful written evidence as well, which is good. I hope that always, as is usually the case, people will appear voluntarily without the need for a statutory summons. For the reasons that the noble Baroness gave in moving her amendment, this is now such an important issue to Londoners and to London that it must be right that the representatives of London on the scrutiny body, the London Assembly, have the right to question and to take evidence from the regulators. This amendment would give the Assembly that statutory right, rather than having to rely, as we have thus far, on voluntary agreement to do so. Indeed, should there ever be such difficulties—I hope that will never happen—it might be quite important to be able to require the regulator to appear if he were unwilling to do so. Amendment No. 120 requires the Mayor to include in his environment report the efficiency of suppliers of water and energy. We had some discussion earlier of lists, but Section 351(3) of the GLA Act lists 11 things which the Mayor is already required to include in his environment report, all of which are important. They include such things as noise and litter. The efficiency of suppliers of water in particular, but also energy, is now at least on a par in importance to Londoners and for London as litter and noise. They are important, and I am not suggesting that they should be taken out, but that this should be put in. The latter part of the amendment would require the Mayor to consult those suppliers before producing the environment report. The three amendments in this group stand on their own merits and are not dependent one on the other. I hope that the Minister will be able to give at least a favourable response to all three amendments.
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord WhittyI support Amendment No. 103 but not Amendment No. 119. I declare an interest as a member of the board of the Environmen…
Speaker
Lord WhittyLabour
Quote
I support Amendment No. 103 but not Amendment No. 119. I declare an interest as a member of the board of the Environment Agency and as a former member of the board of Ofwat. Amendment No. 103 seems very sensible, and apparently it has, uniquely in this debate, the support of all institutions in London and all political parties in London. From the interface between water strategy and environmental duties, particularly the new climate change duties, it seems obvious that water should form a part of the Mayor’s strategic responsibilities. It is of course true that the Thames Water region and the Thames Water company stretch beyond London. The final version of any such amendment would have to pay some recognition to the fact that a strategy which related to the supply of water would also have to liaise with bodies outside the GLA area. Nevertheless, it is an important part of the Mayor’s environmental duties. I oppose Amendment No. 119, but not because I do not think that Ofwat and Ofgem should appear before the committee. They should, but on a voluntary basis as has always been the case in the past. To make an independent regulator clearly subject to a requirement to appear before a scrutiny body of a local authority—perhaps a big local authority or a regional authority—distorts the role of the regulator. I do not therefore support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker)I am glad to be able to contribute to this Committee and I apologise for the delay in the proceedings. There is no doub…
Speaker
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker)Labour
Quote
I am glad to be able to contribute to this Committee and I apologise for the delay in the proceedings. There is no doubt that all three amendments, as the noble Lord said, stand on their own. I have to say that they are very seductive. The letter of 26 April was brief and to the point. As the noble Lord said, it was signed by two important people. A reply, which is somewhat lengthier than the original letter, has been sent. I suspect that the gist of what I will say is in the reply. It does not completely close the door, but we certainly do not feel that we can accept the amendments. As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 103 would give the Mayor a duty to produce and keep under review a water and sewerage strategy that includes proposals and policies for making sure that the water and sewerage infrastructure is able to cope with the “actual and planned” developments. I fully note what the noble Baroness said about planned developments. This would, in effect, purport to make the Mayor another water regulator in an already fully-regulated area. The water sector in England has three core regulators: namely, Ofwat in relation to economic regulation; the Drinking Water Inspectorate looks after water quality; and the Environment Agency is responsible for water resources and the environment in its widest sense. In terms of development, the Environment Agency is already a statutory consultee on the sewerage infrastructure, and water and sewerage companies are consulted at local level when new developments are being considered. Water companies also have a fairly new statutory duty to produce 25-year water resource management plans that make provision for future developments. Development issues relating to water and sewerage are already very much under consideration by the regulators and the companies themselves. Having been in the ODPM and partly responsible at one time for the four growth areas and then the three, I well understand the reasons for that. I understand the approach of the fairly large-scale construction in the wider south-east where the infrastructure is more than the roads; it is also the social infrastructure. The utility infrastructure is crucial, and to keep water as neutral as possible is very important. These developments do not take place without the planning and knowledge of water resources, but we are looking at the four major growth areas of the south-east over a 25-year period with the water resource management plans produced by the companies. This is an important, ongoing issue, which has not been parked away and forgotten about. The regulation of water is far more complicated than the other utilities. As has been indicated, it is based on water areas, which are based on the river catchment boundaries rather than political or administrative boundaries. It is a constant reminder of my former constituency and the people of Wales where most of the water is in the Severn Trent area and is not relevant to the Assembly. That is the way it has to be because of the geography. Any policies or proposals that meant an increase in expenditure in London by the four regional monopolies operating in the area would have an impact on water bills outside the London area, right across the south-east of England. So it is well beyond the Mayor’s jurisdiction. I am not saying that that is the sole reason, but it is an important factor which has to be taken into account.
