HC Deb 04 May 1999 vol 330 cc760-7
Mr. Simon Hughes

I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 19, line 22, at end insert— '(i) the strategy for the River Thames prepared and published under section (The River Thames) below.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—The River Thames—

  1. '(1) The Mayor shall prepare and publish a document to be known as the "River Thames Strategy".
  2. (2) The River Thames Strategy shall contain the Mayor's proposals and policies for the use, enhancement and protection of the river and riverside known as the "Thames Policy Area".
  3. (3) In preparing the strategy the Mayor shall seek to promote and encourage holistic and integrated approaches to the strategically significant features of the river:
    1. (a) River Transport,
    2. (b) River Economy,
    3. (c) River Ecology and Wildlife Habitats,
    4. (d) River Heritage and the Built Environment,
    5. (e) Recreation and Leisure, and
    6. (f) Public Access, Amenity and Open Spaces,
and may contain such other proposals and policies relating to the River Thames as the Mayor may consider appropriate. (4) The River Thames Strategy shall contain information about:
  1. (a) the measures that are to be taken for the implementation of River Thames Strategy by the Authority, Transport for London, and the London Development Agency,
  2. (b) the measures that other persons or bodies are to be encouraged to take by the Mayor, and
  3. (c) how the strategy complies with the Rio Principles on Sustainable Development.
 (5) In preparing or revising the River Thames Strategy the Mayor shall consult:
  1. (a) the Port of London Authority,
  2. (b) the Environment Agency,
  3. (c) each riparian London Borough Council,
  4. (d) the Common Council,
  5. (e) British Waterways, and
  6. (f) any other person or body who the Mayor considers it is appropriate to consult.'.

Mr. Hughes

This amendment is even less hopeful of success than the previous one.

Mr. Ottaway

The prospects are about the same.

Mr. Hughes

The hon. Gentleman is probably right.

This is a probing amendment. Clause 33 contains a list of the mayor's strategies. It applies to transport, London development, spatial development, biodiversity, municipal waste, air quality, ambient noise and culture. Our amendment and the new clause seek to add a strategy for the River Thames.

The reason why we have tabled the amendment—people who are interested can see how we amplify it in new clause 13, which sets out all the inter-related parts of the proposal—is that the Thames not only is a hugely important principal item in London, and therefore will be governed by London government, but links many other things. One cannot have an environmental strategy, for example, that does not impinge also on the Thames.

The Thames has suffered from the lack of a coherent strategy pulling together the strands, and we thought that it would be better if we were explicit in providing such a strategy in the Bill. Although I have no doubt that London's government will want to address Thames issues, it would be helpful if those issues were addressed—to use ministerial phraseology—within an overarching or intertwining provision. A specific Thames strategy is not provided anywhere else in the Bill.

Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead)

Speaking as an hon. Member whose constituency includes one of the fine stretches of the River Thames, I find the hon. Gentleman's suggestion a little difficult to accept. Is he really suggesting that the mayor of London should set the strategy for the whole of the River Thames?

Mr. Hughes

The hon. Lady was spared the Committee stage, when we discussed such issues. Of course I am not suggesting that the London mayor should do that. The River Thames Society and other bodies deal with the Thames, not only in her constituency, but beyond it to the sea. However, London Thames issues unite all the riparian boroughs, and the GLA will have a responsibility to address them. We believe that it would be sensible to have in London a coherent approach in dealing with the matter.

Mr. Ottaway

As we said, ad nauseam, in Committee—if the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me—although the River Thames is important, we rather share the Government's view that there is no reason why Thames issues should be singled out for special treatment, and that transport policies and various other strategies will deal with the points made by the Liberal Democrats. So far as I can see, the amendments would only impose additional bureaucratic burdens. The odd thing about the new clause is the Liberal Democrats' proposal that the assembly should not make the decisions on the matter.

Ms Glenda Jackson

The Government fully support the need to protect and enhance the environment and the economy of the Thames. We continue to promote and implement the policies set out in strategic guidance for the River Thames. We are working with the London Planning Advisory Committee to encourage the London boroughs to incorporate those policies in their unitary development plans. We continue to work to promote and maintain use of the river for transporting freight and waste. We are also bringing to fruition the Thames 2000 initiative, which will shortly ensure that public passenger transport services are back on the river.

Amendment No. 64 and new clause 13 propose that the mayor should produce a separate document, known as the River Thames strategy, containing proposals and policies for the use, enhancement and protection of the Thames policy area, and proposing an holistic and integrated approach to the strategically significant features of the Thames. Those are laudable aims, and I wholeheartedly support them. However, I should tell the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the proposed provisions are irrelevant, as their aims are already covered by the Bill.

We have made specific provision—in clause 248, for the spatial development strategy—to be able to cover specific parts of London, such as the Thames, in more detail, in the same way as the Thames guidance currently does. The mayor will, therefore, be able to include in the SDS policies addressing, for example, the wide-ranging topics of the river's built and natural environment, its use for leisure and recreation, and its role in passenger and freight transportation.

