Greater London Authority Bill

HL Deb 27 July 1999 vol 604 cc1445-518

6.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Turner of Camden) in the Chair.]

Clause 264 [The spatial development strategy]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 369A:

Page 141, line 27, leave out ("must") and insert ("may")

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 369A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 396B and 420A standing in my name and that of my noble friends. Grouped with the amendments is Amendment No. 424, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will no doubt speak.

Clause 264(7) provides that the spatial development strategy must contain diagrams and so on, as may be prescribed by regulations under section 274".

Our amendments aim to give the mayor some discretion or, one might say, flexibility, with regard to the presentation of the spatial development strategy. The amendments do not at this point seek to deal with the content but seek to allow him or her to present the strategy as he or she wishes, rather than having to comply with regulations as regards the detail of presentation. I have to say that it is very likely that a spatial development strategy would contain diagrams or some other form of illustration, in the narrow sense of illustrating a policy or a strategy, and clearly would have to include some descriptive or explanatory matter. However, I believe that it is for the mayor—and that is the point of the "may" rather than the "must"—to determine how the strategy is presented.

Clause 274 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about the form and the content of the spatial development strategy. Amendment No. 420A is designed to delete the reference to "content" in those regulations. Having read the debate in another place, I am not entirely sure what "content" means in this context. Clause 274(1) is expressly without prejudice to any other provisions of this part. That seems to be very sweeping and appears to allow the Secretary of State to override primary legislation as to content, which I hope is not the intention. Even if that is not so, it seems to me that it must be a matter for the mayor to determine, within the provisions of the Act, what the content of the spatial development strategy should be.

In another place the Minister in the debate on Clause 274 said that this was in line with the procedures and publicity for structure plans and argued in support of the provision as drafted on that basis. I believe that a reference to "content" takes the matter much further than that. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, my Amendment No. 424 is grouped with these amendments. It raises a somewhat separate point. Clause 274 deals with regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State regulating the form and content of and the background to the spatial development strategy. Apart from the principle of the matter, which follows from what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said, I have no difficulty at all about the Secretary of State regulating to determine what form the spatial development strategy should take. That seems to me to be perfectly straightforward, even if I do not like it.

Clause 274(2) states: Regulations under this Part may make different provision for different pans of Greater London". I have some difficulty in understanding what different provision for different parts of London has to do with the form and content of the strategy, which is to cover the whole of London. That is why I have put down this amendment, which is in essence a probing amendment, suggesting that the Bill could perfectly well do without Clause 274(2). I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. I feel that this, in terms of a strategic Bill, is much too detailed to specify how the mayor is to present the strategy. Indeed, it might even be regarded as fairly old-fashioned in the sense that, with advances in technology, one could have a strategy which is entirely on line and which deals with a virtual reality presentation of the strategy, with no diagrams, illustrations or other descriptive or explanatory material. It might be entirely visual.

Perhaps the Minister could also tell me whether, if it specifies that it must contain diagrams, illustrations and so on, it states anywhere that it must contain any words.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I often feel that the proceedings of this House could be greatly enhanced were we to have illustrations rather than words!

I deal first with the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We do not say in response that we do not propose to prescribe in great and precise detail the type of diagram and explanatory material to be included in the spatial plan. We do, however, believe that it is important that there should be a measure of consistency with other parts of the planning system. This applies in particular to the inclusion in the SDS of a key diagram, along the lines that we expect to be included in structure plans and in the new form of regional planning guidance. That is the reference that the noble Baroness made to the explanation given in another place.

This is required and it is particularly important because in London we have the UDPs which provide the development plan for London boroughs, which need to be in general conformity with the SDS. A similar provision can be found in existing planning law in relation to the Secretary of State's ability to prescribe the content of development plans. I hope, therefore, that it explains the reference to diagrams and explanatory material, which will doubtless contain the odd word.

I turn to Amendment No. 420A. This amendment, taken literally, would prevent the Secretary of State from saying anything about the content of the SDS. I need to make it clear that we do not intend to prescribe here what policies the mayor should follow but only the general matters that should be addressed.

We believe that it is important to set out in very broad terms the scope of the SDS. This is necessary because of the important place that it will occupy in the totality of the planning system in London and for consistency with the system that exists in the rest of the country.

To take one example, the SDS must say something about the provision of land for housing in London. Noble Lords will be aware that at present a fair amount of debate is taking place about providing for the increased numbers of households that are projected in the south-east. It is conceivable, though I accept unlikely, that a future mayor may find it expedient not to deal with the issue of housing land within the SDS. That would not be a satisfactory state of affairs either for the boroughs or for the south-east as a whole.

Equally, the setting out of the broad scope of the SDS will be an important matter of defining more clearly what kind of animal it is. We have previously discussed the fact that this is a new type of planning instrument. Some noble Lords opposite have sought more: detail on what it means. We have had other Opposition amendments which have sought to prescribe on the face of the Bill that the SDS should address such issues; as land requirements for transport, protection of the green belt and regeneration of brownfield sites. I said during those debates that I did not believe that it was sensible to put those on the face of the Bill. However, they are examples of the kind of areas that would sensibly be covered in secondary legislation and would therefore help to define the scope of the SDS.

In relation to Amendment No. 424 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, this proposes the removal of the subsection which allows the Secretary of State to make different provision in regulations for different parts of London. It is linked to the provision in Clause 264(8) which allows the mayor's SDS to make different provision for different parts of London, on which we have already had some debate.

If I may repeat the arguments that took place at that time, the provision is necessary in the event that the Secretary of State in regulations wanted to specify that the mayor should in the SDS address strategic problems of a particular area of London. In response to an earlier amendment from my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I used the example of the River Thames, where we currently have a regional planning guidance in force that is produced by the Secretary of State. When we discussed the question of the Thames in the context of Part II of the Bill, there was consensus that the mayor should seek to continue to replicate specific strategic planning guidance for the Thames and the banks of the Thames. This clause would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe matters such as this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, addressing the first amendment in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith, indicated that she believed that the power to prescribe content went beyond the equivalent position in similar provisions for structure plans. That is not in fact so. Section 53 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides: Without prejudice to the previous provisions of this Chapter, the Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the form and content of structure and local plans". It is therefore almost exactly the equivalent power that we are providing for the mayor in London.

I therefore think that this clause reflects the need for consistency both in London and between the London arrangements and those which apply in the rest of the country. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

I thank the Minister for that response. I think that the last point he made on Amendment No. 420, and my reference to the section being without prejudice to the other provisions of the Act, was helpful. I shall check the reference in the other legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 369B to 372A not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 372B:

Page 141, line 31, at end insert— ("() In preparing the spatial development strategy, the Mayor shall consult and have regard to the views of the London and the South East Regional Planning Conference (SERPLAN) and its successor bodies.")

The noble Baroness said: This amendment would add to Clause 264 an obligation for the mayor to consult SERPLAN (the South East Regional Planning Conference), or any "successor body" to it, in the preparation of the spatial development strategy. We have spoken a little in the debates on this Bill—my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and I said a good deal more during the proceedings on the legislation for the regional development agencies—about the importance of the area's relationship with its surrounding areas; or, as my noble friend described it, its hinterland.

I am sure that it is entirely obvious to all Members of the Committee that London has a very close and, in some ways, tense relationship with its hinterland. Issues relating to transport provide one example. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would remind us of the matter of waste, coming as he does from Essex. Issues of employment also arise. As regards transport, I have in mind the apparently inexorable radial effect, one might say, that London seems almost to be something of a centrifugal force. I know that people in areas around London would prefer more emphasis to be placed on orbital movement.

It is important that there should be a direct dialogue. It should not be left to the Secretary of State to make assumptions about the views of either area and act as a sort of middle-man in passing on messages from one to the other, as to nature of their concerns. In another place, when responding to a similar amendment, the Minister said that it would be inappropriate to refer to SERPLAN because it is not a statutory body. This amendment builds a little on the one that my honourable friends tabled in another place, by adding a reference to "successor bodies". The Minister also said: Alternative arrangements may emerge to ensure proper co-ordination between the mayor in London and the areas outside … in secondary legislation".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee A, 18/3/99; col. 1379.] I take the opportunity of moving this amendment to ask the Minister whether the Government have made any progress in dealing with any such alternative amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Although I can appreciate the thinking behind Amendment No. 372B, I am afraid that we cannot accept it for a number of reasons. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to create a formal requirement in primary legislation to consult SERPLAN, because, as the noble Baroness recognises, we have already said that it is not a statutory body. It is a group of local authorities and one which may in due course be subject to some rearrangement in the light of new developments, such as the setting up of RDAs. If so, we hope and expect that new arrangements would be devised to ensure the proper co-ordination of planning across the broader South East, but it is not yet clear—this answers some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness—what those might be.

In the mean time, Clause 265 requires the mayor to consult councils in areas adjoining London on his or her SDS proposals. Clause 274 enables the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations additional consultees, which might include any existing or new body that may be set up to co-ordinate regional planning in the South East.

Given those uncertainties, we feel that it is better to deal with such matters in secondary legislation, although I must stress that it seems inconceivable that the mayor would not in any case wish to do what this amendment seeks to prescribe. In short, this amendment is pushing at an open door. We shall see what can be done to reflect its intent in secondary legislation. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

This seems to be another example where, if it is "inconceivable" that the mayor would not do something, we should not try to spell it out on the face of the Bill. There seems to me to be an awful lot in the legislation that the mayor could not conceivably avoid doing.

However, although Clause 265(3)(c) refers to consultation by way of councils outside London, that relates only to councils for areas which adjoin Greater London. My concern is much wider. When one is looking strategically, one has to take a much broader approach. I should certainly welcome a relationship between the "chambers" supporting regional development agencies and any regional assembly, rather than the RDAs themselves. As the Minister knows, I do not believe that the RDAs should take a leading part in setting planning policy.

Nevertheless, as the Government have said both here and in another place that they are looking at the particular arrangements which might be put in place, perhaps the Minister could write to me between now and the next stage, sending a copy of the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, with regard to what provisions will be put in place through regulations. The noble Baroness nods her head in assent, so she need not reply in order to put that on the record. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 372C:

Page 141, line 31, at end insert— ("() The spatial development strategy shall include a strategic environmental appraisal of its policies and proposals.")

The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this amendment, which is tabled in the names of my noble friends. The amendment seeks to ensure that the SDS, shall include a strategic environmental appraisal of its policies and proposals". It is possible that the Government currently feel that the state of the environment report will adequately cover the effect that the SDS would have on the environment. However, we certainly do not believe this to be the case. I think that it has become more widely recognised in recent years that it is important to have environmental appraisals that, in current jargon, ensure an iterative process. As one is bringing in long-term plans, it is important that there should be a very specific requirement as regards what their environmental impact will be. That is very different from the state of the environment report; indeed, I believe that the two functions differ widely.

The SDS will be concerned with many issues, such as the impact on economic development and how it will feel to live and work in the city. However, that does not automatically mean that the sort of things that an environmental impact scheme assessment would take into account would be covered, unless there is a specific requirement for such an assessment to take place. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has obviously had a very similar thought. The large schemes developed in recent times, for which there has been a requirement for an environmental impact assessment, have allowed people to take a different view of what the planning system as a whole is supposed to achieve.

I hope that it will not be felt that the state of the environment report will fulfil this function, because it most certainly will not. Without this amendment, I feel that the environmental appraisal part of the policy and the proposals will be totally lacking. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

It appears that there is an element here of dotting "i"s that have been heavily dotted and crossing "t"s that have been heavily crossed. I should have thought that all this is subsumed in what is already provided for in the Bill. I assume therefore that what is proposed is otiose. If I am wrong about that my noble friend will, of course, correct me.

Lord Dixon-Smith

Amendments Nos. 380 and 381A which stand in my name are grouped with Amendment No. 372C. It remains to be seen whether they are otiose. In any event that is a matter of opinion. However, what is certain is that however perfect the Bill may be by the time this Chamber has finished with it, it will still not be perfect. That may also be a matter of opinion. I do not intend to repeat what has been said because the two amendments I have mentioned which stand in my name are aimed at precisely the same point as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has proposed.

However, there are two points which are worth making. First, in Standing Committee in the Commons the Government said that they expected the mayor to carry out a full appraisal of the environmental impact of the spatial development strategy. However, for the life of me I cannot see why we should be afraid of spelling that out on the face of the Bill. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us on the matter.

Secondly, the Government have also proposed introducing environmental appraisal into regional planning guidance. Those are two strong reasons for supporting the suggestion that has been made. I do not know which amendment is superior or whether any of them are adequate for the purpose that is intended. However, I would be happy to be guided by the Minister if he can produce a better formulation. I await his reply with interest.