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord TopeI thank the Minister for his reply. With reference to Amendment No. 119, the requirement to appear before the Assembly,…
Speaker
Lord TopeLiberal Democrat
Quote
I thank the Minister for his reply. With reference to Amendment No. 119, the requirement to appear before the Assembly, it was an expected reply, but the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in his slip of the tongue when speaking against that amendment, illustrated part of the problem. He described the GLA as local government; then he recognised that in fact it is not local government. That is reminiscent of when he had to take the original Bill through the House eight years ago and was careful to point out to us time and again that the GLA was not going to be local government, certainly not as we know it. It could not be regional government, because we do not have that in England. I seem to remember that he settled for “a unique form of government”, so we have unique government in London. The GLA is the best or the nearest we have to devolved government in England, for the time being at least. I recognise that the amendment breaches a principle to which the Government held firm for the past seven or eight years, and I expected no answer other than the one that I got. Sooner or later, a central government or even Parliament will have to recognise that if we are truly to have devolved government in England—in this case the London Assembly—and if devolution is to mean anything, the devolved body will have to have the ability to require people to appear before it other than those who are part of what we now call the GLA family, in other words those for whom it has a legal responsibility. The issue has to be grasped sooner or later. I would have thought that a Bill giving at least limited greater powers to the devolved authority, as I shall call it, was a good opportunity to do that. Whether this is the amendment on which to base that may well be a subject for further debate, but the issue of principle has to be faced. I leave a thought with the Minister and with all noble Lords. None of us questions accountability to Parliament, but there is a difference between accountability, which is right, and answerability. If London’s government are to fulfil their function effectively, many of these bodies, including in this case the regulators, need at least to be answerable if not accountable to the devolved body. I will not pursue the argument much longer on Amendment No. 120. I accepted that the phrase, “may contain information about any other matters” is a catch-all, and it could well include the efficiency or otherwise of the water suppliers, but in the eight years since we passed the original Act, issues of water supply and water leakage have become even more prominent. Listing it as the 12th item and thereby making it a requirement rather than something that the Mayor can include if he wishes would give it the importance the issue deserves and occupies in the minds of Londoners, especially if we have another summer like the one last year.
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamI, too, thank the Minister for his reply, which was not totally unexpected. However, in terms of the Bill, it was quite…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
I, too, thank the Minister for his reply, which was not totally unexpected. However, in terms of the Bill, it was quite surprising because practically every other major area of development is now governed by strategies from the Mayor. He is dabbling his fingers in everywhere, from housing to planning to climate change—why not water, which is probably one of the most important issues for people in London? It is only by the grace of God that it rained so much—I really mean that—in the autumn and we got all the reservoirs full, so London does not have a hosepipe ban. I did not notice any very great amount of commentary at the time about where the extra water was going to come from, if the situation had remained as it was last summer, to deal with all the new developments on the edges around London. A major reason why it would be useful to have the Mayor involved in the strategy would be to put pressure on him to be open and honest with Londoners about the situation. We all know about pipes floating in their own water underground; we often seen them cascading and bursting through the road. We know that it is a huge problem. The water companies say that they will invest, but also that nobody really wants it and people are afraid of having their roads dug up. The Mayor having a strategy to ensure that parts of London must be put right under his watch would be enormously helpful. We are looking at London and the south-east of England as the main recipients of the necessary development of a million houses over the next decade or so. Plans must be in place, in conjunction with the Mayor of London. I hear what the Minister says. We will probably be facing each other again on this. For today, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 103A:
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
moved Amendment No. 103A:
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HamweeMy name is on these two amendments, and I have little to add to what the noble Baroness said. The sooner such a forum—w…
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
My name is on these two amendments, and I have little to add to what the noble Baroness said. The sooner such a forum—which I know is in the Government’s mind—is in operation, the better. The Mayor says in his briefing to noble Lords that the concept of a forum is neither new nor ambitious. That may be the case, but let us have an organisation which the parties are committed to, both personally and through the legislation, that requires them to make it work. When we debate the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I shall comment on what I think the Mayor’s role can be. The London Recycling Fund, which operated between 2002 and 2006, may not have been as big as everybody wanted, but it had an effect. It supported new infrastructure. As we all know, seed money can often make things happen. Relatively small amounts of money can have an effect. These amendments are intended to be positive and helpful. They seek to include in the legislation a body that I know has been discussed. In the absence of the parties across London and the Government agreeing a more ambitious—to use the Mayor’s term—move, and as that agreement seems not to be on the agenda, this would be a helpful move forward, whatever we end up with in the legislation.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord RookerI always try to get the good news in first; I am happy to take this amendment away and consider it before the next stag…