The Secretary of State's strategic guidance will remain in place until replaced by the SDS. At that point, it will be for the mayor to reproduce, or even to improve upon, current policies on the Thames. However, it is not a matter that we feel needs to be, or even should be, prescribed in the Bill.

Additionally, clause 33—to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred—provides that, when preparing or revising any strategy, the mayor has to have regard to the desirability of promoting and encouraging use of the River Thames. The important role of the Thames will, therefore, be integral to consideration of all mayoral strategies. That will ensure that, for example, the waste strategy considers use of the Thames for transportation, and that the biodiversity plan deals with the importance of public access. Therefore, as the Thames runs through the centre of London, so it—and considerations of sustainability—will run throughout all the mayor's strategies.

I hope that I have reassured the House that the very important strategic role of the River Thames is adequately provided for in the Bill, and that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will see fit to withdraw amendment No. 64.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I am reassured not only by the Government's very good commitment—which, as a London Member, I welcome—to all the initiatives on the Thames that they have taken in the past year, but by the fact that the spatial development strategy will allow a Thames-specific strategy to be included. On that basis, it would be entirely appropriate to let the current provisions remain in the legislation, which we can always, if necessary, amend later.

I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.15 pm
Mr. Raynsford

I beg to move amendment No. 114A, in page 19, line 29, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

'(4) In preparing or revising any strategy mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Mayor shall have regard to—

  1. (a) the principal purposes of the Authority;
  2. (b) the effect which the proposed strategy or revision would have on—
    1. (i) the health of persons in Greater London; and
    2. (ii) the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom; and
  3. (c) the matters specified in subsection (5) below.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 68, in page 19, line 37, at end insert— '(aa) national policies,'. No. 69, in page 19, line 38, leave out 'national policies and'.

Government amendments Nos. 115 to 118.

Mr. Raynsford

The mayor's strategies will provide the framework within which the authority and its functional bodies operate. They will also provide the framework within which, in certain circumstances, the London boroughs, and other public bodies and organisations, operate within London. It is, therefore, vital that the strategies should have regard to the authority's own principal purposes—which we have already debated—and also to wider national and international considerations which will impact on the quality of life of Londoners. The authority cannot, and will not, be operating in a vacuum.

Amendments Nos. 114A and 118, therefore, require the mayor, in preparing or revising any strategy, to have regard to the authority's principal purposes, as stated in new clause 32, and to consider the effect that such strategies would have on the health of Londoners and on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.

The mayor is also required to include policies that he or she considers best calculated to promote improvements in the health of people in London, and that would—for reasons that I outlined in the previous debate—contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK.

In both of those cases, and in others—for example, the integrated transport plan—the mayor cannot act in isolation: what happens or is done in London will have an effect elsewhere. The mayor's strategies must, therefore, be consistent with national policies, and with international obligations, when they have been adopted.

I therefore cannot accept amendments Nos. 68 and 69—which were tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—which would have the effect of making the mayor have regard to national policies, but not of making him or her produce strategies that were consistent with such national policies. That would be clear nonsense. The GLA, like all other authorities in England, will operate within a framework of national policies and legislation. It simply cannot go its own way and disregard the framework willy-nilly.

Amendment No. 115 replaces the current requirement that the mayor must have regard to the need to ensure that any strategy is consistent with international obligations with a less onerous obligation requiring the mayor to ensure that his or her policies are consistent with international obligations notified to the mayor by the Secretary of State.

International obligations are placed on the state, and it must be for the state to decide if or how those are to be met. It is difficult to see how the mayor could possibly meet the obligation as previously drafted, as a huge international secretariat would be required to establish whether any international obligation was being breached. Amendment No. 115 is, therefore, a common-sense amendment, and I hope that the House will agree it.

Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 are both drafting amendments.

I hope that the House will accept the Government amendments in this group, and that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will not press amendments Nos. 68 and 69.

Mr. Ottaway

The Opposition agree with the broad thrust of the Minister's comments. However, I think that he should pay attention to the points on strategies made by London First in its briefing on Report. The briefing, after listing the strategies, states: the Mayor will have few, or no, powers over some of the agencies directly responsible for the above strategies. There is too much emphasis on process, and not enough on delivery. That goes to the heart of our central complaint, in Committee, about the provision.

London First continues: We look forward to hearing the Government's considered view on the proposed opposition amendment on performance indicators and strategies. No such amendment has been tabled, but the Minister should be able to tell us how he expects to monitor the effectiveness of the strategies that have been set out in the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 reflect the difference of view between the Liberal Democrats and the Government on how independent and self-governing London should be. We have always argued for regional government, not citywide government. A regional government for London could reasonably be expected to have regard to national policy without being required to follow such policy. What may be appropriate across England may not be appropriate in London. We are all bound by the international obligations to which the United Kingdom signs up, but there is no reason why London should not differ from a general strategy for England. We have never been persuaded that there must be conformity and homogeneity. We retain our view, although we accept that the Government like to hang on to everything at the centre, as this short debate has shown.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) quoted from a London First briefing when saying that we were focusing too much on the process and not enough on performance. I have frequent contact with London First and a great deal of respect for it, but I believe that it is wrong in this case. The strategies are the framework for action. We want to ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to be involved in their preparation. It is vital that business should be fully consulted in the preparation of the strategies that will guide London's economic development policies. We have to get the process right.