Baroness Hamwee

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, talked about dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s. However, it has to be said that this is a fairly dotty Bill already. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in arguing for these amendments or something similar, mentioned the Government's proposals on sustainability appraisals. The Minister in another place argued that the Government could not be specific about a sustainability appraisal because as yet, there is no national guidance on what such an appraisal might comprise or on how it should be conducted". That seems to me to be remarkably unambitious for London. As and when national guidance is in place the mayor will no doubt have to have regard to it. However, I believe that that should not hinder the substance of what happens in London.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendments Nos. 372C, 380 and 381A would require an environmental appraisal of the policies and proposals of the spatial development strategy during its preparation.

It is the Government's intention that the mayor should carry out a full appraisal of the environmental impacts of the emerging SDS, as was recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this would form only one element within a wider sustainability appraisal which also considered the economic and social impacts of the policies and proposals of the SDS. I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this is in line with the approach now proposed for the new forms of regional planning guidance as set out in draft Planning Policy Guidance Note 11 published for consultation a few months ago.

Consultants have recently reported to the department on the feasibility of carrying out a sustainability appraisal in this context and how it might be undertaken. We intend to embrace the findings of this emerging work in our guidance to the mayor on the SDS on which we shall consult later this year.

This is a new and emerging concept and one which we therefore feel is not best dealt with on the face of the Bill. We believe that the appropriate way forward would be to make reference to the need for a sustainability appraisal—which includes an assessment of environmental impacts—in non-statutory guidance on the SDS. This would allow the guidance to be revised and refined as we develop this new method of assessment. I hope that these assurances will enable noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that the Government appear to have recognised that this is an important area of emerging work and that consultants are assessing the feasibility of carrying out a sustainability appraisal and how it might be undertaken. I shall read her comments with care. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 264 agreed to.

Clause 265 [Public participation]:

[Amendment No. 373 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 373A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 374 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 375:

Page 141, line 35, leave out ("and")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 375 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 376 and 377 which are grouped with it and which also stand in my name.

The current text of the Bill obliges the mayor to consult the assembly and the functional bodies on the first draft of the spatial development strategy. That is absolutely fine. The amendment extends this initial consultation. We believe that the mayor should consult the London boroughs and the relevant representative bodies at that stage. The Association of London Government is concerned that the boroughs are included only in the second stage of the process and yet the boroughs will be vital to the spatial development strategy. Although in some ways it will form a new dimension for London, it will also comprise their unitary development plans. The amendment seeks to involve the boroughs and the functional bodies at the first stage. One thus would stand a greater chance of bringing all these plans together in a unified way at the earliest possible moment. This should not impose any delay. The boroughs and other consultees can be subject to exactly the same time limits as the assembly. Therefore no problem should arise in that regard.

The Minister responsible for London recognised in the Commons that any sensible mayor is likely to consult the boroughs and others from the outset. Once again I suspect that there is no disagreement between us on this matter, except that we believe that it would be useful to have this provision on the face of the Bill. I have an awful suspicion that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong in that respect. However, that is fairly normal. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

Amendment No. 377A which stands in my name is grouped with the amendments we are discussing. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said as my amendment makes the same point in part. I propose that the bodies and persons who are listed in Clause 27(2) of the Bill should be consulted at this stage. The spatial development strategy is excluded in the early part of the Bill under Clause 33 because of the rather different approach to consultation and some other matters. The spatial development strategy will be the poorer if the mayor is not allowed to consult and to learn from the experience of the boroughs in the preparation of development plans. The mayor should set a good example by drawing people into the process of building planning—not least in order to avoid at a later stage too many questions along the lines of, "How on earth did that happen?". We would like to see on the face of the Bill a greater provision for consultation.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The arrangements set out in Clause 265 are intended to provide clear and open consultation arrangements consistent with the requirements of the planning system and with the objective of avoiding over-lengthy and complex procedures.

Amendments Nos. 375, 376, 377 and 377A would have the effect of requiring the mayor to carry out two full and separate consultation exercises by requiring consultation with the boroughs and other external interests at the same time as an initial draft SDS is put to the assembly and functional bodies. These added consultations would be in advance of those anticipated at subsection (2) of this clause.

We believe that this is not necessary and could be a recipe for delay. We want the mayor to be able to produce the SDS relatively quickly and not get bogged down in over-bureaucratic consultation procedures that would require him first to undertake a full external consultation on an initial set of proposals and then again on a draft SDS.

Subsection (1) of the clause seeks to ensure that the assembly and the GLA functional bodies have an input into the development of the mayor's proposals before the more formal consultation procedures set out in the remainder of the clause come into operation. That provision simply deals with the internal arrangements within the GLA. It ensures that the assembly in particular is involved in, and associated with, the published proposals before they go out to full external consultation and is not treated like any other consultee and expected to appear at the examination in public.

Of course, it seems likely that any sensible mayor will take care to consult the boroughs and other stakeholders from the outset in developing his or her proposals. Securing their co-operation and participation in developing the mayor's ideas is certainly the best way to ensure that they are implemented as rapidly and effectively as possible. But we cannot see any merit in requiring a two-stage formal consultation procedure. It would be over bureaucratic and lead to unnecessary delay.

However, I hope to give the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, some cause for optimism. I note that Amendment No. 377A proposes adding to Clause 265 the consultation of those bodies mentioned in Clause 27 of the Bill whom the mayor is required to consult on other strategies. It might be helpful if I flag up now that, when we debate Amendment No. 381AA which similarly would also require the consultation of those bodies mentioned in Clause 27 at the "external stage" of the process, we will be saying something positive and explaining why we wish to take away and consider that amendment. With those words I hope to encourage the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I shall need to study with great care what the Minister has said. It seems passing strange to me that the mayor is obliged to consult the assembly—although, of course, that is the only function the assembly has; the assembly can do nothing if it disagrees with his strategy—he is not obliged to consult the boroughs. They will be intimately affected by the strategy and must play a vital part in its formulation.

The Minister has expressed a difference of view. I am not sure that she has given me a reason for withdrawing the amendment. Nonetheless, I shall look carefully at what she has said. It may be that we shall need to return to this issue at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 376 to 380 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 381:

Page 142, line 1, after ("inspection") insert ("on the internet and")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 381 returns to a familiar theme. Clause 265 deals with public participation in the development of the spatial development strategy. Once more we return to the issue of the mayor making his proposals available on the Internet to enable the widest possible participation in the preparation of the document. There is sure to be the widest possible public interest in the subject. Although we have tried to insert into the Bill the little matter of consultation on the Internet, we have not yet succeeded. However, the case is no less valid and we will continue to press the matter. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendment No. 381 concerns a debate we have had before in the House. I am sure that we all want the mayor to make full use of modern communication methods and up-to-date technology. But the very pace of change in this area makes it inadvisable to cement such matters in primary legislation.

Of course, Clause 274 also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to cover the preparation and publication of the strategy in line with usual planning practice. That might be a more appropriate place to flag up the possibilities offered by the Internet. We will certainly look at this matter when we come to draft the regulations. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I will study it with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 381ZA and 381A not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 381AA:

Page 142, line 14, after ("strategy;") insert— ("() the bodies and persons referred to in section 27(2);")

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 381AA I shall speak also to Amendment No. 381B. The Minister has trailed a positive Government response in respect of Amendment No. 381AA. We have already debated what the Minister described as the "public" or "second" stage and I shall not waste the Committee's time by repeating the arguments.

Amendment No. 381B seeks to provide that the mayor or assembly has the opportunity to consult such persons and bodies as he or it considers appropriate. The amendment seeks to provide an assurance that the mayor can add to the list persons and bodies other than those directed by the Secretary of State in regulations and, secondly, seeks to indicate the role of the assembly in assisting the consultation process.

I believe that the Government have commented that this amendment—or a similar one—is not necessary because the Bill does not have to be specific. However, the Government have chosen to be specific in the Bill about a number of matters. Can the Minister give an assurance—without it being specific in the Bill—that the mayor will be able to undertake consultations with bodies and persons outside the list? I beg to move Amendment No. 381AA.

Lord Whitty

As the noble Baroness said, my noble friend has already trailed the fact that we have sympathy with the thinking behind the amendment. We are not sure that the drafting is necessarily appropriate; nor that its purpose could not be better achieved by amending Clause 33 of the Bill rather than this one. However, with those caveats, I am happy to take the amendment away and consider it further.

Turning to Amendment No. 381B, if we decide to go along with a proposal along the lines of the previous amendment, that may well incorporate the words proposed here in respect of the mayor. Indeed, it might well do so automatically were the amendment to be aligned with Clause 33. However, the other point of Amendment No. 381B is to provide that the assembly should be able to determine the mayor's consultation arrangements. That would not be consistent with the approach that we have adopted in the rest of the Bill on the division of powers between the mayor and the assembly. Therefore, that aspect will not be reflected in any proposal that I may bring forward. However, I hope that the positive response to the first of the amendments will allow the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

Baroness Hamwee

One learns that one's drafting is never adequate, but I welcome what the Minister has said in that regard. One has also learnt that the role of the assembly is not as we should like it to be. However, I continue to make the point at this stage, where appropriate, so that it is on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 381B not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved amendment No. 382:

Page 142, line 27, after second ("period") insert ("which shall not be less than six weeks from the date that copies are made available under subsection (2) above")

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill a minimum consultation period for the public, the London boroughs and others to respond in regard to the draft spatial development strategy. It may seem superfluous to lay down a minimum period in regard to a matter that is to be dealt with by regulations. However, the amendment merely imposes a minimum limit. The regulations can then include any reasonable period above that limit. On a matter of consultation, it is important that the public and all the relevant bodies that are being consulted have a sufficient—although not excessive—time in which to respond. We believe that six weeks is an adequate minimum. If the Minister were to choose to set a longer period, that would be entirely down to him. But we do not think it unreasonable that this minimum period should be on the face of the Bill.

To give an absurd example, under the terms of the Bill, the Minister could make regulations stating that there should be a two-week consultation period. London would very properly explode if that were suggested, so no sensible Secretary of State would be likely to do so. But under the Bill as drafted such a decision is possible. That is not sensible, and that is why we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

The amendment seeks to insert an unnecessary level of detail into the Bill. It is not normal for primary legislation to specify the consultation period. Secondary legislation is normally used for that purpose. It does so in relation to unitary development plans, structure plans and so on. That is the situation with most planning legislation at present. We see no reason to depart from that. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I must study the position. If that is custom and practice and is the normal way of dealing with these matters, we shall have to watch with care when the appropriate regulations are brought forward. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 265 agreed to.

Clause 266 [Withdrawal]:

[Amendments Nos. 383 to 386 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 386A:

Page 142, line 38, leave out from ("to") to end of line and insert ("each of the bodies and persons specified in subsection (4) below")

The noble Baroness said: This group includes my Amendment No. 387A and also Amendments Nos. 386B and 404A in the name of the Minister.

Clause 266 relates to the withdrawal of any draft spatial development strategy. Our amendments relate to notification of the withdrawal. The government amendments are much the same as ours. They were tabled in response to points made by my honourable friends in another place, and I have no doubt that they are better drafted than ours. I look forward to agreeing them. I need not say more in support of my own amendments. Once the Minister has spoken to the government amendments, I shall withdraw mine. Also, I shall not seek to oppose the Question that the clause stand part, which I hope will help to move the proceedings forward. I beg to move.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Whitty

I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. I shall speak to government Amendments Nos. 386B and 404A in this group. As she says, they arise from an agreement by my colleague in another place, the Minister with responsibility for London, to consider an amendment from the Liberal Democrat Opposition there.

The amendments will place a duty on the mayor to notify any withdrawal of the draft SDS to all those who are consulted during the preparation of the strategy and on the draft. The Bill as drafted requires merely that those who have made representations regarding the SDS—11/8/2006rather than all those who have been consulted—should be informed.

The approach suggested in the Commons seems to us constructive and sensible, and we are happy to accept it. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore withdraw her amendment, as she indicated. I am grateful also for her indication that she will not oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 386B:

Page 142, line 38, leave out ("person who has made representations about it") and insert ("body or person falling within subsection (2A) below.

(2A) Those bodies and persons are—

1. (a) the Assembly;
2. (b) each of the functional bodies;
3. (c) each of the bodies and persons specified in section 265(3) above; and
4. (d) every body which, or person who, made representations in accordance with the regulations.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 387 and 387A not moved.]

Clause 266, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 267 [Publication]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 388:

Page 142, line 42, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a very small matter and relates to a question of drafting taste. Clause 267 deals with the publication of the strategy. Subsection (1) states: Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Mayor may publish the spatial development strategy".