Speaker
Lord RookerLabour
Quote
I always try to get the good news in first; I am happy to take this amendment away and consider it before the next stage. I shall have a look at it with the interested parties to see whether we can reach a solution to meet the noble Baroness’s concerns, but not necessarily through the statutory route. I fully appreciate the delay that has occurred but we shall not be dismissive about the matter. This fund was announced last July as part of the Government’s package on the review of London’s waste governance. As the noble Baroness said, the aim of the forum is to bring stakeholders together to deliver improved performance on waste minimisation and recycling, promote collaborative action and link waste with other London priorities around climate change, transport and employment. We also announced a London Waste and Recycling Fund to be administered by the forum in support of its work. The size of the contribution to the fund is subject to the Comprehensive Spending Review, but based on current figures, it is expected to be about £19 million in 2008-09. Nobody will be surprised at that figure. The two linked amendments would create a corporate body called the London waste and recycling forum and fund. Its functions would be similar to those proposed by the Government. The main difference is that it would have a statutory basis setting out its functions. This brief debate is important. We are not convinced of the benefits that a statutory footing for the forum and fund would bring and we have some particular concerns about parts of the amendment. However, I shall not go into that as it would be nitpicking. We agree with the principle. We believe that a non-statutory forum would comprise a lighter touch and be more flexible. When I was on the Back Benches I never believed Ministers who said that if you put a measure in primary legislation it is much less flexible, but it is actually true. In this case, it is important that the interested parties of the London boroughs, the GLA and the Mayor get to discuss things in detail. Hopefully, they can do that quite quickly, and if we can bring something back at the next stage of the Bill, we will seek to do so. I am not giving a commitment to place the forum and fund on a statutory basis, but the issue needs to be pushed forward a bit faster than it has been hitherto. Maybe the amendment and the Government’s response can facilitate discussions in the very near future. I do not know when the next stage of the Bill will be, but these things have to be discussed, and if something is to be put in the Bill it will have to go through the government machine and parliamentary counsel. If we miss the deadline, we miss the opportunity. I understand that there is some good will and the initial approaches have already been made. If discussions can be opened up, that will be to the good. So, on that basis, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamI thank the Minister for his reply, which is typical of him; when he sees a problem he sets about doing something about…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
I thank the Minister for his reply, which is typical of him; when he sees a problem he sets about doing something about it. I will happily withdraw the amendment on the basis that I understand that discussions with London councils will be quickly initiated. It seems odd that I have had to move an amendment today to ginger up discussions that should have been taking place over the past nine months. On the basis that I know the Minister does what he says he will do, I will withdraw the amendment. I hope that by the time we get to the next stage either I will have news that I do not need to table an amendment, or if I table it there will be an appropriate government amendment to make sure that what is going to happen does happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 36 agreed to. Clause 37 agreed to. [Amendment No. 104 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Whittymoved Amendment No. 104A:
Speaker
Lord WhittyLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 104A:
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamAs I said on Second Reading, we do not support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will have been briefed b…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
As I said on Second Reading, we do not support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will have been briefed by London Councils, as I have, but sadly my own council’s point of view is that London boroughs should handle the whole question of waste disposal in the way in which they are handling it at the moment. They all work in joint consortia anyway, which seems to work perfectly adequately. The noble Lord mentioned the recycling percentages, but London is an extremely difficult city, and I am not sure that the Mayor would make a better go of increasing the recycling percentages than the London boroughs, which are sitting on top of the situation all the time and are having to make policies and plans to persuade residents to split their rubbish and put it out for recycling. The local emphasis is the one that really matters. Secondly, unless the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can produce it, no one has seen any business plan for this. We have no idea what it would cost to bring waste disposal under one management, and we do not know whether it would be any more business-effective in financial terms than it is with the boroughs doing it themselves. Although recycling is one aspect, cost is certainly another. Unless a plan has been worked out and fully costed, everyone will be extremely sceptical about what is involved. I touched on the fact that local boroughs have an eye on local issues, which is where their eye should be and where the responsibility should lie to ensure that waste disposal policies are carried out. In broad terms, we will not support the amendment. Even if the Government suddenly agree to it, we will still oppose it. I am sure that others will wish to contribute to the debate but, for the moment, I put on record that we will not support it.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HamweeI was wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whose name has been added to the amendment, wanted to intervene be…
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
I was wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whose name has been added to the amendment, wanted to intervene before I spoke.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Harris of HaringeyNo.