Once the strategies are in place, they should guide the process of implementation and ensure that the objectives that we have discussed are met. That covers wealth creation, social development and environmental improvement. The authority is about getting results, improving the quality of life for Londoners and creating a more prosperous and successful city. If we get the strategies right and ensure a framework that allows the mayor and authority to implement them, we shall secure the progress that we want.

I am sorry that we have failed to persuade the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that his slightly anarchic view of the role of London in relation to the rest of the country is inappropriate. As on many other matters, the Liberal Democrats are out of step with the general thrust of opinion in the country, which wants a good measure of independence and devolved decision making within a framework that secures the national interest. We do not want an anarchic framework in which some parts of the country act on their own with no regard to the impact on other parts of the country. That is not a recipe for good government or the future health and well-being of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman presses his amendments, I urge the House to vote against them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 115, in page 19, line 39, leave out 'international obligations' and insert 'with such international obligations as the Secretary of State may notify to the Mayor for the purposes of this paragraph'.

No. 116, in page 19, line 43, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 44.

No. 117, in page 20, line 3, at end insert— '(5A) The Mayor—

  1. (a) in considering whether any strategy mentioned in subsection (1) above needs to be revised,
  2. (b) in implementing any such strategy, or
  3. (c) in exercising in relation to the spatial development strategy any of his functions under sections 248 to 256 below,
shall have regard to the matters specified in subsection (5) above.'.

No. 118, in page 20, line 3, at end insert— '(5B) Where the Mayor prepares or revises any strategy mentioned in subsection (1) above, he shall include such of the available policies and proposals relating to the subject matter of the strategy as he considers best calculated—

  1. (a) to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London, and
  2. (b) to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom,
except to the extent that he considers that any action that would need to be taken by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) above is not reasonably practicable in all the circumstances of the case. (5C) In subsection (5B)(a) above, the reference to promoting improvements in health includes a reference to mitigating any detriment to health which would otherwise be occasioned by the strategy or revision.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Raynsford

I beg to move amendment No. 119, in page 20, leave out lines 5 to 9.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 123 to 125 and 127.

Mr. Raynsford

The amendments are drafting amendments, bringing together, in clause 305, the interpretation clause, the definition of national policies that appears in several different places in the Bill. I hope that the House will agree with these sensible, but entirely technical, amendments.

Mr. Ottaway

The amendments provide a better structure for the definition of national policies. However, our fundamental objection remains. A national policy to which the mayor must have regard is whatever the Government say it is. It is based not on a decision of the House, but on an arbitrary decision of the Government. Any paper that they lay here counts as policy. The Government laid a transport White Paper a few months ago. I am sure that they will implement many of its provisions, but I suspect that an awful lot of it will not be implemented. It is unacceptable for the mayor to be bound by policies that the Government have no intention of implementing. National policy should be that which has been subject to a resolution of the House, not a Government diktat.

Putting a definition in clause 305 is an improvement on the random dotting around the Bill, but I place on record our disquiet about the use of the words "national policies".

Sir Sydney Chapman

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has said. I may be speaking to a slightly wider agenda, but this is the right time to make my points. Many Londoners believe that there will be considerable devolution of power from the national Government to the mayor and the Greater London assembly. Very few powers, if any, have been devolved from the Secretary of State, but many have been taken from below from the boroughs. The Government claim to be serious about devolving power to Londoners, as they are with the Scottish Parliament and, to a lesser extent, the Welsh Assembly. Many Londoners will be disappointed that the Bill is merely a fig leaf of devolved power with very little substance.

Mr. Raynsford

The Government are not taking powers predominantly from other tiers of local government and refusing to devolve power from central Government. The main new powers for the Greater London Authority involve substantial devolution from central Government, where responsibility for transport services in London and the Metropolitan police lies. The new authority will be given real powers. That is part of the process of devolution.

Only the Liberal Democrats would normally dissent from the view that such an authority should have regard to national policies. London is part of the country. There is no difference between us and the Conservatives on that. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) expressed concern about the definition of national polices. Some key areas in which the Conservatives have expressed a lot of interest recently, including planning policy on development and new housing in the green belt, would not be covered by a definition limited to items that had been approved by the House. Planning policy guidance note 3 is being seen as an important document in guiding policy. The more limited definition that the hon. Gentleman would apparently prefer would make it possible for such items to be disregarded. It would not be sensible for the mayor of London not to have regard to new planning policy guidance or other documents issued by the Government that are not subject to approval by the House. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but it is misplaced. In practice—

It being half-past seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [30 April].

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Forward to