"May" always sounds optional. In our view, the mayor must publish the strategy; therefore, we prefer the word "shall. It is a small point. However, I must admit that I should consider it to be a great triumph if the amendment were to be accepted. I suspect that I shall be told that the custom and practice is that "may" is the word that is normally used. If not, I suggest that "shall" is a better word. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendment No. 388 seeks to change the wording of Clause 267 from "may publish" to "shall publish". As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has explained, the intention behind that is to ensure that the mayor publishes a final SDS. However, that is already covered by other provisions under Part VIII. In particular, Clause 264 states that, The Mayor shall prepare and publish … the 'spatial development strategy'". The permissive term "may" is used in this clause because the subsequent subsections set out a series of conditions and requirements which the mayor must meet before he or she can publish the SDS.

I should also add that even if the mayor, following consultation and the report of the examination, felt the need to withdraw the strategy and rethink his or her plans, Clause 266 makes it clear that this does not affect the overall duty to prepare and publish the SDS. I am certain that in the light of this assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

With the greatest respect, I do not think the noble Baroness can get away with that. Either the mayor has to publish it or does not have to publish it. This in fact conflicts with the other clauses that the noble Baroness has mentioned. I have worked with advisers in government myself, as she has, and I can quite understand that you ask your advisers, "What is this all about?" Then they give you an explanation and a reason. However, this is simply not a good reason and I would suggest to the noble Baroness that she looks at this before the next stage and perhaps even makes this clause match the other. I did not feel that her argument held water at all.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I am dreadfully sorry not to have given an explanation, because in this case the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is raising an issue which I feel is totally covered by the reply that I gave. This part of the Bill deals with the circumstances that must apply before the mayor shall, has to, is required to or has the duty to do this. So this is merely a question of a certain point in the Bill. We are in agreement, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and myself, and he is in agreement with the Government, that the mayor shall be required to do this and we are discussing the wording that is needed to achieve it.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for her support in this matter. I must admit that I listened to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and it seemed to me that in her answer she was giving me a perfect reason why she should accept the amendment. However, it is a matter of opinion. I will study what the noble Baroness had to say and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 389 to 391 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 391ZA:

Page 143, line 4, leave out paragraph (b)

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this amendment and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 393D, 395A and 397A. These amendments are grouped with the Government Amendments Nos. 393C and 393E.

The first of my amendments is a "paver" for Amendment No. 395A, and in fact my amendments as a whole seek to leave out subsections (5), (6) and (7) of Clause 267. Clause 267(6) allows the Secretary of State to give a direction to the mayor to leave out of the special development strategy matters that he considers to be "inconsistent with", to quote the wording of the Bill, current national policies or relevant regional planning guidance", or to be detrimental to areas outside London. It seems to me that the Secretary of State will again have very wide powers and I do not understand how they could properly be exercised in the context where there has been a public inquiry. I appreciate that it is to be advisory and is not the same as other sorts of inquiries, but there will have been a very full investigation into the proposed strategy. I am concerned about the possible reserve powers that the Secretary of State will retain.

Relevant regional planning guidance is guidance for areas outside London which in other words I understand will take precedence over arrangements for London. I am unclear as to what input London will have. I hope it has been clear from my earlier comments today that I would not want to see London's interests riding roughshod over those of areas outside and around London, but equally I would not like to see London sidelined in any way in the balance of various other interests being considered.

Lord Whitty

The effect of these amendments will be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to direct the mayor to amend the special development strategy where he considers it is inconsistent with current national policies or regional planning guidance or has a detrimental effect on interests outside Greater London.

The noble Baroness says that she recognises the mayor should not do things to the detriment of other aspects of national policy in other parts of the country. Nevertheless these amendments, taken together, would exclude the power of the Secretary of State to come in and alter that. The mayor is placed under a duty to have regard to such matters under Clause 33 to start with and then under Clause 273. We fully expect the mayor to act responsibly in that regard, but it is possible that agreement would not be reached and the Secretary of State needs to have some way of protecting wider interests.

The proposals are based on normal planning provisions which would allow the Secretary of State to deal with development plans elsewhere in the country, with one qualification. It must ensure that the Secretary of State's powers cannot be used on matters which will solely be the responsibility of the mayor. The circumstances in which that power can be exerted have been limited in subsection (5) to defined circumstances. That limitation does not apply elsewhere in the country: hence our proposal for giving the mayor responsibility for London to a greater extent than planning authorities elsewhere will have. Nevertheless we wish to ensure that where there are conflicts with wider interests there is a means whereby the Secretary of State can intervene. My own amendments in this group, Nos. 393C and 393E, clarify the circumstances where that could happen.

If I may refer to Amendment No. 393E, the Bill currently provides for the Secretary of State to be able to direct the mayor to amend the strategy if it was inconsistent with these wider aspects. However, we need clarification, and for the avoidance of doubt the Secretary of State's powers to direct amendments can be made at any point before the final publication of the strategy and not just, as it could be read at present, on the initial consultation draft. It is possible that the mayor might seek to put in a later version aspects which were not there originally and which would have a detrimental effect on wider aspects of national policy in other parts of the country.

Similarly, Amendment No. 393C seeks to clarify and avoid doubt on procedures regarding the SDS under Clause 274, the main procedures for the mayor to follow, to ensure that the Secretary of State has an opportunity to exercise the power of direction to which I have referred. At a later point I should like to move those amendments to clarify these powers, but in the meantime I hope that the noble Baroness recognises that to remove these powers would lead to a situation where we could not resolve these difficulties.

Baroness Hamwee

I did talk about balance and I had hoped I had made it clear that in moving the amendment I was well aware of the comments I had already made regarding the interests of areas outside London. The Bill talks about avoiding any detriment, and I am concerned about the situation where, for instance, there may be a detriment but also some counterbalancing advantage. I am not sure that I recognise the need as it is dealt with in the Bill, but I do recognise the Government's concern to retain these powers as drawn. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.30 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell)

I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 391A is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 392.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 391A:

Page 143, line 5, leave out ("findings") and insert ("recommendations")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 391A is grouped with Amendments Nos. 392, 402A and 403. I advise the Committee that Amendments Nos. 391A and 392 have the same effect. My filing system may have slipped slightly because virtually the same amendment appears twice. However, there is a marginal difference in wording, which explains why the Clerks accepted it. I apologise for taking time to give that explanation.

I begin with Amendments Nos. 402 and 402A. All of these matters relate to examination in public and the consequences of it. The present wording of the Bill suggests that the examination in public can make findings. If one has an examination in public of any other planning document it finishes up with the panel making recommendations. I do not believe that "findings" has quite the same force. I do not see the purpose of having an examination in public if all that it does is report its findings. It should be incumbent on the mayor to do something about what is found and I believe that the word "recommendations" is superior.

The Bill deals with publication of the spatial development strategy before the examination in public. However, the amendments to change "findings" to "recommendations" in Clause 267 in relation to publication do not make sense without the amendments relating to examination in public in Clause 268. Therefore, the grouping is essential and the amendments are consistent. I commend this matter to the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I admit that the noble Lord has a point. Our initial intention when drafting the Bill was that the term "findings" should be broader than "recommendations" but would clearly include the panel's recommendations on which the mayor would have to give a response. I am advised that in similar provisions in planning Acts and associated legislation relating to development plans the terms "report" and "recommendation" are found more often than "findings". The use of both terms may be a possibility. I am also advised that there is another reference to "findings" in line 17 on page 143 of the Bill which has not been picked up in these amendments. In response to the noble Lord, I shall take away all of these amendments with a view to considering whether at Report stage the Government should provide clarification of all the references in this part of the Bill.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am most grateful to the Minister for that response. I look forward to seeing what the Government bring forward on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment Nos. 392 and 393 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 393A:

Page 143, line 12, after ("with") insert ("this Act and")

The noble Baroness said: Clause 267(4) provides that before publication the mayor must consider representations made under the regulations. Amendment No. 393A is a probing amendment to discover what obligation is on the mayor to consider representations made under the Bill, for example those made before publication under Clause 265(2)(e). There may be a drafting error in my amendment, in that I believe that the "and" should be "or". However, the substantive point remains. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I believe that I now understand a little more the purpose of Amendment No. 393A, but its meaning is still a trifle obscure. It would require the mayor to consider representations, made in accordance with the Act". Clause 267(4) of the Bill imposes on the mayor a duty to consider representations. Clearly, there needs to be a definition of what is a valid representation. That is the intention of Clause 265(6). It provides for regulations to define the period within which representations can be made and how they should be made: for example, whether they should be made in writing. It is only those representations, made in accordance with the regulations", that the mayor must consider.

Amendment No. 393A introduces the further concept of, representations made in accordance with the Act". Yet that phrase can have no meaning. The Bill does not prescribe, for example, whether representations must be in writing, or within what period they must be made. For these reasons, the amendment risks creating confusion, and we are unable to accept it.

I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. If as a result of my explanation the position remains unclear, perhaps for the sake of clarity it would help if I wrote to the noble Baroness and other members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate.

Baroness Hamwee

I thank the Minister for that response. She said that the form of representations must be in accordance with the regulations. My concern is that in some way this provision will exclude the substance of representations, because the reference to regulations appears to override other provisions that may be found elsewhere in the Bill as currently drafted. But if the point is that the representations must be in a particular form, or that they should be made within a particular period, I am happy to accept that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 393B:

Page 143, line 15, at end insert (", or () he has discussed any representations with the Assembly")

The noble Baroness said: Clause 267(4) prevents the mayor from publishing the spatial development strategy until certain steps have been taken. Amendment No. 393B proposes that at that stage there should be a discussion with the assembly. The Minister is well aware of our concern that the assembly, which in shorthand is referred to as a scrutiny body but, according to the Government's definition of that term, includes scrutiny in advance, should have a role of which the mayor can usefully take advantage. We are concerned that the assembly is resoundingly left out of the process.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

We have little doubt that there will be a dialogue between the mayor and assembly at various stages in the production of the SDS, and for all the strategies. However, for the most part we have not sought to prescribe on the face of the Bill precisely how the working relationship between the mayor and assembly will operate. On the contrary, we are sure that it is right that some discretion should be left with them to decide how they will work together and at what points discussion will take place on emerging strategies.

The amendment would require the mayor to discuss with the assembly each and every representation he receives, which, I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree, would indeed be an heroic task. We therefore cannot accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw it.

Baroness Hamwee

I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall consider what she has had to say as part of our general review of the whole issue of the role of the assembly when we have come to the end of this stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 393C:

Page 143, line 19, at end insert— ("() The provision that may be made by regulations under section 274 below includes provision prohibiting publication of the spatial development strategy until such further procedures as may be prescribed have been complied with.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 393D not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 393E:

Page 143, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert— ("(5) if at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient to do so for the purpose of avoiding—

1. (a) any inconsistency with current national policies or relevant planning guidance, or
2. (b) any")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 394 to 399 not moved.]

Clause 267, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 268 [Examination in public]:

[Amendment No. 400 not moved.]

7.45 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 401:

Page 144, line 2, leave out from ("shall") to ("cause")

The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with a small matter in Clause 268 which I must admit I find rather difficult to understand as drafted. Therefore I am again on a fishing trip, and I look forward to what the Minister will tell me.

Clause 268(1) States: Before publishing the spatial development strategy, the Mayor shall, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, cause an examination in public to be held".

I find the words, "unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs", odd. It seems to me that if there is to be a spatial development strategy, and if it is to go through anything like the normal planning procedures, there must be an examination in public. I find it rather strange that the Secretary of State seems to find it necessary to add this holding arrangement or insurance policy into this subsection. I cannot think of anything that the Secretary of State might otherwise direct, because the only thing that he could otherwise direct was that there should not be an examination in public. It seems to me that that simply would not be proper. I have tabled the amendment to find the answer to that particular conundrum. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendment 401 would remove the Secretary of State's power to waive the duty on the mayor to hold an examination in public on any proposals to make or amend an SDS.

The examination in public is an important part—as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognised—of the procedure for developing the SDS. It ensures that the issues raised are properly debated and that those most affected have an opportunity to air their views before an independent panel. That is why we have now introduced it into the new procedures for producing regional planning guidance and why we have incorporated it here too.

But it is a resource-intensive process. We therefore think it sensible to allow for the possibility of a relatively minor or uncontentious amendment or amendments to the SDS where a full-scale EiP could not be justified.