Speaker
Lord Harris of HaringeyLabour
Quote
No.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HamweeI wanted to hear what the noble Lord had to say. We have just agreed Clause 36 without any debate. Clause 36 is hugely…
Speaker
Baroness HamweeLiberal Democrat
Quote
I wanted to hear what the noble Lord had to say. We have just agreed Clause 36 without any debate. Clause 36 is hugely significant in that it changes the way in which waste is to be dealt with by substituting “have regard to” with, “act in general conformity with”, the Mayor’s waste management strategy. If used properly, that could lead to a considerable change in the way in which various parties work together. I do not think that this has been taken fully on board in the debate so far. The current Mayor’s briefing dismisses this, saying: “The general conformity clause is a legal minefield and a recipe for deadlock”. We have just managed to avoid deadlock in the areas where general conformity has been required until now. The briefing continues: “It could mean local authorities and the Mayor being continuously locked in judicial reviews, with London council tax payers footing both sides of the legal bill and critical delays in the delivery of sorely needed waste infrastructure and service improvements”. So says the current Mayor; I not sure whether that is a threat or a promise. The letter circulated by the Minister points this out. Indeed, he refers to the costs and risks of a single waste authority, and I very much agree with what he has said in that letter. We on these Benches do not say that all is well. Indeed, when the issue first became so very live, I felt that it was particularly important that the boroughs and the Mayor did not behave in a knee-jerk fashion and treat this as a matter of competing powers. The issue is much too important for it to be about who has what power; it should be about what the solutions might be and how one might reach them. I do believe that the boroughs are addressing the issue. My noble friend Lord Tope, from Sutton, may speak about the new consortium that Sutton, Kingston, Merton and Croydon have just entered into—I do not know; we have not discussed it. I talked to the London borough of Southwark and was struck by the difficulties and uncertainties encountered by potential contractors during the borough’s project for considerable investment and new facilities when the review of the Mayor’s powers started. Its project is now back on track. It has been in communication with both the Mayor and Defra, and has asked the Mayor what would happen to this major new project if a single waste authority were to be set up. The Mayor could say only that he would ask Defra to put fair and equitable arrangements in place. Defra could give no assurance that the borough would not lose out if the site was transferred to the single waste authority. I mention this because so much is going on in different parts of London in this area that if boroughs have to go back to the drawing board an awful lot will be thrown into confusion. There are some very big contracts in the pipeline. A couple of months ago, I asked the Mayor how, if there were to be a single waste authority, he would deal with existing long-term contracts. I did not receive a satisfactory answer. He referred to Transport for London having taken over a considerable number of organisations. That is interesting, but I am not sure that it translates to this situation. As I understand it, Mr Livingstone would wish to leave collection to the local authorities and, although they want it, that seems to be the difficult bit. There has been a lot of recent discussion about whether the public will accept fortnightly collections. It is almost a poisoned chalice to leave with the boroughs. It begs the question of what they would do, not just about reduction but about recycling. In parenthesis, I realise that there is a danger in talking about recycling in this debate as if it was a panacea, when we should be talking about reduction in the first instance. There has been some lobbying for a single waste authority. I have had a handful of letters. They used strangely similar terminology: three or four lines of exactly the same words. Somebody has suggested precisely what they might say. The Mayor could and should do some things whether or not there is a single waste authority. The main thing he can do is raise capital. A single waste authority would not change the profile of London’s housing stock—a particular difficulty when one is talking about recycling or collections from flats. A single waste authority without recycling would not immediately mean achieving targets. The Mayor may not have much power to deal with attitudes to waste, but he is in a good position to influence them. Waste minimisation is largely a cultural issue, as is recycling. The Mayor can provide facilities which help the boroughs without having a single waste authority. I have mentioned the recycling fund; there is also London Remade. The Mayor should be building on these. He must counter stories about materials being shipped around the world, which deter people from recycling. He must say that he is providing an alternative way for the boroughs to join in with dealing with materials, and focus on providing materials reclamation facilities so that materials become raw materials for new products. In other words, the Mayor can add a lot of value. It does not have to be with the major change the current Mayor seeks. Although I started by saying that we should see this as an important issue which needs addressing in itself and not as a power struggle, it has come to be seen as one. That is regrettable. If we can all move away from that, so much the better. I say that to the Mayor as I say it to everyone else.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Harris of HaringeyThe noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was kind enough to refer to the fact that I put my name to this amendment. I was delig…
Speaker
Lord Harris of HaringeyLabour
Quote
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was kind enough to refer to the fact that I put my name to this amendment. I was delighted to hear her contribution, because she immediately acknowledged that all was not well with the current arrangements for waste disposal in London. That must be a substantial understatement. London’s performance on waste disposal is pretty appalling. It is the only major metropolitan region in England where waste disposal is not managed and co-ordinated at city level. I wonder whether that is why the performance is so poor. Instead, London has 16 waste disposal authorities.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamDifferent.
