Greater London Authority Bill

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) who, as ever, spoke with commendable pithiness and authority. We have had a lively and well-informed debate, and I pay tribute to all hon. Members who spoke. From among Labour Members, we heard contributions from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) and the hon. Members for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush (Mr. Slaughter). All of them found flaws in the legislation, save the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush. I am sure that he will find his reward in heaven, or after a change of party leadership—whichever he reaches first. I particularly single out the speech made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, who drew attention to several key flaws in the Bill, specifically as it relates to the Mayor’s planning powers and the way in which it would rob local councils of real accountability. It would give the Mayor power over section 106 moneys—a power that he could use in a way that would penalise local communities and rob them of the resources that they need when they embrace development. From the Liberal Democrats, there were interesting speeches by the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). They rubbished a central plank of the legislation, but they nevertheless support the Bill. I thought that letting it be known that one opposes the central plank of a Government proposal but voting for it anyway was the prerogative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats have maintained their stance of organised hypocrisy. I wish to single out my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam), for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), for Cities of London and Westminster, for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) and for Putney (Justine Greening), all of whom spoke with authority and passion. They were effective advocates for their communities, which the Bill will rob of the powers that local people want to be exercised locally. At the heart of the debate is the question of accountability and the principle of devolution. Our approach to the Bill is straightforward and coherent, unlike the Government’s. When the Government cede power to the Mayor of London—however inept some of the Bill’s provisions, that is what they are partly seeking to do—we will support them. When devolution occurs we are in favour, but unfortunately, much of the Bill is devoted to sucking power up from local councils and the boroughs that comprise London’s rich and diverse democratic culture. It is those provisions that we wholeheartedly oppose. Because much of the Bill depends on taking power up instead of devolving it down, the measure is not at all devolutionary. The Minister for Housing and Planning said that the Bill would result in power being devolved to the boroughs, but there is not a single clause that devolves powers down to London boroughs, so she made a deliberately misleading attempt to sell a flawed measure. She said, too, that she was delighted that Greater London authority legislation had given London a Mayor who provided a strong voice for the city. It is remarkable that she should try to take the credit for that, as her party tried to strangle that voice by denying Mayor Livingstone the chance to be elected under a Labour banner, only to clasp him to its bosom once he had proved that he was a winner—a flip-flop typical of the Government’s approach to local government.