On the other hand—I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that we considered this point—it would be wrong to give the mayor an unfettered right unilaterally to waive the EIP requirement. In order to satisfy the public's expectation of an open and fair process, we need to ensure that the discretion rests elsewhere. That is the purpose of giving the Secretary of State that power. The mayor would need to convince the Secretary of State that in any particular case the amendment proposed did not merit holding an EIP. We do not believe that any Secretary of State would grant such a waiver lightly and anticipate that we shall say so in any accompanying guidance that we issue.

Having heard that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept this common sense provision and withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

Before my noble friend replies, I think that that was a very interesting exchange. Obviously this is an important matter, but I believe that the wording as it stands might well be misunderstood in the way that my noble friend misunderstood it, and I am bound to say I also did.

I thought that the noble Baroness was perhaps going to tell the Committee that the Secretary of State might want to stop the mayor doing something that he was planning to do because he did not like what the mayor was putting forward for public examination. Perhaps she will look at the wording to see whether it might be more clearly put so that one could understand that, before publishing the development strategy, the mayor shall cause an examination in public unless the Secretary of State agrees to the mayor's request that it need not be held, because that is what she is in fact saying. It is not quite the same as what is stated in the Bill. It is only a small point but it might be misunderstood by the public. I certainly wondered what it meant, for what that is worth.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Perhaps it would help the noble Baroness if I gave her an assurance that any point raised relating to clarity is of course given consideration.

Lord Dixon-Smith

Once again I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I am bound to say that I have some doubts about the adequacy of the response from the noble Baroness. Clause 268(1) does not discuss minor amendments to the spatial development strategy. What it says is, "Before publishing the spatial development strategy". It is quite specific. Therefore my concern is still there. I accept the case in logic which was made; that if the mayor simply proposes a small amendment which does not affect the strategy in a major way, it would of course be unreasonable to commit the mayor to having an examination in public. However, the way in which the Bill is drafted implies that it could produce something else.

I hope that the Government may feel that they could consider that with some care and perhaps come up with some words that are, shall we say, superior to what is already there. If they fail to do so, I fear that I shall be put to the necessity of attempting to do it myself.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I hope that it will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, if I explain to him that the proposal here is neither new nor outside the planning procedure. Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has a similar provision which enables the Secretary of State to waive the requirement for an examination in public into structure plans.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am once again grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall study her response with interest. However, at the moment, I must tell the Committee that I am not satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 402 to 403 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 403A:

Page 144, line 18, at end insert ("(including any London borough which wishes to make representations with regard to its adopted unitary development plan)")

The noble Baroness said: Clause 268 refers to examinations in public. The amendment seeks to allow a London borough which wants to make representations with regard to its adopted unitary development plan the opportunity to take part in the examination.

The boroughs have no right to be heard, but they clearly will have an interest. The amendment seeks in part to clarify the borough's formal position in this process. I hope that the Minister will be able say a few words on that. The boroughs may have points to make about their adopted unitary development plans. Those documents have statutory and practical force. I appreciate that boroughs may be invited to the EIP. However, I should like them to have a formal position in order to be involved in the resolution of any conflict which might arise between documents. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

The main purpose of the examination in public of the draft strategy is to provide an informal opportunity for discussion and testing, in public and before a panel appointed by the Secretary of State, of selected matters. It is not an examination of the whole of the submitted proposals; nor is it a hearing of the totality of objections. This will ensure a streamlined and focused debate of the key issues.

It is clear to us that the views of London boroughs on the SDS should be regarded as very important. Any London borough can submit representations on any element of the SDS and the mayor must take these representations into account. But we contend that it would be entirely wrong to fetter the discretion of the panel on the selection of those parties invited to attend the EIP. If all 33 boroughs were entitled to attend all the discussion sessions, it would be more difficult to ensure a representative cross-section of parties and still keep the number of participants to a sensible number.

Moreover, the amendment makes specific reference to boroughs raising concerns about the SDS having regard to adopted unitary development plans. This has the flavour of looking in the wrong direction. The SDS sets the overall framework for London. The UDPs—which are far more detailed and specific documents—must be in general conformity with the SDS. That is the relationship between them. It is the proper and logical relationship between them. The way in which the amendment is drafted suggests almost the opposite. I hope that the noble Baroness will allow some flexibility. She has on record the importance of taking into account the views of the London boroughs in relation to the SDS, but prescribing the actions of the panel in this way would not be appropriate. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

I acknowledge that the Government recognise that the boroughs have an interest. In drafting the amendment in this form, I attempted to limit the scope of their requests or demands to be heard.

No doubt I should know this answer, but I fear I cannot remember it. Will those conducting the examination in public be required to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State as to the people to be invited? That might be a basis for ensuring that proper views are received. I, too, look forward and not simply backward. However, one has to build on history. Guidance might present the opportunity of ensuring that the boroughs' interests are covered.

Lord Whitty

The panel would be required to have regard to guidance with regard to which interests should be given the opportunity to make representations. The measure does not prescribe exactly how the hearings should be structured.

Baroness Hamwee

That reply is helpful. I hope that I may assume that regard would be given to those concerns which I have voiced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 268 agreed to.

Clause 269 [Duty to notify London borough councils of publication or withdrawal]:

[Amendments No. 404 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 404A:

Page 144, line 33, leave out subsection (2)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 405 not moved.]

Clause 269, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 270 [Review of matters affecting the strategy]:

[Amendment No. 406 not moved.]

Clause 270 agreed to.

Clause 271 [Reviews of the strategy]:

[Amendments Nos. 407 and 408 not moved.]

Clause 271 agreed to.

Clause 272 [Alteration or replacement]:

[Amendments Nos. 409 and 410 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 410A:

Page 145, line 9, leave out subsection (2)

The noble Baroness said: Clause 272 refers to alteration or replacement of the spatial development strategy. Under Clause 272(2) the Secretary of State can direct the mayor to publish, such alterations of the spatial development strategy as the Secretary of State directs; or…a new spatial development strategy to replace it". I should feel less concerned if the subsection were confined to subsection (2)(b): a direction to prepare a new strategy. I am concerned that the Secretary of State has power to direct the mayor to make any alterations that the Secretary of State may decide, either after full consideration and consultation or almost on a whim.

Amendment No. 413, grouped with this amendment, restricts the directions which can be given. I believe that similar concern is expressed there. If my amendment fails to succeed, I shall support Amendment No. 413. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 410A is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 411 to 413.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I speak to Amendment No. 413. It is somewhat similar in intention to Amendment No. 410A but is not limited. It does not seek to prevent the Secretary of State directing the mayor to prepare and publish alterations to the strategy, or to prepare a new strategy if the Secretary of State believes that that is right. The amendment seeks to place limitations on the circumstances under which the Secretary of State could so direct. He may only do so if, the spatial development strategy is inconsistent with current national or regional policies, or … that it is expedient to do so for the purpose of avoiding any detriment to the interests of an area outside Greater London". That is not an unreasonable restriction to place on the Secretary of State's power. It is right that he should have power to take those matters into account. While one would hope that a responsible mayor would take those matters into account, he might fail to do so; or he might feel that there would be an overriding London reason why he should not do so. It is reasonable that the Secretary of State should have a limited power. The general power in the Bill is too great and I should prefer to see it restricted. That is my reason for tabling the amendment.

8 p.m.

Lord Whitty

I believe that we need the reserve powers. Our plans give the mayor the responsibility to prepare the SDS for London and to keep it up to date. We would expect the mayor to take account of the wider regional and national policies and to update the strategy from time to time as necessary. However, if there were a serious failure on the mayor's part to take account of changing policies or requirements outside London and to keep the SDS up to date in that sense, there must be a way of rectifying the situation, which the clause as drafted does.

It is a reserve power based on similar ones in existing areas of planning legislation. Those powers are rarely used and I do not expect that the mayor will need encouragement from the Secretary of State to keep the SDS up to date. It is nonetheless essential, because of the important role we give to the SDS not only for its own purposes but for the boroughs' planning operations, that we have reserve powers to ensure that it can be kept up to date.

Amendment No. 413 is slightly more moderate in its objectives. It would limit the Secretary of State's power without removing it. I appreciate the thinking behind it. It tries to use similar criteria used elsewhere in the Bill, including Clause 267. However, in the context of a reserve power we need wider powers than those specified within the clause.

The circumstances in which the Secretary of State might remotely but conceivably need to act to protect the integrity and operation of the planning system could include those referred to in the amendment. However, there may be others where the mayor, for whatever reason, had failed for years to bring the SDS up to date to take account, for example, of economic, demographic or employment changes that had a significant bearing.

In those admittedly unlikely circumstances, it would not be satisfactory to have a requirement for the London borough to keep its UDP in conformity with an out-of-date SDS. It is therefore right that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene in the interests of boroughs, developers and the planning system as a whole. In such a case, therefore, the tests of inconsistency with national or regional policies and of detriment to other areas are not necessarily applicable in the narrow sense that the noble Lord's amendment implies.

I repeat that it is a reserve power which will not be used by the Secretary of State except in the most serious cases of neglect by the mayor. I consider it most unlikely that they would be used at all, but they are a failsafe and we consider that we need them in this form. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

When the Minister studies the record he will see that in his response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, he gave a reason why he should accept my amendment. However, when he dealt with my amendment, he destroyed that argument. I must study in detail what he said, but perhaps if I take the second part of his argument and disregard the first he has satisfied the point I have raised.

Baroness Hamwee

Is there a legislative constraint on the alterations which the Secretary of State can direct under Clause 272(2)(a)? I heard what the Minister said about the powers being reserve, but I should be interested to know whether there is anything in the Bill or elsewhere which will define the parameters of the power of direction.

Lord Whitty

I shall need to check, but I believe that there is nothing in the terms mentioned by the noble Baroness. There is in the overall requirement that the Secretary of State shall act reasonably with regard to the exercise of reserve powers, as with other powers. That is the qualification I give.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Is there any control on an autocratic or overbearing Minister? From a legal point of view, the potential for judicial review is not a safeguard in these circumstances.

Lord Whitty

Probably in the terms the noble Lord indicates, the requirement to act reasonably is a restraint. They are reserve powers and they are specified where the Secretary of State would have to demonstrate that the mayor's strategy did not conform, or no longer conformed, to national policies or interests, or would act to the detriment of other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, there are constraints and tests against which the reasonableness of the Secretary of State would have to be judged. I therefore believe that there is a significant degree of restraint on the Secretary of State.

I now have further inspiration! I am reminded of the additional point that the powers have long existed in planning legislation in other parts of the country and are not new. So far as I am aware, we have not had a sufficiently autocratic Secretary of State to indicate that these powers are easily abusable.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

There is one difference between this situation and those which exist. There could be a stand-up political row between a directly elected mayor who has built up an enormous political head of steam in London vis-à-vis the Secretary of State of the day. I suggest that the Minister contemplates that. This may be a failsafe mechanism and we hope the circumstances will not arise. However, there might not be a failure on the part of the mayor to do that which is required of him in law but there might be a political row on grounds of special planning. It is an issue which the Government ought to be careful about in making up their mind about the reserve powers.

Lord Whitty

In this as in other areas of the Bill there is the possibility of political conflict between the mayor and the national government and in extremis there must be a means of resolving it. Provided that the Secretary of State acts reasonably, the Secretary of State has the final say. If it were left unresolved, we would be in a more difficult situation than that referred to by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Hamwee

The Minister mentioned the comparable powers in respect of other parts of the country. I shall reflect on that because the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is right about the situation in London. I want to give myself the opportunity to think about any technical differences which might make it a concern in London where it has so far worked all right, because an autocratic Secretary of State may be just around the corner. I hope not, but I want to ensure that if there is one his or her powers are defined in a way that makes the exercise of the autocracy more difficult. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 411 to 418 not moved.]

Clause 272 agreed to.

Clause 273 [Matters to which the Mayor is to have regard]:

[Amendment No. 419 not moved.]

Clause 273 agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

I beg to move that the Committee stage be adjourned until 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.10 to 8.40 p.m.]

[Amendment No. 420 not moved.]

Clause 274 [Regulations]:

[Amendments Nos. 420A to 424 not moved.]

Clause 274 agreed to.

Clause 275 [Amendments of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990]:

[Amendment No. 425 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 425A:

Page 146, line 8, at end insert—

("() In subsection (6) of that section (formulating general policies in Part I of a unitary development plan) after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted— (aa) if the authority is a London borough, the spatial development strategy;".")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 425A is grouped with Amendment No. 449. The London boroughs are obliged, under Section 9 of the Town and Country Planning Act, to have regard to national, regional and strategic policy in formulating their unitary development plans.