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
Different.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Harris of HaringeyI agree with the noble Baroness that London is a very different city. It is the greatest city in the world, and that is…
Speaker
Lord Harris of HaringeyLabour
Quote
I agree with the noble Baroness that London is a very different city. It is the greatest city in the world, and that is fine. But I wonder why it is therefore assumed that some of the recycling targets are going to be so impossible to meet. I note that in Europe, Hamburg recycles 57 per cent of its waste; Copenhagen 54 per cent; Munich 42 per cent, and Milan 39 per cent. In the United States, San Francisco—a very different city—recycles 50 per cent, and Seattle 58 per cent. The figures are possible. It can and should be done. Again, I wonder why we are being so modest in our proposals. The present arrangements are not accountable to Londoners. Because there are so many different waste authorities and the arrangements in some cases are baroque and complicated, they are not transparent bodies. Not only is there administrative incoherence and perhaps a limited capacity so far as the 16 waste disposal authorities are concerned, but there is also a gap in democratic accountability. The implementation of any waste strategy will require a major effort across a number of levels of activity in London, and that is where a single authority under the control of the Mayor and working with his functional bodies will play a critical role. The necessary skills and experience have to be brought together, along with the power to ensure that the necessary changes are made. I am conscious that one of the implications will be to look at how freight movements are dealt with in the city. Indeed, I spent a couple of hours this morning talking about the city’s freight policy with representatives at Transport for London. There is enormous potential for energy saving strategies in this area. But I wonder whether those changes will happen if we continue with a system of 16 waste disposal authorities and do not take up the opportunity provided by this amendment. I have mentioned the problems of capacity. Partnerships UK, a body formed in 2000 by the Treasury, is all about supporting the delivery of high-quality public services and the efficient use of public assets. It has responded to a consultation by highlighting the issues related to the fragmented nature of management and disposal responsibilities and saying that that results in relatively small package and contract sizes that reduce access to economies of scale in plant, equipment and financing structures, produces multiple public sector counterparties to contracts, thus increasing their complexity and perceived risk, with a corresponding impact on market appetite and the price offered. There is also a lack of central expertise or critical mass of skills and experience. Those are the challenges we face if we do not support the amendment of my noble friend. I want to make a final point about hazardous waste. At the moment, some 10,500 tonnes of hazardous waste are produced by London householders, but only 200 tonnes are collected by the Hazardous Household Waste Collection and Disposal Service administered by the Corporation of London on behalf of the London boroughs. That is the extent to which waste disposal collaboration between 16 waste disposal authorities works at the moment, so I put it again to my noble friend who will be replying: where is the step change going to be made in order to ensure that we see the improvement in performance that is necessary?
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness HanhamCould I ask the noble Lord to comment on something said in the other place by Nick Raynsford, the person who brought in…
Speaker
Baroness HanhamConservative
Quote
Could I ask the noble Lord to comment on something said in the other place by Nick Raynsford, the person who brought in the Mayor and the Greater London Authority? He made a remark that noble Lords on this side of the Committee certainly agree with—that the whole architecture of the Greater London Authority was to be strategic. There is nothing strategic in what is being proposed here. This is practical, hands-on work that ought to be carried out by the local boroughs. This is not a strategic overview, but the Mayor negotiating contracts and getting involved in the day-to-day work of the London boroughs. It would be an enormous change in terms of what the Greater London Authority was set up to do. If we are not careful we will be in danger of drifting into a position where the Mayor of London and the authority no longer play a strategic role but remorselessly move on towards becoming an authority very similar to the Greater London Council. The noble Lord may think that would be a really good idea, but I think the rest of us would say that it is a really rotten idea. We need the Mayor to remain strategic and leave the boroughs to do what they are meant to do. Perhaps the noble Lord might like to comment.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Harris of HaringeyI respond to that with pleasure. My right honourable friend Nick Raynsford is an admirable man. He is right to say that…
Speaker
Lord Harris of HaringeyLabour
Quote
I respond to that with pleasure. My right honourable friend Nick Raynsford is an admirable man. He is right to say that the architecture of the original GLA Bill was designed to create a strategic authority. One of the biggest strategic challenges facing London at the moment is what to do about its waste. The fact that London’s waste is rising faster than that in many other parts of the country and that our performance on disposal is the worst in the country comprise major strategic challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, became excited and appalled at the idea that the Mayor of London might be engaged in all sorts of contract negotiations, which brought back memories of the Greater London Council. I am no fan of the old days of the Greater London Council and I am certainly not suggesting that we should go back to them, but my noble friend’s amendment is concerned with creating an additional functional body. That is the same as a functional body which currently delivers transport. The major element of the work of Transport for London comprises negotiating contracts with bus companies. Those contracts may be long term and complicated. In the past they were not well handled but now they are much better handled. Except in the subject of the contracts, what is proposed is no different from the situation where the Mayor has responsibility for an agency which delivers transport for London. As I say, waste disposal is one of the greatest strategic challenges facing London at present, which is why I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord WarnerI want to speak briefly in support of this amendment. I say “briefly” because, as the Committee will be pleased to hear…
