My Lords, I hesitate to trespass on to the territory of the capital but I have a good deal of sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord True. He argues powerfully for greater involvement by the London boroughs and for procedure that would facilitate that and indeed put the onus on the Government to prove their case in terms of delegation.
However, another aspect should be taken into account. The amendment speaks of a requirement to consult, "““each London borough council … the Common Council, and … the Assembly””."
There is, of course, a cross-London body of councils, London Councils. In addition to the individual approaches, which obviously make sense, I would have thought it would be useful for London Councils to express a view as an organisation. The noble Lord is nodding his assent to that. Obviously it would be possible to garner the views of the 30-odd London boroughs, but seeking the view of London Councils itself might facilitate a better dialogue across the capital and, I hope, influence the outcome in directions that might not otherwise arise through separate consultations and responses. I wonder whether, if nothing else is done, London Councils could be added to the list of three given in Amendment 105.
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Beecham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 September 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c526 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:20:57 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_768568
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_768568
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_768568