The amendment requires the London boroughs to have regard to the spatial development strategy in the same way as they have regard to strategic planning guidance. It is entirely reasonable that the boroughs should be obliged to treat the spatial development strategy as pari passu with the regional planning guidance. That is why we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I am a little surprised by Amendment No. 425A. I believe that it is already well provided for within the Bill. Clause 275(2) requires that the boroughs' UDPs are in general conformity with the SDS. That already gives the SDS relationship with UDPs far greater statutory weight than would this amendment. The amendment therefore has no practical effect, apart from slightly confusing the issue. I agree entirely with the objectives of the noble Lord, but I hope that he withdraws the amendment.

Amendment No. 449 would put an onus directly on the boroughs. Again, it is pretty clear that Clause 275 already does that. The SDS is, therefore, already covered as regards the boroughs' planning functions. The boroughs also have to carry out other local functions. To place them under a duty that they should have regard to the SDS in carrying them all out would clearly not be appropriate. As regards the planning function, that is already provided for. I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

The amendment has served one useful purpose in that it has woken me up, and another in that it has surprised the Minister. I believe that is the first time I have achieved that, which is quite something. I shall study what the Minister says. However, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 426 to 436 not moved.]

8.45 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 437:

Page 147, line 27, at end insert— ("() In section 70 (determination of applications: general considerations) in subsection (2), after "development plan" there shall he inserted "and, if it is a London borough, the spatial development strategy"")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 437 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 438 to 442. These amendments are directed towards a similar point; that is, to ensure that the London boroughs are having proper regard to the mayor's spatial development strategy when they are dealing with planning applications.

Section 70 of The Town and Country Planning Act requires local planning authorities to determine planning applications having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations. The amendment requires that London boroughs should have regard to strategy as a material consideration when they are dealing with planning applications. That means that the mayor's policy will therefore be applied, along with everything else, when planning applications are determined without, we hope, the need for the mayor to intervene.

By their Amendment No. 442B, the Government recognise that the spatial development strategy should be expressly referred to in making development controlled decisions. That amendment writes into the Town and Country Planning Act an obligation on the mayor to consider the spatial development strategy when he is determining whether or not to exercise his power to direct refusal of planning permission. That puts a reciprocal obligation onto the local planning authorities so that they have a proper regard to spatial development strategy when they are determining their planning applications.

Amendment No. 438 suggests the removal of Clause 275(9). My amendments are aimed at simplifying the procedure. We are trying to strike out what would appear to be an unneeded third tier of planning control in London. The Bill, as drafted, proposes that the mayor should have power to direct the refusal of a planning permission. At present the boroughs have power to direct a refusal. When we come to consider the effect of this in the City, we believe that, if the mayor has power to direct a refusal of planning permission, he may reduce the efficiency with which the planning system works. That could be significant in its effect on the economy, and particularly on the City.

The City of London is in a very particular situation. It is in direct competition with Frankfurt and other financial centres in the mainland of Europe. It relies for its competitive position on two factors. The first is the huge intellectual resource that exists in and around London. The other equally important factor is its ability to provide both suitable accommodation and a communications infrastructure on a rapid timescale to keep it ahead of its competing cities. That is a desirable ambition and we do not want the planning system to be made more complex by the creation of a third way of holding up planning permissions. The mayor's powers on planning are all supposed to be strategic. The existing planning regulations work satisfactorily and the mayor should not have the power to direct that planning permission should not be granted. That is important.

The other amendments all relate to that point. It is fundamental to the future well-being of the City of London that we do everything that we can to keep the planning process as streamlined as possible in the interests of the City's competitive position, on which the whole of London and the rest of the country depend. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, because this is a complex group dealing with the provisions of Clause 275(9), which enables the Secretary of the State to give the mayor the power to direct refusal of planning permission. We have made it clear that such cases would need to be clearly defined and strictly limited to applications that are genuinely of potential strategic importance. That is to minimise the scope for conflict and confusion and to ensure that the mayor does not intervene in matters that are properly dealt with by the boroughs. Those principles were set out in the White Paper and are reflected in the Bill.

In Committee in another place my honourable friend the Minister for London announced the Government's conclusions on the consultation exercise that we had conducted and set out in detail how the mayor's ability to intervene will operate and how the applications will be defined.

The Government have tabled Amendments Nos. 438A, 440A and 440B. Amendment No. 438A provides clarification to ensure that when the Secretary of State makes an order he can also impose a duty on the mayor to give reasons when using the power under that order. Amendments Nos. 440A and 440B arise from a commitment made by my colleague the Minister for London to consider an amendment tabled by the Opposition in another place. That amendment has been repeated as Amendment No. 441. The Government's amendments will provide that the mayor shall have regard to the UDP and the spatial development strategy so far as is material to the application when considering whether to use his or her powers to direct refusal of planning permission. The amendments should ensure that the mayor's use of the power of direction, which is not a formal determination of an application, will be consistent with the approach taken by local planning authorities in the determination of planning applications in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. When using his or her powers of direction, the mayor will have to have regard to the unitary development plan currently in force and the spatial development strategy. In the light of the Government's amendments, I hope that the noble Lord will at least not press Amendment No. 441.

The other amendments move in the wrong direction. They would not secure the right balance between strategic and local interests. Even with a plan-led system, the success or failure of strategic policies will be determined through individual development control decisions. That is why it is important that the mayor should be consulted on the limited number of applications that raise issues of genuine strategic importance and that, in extremis, he or she should have the fall-back power to direct refusal if important strategic concerns cannot be resolved. Amendment No. 438 would eliminate the mayor's fall-back power to direct refusal, leaving him or her toothless on issues of genuine strategic concern.

Amendment No. 439 is unnecessary. We have made it clear from the outset that the mayor would be involved only in applications of strategic importance. Stating that so baldly would create a fertile area for conflict and dispute. We propose to set down clear and unambiguous criteria for such cases in secondary legislation. My colleague the Minister for London has announced the details of those criteria. The thresholds and criteria chosen are important, but they are proxies for the definition of what is of strategic importance. They are designed to create clarity and certainty. That is important for all those concerned with the planning process, particularly developers and businesses. We have made it clear that the criteria can and should be reviewed in the light of experience, probably at the point at which the mayor has produced the first SDS.

Amendment No. 442 would limit the threshold to a narrow number of very large buildings. It says that the mayor should not intervene on any building lower than 150 metres. St Paul's Cathedral is only 111 metres high and there is currently only one building in the City of London higher than 150 metres. Buildings of the size of St Paul's have to be regarded as of strategic importance. We are proposing a limit of 75 metres, compared with 30 metres elsewhere in London, except for sites fronting the Thames. The floor space in the City is set at 30,000 square metres, rather than 20,000 square metres in the rest of central London or 15,000 square metres in outer London. We recognise that the City is different from the rest of London. I take nothing away from the noble Lord's references to the importance of allowing development that meets the economic needs of the City, but it is self-evident that buildings of the size of St Paul's Cathedral and others in the City should be included within the threshold. A development threshold of 150 metres is very high. It is important that the mayor should have a say on such developments.

We estimate that on our criteria the mayor would be consulted on only 150 to 250 applications, out of a total of 70,000 developments throughout London, all of which would be the responsibility of the boroughs. Even in those cases, we are talking about consultation in the first instance. The number of cases in which the mayor would want or need powers of intervention or refusal would be considerably smaller. I do not envisage any sensible mayor wanting to act in ways that could stifle the health of London's economy, particularly that of the City.

I also resist Amendment No. 440, which would restrict the applications on which the mayor could direct refusal. I accept that proposals that do not accord with the plan may be of particular interest to the mayor, provided that they are of sufficient scale or importance, but the scope of the mayor's consideration should not be as limited as is suggested in the amendment. The fact that a proposal is in accordance with a development plan does not mean that it does not merit or require detailed consideration or that it cannot raise issues that need to be considered at the strategic level. Amendments No. 442 and 440 would limit the mayor's powers to insist on consultation and his powers of intervention in the last resort. That would undermine and harm the effectiveness of the mayor and the delivery of a spatial development strategy at the strategic level. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments. I shall move mine when appropriate.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I thank the Minister for his explanation. On Amendment No. 440, if an application is consistent with the unitary development plan and if that plan is in compliance with the spatial development strategy, it seems slightly peculiar that it should he necessary for the mayor to have a power to call in and direct refusal, given that the plans are all supposed to be consistent with each other.

With regard to Amendment No. 442 and the issue of St. Paul's, I entirely accept that the amendment is inadequate, particularly with regard to the sidelines from the Thames. But the City is unusual. There are at present 24 developments either under construction or proposed which are in excess of 30,000 square metres—the limit at present suggested. It may be considered that die height that we are proposing is unreasonable, but in the draft regulations we have a combination of height and size. Size is a significant criteria for the major finance houses and can be achieved without going for the sort of heights we suggest should be necessary.

I shall consider the Minister's response carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount St. Davids)

I must point out that if Amendment No. 438 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 438A to 442 inclusive.

[Amendment No. 438 not moved.]

9 p.m.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 438A:

Page 147, line 31, at end insert (", and subject to such conditions as may he prescribed,")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 439 and 440 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 440A:

Page 147, line 43, leave out ("(1C) In subsection (1B)") and insert ("and in the preceding provisions of this subsection")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 440B:

Page 147, line 44, at end insert— ("(1C) In determining whether to exercise any power under subsection (1B) to direct a local planning authority to refuse an application, the Mayor of London shall have regard to—

1. (a) the development plan, and
2. (b) the spatial development strategy prepared and published under Part VIII of the Greater London Authority Act 1999,

so far as material to the application.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 441 and 442 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 443:

Page 147, line 44, at end insert— ("() In section 320 (local inquiries) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted— (3) Where an inquiry is held by virtue of this section and the Mayor of London has directed the local planning authority to refuse an application for planning permission the subject of the inquiry, the Mayor shall be deemed to be a party for the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972."").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 443 is directed at the matter of costs. The amendment amends the Town and Country Planning Act to allow the Secretary of State to award the costs of a planning inquiry either for or against the mayor.

It is possible to award costs against an authority if it appears at an inquiry and is held either to have caused the inquiry to take place on unreasonable grounds or produces an unreasonable procedure at the inquiry. But it is possible for the mayor to direct refusal of a planning permission and then not appear subsequently at an inquiry that might arise as a result of that refusal. In that situation, as I understand it, the law would not permit costs to be awarded against him, even though he was the cause of the inquiry. We feel that is unreasonable and Amendment No. 443 is designed to remove that anomaly. It is a perfectly reasonable amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

There is no disagreement in principle about Amendment No. 443. It would, on the face of the Bill, make it possible for the mayor to be liable for the costs of inquiries. We are committed to ensuring that that happens.

We clearly spelt out in the GLA White Paper that the mayor should face an award of costs if it was found, by an inspector or the Secretary of State, that he or she had used their power of direction inappropriately. In Clause 275(9) new subsection (1B)(c) provides the power to make an order to modify the provisions of the relevant Act in order to achieve this. However, we have no objection in principle to securing this on the face of the Bill and would like to take this amendment away to consider it. With that undertaking I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw this amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. With the assurance she has given, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 444 not moved.]

Clause 275, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 276 [Monitoring and data collection]:

[Amendment Nos. 445 and 446 not moved.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

Before calling Amendment No. 446A I must point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 447, 447A or 448.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 446A:

Page 148, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (7)

The noble Lord said: This amendment simply removes the provisions in Clause 276, subsections (2) to (7) which provided for the establishment of a monitoring scheme intended to provide the mayor with the pan-London information needed to draw up the spatial development strategy and to monitor its implementation.

Following discussion of these provisions in another place, my honourable friend the Minister for London undertook to bring forward amendments replacing the provisions in subsections (2) to (7) with broader arrangements governing the collection of data in partnership with the London local authorities. Following detailed consultation with the Association of London Government, we brought forward Amendments No. 455AXB to 455E, which I do not feel we will reach tonight but which deal with these items. I hope the amendments meet the bulk of the concerns reflected in the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Miller, and provide a consensual approach to meeting the monitoring costs agreed between the mayor and the London boroughs.

Because of their broader nature, it may be helpful to discuss the substance of this when we reach the appropriate amendments in the context of mayoral research powers. For the time being, I ask the Committee to agree to remove these subsections. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

I appreciate that these matters are dealt with under the research provisions later in the amendments that the Government have tabled. I am also aware that there is some controversy around how the matter will be dealt with. I wish however to ask a particular question on this clause and that is whether losing subsections (2) to (7) will mean that the mayor, who has a duty to monitor, will still have the power to operate a scheme should there be a situation in which it would be right for the mayor to do so.

