Greater London Authority Bill

I am pleased to have the chance to close this Second Reading debate. I begin by thanking all those hon. Members who contributed to our lively debate, which includes more than the previous contribution. My interest in the Bill is due to not only the facts that I enjoy the position of Minister for London, that I have been a Londoner for more than 30 years and that my constituency, Poplar and Canning Town, is at the heart of east London and docklands, but, as a former employee of the Greater London council as a fireman—in gender-neutral language, a firefighter—I was very involved in the democracy for London campaign, which fought against the abolition of the GLC in the ’80s. I was also pleased to serve on the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which restored London’s government. It was very disappointing to hear that Conservative Members will vote against the Bill tonight—I was disappointed, but not surprised. Many hon. Members have catalogued their attitude to strategic London government, and I shall try to respond to a number of those points. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) asked for an evidence-taking session before the Bill begins its parliamentary scrutiny. However, she knows that we had extensive consultation over many months on our manifesto proposals for additional powers and responsibilities. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has outlined, further discussions are still taking place and reports will be given to the Committee in due course. The hon. Lady raised specific points about mayoral planning powers. She said that the Mayor would not consult the boroughs on the London housing strategy. Section 41 of the Greater London Authority Act requires the Mayor to consult boroughs on drafts or revisions to his statutory strategies. On call-ins, the powers of the Secretary of State are unchanged. The Secretary of State will not have the power to overturn a decision by the Mayor to take over an application but will retain a power to call in the application for his or her own decision. The changes do not do away with the role of the planning inspectorate. Inspectors will continue to consider appeals where applications are refused by the Mayor or by the boroughs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) drew on his considerable experience, especially from the passage of the original GLA Bill, on which he led. He effectively dispatched as nitpicking many of the points raised by Opposition Front Benchers. He perfectly described how and why the original proposals were so modest and why this Bill should be welcomed. He entertained us with his reference to the Tories’ disarray on the Bill and the similarity to their position in 1999—his own version of ““Groundhog Day””. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) challenged the continuing existence of the Government office for London. GOL has an important role to play. It represents central Government across the capital, delivering polices and programmes for 10 Departments in a joined-up way—and it is here to stay. The recent review of the Government office network by the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government confirmed the important role that it plays, but it needs to be leaner and more strategic. GOL is responding to that challenge. Its staff numbers have fallen by more than 27 per cent. since October 2004, and its budget has decreased. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to its director, Liz Meek, and her colleagues for all that they do for London. The hon. Gentleman repeated the inaccurate statistic that the Mayor has intervened in 1,200 planning applications. In reality, the Mayor has been referred about 300 applications a year under the current thresholds. That is in line with original expectations, and it does not mean that he has intervened. He has directed refusal in very few cases. GLA figures show that he did so in only four cases in 2004-05. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) raised health inequalities. Many of the determinants of poor health among Londoners are non-health issues such as poor housing and transport, emissions and accidents, which often have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged and black and minority ethnic communities. The Mayor, working with the London strategic health authority, is best placed to tackle the health determinants within his control and to work with other stakeholders to identify and tackle lifestyle choices such as smoking and participation in sports. His role is to promote a reduction in health inequalities, not to take a direct role in the delivery of health services. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) alleged that section 106 moneys will be siphoned off by the Mayor. Section 106 rules clearly state that there must be a close relationship between the section 106 agreement and the proposed development and that the agreement is necessary for the development to proceed. We are clear that the boroughs should be fully involved in section 106 issues and propose that they will decide applications in the first instance and will be consulted by the Mayor when he takes on this responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) spoke about London’s housing problems and strongly supported the Government’s proposals to address those needs. The hon. Member for Orpington was not at all impressed and outlined his opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), in one of his shorter contributions, began by suggesting a regular London Adjournment debate. I have personal sympathy with that idea. London’s contribution to the UK economy and London MPs’ understanding of the issues in the capital deserve greater attention. My hon. Friend also mentioned his opposition to our proposals on waste. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning explained the reasons behind the proposals and I am sure that we shall revert to them in detail in Committee. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) said that the requirement for 50 per cent. affordable housing puts developers off. The London plan states that the 50 per cent. affordable housing target is a strategic target for London as a whole. It does not require each housing proposal to achieve 50 per cent., and the individual circumstances of each site will be taken into account. He also said that the Mayor should not be allowed to discourage high carbon-emitting cars by using policies such as those of the London borough of Richmond. The Government welcome initiatives such as those undertaken by Richmond to limit emissions from cars. We encourage innovative local initiatives to tackle increasing emissions from road transport and believe that the Mayor has an important role to play in that. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked why I nodded at her and at the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). I was indicating my understanding of the points that they both made, not agreeing with either, let alone both of them. She asked several specific questions. She raised concerns that the Mayor would not be required to hear representations from those affected by development proposals. We will require the Mayor to hear representations from those directly affected by proposals and to prepare and publish a statement, setting out the way in which he will make decisions. My hon. Friend also said that the Mayor should not be able to table the schemes for tall buildings because he said that he was in favour of them generally. There is no inherent conflict, but each planning application must be judged on its merits. I agree that the Mayor must act and be seen to act in a way that does not prejudge the outcome of an application. He will need to take particular care about his public statements and behaviour in relation to planning applications, especially when one of his functional bodies has an interest in an application. We will encourage the GLA standards committee to draw up a code of conduct to cover the Mayor’s new role in planning applications. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) was disappointed that I laughed when he dismissed my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich as technocrats who had no passion while praising the opening speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham. All I can say is that we must have been in different Chambers. However, I meant no offence—it was an involuntary guffaw of disbelief. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) outlined the history of London government and the Conservative party’s disappointing record over the decades. He also raised his concern about housing needs in the capital and reserve powers for the Secretary of State. London is of national importance in housing and has an impact on the wider south-east. Almost half the national affordable housing programme in England is spent in London. It is therefore only sensible that the Mayor’s powers are subject to the Secretary of State’s reserve powers and that his housing strategy and recommendations on funding must be consistent with national policies. The provisions go well beyond those that we have devolved to the regional assemblies, reflecting the capital’s unique structure.