Greater London Authority Bill

My amendments in this group are Amendments Nos. 87ZA, 86B and 89A—that is the order in which they appear on the supplementary Marshalled List. I apologise for tabling them late. In general, we support the Government’s proposals in this part of the Bill. Our amendments do not go as far as those of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and are tabled at the request of London Councils, the organisation, on the basis that they provide wording with which they would be more comfortable. The amendments would ensure that the Mayor consults local housing authorities in London, has regard to the effect of his proposals on their housing functions and takes account of their statutory responsibilities. Many aspects of local housing authorities’ strategic roles are not intended to be within the scope of the London housing strategy. At Second Reading, the Minister referred to concerns expressed about how the Mayor's powers would impact on the role of the boroughs. She said: "““I reassure noble Lords that the boroughs will continue to lead on housing in their own areas. The mayor will not take over the boroughs’ legitimate lead role in housing, but boroughs’ local housing strategies will need to be in general conformity with the mayor’s strategy””.—[Official Report, 28/3/07; col. 1699.]" The amendments are intended to make it quite clear how the two roles fit together. Perhaps the Minister may be able to say something further on that, or possibly even accept the amendments—one never knows. Given that the local role deals with matters such as the landlord role, consultation with tenants and residents and wider links with employment, regeneration, health and welfare, where both the Mayor and local authorities have roles, which although different, should be complementary, the local authorities should not be edged out by the Mayor's housing strategy. Amendment No. 89A clarifies the requirement that housing strategies must, in general, conform. That is a concept with which we do not differ—it deals with disputes. The opposition spokesman in the Commons described the amendments being moved again today as being as devolutionary as possible. I want to make it clear that, to the extent that powers are brought down from the Secretary of State, that is devolution that we would accept and support. Although in general we take the view that the boroughs should be left to deal with everything that is appropriate within their areas, on housing, some pan-London aspects need to be considered as well as the borough-level matters. I intend to ensure that that distinction is drawn and that no more local authority functions are taken over than is absolutely necessary. On Amendment No. 87, how does the consultation that the Mayor should undertake in preparing the housing strategy—forgive me if I missed this in the introduction to the group—fit with Section 42 of the 1999 Act, where some of the players and others, including the functional bodies and the Assembly, would be consulted? That is in Section 42 of the 1999 Act. I entirely support extending consultation as in paragraphs (c) and (d) of Amendment No. 87 but I would not want to see a restriction, if they are minded to override Section 42.