Lord Whitty

This amendment does not remove any powers from the mayor to have a scheme. It removes the duty provided in these powers.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Amendment No. 448 is grouped with Amendment No. 446. I shall study with care what the Minister has said and, in the meantime, will not move my amendment when we get to it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 276, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 277 [Functional bodies to have regard to the strategy]:

[Amendments Nos. 449 and 450 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450NA:

Page 148, line 31, at end insert ("notwithstanding any provision of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998")

The noble Baroness said: Clause 277 requires each of the functional bodies to have regard to the spatial development strategy and I have no quarrel with that. I have tabled the amendment in order, I hope, to obtain confirmation from the Minister that the London Development Agency, along with the other bodies, must have regard to the SDS in view of the slightly inconclusive debates that we had during the passage of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1988 as to the hierarchy of the different considerations. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Clause 277 requires all functional bodies, including the London Development Agency, to have regard to the SDS in exercising any function. The amendment would provide that this obligation is, notwithstanding any provision of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998". However, I do not believe that there is anything in that Act to prevent the LDA, or any other functional body, from having regard to the SDS. So the amendment is unnecessary. It could even be misleading in implying that there is some conflict between the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 and the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

Not only do I feel able to withdraw it, but as that is the answer I was seeking I am glad to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 277 agreed to.

Clause 278 [Mayor's functions in relation to planning around Greater London]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450PA:

Page 148, line 34, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")

The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 450PAZA. The numbering of the amendments is longer than the amendments themselves. I seek in the first amendment to change "or" to "and", and the second amendment is consequential.

Clause 278(1) provides for the mayor to inform local planning authorities in the areas near to Greater London of his views on matters of common interest, or he may inform a body on which those authorities are represented. I moved an amendment earlier to write into the Bill a reference to SERPLAN or a successor body. Perhaps I should have used different terminology, but in this instance I am concerned that it will not be adequate for the mayor to inform a representational body. It would be more appropriate for the mayor to have direct contact.

SERPLAN might be the sort of body that would fall within Clause 278(1)(b) and it is not a body on which every authority has a representative. When I was a member, the districts had several representatives but—unless things have changed in the past few years—the body did not have one from each district. I look forward to the Minister's explanation as to how the provision will be adequate, other than a suggestion that if the mayor thinks that a particular authority has a particular interest it would be inconceivable for the mayor not to approach that authority. I beg to move.

9.15 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

This clause deals with the mayor's role in representing London's interests on strategic planning matters in relation to areas surrounding London or across the south-east as a whole. I am sure that in most cases the mayor will want to discuss with, and make his views known to, both individual local authorities where they have an interest and any representative bodies. But there may well be cases where it is entirely appropriate for the mayor to deal with either one or the other. For example, a broader strategic body may have little direct interest or locus in a planning matter relating to one particular authority. Conversely, there could be circumstances where a representative body is charged by individual local authorities outside London with representing their interests. In such cases these amendments would risk locking the mayor into unnecessary consultation. In the light of that, and the assurance that we see the mayor approaching the appropriate group, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

I hope the Minister will not take it amiss if I say that that was the kind of response I expected but had hoped a little not to get. However, I do not wish to be too dismissive. I shall consider the matter carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 278 agreed to.

Clause 279 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 450PAA not moved.]

Clause 280 agreed to.

Clause 281 [The Mayor's environmental report]:

[Amendment No. 450QA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 450RA not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450RB:

Page 149, line 22, leave out ("to be known as a") and insert ("dealing with the matters provided by subsection (3) (in this section called the").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment. No. 450RB, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 450H, 451ZAA, 451ZQ and 451ZZA. We have moved on to the part of the Bill dealing with the mayor and the authority's environmental powers and duties. This group of amendments addresses a point made by my noble friend Lord Tope and myself at an earlier stage, although perhaps this issue is not as dramatic as that of the mayor being stuck with the politically correct titles of "The State of London Debate", "The People's Question Time" and so on. However, the Bill again requires the authority to use for its various strategies titles that are imposed by the Bill.

I do not think it is appropriate for primary legislation to describe what documents should be called. The report on the environment in Greater London is to be known as "a", in this case rather than "the", state of the environment report". The waste management strategy is to be known as the "municipal waste management strategy" and so on. However, the mayor may wish to call it the "Greater London waste strategy". Well, why not? This is a small point, but I believe it is important. The drafting of the provisions indicates the Government's wish not to let go. However, I think the Government could release the titles of the documents without fear, given that the duties are spelt out adequately in the Bill. The titles of the documents do not need to be prescribed.

I have drafted the amendments in such a way that amendments have not been tabled to change titles throughout the Bill. That would have meant tabling and speaking to huge numbers of amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I support my noble friend's amendment. We know what a difference a word can make. For example, the mayor may wish to name a document the "New waste management strategy", rather like New Labour, which has made such a difference.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I cannot beat that one! My insistence on this wording is in no way intended to restrict or inhibit the creative expression of the mayor. As far as I am concerned, the mayor can use whatever titles he or she likes for these strategies. However, there has to be a statutory definition of them.

The effect of these amendments will be to remove the statutory status of these strategies and make them relevant only to the particular clauses of the Bill, whereas they need to be relevant through the mayor's overall strategy. If there was a deletion of the words "to be known as", the effect would be to remove the statutory authority. If the mayor wishes to call them something else with a small sub-title in 10 point print which reflects the statutory definition, I have no objection to that. A "new waste strategy" would be quite appropriate. If some of the candidates were to be elected, they would no doubt think of more trendy, catchy names. That is not the point. The point is that we need a definition which has some statutory authority. It is important that the mayor is able to signal that the strategy he is talking about relates to the authority within the Bill.

The strategies will be important documents. The London boroughs and others will need to have regard to them. The waste and air quality strategies also have powers of direction associated with them. For those reasons, it is very important that the status of the document should not be ambiguous. What the mayor says in his manifesto or in any other presentation of it to the electorate of London and others is a political decision that I am quite happy to leave to the mayor. However, the legal definition must be clear in the text of this Bill.

I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, given my commitment not to restrict the artistic freedom of any putative mayor, will feel able to withdraw these amendments.

Baroness Hamwee

I am sure that the Minister would not wish to prevent the mayor, for instance, calling one of the strategies "the people's waste strategy" or "the new people's waste strategy"! It is a little early to be so silly!

I will read what the Minister has said about the statutory definition. Listening to him, I do not believe that I agreed with the point. I am concerned that the mayor may be in a position where the law will be broken. To put the statutory term in 10, 9, 8 or 5 point type on a document would be absurd. I hope that there might be a way round this matter. Of course, I take the point that there has to be a mechanism for leading into and enforcing the duties that are contained in the Bill. I will reflect on that.

For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

Before calling Amendment No. 450SA, I should point out to the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment Nos. 450UA or 450WA.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450SA:

Page 149, line 26, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("not less than two years six months and not more than three years six months after the first or as the case may be previous ordinary election.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 450SA, I will speak also to Amendment No. 450XA. Amendment Nos. 450UA and 450WA are grouped with this.

These amendments deal with the period within which a state of the environment report is to be published. Under Clause 281, the first report can be published at any time within the first three years, and subsequent reports within four years from the previous report. Reading this provision, it seemed to me that it would be possible for the mayor to publish the first report very early, in order to distance it from the second round of elections for the mayor and the assembly. This, of course, would have a knock on effect on the timing of subsequent reports. Therefore, I suggest a minimum as well as a maximum period and, in all cases, I have calculated the periods from the previous election. As drafted, I hope that the amendment will mean that there will be a maximum period between reports.

It seems to me that it would not be inconceivable—indeed, it might be quite smart—for the mayor to publish the report rather early on, so that he can say, perhaps accurately, that the state of the environment in London is pretty frightful and there are all sorts of things that need to be done about it, but not to have to report again formally on the success of his strategy until after the next election. He could go into that election saying, "Well, it is not my fault. The Government haven't actually achieved anything". That is the sort of situation that one would not want to see, but perhaps even to have thought of the point shows that I have had too many years of electioneering.

Amendment No. 450XA proposes that the report shall be published at a point when information would be available for the annual report and the debate. I accept that this is not quite so easy a thing to govern, but information is always historical in a report. This is, perhaps, a rather inadequate attempt to ensure that it is reasonably up to date at the time of the annual report and debate. I am aware that the Minister in another place said that there was nothing to prevent production of the report more frequently than every four years, but our amendments are intended to apply the proper pace to such reports rather than to stop more frequent reports and more proper reporting. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith

Our amendments, Amendments Nos. 450UA and 450WA, are grouped with Amendment No. 450SA. We feel that the drafting of the Bill, or at least the time-scale suggested by it, is almost lackadaisical. The Bill provides that the first state of the environment report should be produced at the end of a period of three years from the start of a mayor's term of office and that, every four years subsequently, there should be another environment report. Of course, that fits in very neatly with the electoral cycle.

However, whether the state of the environment be good or bad is neither here nor there. We think that the publication of the report requires rather more urgency than is implied by the drafting in the Bill, or indeed by the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In fact, our amendments suggest that the first state of the environment report should be published after one year. If the mayor is backed by the sort of staff that he is supposed to be taking over from the Government Office for London, I do not think it unreasonable to suppose that he ought to be able to achieve that.

We are also suggesting that subsequent reports should be produced every two years. Therefore, if the mayor were to report after one year and then submit an up-date two years later, that would still be the year before the election. He would not actually have to submit a report over an election period. The mayor himself, or his successor, will report a year after the election. In fact, the time-scale that we suggest would not remove the electoral imperative, but it does at least have the merit of being reasonably separated from it.

We believe this to be an important matter. An appropriate time-scale for producing these reports and then both looking at them and revising them is, of course, a question of judgment. We think that our time-scale is superior to the one on the face of the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

9.30 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

These amendments deal with the timing and frequency of publication of the mayor's state of the environment report, as both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have indicated. The Bill as drafted requires the mayor to publish the first state of the environment report within three years of the first election and subsequent reports at a minimum of every four years. This is designed to ensure that every mayor publishes a state of the environment report at some time within his or her term of office.

These amendments would change both the timing of the mayor's first environmental report and the frequency of future reports. Amendment No. 450WA would have the effect of requiring the mayor to publish a report every two years, while Amendment No. 450XA would require the mayor to publish the report annually in time for it to be debated alongside the annual report.

Amendment No. 450UA would require the first report to be published within one year of the first elections. Amendment No. 450SA would prevent the mayor from publishing the report until after two years six months but require that the mayor did publish the report before three years six months after the election.

The Government oppose these amendments. As we have made clear all along in this Committee stage, the Bill is designed to allow the mayor as much flexibility as possible in the setting of his or her priorities. For this reason it sets out a sensible timescale for the production of state of the environment reports which will ensure that no mayor can avoid producing a report at some point in his or her term of office. But it avoids placing a requirement upon the GLA to produce more frequent reports, specifically because this could prove burdensome to the small, streamlined organisation it is designed to be.

The production of a state of the environment report, covering all the subjects set out in Clause 281 of the Bill, will be a time-consuming task. Much of the data will not change significantly over the course of a year. It would place a substantial burden upon the GLA to produce an annual or even biennial report, particularly when the information it contained might not differ significantly from the previous report.

Similarly, we consider that the obligation to publish the first report within three years is a reasonable one. The first few years after the GLA is established will be a particularly hectic time. The first mayor will have to balance his or her priorities in tackling London's problems. The obligation we have placed upon the mayor will ensure that he or she publishes a report in the first term of office. But it will allow the mayor a good breathing space to set priorities and gather the necessary information.

Finally, I should add that the Bill does not prevent the mayor from producing a report more frequently than every four years. The mayor might choose to publish his or her first report more quickly than the limit of three years. I understand the concerns that have been raised about the choice that the mayor would have to publish the report early in the cycle to gain electoral advantage, or possibly to obscure the figures. However, environmental indicators move slowly and take time to analyse. In practice advantage is unlikely to be gained by early publication, and if it were, the mayor would be unlikely to get away with it.

The point of the report is to ensure a periodic and definitive statement on environmental indicators to inform the public and to inform policy. In between times I am sure that the scrutinising assembly will watch environmental developments carefully and hold the mayor to account for all of them. The Bill allows the mayor the freedom to set priorities within the framework the legislation provides. We believe that this is the right approach to creating a flexible and effective GLA. I hope therefore that the amendments will be withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee

I am prepared to forgo my point about the frequency of publication and the minimum period before publication. My first amendment does not propose a very different time-scale from that of the Government; it merely seeks to place difficulties in the way of a mayor who might try to avoid facing up to issues at an electorally inconvenient time. I have heard what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 450TA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 450UA not moved.]

