Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 65: 65: Clause 41, page 42, leave out lines 24 to 33 and insert— ““(2) The London climate change mitigation and energy strategy shall contain the Mayor’s proposals and policies with respect to the contribution to be made in Greater London towards each of the following— (a) the mitigation of climate change, (b) the achievement of any objectives specified or described in national policies relating to energy.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 65 and this wider group of amendments revolve around a number of important issues that were raised in Committee on the London climate change mitigation and energy strategy provisions, specifically the way in which we express the link with national policy, the coverage of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide and support for low-carbon technologies. I thank noble Lords for raising these issues, which we have carefully considered in bringing forward our own amendments. Let me start with the link with national policy. Legitimate concerns were raised in Committee that the provisions in the Bill that will insert new Section 361B(2) into the GLA Act 1999 implied that the Mayor’s strategy was just about implementation of national policy and that the Mayor would have no room to innovate. This was not our intention. As I said in Committee, we want the Mayor to innovate and, if possible and reasonable, to go further than national policy, particularly with regard to climate change mitigation. But, having listened carefully to noble Lords in Committee, we recognise that this might not have been clear in the Bill as drafted. Through Amendments Nos. 65 and 77, we therefore underline our intention that the Mayor should have the freedom to go beyond national policy, while retaining appropriate safeguards to ensure that action in London cannot undermine national efforts. In Amendment No. 65, we propose to take slightly different approaches to climate change mitigation and wider energy policy. On the former, if the Mayor reduces emissions in London faster than they are reduced in the rest of the UK, we all benefit. We therefore propose to require the Mayor simply to set out policies and proposals on climate change mitigation with no reference to national policy. On the latter, it is more important that the Mayor acts within the boundaries of national policy objectives on security of supply and competitive energy markets. A co-ordinated national approach is critical for the energy security and competitiveness of the whole UK. Therefore, we still propose to ask the Mayor to set out policies and proposals for the achievement of national energy policy objectives, but the change in language to focus on objectives is meant to underline the fact that we are seeking the Mayor’s assistance with the high-level goals of energy policy, such as security of supply and competitive markets, rather than specific policy measures. Furthermore, Amendment No. 77 contains a provision to ensure that the strategy is not inconsistent with national policies. This will ensure that the Mayor cannot block or undermine national policies, but he will not be bound to take proactive action to support those policies if he does not agree with them. If the Mayor wishes to go beyond national policies, he will be able to do so. Following discussions in Committee, I understand that concerns about the way in which we expressed the strategy’s link with national policy were a strong motivation behind Amendment No. 66, which removes all the provisions in the Bill that specify the issues that the Mayor’s strategy should cover and whom he should consult in preparing it. It would also remove the requirement for the Mayor to have regard to any guidance produced by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 66 would replace all this detail with the stipulation that the strategy must be in general conformity with national policies and strategies. It appears to tie the strategy more closely to national policy than our suggestion that the strategy must not be inconsistent with national policies. We obviously have strong concerns about stripping out these important details in Clause 41, but I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will be content that we have responded to the concerns raised in Committee with our own amendments and can be persuaded not to move her amendments. I now turn to the question of greenhouse gases. In Committee, we promised to consider how we might make it clear that the Mayor should consider other greenhouse gases as well as carbon dioxide in his strategy. We understand that that is the concern that lies behind Amendments No. 68, 69, 71 and 72. As we said in Committee, it is important that we ensure that the Mayor, as a minimum, tackles carbon dioxide emissions, as carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas and the gas most related to energy use. However, we agree that the Mayor should also consider his options to address other greenhouse gases, particularly if there are quick wins to reduce emissions of gases that have a high global warming potential, such as nitrous oxide or methane. Amendments Nos. 67, 70 and 74 require the Mayor to consider and address other greenhouse gases as well as carbon dioxide but give him more discretion to select which other gases he should address. This ensures that he can prioritise and focus action on those gases that he thinks offer the greatest benefits. We will provide him with guidance on this, but beyond carbon dioxide we think that the Mayor should be able to assess and decide for himself where to focus his resources. Through Amendment No. 76, we also propose to ensure that the Mayor reports on emissions of greenhouse gases from or attributable to London rather than just carbon dioxide emissions. This will underline the need for him to take seriously his opportunities to address other greenhouse gases. I note that since Committee the noble Baronesses have tabled Amendments Nos. 69 and 72, which specify the other greenhouse gases that the Mayor must address and would not allow him any discretion to prioritise. Without detailed assessment of the opportunities that the Mayor will have to address these gases, this presents some risk of the Mayor taking action on other specific greenhouse gases that may prove to be difficult, costly or possibly beyond his control. I hope that the noble Baronesses will agree that our proposals are a reasonable approach and will not press their amendments. Finally—I promise that I will speak for only a few more moments—we discussed amendments in Committee aimed at ensuring that the Mayor focuses onlyon promoting and supporting low-carbon energy technologies. Indeed, this is the focus of Amendment No. 73. We recognise that the Mayor is likely to focus on low-carbon technologies, but we want to keep open the possibility that he might also support technologies that are important for the energy policy goals, including the security of supply, given London’s potential importance as a centre of investment. Our Amendment No. 75 is an attempt to balance those two concerns. It keeps the focus of the Mayor’s support broadly on energy technologies, but requires him to have regard to the desirability of supporting low-carbon technologies specifically. Again, I hope that the noble Baronesses will agree with us and not press their amendments today. Overall, our amendment strikes the right balance between the various concerns expressed in Committee. Again, I thank noble Lords for raising these issues then and helping us to find a way in which to improve these provisions. I beg to move.