Greater London Authority Bill

I support Amendment No. 103 and speak to Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 in the name of my noble friends. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, gave very good reasons why the Mayor should have a water strategy. I want to endorse that and to add another I think very good reason. Support for the Mayor to have a water strategy comes not only from all five parties represented on the London Assembly, but from the Mayor and, perhaps even more remarkably, in a joint letter written two weeks ago to the Secretary of State, signed by both the Mayor and the then chairman of the London Assembly. That is an almost unique event. I will read that letter to the Secretary of State, as it is fairly brief: "““There is a strong case for the Mayor to have statutory strategic powers in relation to water issues in the capital, particularly in terms of London’s sustainability and the city’s response to the challenges of climate change. It is vitally important that links are made between water, waste, energy and buildings. Placing the water strategy on the same statutory basis as the London Plan and the Mayor’s environmental strategies would go some way to achieving this. We therefore ask you to re-think the Government’s position on this issue so that the GLA Bill includes provision for a statutory Mayoral water strategy by the time it completes its passage through the House of Lords””." That letter was written and signed by both the Mayor and the chairman of the Assembly with the agreement of all the parties in the Assembly. That is nearly as powerful an argument in support of it as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I hope therefore that the Government will give serious consideration to it and if they are not able to accept the amendment today that they will at least not close the door—I was going to say turn the tap off—to it and will give further thought to how such a unified position can be recognised as the Bill pursues its passage through the House. Amendment No. 119 would give the London Assembly power to require the water and energy regulators to appear before it to be questioned and to give evidence. In fact, Ofwat has appeared before the Assembly and its committees, and it has given welcome and helpful written evidence as well, which is good. I hope that always, as is usually the case, people will appear voluntarily without the need for a statutory summons. For the reasons that the noble Baroness gave in moving her amendment, this is now such an important issue to Londoners and to London that it must be right that the representatives of London on the scrutiny body, the London Assembly, have the right to question and to take evidence from the regulators. This amendment would give the Assembly that statutory right, rather than having to rely, as we have thus far, on voluntary agreement to do so. Indeed, should there ever be such difficulties—I hope that will never happen—it might be quite important to be able to require the regulator to appear if he were unwilling to do so. Amendment No. 120 requires the Mayor to include in his environment report the efficiency of suppliers of water and energy. We had some discussion earlier of lists, but Section 351(3) of the GLA Act lists11 things which the Mayor is already required to include in his environment report, all of which are important. They include such things as noise and litter. The efficiency of suppliers of water in particular, but also energy, is now at least on a par in importance to Londoners and for London as litter and noise. They are important, and I am not suggesting that they should be taken out, but that this should be put in. The latter part of the amendment would require the Mayor to consult those suppliers before producing the environment report. The three amendments in this group stand on their own merits and are not dependent one on the other. I hope that the Minister will be able to give at least a favourable response to all three amendments.