[Amendment No. 450VA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendments Nos. 450WA and 450XA not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450XAA:

Page 149, line 36, at end insert ("and from industrial sites")

The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 450XAA standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 450IB, 450NP and 450PB, which are very similar to government Amendment No. 450YA.

Amendment No. 450XAA seeks to ensure that the state of the environment report includes information about air emissions from industrial sites as well as from road traffic. The Committee will recall the success of naming and shaming some of the larger industrial complexes over the past few years. Work has been carried out subsequently to reduce their air emissions. Industrial sites can have a great impact in terms of reducing air pollution. The Bill would gain considerably if, in addition to information on road traffic emissions, information on industrial site emissions were to be included in the state of the environment report.

Amendment No. 450IB seeks to include in the state of the environment report information about the biodiversity action plan. Several of our amendments seek to ensure that cross-information is supplied to each strategy and that strategies are not simply "drainpipes" that are ticked off as informing something else. This amendment is in that spirit.

Amendment No. 450NP provides that the state of the environment report should include information on the percentage of new developments on greenfield and brownfield sites. The Government's targets are obviously quite high. Over time, as brownfield sites fill up, the target will need to be reduced if more development is to take place. A close eye will need to be kept on that situation. The statistics will be very important in the state of the environment report, as it informs the SDS report.

Amendment No. 450PB seeks to achieve much the same target as government Amendment No. 450YA; that is, that the state of the environment report should include information about biodiversity. I am glad that since this matter was debated in the other place the Government have accepted the Liberal Democrat and Conservative point of view that this is extremely important. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I shall speak first to government Amendment No. 450YA, to which the noble Baroness referred. The amendment is the result of an omission which was spotted in Committee in another place by various Opposition Members of Parliament. The amendment remedies that omission and puts biodiversity—which is a strategy for the mayor—back into the clause. I am grateful that the noble Baroness also spotted the omission. I hope that she will accept that my amendment meets her point in relation to Amendments Nos. 450IB and 450PB.

Turning to the other amendments, I remind the Committee that the Bill also states that the mayor may include information about any other matters not prescribed on the face of the Bill in relation to Greater London which he or she considers appropriate. That gives the mayor plenty of discretion to include all kinds of matters which the Bill does not specifically state and therefore allows the mayor a pretty free hand to include any matter that may be considered relevant to Londoners in the plan.

The question of listing everything on the face of the Bill, including those matters to which the amendments refer, could lead to a demand to lay down in primary legislation a list that is potentially endless. I am therefore wary of adding anything to the list in Clause 281. Each additional topic places a burden on the mayor. It may well be that he or she will consider it a burden that should be undertaken. However, we need to leave some discretion to the mayor.

Neither of the areas listed in Amendments Nos. 450XAA and 450NP—namely, emissions to air from industrial sites and new developments on brownfield and greenfield sites—is in any sense directly within the mayor's control. Nor do I see them as strictly essential to ensure the proper coverage of a broad range of environmental issues across London.

If the mayor considers it appropriate, he or she can include such a section and will need to co-operate with the London boroughs in order to produce the required information. But I see no reason to add any of those matters to the existing list in the Bill, and to exclude other matters which might be equally important and which might equally require agreement between the mayor and the London boroughs, which we hope will develop organically. I do not see that it is sensible to specify that the state of the environment report should include a section on each of these or on other topics. That must be left to the discretion of the mayor and the relationship that he or she builds up with those authorities that have direct control over these matters. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press these amendments.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I welcome the Minister's words on Amendment 450PB. I am glad that we have achieved that. I do not agree with him that industrial sites should not be specified. They can be a major source of pollution. Although I understand that the Government wish the mayor to have plenty of discretion, if he is responsible for air quality, it is wise to specify in the Bill those areas on which he should concentrate. However, at this stage, I hear what the Minister says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments No. 450YA:

Page 150, line 3, at end insert—("() biodiversity,")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 450A:

Page 150, line 4, after ("recycling") insert (", transportation")

The noble Baroness said: This amendment would provide that the state of the environment report should include information about the transportation of waste. Amendment No. 450A provides that the mayor's waste strategy also contains proposals for the transportation of waste.

At an earlier stage in the proceedings in Committee, we raised our concerns that the transportation of waste was not considered in connection with waste strategy and the mayor's strategy in general. It is our contention that the transportation of waste is an essential part of a waste strategy, particularly in so far as that strategy relates to disposal sites.

Clause 285 states that disposal, and for that matter collection, authorities shall have regard to the mayor's strategy. So if the mayor were to adopt a strategy or suggest strategies as to how waste might be moved—and we must remember that some of London's waste is moved a very long distance to its final disposal site—that could have quite an effect in terms of times of day, days of the week, routes, the mode of transport, cleanliness, the pollution status of the vehicles employed, and so on. We think it could be a very useful spur to the waste disposal authorities in exacting from their contractors a sensible and non-polluting attitude to the disposal of waste. I beg to move.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Whitty

We certainly accept that the transportation of municipal waste is a very important issue. In a sense, because it is such a central issue we have not specified it here. The Bill already allows the mayor to include in both the environment report and the municipal waste management strategy those issues that are important, including the transportation of municipal waste. In preparing or revising the waste management strategy, the mayor shall have regard to any guidance issued to him by the Secretary of State for the purposes of implementing the strategy and relating to the content of that strategy.

All guidance from my department will indicate that, when choosing the waste management option to be followed for a particular part of the waste stream, all authorities must be in a position to adopt the principle of best practicable environmental option, which was defined by the Royal Commission as a procedure which establishes for a given set of objectives the option which provides the most benefit, or least damage, to the environment as a whole as an exceptional cost in the long term as well as in the short term. In order to identify this, authorities have to take into account the environmental impact of the transportation of municipal waste. In addition, it is almost certain that any guidance issued by the Secretary of State would suggest that authorities and the mayor should minimise the transportation of municipal waste and make full use of the forms of transport which do least damage to the environment.

We recognise that this is part of the whole process and that it is likely that the mayor will want to include it. However, we have to allow the mayor some discretion. I hope that, with the reassurances I have given and given the importance that my department attaches to this, the noble Baroness will not press this amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

I am bound to say that the Minister's reply had a strong flavour of "not invented here" about it. He tells us that it is very important and, indeed, that it is so important that it does not need to be mentioned on the face of the Bill. Is he telling us that waste disposal is less important than waste transportation? Waste disposal, which is equally covered by guidance—stacks of guidance—is on the face of the Bill whereas, because waste transportation is so central and is covered by guidance, it does not have to be on the face of the Bill. I think we need a more logic in the selection of items which do and do not have to be on the face of the Bill. However, for the present time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 450IB not moved.]

[Amendment No. 450JB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450KB:

Page 150, line 7, at end insert—("() housing conditions, () communicable diseases, () occupational health and safety, () food safety, and () the effects of the environment on human health")

The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 450MB. Amendment No. 450KB seeks to add to the state of the environment report a number of very important matters in terms of the health of people living in the city. I refer to housing conditions, communicable diseases, occupational health and safety, food safety and the effects of the environment on human health.

It is not just we on these Benches who think that these are particularly important issues to tie in: they were in fact suggested by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. Health and the environment are obviously very closely linked and a healthy environment makes for healthy people. At the same time, what is happening in the areas I have just mentioned would be a very good measure of the sort of success at which the mayor needs to aim. The state of the environment report needs to consider such matters when reporting on the direct impact on people.

Amendment No. 450MB seeks to add to the list of matters that the state of the environment report shall contain something much more precise than the matters that the Government have currently included. The Government simply refer to water quality and pollution. Our amendment seeks to provide a measure of the health of rivers, waterways and canals by linking pollution with biodiversity. One of the aims is to have healthier rivers and watercourses that support the kind of life that they should support if they are not polluted.

The experience of water authorities is that the impact of storm sewage in urban run off on water courses has caused enormous problems, as have domestic waste systems that are incorrectly connected to surface water sewers and which pollute small rivers. Not only do these matters make watercourses unhealthy and unpleasant, but the oxygen levels in them are unable to support fish life which, for example, the Environment Agency has worked so hard to bring back. We believe that this amendment adds something to the aims of the Bill which is now lacking in the Government's more superficial view of the part played by watercourses. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

These amendments seek to require the mayor to include sections in the state of the environment report on housing conditions, communicable diseases, occupational health and safety, food safety and pollution of rivers and canals, all of which areas the mayor is not directly responsible for. If the mayor decides that all of these areas need detailed coverage in the report, that is a matter for him, but to impose a requirement seems to us to be over-prescriptive and is an unnecessary burden on the mayor, should he decide that other priorities ought to be pursued.

As far as concerns Amendment No. 450MB, which deals with pollution and biodiversity of waterways, we believe that its purpose is already adequately covered by the mayor's obligation to publish the biodiversity action plan under Clause 282. In that plan the mayor is required to have regard to ecology, wildlife and proposals for the conservation and promotion of biodiversity within Greater London. We have recently tabled a further amendment which includes biodiversity in the list of subjects to be covered by the state of the environment report. Therefore, the objectives of this amendment are already met in the Bill in the amendment recently accepted. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to pursue the amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

While to an extent I agree with the Minister's remarks on Amendment No. 450MB, I cannot agree with his observations on Amendment No. 450KB. If, heaven forfend—I am sure that it will not happen—we have a somewhat lazy mayor, at the rate that we are going this evening he or she will be able to ignore, for example, the air quality on industrial sites and all the other matters that both I and the Minister have listed. After all, those matters have been suggested to us by a professional body as providing an exact measure of the state of human health in relation to the environment. I do not agree that this matter should be left entirely to the discretion of the mayor. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 450LB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendments Nos. 450MB to 450QB not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450RB:

Page 149, line 22, leave out ("to be known as a") and insert ("dealing with the matters provided by subsection (3) (in this section called the").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 451ZE, 451ZN, 451ZP and 451ZS. This amendment takes us back to the role of the assembly in the production of the report on the environment; to consultation before directions given by the Secretary of State on the waste strategy; to commenting on boroughs' recycling plans; and to consultation before directions are given by the Secretary of State on the air quality strategy.

The Minister may think that, from these Benches, we have dealt with these matters to the point of tedium. However, we are merely repeating what we believe to be extremely important; namely, that the experience of assembly members, and in particular their role of keeping the mayor up to scratch, is essential. The exchange on the two amendments with which my noble friend Lady Miller dealt rather illustrates that. Members of the assembly could have a role in assisting the mayor to make connections. We talk a great deal about cross-cutting issues. The last group of amendments was about precisely that. It was about making the connection between, for example, the state of the environment and human health.

I repeat that the assembly should be able to make its comments in advance through a formal process. I have mentioned the question of health. In relation to recycling, the members of the assembly may well have an overview of how recycling fits within the jigsaw of other environmental issues in London.

The White Paper Local Leadership, Local Choice referred to the scrutiny committee which is proposed by the Government in their forthcoming local government organisation and standards Bill. At paragraph 3.19 it states that it should: consider and investigate broad policy issues and make reports and recommendations to the executive", and, provide advice to the executive on major issues before final decisions are made". The next paragraph goes on to state that scrutiny committees, would therefore be able to address cross cutting issues …making a key input to the council's policy development process. They would also tackle issues to do with the policy framework for a particular council service and the effectiveness of the delivery of that service". It went on to say that: These overview and scrutiny committees would make reports and recommendations on future policy and practice to the council or the executive as appropriate".

That is a close and useful analogy with the role of the assembly and the way in which the assembly can best work. I hope that we shall be given some assurances that the assembly members can make the sort of input to which I have referred in quoting from that White Paper. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

The noble Baroness rightly says that we have been round this course before. I should never accuse her of tedium although I may accuse her of relentless consistency perhaps. However, there is a fundamental difference between us in this regard. These amendments pursue the way in which the Liberal Democrats view the structure of the authority. They would enhance the role of the assembly and give it the right to make executive decisions alongside the mayor.

We do not consider that that is the right approach. There need to be clear checks and balances and there must be a clear separation of powers. Proper scrutiny can only take place in that context. The assembly cannot scrutinise decisions and the implications of decisions in which it is implicated. To a greater or lesser extent, the amendments would undermine that principle. For example, they would give the assembly the right to decide what should be included in the state of the environment report. That would undermine the assembly's subsequent ability of scrutiny.

We have debated this issue many times. I have no doubt that we shall return to it at a later stage. In our view, the separation of functions would logically not allow these amendments. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not pursue the matter.

10 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

I am not sure that I follow the point that if the assembly has a role in advance, it prejudices its scrutiny role after the event. I shall consider that. I think that the Minister paid me a compliment. I would rather have had the amendment accepted, but I shall make do with the compliment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450SB:

Page 150, line 9, at end insert— ("() A state of the environment report shall also set performance targets in the above areas and assess progress in achieving those targets.")

