Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 50: 50: Clause 28, page 30, line 4, at end insert— ““( ) In preparing or revising the London housing strategy the Mayor shall consult— (a) the Housing Corporation; (b) such bodies as appear to him to be representative of registered social landlords.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 50 reflects an amendment proposed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 51 is very similar to one that noble Lords tabled in Committee. I hope that my comments will make it clear that the amendment is already fully covered within government Amendment No. 50. The Bill already contains provisions requiring the Mayor to consult the London boroughs, the Corporation of London and any other person considered appropriate on the London housing strategy. This is in line with arrangements for other London strategies provided for in the GLA Act 1999. However, uniquely, delivery of the London housing strategy will be heavily dependent on the Housing Corporation and registered social landlords. That is in the nature of the policy. We are therefore happy to introduce, through Amendment No. 50, an explicit requirement that the Mayor should consult the Housing Corporation and bodies representative of registered social landlords on a new or revised London housing strategy. It makes sense to consult practitioners on the practicality and deliverability of the contents of the London housing strategy. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the Mayor could sensibly and adequately develop such a strategy without advice of that kind. Amendment No. 52 is consequential on Amendment No. 50. Amendment No. 51 requires the Mayor to consult the Housing Corporation and a body representative of registered social landlords on the London housing strategy. It also includes provisions to consult London boroughs, the Corporation of London, any other bodies thought appropriate by the Mayor and local housing authorities within Greater London. I can advise the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, thatthose additional consultees are already covered by Clause 28; perhaps I can explain how. They do not appear in the Bill but they are covered. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 28 amendSection 41 of the GLA Act 1999 to apply it to the London housing strategy. That means that the London housing strategy is subject to the consultation requirements in Section 42 of that Act, including a requirement to consult the London boroughs, the Corporation of London and any other person whom the Mayor considers necessary. Under Section 1 of the Housing Act 1985, in London a local housing authority can only be a London borough or the Corporation of London. I hope that that clarifies the position for the noble Baroness and gives her the confidence that what she wants is already achieved so that she can support the government amendment. I have to confess that I was a little puzzled by Amendment No. 53. It is slightly more difficult for the Government. It envisages a situation in which the Mayor’s strategy would adversely impact on the ability of London boroughs to carry out housing functions that are their responsibility but fall outside the scope of the London housing strategy. We have drawn the definition of ““housing strategy”” very widely to cover every conceivable function that we could think of. That definition is expressed in new Section 333D(3). Under this amendment, the requirement for general conformity within the London housing strategy would not apply. I have racked my brain, and departmental officials have racked their brains, which are far bigger than mine, but we cannot think of anything that would fall within the responsibilities of a local housing authority, would be influenced by the London housing strategy yet would fall outside its scope. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary. I am afraid that it could provide a spurious justification for opposition to the requirement that the London boroughs’ housing strategies should be in general conformity. I believe that it offers an opportunity for some mischief, which would hinder some justified attempts to tackle London’s housing challenges. On those grounds, I hope that the noble Baroness will not move that amendment. I beg to move.