Speaker
Lord WarnerCrossbench
Quote
I want to speak briefly in support of this amendment. I say “briefly” because, as the Committee will be pleased to hear, I suspect that my voice will not hold up for too long. My noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord Harris of Haringey put the case clearly and fairly, and the international comparisons are very telling. We must hold on to the fact that London is going in the wrong direction in this area. It is not yet going in the right direction. It is certainly not going in the right direction at the pace that is needed to deal with the problems that it faces today, tomorrow and the day after. At Second Reading I raised my concerns about the performance of the London boroughs on waste management. Fairly predictably, this irritated a number of the London boroughs, including Southwark where I live. I am not altogether sure whether my bins will still be collected. Predictably, Southwark sent a great deal of material explaining what it is doing and describing the new facilities that it is putting in place. That is all very admirable and I have no quarrel whatever with it. However, much of the material which has been sent to me does not look very strategic but, rather, a late-in-the-day response to an impending set of deadlines and targets triggered by the 2010 target and deadline. Like my noble friend Lord Whitty, I suggest that target is likely to be missed anyway. We have to keep our eye on the longer-term targets and on whether we will attain them if we carry on with the present arrangements. I received a letter from my noble friend Lady Andrews following my intervention at Second Reading arguing against the Mayor’s proposals for a London-wide body. Although my noble friend’s letter was, as usual, extremely eloquent, it did not really provide the figures or the cost-benefit analysis which I sought at Second Reading in order to assess whether the Mayor’s proposal was right or wrong. This is not about a power struggle. Rather, I seek an analysis of the options against risk, which we do not have. We have costings on a particular set of assumptions about a particular proposal but we do not have a cost-benefit risk analysis which shows that a pan-London body would be wrong given what has to be achieved in London in the longer term.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord TopeI cannot resist the temptation to respond. At the beginning of the Committee, I declared that I am a London borough cou…
Speaker
Lord TopeLiberal Democrat
Quote
I cannot resist the temptation to respond. At the beginning of the Committee, I declared that I am a London borough councillor. I suppose now that I should confess, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, already well knows, that I was leader of a London borough council for 13 years. For all of the past 20 years, my council has been in the top two or three London borough councils for the rate of recycling, and it remains in that position. Perhaps I should also say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that I have never been a member of a joint waste authority. I have never consigned anyone to the outer darkness of a joint waste authority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, my authority is shortly to enter into such an arrangement, so perhaps we will then have the opportunity. This issue has been the subject of intense debate in London for many months. Unlike most of my borough colleagues, I started the debate with a genuinely open mind. As is often the case, there are good, sound arguments both ways and I was certainly willing to be persuaded. As I have listened to and taken part in the arguments over those months, I have become less and less convinced that a single waste authority is the answer to the problem which we all acknowledge exists. Noble Lords supporting the amendment have quoted extensively from the Mayor’s briefing, which, understandably, supplies figures that are no doubt accurate, but are there for the sole purpose of supporting the argument. Let me quote from the London Councils briefing which counters the arguments, but is, nevertheless, no less valid. I take issue with what several noble Lords have said, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about what is nowadays termed the direction of travel. London’s recycling rate has more than doubled since 2001. London is expecting to achieve a combined recycling rate of 24 per cent for 2006, which is a 15 per cent increase on the previous year. We have had comparisons with regions. I do not think that Greater London compares properly with any other region in this country, all of which contain significant rural areas and are of a quite different composition. Nevertheless, London is the second best region in the country for diverting waste from landfill and so on. We can all continue to quote figures that support our arguments. I can make international comparisons, not with much smaller cities than London, but with, for example, New York, which has a recycling rate that is considerably less. Tokyo’s recycling rate is only equal to London. Paris is the only broadly comparable European city and, again, it is worse than London. We can use figures. We can prove our cases with all the figures we want, but we need to try, as dispassionately as possible, to look for the solutions. In finding solutions, we have to understand the problem exactly. Part of the problem is the nature of the boroughs, the demography, the number of flat dwellers and so on, but I have always believed that the fundamental difference is one of political will and political priority. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was right that it is not a party issue. It is about the political priorities that that local authority has had, which is why some boroughs have been very much better and other boroughs with different priorities have been very much worse. That is one of the reasons why the situation is now changing. London borough councils have considerable financial incentives and penalties to have the political will and give it the political priority, which is why there is and will continue to be a step change—an expression which has been used—in London. The issue of waste minimisation has gone considerably up the political agenda right across London. I believe that, contrary to what some noble Lords have said, the direction of travel is getting significantly better and will continue to do so. If we look to solutions, if we are to challenge that direction of travel, we must have very good reasons for doing so. I have come to the conclusion that establishing a single waste authority, where the debate has been very much about control, is not the solution. I still do not understand exactly what a single waste authority will do to increase waste minimisation—if that is the right expression—in the London boroughs, particularly as they will retain responsibility for recycling and, quite rightly, responsibility for waste collection. One of the advantages in London is that we have combined collection and disposal. Separating them would be a retrograde step that would considerably erode it. The Mayor does not want waste collection—very sensibly, in my view—and no London borough would let him have it. They would fight to the death for that. Anyone involved in local politics knows that if you mess up refuse collection you are out at the next election, and that will always remain the case. The argument for a single waste authority is at best unproven and to impose substantial costs and disruption on boroughs that do not want it would be a retrograde move. We should welcome the step change that is happening in London and encourage it to progress. The boroughs and the Mayor should work together on the implementation of the Mayor’s waste strategy in order to tackle an issue that we all acknowledge is a very real and important one in London. I cannot support the amendment.
Time
19:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord RookerWhile I do not want to introduce a note of party politics to this, it is the first time in my six years in your Lordshi…
Speaker
Lord RookerLabour
Quote
While I do not want to introduce a note of party politics to this, it is the first time in my six years in your Lordships’ House that it is basically me, the Tories and the Liberals against the Back-Benchers. It is on a London issue as well, so it is a bit tricky because I have always kept away from those. I have a wonderfully long response here which I intend to make because it is important to put the Government’s view on the record. First, however, I shall use my notes before I move on to the speech. I want to make one or two points in response to what has been said by my noble friends Lord Harris and Lord Whitty. The Government have never supported a single waste disposal authority for London. I came to this some weeks ago with a neutral view, but soon came to realise that it is Defra’s baby and something of a problem. We undertook a public consultation on a range of options without stating a preference. It was clear from that consultation that no single option emerged as a clear preference. We also commissioned research into a number of the options. A single waste disposal authority came out as one of the worst choices for managing London’s waste. That brings me to the first point I want to answer. My noble friend Lord Warner asked about the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The Government commissioned KPMG to look at the cost benefits and risks in a number of options for London’s waste. The report is available on Defra’s website. It found that the Mayor’s proposal was one of the worst options. The report formed part of the input into the Government’s decision. Work has been done on this issue and it is all there in the public domain. Many boroughs work together on a sub-regional basis. A quick count shows that around two-thirds of the London boroughs are in consortia, and only one operates completely on its own. The others undertake joint work in the area of waste disposal. Indeed, some London boroughs are among the largest authorities in the country, so it is not as if we are dealing with minnows. I was curious about how the local authority deals with my own rubbish—that is, the rubbish I do not take to its very well run recycling site. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, pointed out, there is no question that there have been major changes in recent years, and that big improvements have been made. A London Councils briefing shows that the city is doing well in comparison with some cities. It is fair to look at London with comparable cities such as Paris, Tokyo and New York, but it is not fair to compare it with others that are not comparable. While major improvements are needed, performance is going up—it is moving in the right direction. A single authority would not be likely to improve recycling rates because that responsibility would remain with the boroughs. We therefore have some serious problems with the amendment. We are committed to all the targets of the landfill directive, but the earlier targets for 2010 and 2013 are likely to be harder to achieve because of the large improvement needed over a short timeframe. It is not a question of focusing on one to the exclusive ignorance of the other. We do not accept that poor performance. I am very careful about trying to translate what my noble friend Lord Harris said about the capacity and quality of the councillors—if I can put it this way—dumped on joint bodies as in the past. Waste disposal and recycling are politically sexy today; they were not 10 years ago. There has been a major change. It is tied in with the agenda of environment and climate change; these things come together. I suspect that there are much more senior councillors taking an interest in these authorities than was the case in the past. I have no doubt that that will also change in the future as the penny drops; there is no question about that.
