Localism Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has very kindly added his name to this amendment, tabled in my name. With this group of amendments, we turn to the subject of the mayoral development corporations in London. Anybody with experience of development corporations, such as the London Docklands Development Corporation and other development corporations outside London, will recognise their hugely important role in urban regeneration in often very run-down areas. One essential characteristic that led to the success of these development corporations, not least the LDDC, was the provision that they had to be planning authorities and therefore had full authority over planning in their areas. In the 1980s this enabled my noble friend Lord Heseltine and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon to trigger what we must all agree has been the most amazing regeneration of what was then the almost derelict area of London docks. My role came later, as Secretary of State for the Environment, and with my late friend Nicholas Ridley, then Secretary of State for Transport, we were responsible for promoting both London City Airport and the Docklands Light Railway. These have transformed the Docklands area and indeed much of east London. Therefore, it is no surprise that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, supported by the Greater London Assembly, has persuaded the Government to include mayoral development corporations in the Bill. This is what Chapter 2 of Part 7 of the Bill is all about. As with all those who are concerned with the development and future of London, I warmly welcome most of this chapter but I have a few points to make. I note in passing that the origin of this suggestion related to the Olympic legacy, for which these clauses will be of great value, but if it had been confined to the Olympic legacy, that would have made the Bill a hybrid bill. Therefore, the Government very wisely accepted that this proposal for development corporations in London should cover the whole of the area. Of course, they may not be confined to single boroughs, and indeed one of the attractions is that they could well cover an area that extends over more than one borough. The combination of this and the fact that they will be planning authorities in their own right has caused some anxieties on the part of the 33 London boroughs and the City of London. I remind the House that I have declared an interest at each stage that I am a joint president of London Councils. There are two issues: first, whether the London boroughs should be represented on the mayoral development corporation boards, committees and sub-committees; secondly, what appears to be in the Bill an inadequate consultation of the boroughs on the formation and operation of a mayoral development corporation. I tabled the amendments in this group and I very much welcome the support of the Official Opposition in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. My noble friends on the Front Bench have gone quite a long way to meet our concerns, and I will turn to that in a moment. The boroughs have these concerns because they are acutely sensitive to the possibility that there may be a conflict of interest between the ambitions of this, or indeed a future, mayor and the borough councils in which the mayor might propose an MDC. Councils have in most cases developed their local plans, and many will have secured much local support for those plans. If a proposed MDC failed to take proper account of those plans, or indeed cut right across them, this could give rise to serious disagreements. That is why this Bill needs to include measures hopefully to avoid this as far as possible, or to be able to deal with it if it should arise. I will take the two points in turn. With regard to representation, our Amendment 98, which states that an MDC board should have at least one elected member from each council affected, seems to us to make an unanswerable point. Happily, my noble friend, with her Amendment 97, has met this point very satisfactorily, so when it comes to moving the amendments, I will not need to move Amendment 98. But Amendment 97 does not go quite far enough. A few moments ago I mentioned not only membership of the board, but also of the committees and sub-committees of the board, and as yet there is no provision to ensure borough representation on these. That is what my Amendment 101 is about: first, that there should be at least one elected borough representative on every committee and sub-committee; and, secondly, that if it is concerned with planning functions, it must draw half its membership from the London boroughs concerned. Why cannot this, too, be accepted by Ministers? Borough councils are responsible, elected bodies, which have a very real interest in what goes on in their areas. I would have thought that representation on the committees and sub-committees is an entirely reasonable thing to ask for. It is so important that there should be wide consultation and a proper follow-up of the consultation. In the Bill, it is stated that when designating area and when exercising the MDC planning functions, the mayor has to consult a wide range of bodies, including the Greater London Assembly and the London boroughs. That, of course, is very welcome. However, in the event that comments are made by the Greater London Assembly, if the mayor disagrees he has to make a statement explaining why he disagrees with the Assembly. When one looks at the consultation for the boroughs, one sees that there is no such obligation. He does not actually have to make a statement explaining why he differs from the boroughs, and in my view, I cannot see why these should not be given equal weight. I had this amendment down before the recess, and I received a letter from my noble friend Lady Hanham, who suggested that should a borough’s representations to the mayor not have been properly considered, it will have the option of escalating its concerns to the London Assembly. I have to say, with great respect, that is just not good enough. Of course, for the most part, the boroughs have a very good relationship with the Greater London Assembly. But I do not think that it is appropriate that borough concerns, which have been the subject of consultation, should be addressed only if taken through the representatives of the regional government. The boroughs have a legitimate and distinct voice, and this should not be crowded out. Amendment 96 relates to MDC designation; it would ensure that following any comments by a London borough council on a proposed designation, if it contains any part of the proposed MDC and if the mayor did not accept, he would have to publish a statement of his reasons for non-acceptance. Amendment 103, which relates to the MDC planning functions, would also ensure that if the mayor did not accept the borough’s view, he would have to publish a statement for non-acceptance. As he has to do that for the assembly, why should he not do so for the boroughs? My amendments simply put the boroughs on an equal footing to the London Assembly. We believe that these amendments are wholly reasonable, should be uncontroversial and are entirely in keeping with the legitimate role that the London boroughs have in representing and shaping their communities. These are very reasonable amendments. I beg to move.