Greater London Authority Bill

I, too, thank the Minister for his reply, which was not totally unexpected. However, in terms of the Bill, it was quite surprising because practically every other major area of development is now governed by strategies from the Mayor. He is dabbling his fingers in everywhere, from housing to planning to climate change—why not water, which is probably one of the most important issues for people in London? It is only by the grace of God that it rained so much—I really mean that—in the autumn and we got all the reservoirs full, so London does not have a hosepipe ban. I did not notice any very great amount of commentary at the time about where the extra water was going to come from, if the situation had remained as it was last summer, to deal with all the new developments on the edges around London. A major reason why it would be useful to have the Mayor involved in the strategy would be to put pressure on him to be open and honest with Londoners about the situation. We all know about pipes floating in their own water underground; we often seen them cascading and bursting through the road. We know that it is a huge problem. The water companies say that they will invest, but also that nobody really wants it and people are afraid of having their roads dug up. The Mayor having a strategy to ensure that parts of London must be put right under his watch would be enormously helpful. We are looking at London and the south-east of England as the main recipients of the necessary development of a million houses over the next decade or so. Plans must be in place, in conjunction with the Mayor of London. I hear what the Minister says. We will probably be facing each other again on this. For today, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.