Time
19:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord WhittySince I have now missed my last train, I assume that it is open to me to respond at length to the various points that h…
Speaker
Lord WhittyLabour
Quote
Since I have now missed my last train, I assume that it is open to me to respond at length to the various points that have been made in the debate. I could, for example, differ from my noble friend on what the preferred position of Ministers, if not the announced policy, was two years ago, or even more recently. I could argue with him that the basis of the KPMG report, which I have at least glanced at, seems to differ substantially from earlier analyses that were made to Defra and the GLA on the possibility of efficiencies in waste disposal through contracting and through more efficient regulation, and for the driver that it would produce in relation to better collection and recycling methods in the boroughs. I could certainly argue with him on some of the statistics, and probably will. Everyone has assumed and stated that we need a step change. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has sort of implied that we already have one. I do not think that the figures bear that out. We have doubled recycling, but still 64 per cent of waste goes to landfill. It is way off target. We have improved recycling levels in a number of boroughs. I tried to obtain the latest information on what actually happened in 2006-07. I could not get it for all the boroughs, but six out of the seven boroughs for which it was available showed a very small improvement, a slow down in improvement, and one borough showed a significant retrogressive move. So I do not think that we have achieved the step change. The question is how do we achieve the step change to meet the 2010 and 2013 targets or get anywhere near them, let alone the longer-term ones. Most Members of the Committee who have participated in the debate suggest that some improvement is needed in the structure. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in moving an earlier amendment, indicated that we need a better strategy, a better allocation of funds and a better approach to how we pay for infrastructure and innovation in this area. I am surprised that KPMG reached the conclusions that it did. When you have 16—shortly to be reduced to 12, as I understand the south-west London arrangement—different waste authorities, there must be some economies of scale in going larger than that, and at least approaching the contracting arrangements in a more coherent and systematic way. That is, indeed, what earlier studies concluded. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, I think was commending the new south-west arrangements, as the Minister appeared to be. That contradicts the rest of his opposition to having a two-tier authority in London and separating out disposal and collection. If memory serves, about 20 years ago we were talking about a new authority within south-west London, which has now been achieved. I am very pleased that it has been. Would it not be much better if we could achieve that across the whole of London? The argument for a two-tier authority seems to apply quite effectively in the areas where the Government are not proposing to do anything about it; namely, in the county and district areas. It is an entirely different issue where waste is not dealt with within an individual borough area; people are driving their own waste. The waste disposal companies and the waste disposal authorities are moving waste across borough boundaries the whole time. The new facilities being developed have to be developed and justified on the basis that they serve more than one borough and more than one waste disposal area. There is a huge outflow of waste from London into its neighbouring counties, which has to be dealt with by those counties on an authority by authority basis. All of that leads to inefficiency. That does not, I admit, prove that if you put a new, publicly accountable, statutorily based authority in there that that would, de facto, improve the situation. Something needs to be done. The cost of establishing that seems likely to be less than the efficiencies gained by so doing. Nevertheless, I agree with my noble friend Lord Warner that these things need to be looked at. I do not think that KPMG goes far enough. However, I make the point that if, as we go further down this road, those step changes have not been achieved by 2010 and 2013, and we are maintaining the present structure of delivery and the present rather nebulous arrangements for the forum proposed by the Government, hopefully enhanced slightly by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, we will have no statutory base for actually rectifying the situation. I said just now that we only got around to creating a south-west London authority in the past few months, whereas it had been discussed—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will agree with me—for the past 20 years. If we have no statutory authority, no ability to use this legislation—which is the most important legislation since we established the GLA—and we do not use this to at least provide on a contingency basis the ability to establish an alternative structure, our ability to meet the later targets will be severely damaged. So if the Minister is prepared to accept neither the amendment in this form nor the arguments that the Mayor should be able to trigger a single London authority, in conjunction and co-operation with the boroughs—we do not have a statutory base for creating such an authority—we will have missed the boat. The proposal includes a majority of representatives of the boroughs, which, as the Minister has said, will no longer be those on which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, used to dump environmental and waste management concerns, but those who are interested in them. I therefore argue that if the Minister cannot accept the amendment, he needs a plan B. Plan A—leaving it to the boroughs and the present structure—is frankly not working. I, for one, have no faith in its ability to continue to work. This legislation should have at least the possibility of a plan B, and I ask the Minister to consider that. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Time
19:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinThis may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.
Time
19:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton)The Committee stands adjourned until Monday 14 May at 3.30 pm. The Committee adjourned at 7.51 pm.
Speaker
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton)Labour
Quote
The Committee stands adjourned until Monday 14 May at 3.30 pm. The Committee adjourned at 7.51 pm.
Time
19:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗

Show 66 more speechesShow less

EnactedGreater London Authority Act 2007