Greater London Authority Bill

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.