Greater London Authority Bill

I am grateful to everybody for this debate as we are discussing an extremely important aspect of the Bill. The Minister referred to the matter when she said that the Mayor is a single decision-maker. I do not refer to his being a single decision-maker as regards somebody putting up a chicken shed in their back garden but rather on an application to build something which may comprise an enormous tower block of considerable proportions that will affect an enormous number of people. In order to make that decision, he must be seen to have taken into account everything that anybody wants to say to him that might affect the ultimate decision. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 94. I hear what the Minister says about not creating lists but that has been done in much legislation. The Government may have resisted that but a lot of legislation contains lists. I like my list and I like it better than the draft order, which simply states: "““The Mayor must prepare and publish a document setting out a list of any persons whom he will permit to appear before him””." The Mayor cannot be placed in the position of permitting somebody to come before him. He should not be allowed to make the decision on that basis. There must be a cohort of people who are entitled to come and give their views on an application. They are contained in the list in Amendment No. 94. I would prefer to see that list in the legislation. The Minister says that the provision will appear in secondary legislation. Presumably, it will be affirmative secondary legislation so that we shall have the chance to discuss it. However, as the Minister is very well aware—as are we—the number of changes that ever get made to secondary legislation is absolutely miniscule. Therefore, we must get this right in primary legislation. As I say, I am attracted to my amendment, which will appear again at a later stage. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to consider further how we can get it included in the legislation. I also hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, said about not holding things up. However, if this process is just to be seen as a developer’s ““quick-me-up””, the whole thing ought to be stopped at this stage. I know that there is pressure from developers to quicken the planning process and that they face difficulties when they have to make applications to more than one borough. However, the process works perfectly well. Boroughs have to say what their views are on an application on many occasions. The process must not be seen as one which aims simply and solely to get developers’ plans up and running more quickly. It must be seen as so important that it is above and beyond the local boroughs dealing with it. If that is what the Government believe should happen, the process should be at that level—absolutely at the height of importance. It must not be just a case of a developer believing that something is important and wanting to get it moving. The process will have to ensure that people have the right to give their views. Those views should be seen to be taken into account extremely seriously. The question I have not asked the Minister, which is not yet clear in this clause, is whether there is, presumably, a right of appeal to the Secretary of State over the Mayor’s decision. If not, there will be by the time we have finished the Bill. There must be a right of appeal, as is currently in legislation on any planning application. This is very important. It takes local authorities’ current powers to determine applications out of their hands and puts them into those of one person. Whether that person is advised by a whole host of town planning advisers or not, the decision ultimately rests on his shoulders. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, the trouble is that any planning permission will not melt away like the snows of winter: we are stuck with it for ever more. As the applications are likely to be of considerable size, decisions must be seen to be taken against a background of best possible practice. We are trying to ensure that we get a requirement in the Bill that the Mayor conform to best possible practice, that he is seen to be the one taking the decision and does not delegate it to an officer of the Greater London Authority. I am sure that he will have to talk to an officer, but he should have to make that decision himself in public, before those who wish to come and hear it. Again, I would expect that decision not to be issued by letter but in person. The Mayor must be up front with this, and be the person seen to be taking it—he is the only elected person, as the Minister has said—so that when the trial date comes, people know who is there and who has made the decision. I have spelt out as clearly as I can the points behind these amendments. I have no doubt that that we will come back to them at the next stage.