Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 76: 76: Clause 28, page 29, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 30 The noble Lord said: We now come to the two most contentious areas of the Bill, housing and planning. Parts 6 and 7 have attracted the most controversy; it is not hard to fathom why. Throughout the passage of this legislation we have fought to devolve powers as far as possible. Therefore, it is extremely disappointing that, in a Bill that will affect London physically and permanently, there is the greatest shift of power away from the boroughs. All our amendments in this group affect the London housing strategy. As regards the extent of the remit, it is appropriate not to be unduly prescriptive and not to be too vulnerable to the individual whim or ideology of a solitary figure, however sage that figure might be. The cohort of amendments led by Amendment No. 77 would delete all the references to ““recommendations”” or ““expectations”” and replace them with ““guidance””. That would make it entirely clear that the housing strategy is intended only as an advisory document and will not affect the ability of local authorities or the Housing Corporation to deal with social housing grant in the usual established and trusted way. Amendment No. 78 requires the Secretary of State to consult London Councils about the allocation of housing. Amendment No. 87 is an important amendment to Clause 28. It would require the Mayor to consult a range of other bodies, the principal housing providers in the capital. We are opposed to the clause in its entirety. If there is to be an overall housing strategy, it is essential that there be an obligation to consult other bodies, not least the London boroughs. The Mayor should certainly have to take into account borough perspectives, both in drafting the London housing strategy and in making spending recommendations. It may be argued that consultation should take place in any event. It is very important that that should be a statutory requirement. We also favour the change put forward by Amendment No. 89, which would make it clear that an individual London borough housing strategy should simply have regard to the London housing strategy. The obligation to be in general conformity with the overall strategy will allow very little room for manoeuvre for boroughs to adapt to the housing needs or character of their areas. It will also reduce the weight given to a strategy that is prepared by one individual alone. That is not a comment on the incumbent, as we have said several times today, but it would be the case regardless of who occupies the office. We have considerable concern about this area and I hope that others will support the amendment. I beg to move.