The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 450J. Amendment No. 450SB seeks to insert that, A state of the environment report shall also set performance targets —in the areas it is to cover— and assess progress in achieving those targets".

On another Bill, we have heard relentlessly—I do not say "tediously"—about assessment of performance targets. We have a vast array of systems enabling council leaders to be assessed on them. If they fail, the Government have another set of systems to ensure that those targets are achieved. Yet we do not seem to be placing anything like the same requirements on the mayor in his state of the environment report.

I am aware that in another place the Minister argued that it was inappropriate and unreasonable to require a mayor to set targets in areas outside his or her responsibility. However, if the mayor cannot set the targets, who can? The mayor is able to set goals and aspirations even though those areas may be outside his responsibility. In seeking to raise the quality of life for Londoners, I should have thought that the mayor should be able to raise the aspirations of every sector of the community he serves.

Amendment No. 450J seeks to do the same, but relates to a more specific area: the London biodiversity action plan. Again, there is little point in having a biodiversity action plan if there are no performance indicators. How will the success or otherwise of the plan be measured? Both amendments are extremely important. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I can sympathise with the intention behind the amendment. The Government are a strong advocate of the use of performance indicators to encourage improved performance in a range of public bodies. The Greater London Authority should not be an exception to this principle. As the Committee will already know, and as the noble Baroness is aware, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has promoted a Local Government Act this Session. It will establish a best value framework for local authorities which will include a series of performance indicators across the range of public services.

The GLA will be covered by best value and will, therefore, need to have a series of performance indicators in place to assess its level of performance for all its functions, including the environment. Performance indicators will play a part in the GLA's make up as a requirement of best value. We expect that relevant nationally applied indicators will apply to the authority.

However, we cannot support the amendments. They seek to require the mayor to set performance targets for all the areas which the state of the environment report will cover and to include performance indicators in the biodiversity action plan.

As I have already explained to the Committee, the state of the environment report will contain several sections on areas of indirect interest to the mayor, in which he has no strategic role, but where we consider London would benefit from his interest and scrutiny; for example, litter and water quality.

The Government consider that it would be inappropriate and unreasonable to require the mayor to set performance indicators in areas which are not within his or her responsibility. On whom would the indicators bite? Would it be the GLA or perhaps other bodies, such as the London boroughs?

If the indicators applied to the GLA, they would inevitably be meaningless as the GLA would have no direct responsibility for achieving them. If they applied to local authorities, they would be seen as unfair and ineffective because the mayor would have no remit to set indicators and no ability to enforce their achievement.

However, I am more sympathetic to the noble Baroness's suggestion that the biodiversity action plan should contain performance indicators. As she may be aware, my honourable friend in another place made a commitment to examine the case for including performance indicators in the mayor's strategies. We are still completing our considerations of this point and I guarantee that we shall return to it at a later stage. I hope that, in the light of these assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I thank the Minister for her reply and I am encouraged to hear that an amendment similar to our Amendment No. 450J is likely to appear before we reach the final stage of the Bill. Naturally, I am slightly disappointed in her reply to Amendment No. 450SB because I believe that the setting of targets for London's society as a whole is desirable, even though no one obvious person may be responsible for them. However, in the meantime, I accept the Minister's reply and shall read it with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450TB:

Page 150, line 12, at end insert— ("() such non-governmental organisations as the Mayor considers appropriate,")

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 450UB. Amendment No. 450TB seeks to add NGOs to those who must be consulted before the mayor produces a state of the environment report. Although I am aware that the Government are likely to argue that he already has the power to consult any person he considers appropriate, that gives the mayor a considerable comfort blanket. In relation to the state of the environment, he might not want to hear what the NGOs have to say and for that reason in particular it is important that he is required to consult them. They are often in the vanguard of indicating problems and their advice is often too radical to take on board, particularly by someone who is coming up for re-election. But even if their advice is uncomfortable and the mayor may not want to hear it, we believe that it is worth having it on record together with the mayor's reaction.

Amendment No. 450UB is a simple amendment to add to those who must be consulted before the environment report is produced. It lists the Health and Safety Executive, the Food Standards Agency and the regional Director of Public Health. I accept that it is likely that the mayor will consult them, but they are important statutory bodies and I believe that the mayor should be required to consult them. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

Again, I must commend the Liberal Democrat Benches on their consistency. Clearly, had we pursued the earlier amendment relating to the requirements of the environment strategy, it might be logical to require the bodies listed in Amendment No. 450UB to be consultees. However, in that debate I argued that we should allow the mayor some discretion on what is included, particularly as regards the issues over which he has no direct executive powers, and that is also the case in relation to whom he should consult. The present requirement is that he is required to consult the Environment Agency, each London borough council, the City and any other person whom he considers appropriate.

That is a fairly wide discretion, but to prescribe these particular bodies and NGOs would not be appropriate. That would be going too far, particularly in the light of the Government's position, which is that we would not prescribe within the environment strategy areas for which the mayor has no direct executive responsibility. If the mayor wants those areas to be covered, it would obviously be sensible and logical for the bodies set out in Amendment No. 450UB to be consulted, but that is a matter for the mayor.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I thank the Minister for his reply. I believe that by not including these amendments we are leaving the mayor with too great a comfort blanket in place to hear only what he wants to hear, in some cases. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 450UB not moved.]

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

Before calling Amendment No. 450VB, I must inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 450C.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 450VB:

Page 150, line 16, leave out subsection (5)

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 450VB I shall speak also to the other amendments within this group. Amendment No. 450C seeks to broaden the scope of the information that the mayor must include in the section of the report on road traffic. The Bill, as currently drafted, requires the mayor to include information on the number of vehicles, the length of journeys, and the places where, and length of time for which, road vehicles park in Greater London.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would require the mayor to include information about the type, as well as the number of vehicles. My honourable friend, Glenda Jackson, made a commitment in another place to review the need for Clause 281(5), and, in particular, to consider whether it is absolutely necessary to place upon the mayor these fairly stringent requirements. We are still considering that.

Our overall approach to the GLA is to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens. For that reason, we have taken the view that it is more sensible to allow the mayor some discretion over what information should be included in the road traffic section. Amendment No. 450VB achieves that by deleting the subsection altogether. The other amendments in this group would have the opposite effect of imposing additional burdens on the mayor. The Government would not be prepared to accept that.

There are two other amendments in this group which also seek to define closely what information should be provided. Amendment No. 450D would require the mayor to include information on domestic and non-domestic production, recycling and disposal in the section of the report on waste. Amendment No. 450F would require the mayor to include information on specific pollutants.

I understand the reasons behind the amendments. I am sure that much of this would be covered by the mayor in any such strategy. Nevertheless, I believe that our approach of allowing more rather than less discretion and prescribing less rather than more on the face of the Bill is appropriate in these circumstances. It is appropriate to give the mayor a little "elbow room" in determining the priorities within the strategy required from him. I hope that those amendments are not pursued. However, in the mean time, I beg to move Amendment No. 450VB.

Baroness Hamwee

I am happy to see the Government's amendment. The Minister described Amendment No. 450C as broadening the scope of the provision. We tabled that amendment because the clause is already fairly broadly drawn. We felt it was necessary to add a little more to cover the ground.

Clause 281(3)(b) refers to "road traffic levels". Will the Minister confirm that, although the word "levels" is used, distinctions between different types of vehicle can be made? It is important to ensure a more analytical approach to the issue by accepting, for example, that private cars, bicycles, delivery vans and other vehicles raise different issues and there is different information to be gleaned about them. I hope that the phrase "road traffic levels" as distinct from road traffic does not restrict the report more than we all want.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I was interested in what the Minister said about Amendment No. 450VB and the others in the group, which include my Amendments Nos. 450D and 450F. It is not surprising, although it sometimes seems paradoxical, that whenever we propose a requirement for more information to be provided the Minister opposes it, but if we suggest that the Bill is too prescriptive we usually find the Minister proposing the opposite. That may be inevitable given the nature of debates in Committee.

We were seeking to increase the information available about waste and, perhaps more significantly, about the main atmospheric pollutants, which are a significant part of any serious environmental report. I accept the Minister's argument that it is highly likely that such matters will be reported on in the state of the environment report, but they might not be. We have tabled amendments because we think that they should be included in the report. I shall study what the Minister has said.

Lord Whitty

The mayor can and no doubt will wish to add the details on traffic to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred. We are not prescribing precisely how the issues would be analysed. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the same is true of our overall approach. The issues will he covered in broad terms. The precise terms will be down to how the mayor assesses his or her priorities. That is the right balance and I hope that the other amendments are not pressed.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 450WB, 450XB and 450YB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 450B:

Page 150, line 21, at end insert— ("() A copy of each state of the environment report shall he kept available for the appropriate period by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge at the principal offices of the Authority at reasonable hours. () A copy of each state of the environment report, or any part of such a report, shall be supplied to any person on request during the appropriate period for such reasonable fee as the Mayor may determine. () In this section "the appropriate period" in the case of any state of the environment report is the period of six years beginning with the date of publication of that report pursuant to this section.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 450D not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 450E:

Page 150, line 21, at end insert— ("() The Mayor shall publish an action plan for London on the basis of the state of the environment report.")

The noble Lord said: The amendment forms an odd coupling with Amendment No. 451ZAF. Amendment No. 450E deals with the state of the environment report, while Amendment No. 451ZAF is intimately involved with waste. I shall cover them in the same speech, although I shall deal with them separately.

Amendment No. 450E would require the mayor to publish an action plan as a consequence of the state of the environment report. It is, of course, entirely proper that the mayor should be required to report on the state of the environment. But, paradoxically, although indirectly throughout the Bill he may be taking actions which will have an impact on the environment, there is no requirement on him to produce an action plan as a consequence of producing the report.

It may be argued that such a report will sum up work that is being done elsewhere on the face of the Bill. But it would be no bad thing for the mayor to be required to produce an action plan on the state of the environment report. It would make the system more open, more accountable and in general would prove to be more satisfactory to everybody.

Amendment No. 451ZAF was slipped into this group. I must admit that I did not pick it up when the groupings were suggested and they normally work out reasonably coherently. The amendment relates to page 151, line 13, and to the way in which we deal with the question of waste. One can see why the amendment was slipped in because, again, we call for an action plan, but this time on the question of waste.

We have a paradox with regard to the mayor and what is to be done in London about waste. Apart from what is in the Bill—we shall in due course be questioning whether this provision should be here at all—the mayor has no responsibility with regard to either the collection or disposal. There is a sense, therefore, in which this is so much hot air. But if the mayor is to have anything to do with waste, clearly he should have to have an action plan.

Some fundamental problems exist in relation to the disposal of London's waste. As we have discussed before in this Chamber, London's waste disposal arrangements are coming to a point of crisis. Many of the existing facilities are running out of either space or time. A further problem is that there is a greater inclination on the part of the European Community to regulate in the field of waste disposal and to require that waste is not disposed of to landfill. That will impose huge problems, not just in relation to management, but also technical and financial problems, and, primarily, the problem of overcoming the NIMBY factor.

One of the most difficult issues with which an authority has to deal is persuading a community how to dispose of its waste. Disposing of waste can usually be achieved, but it is not easy with a community that is used to disposing of its waste elsewhere. Therefore, if this measure is to be in the Bill, there should be an action plan and that is why Amendment No. 451ZAF was included in this grouping. The amendments are an odd coupling as to subject, but with regard to intention, they are identical. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

In one sense, the amendments are an odd coupling, but they allow me to clarify what we mean by a report and a strategy. A report is a report, and a strategy, almost by definition, must be an action plan. I have probably conveyed my meaning a little too explicitly. What I was trying to say is that a report is one thing and a strategy includes action points. The mayor will be required to produce eight strategies, most of which will have a relationship to the environmental report. The strategies will be where the action is and they will relate either to where the mayor will have direct executive responsibility or where he will have responsibilities for guiding, and in some cases intervening, in relation to the London boroughs and other statutory authorities.

If the mayor were also required to have an environmental action plan that cross-cut the eight strategies that he will be statutorily bound to deliver, there would be some confusion about where the action points arose. The environment report has to be seen as a report on the state of the environment, and the action plans will be contained within the individual strategies. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will see that the operational arms arise from the strategies and it will be confusing to introduce an action plan as an additional part of the report. As far as the waste disposal side is concerned, the action plan is the strategy as described.

I hope that I have made myself clear, although I doubt it.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I shall have to study what the Minister has had to say. I am grateful to him for doing his best to explain the difference and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 450F not moved.]

Clause 281, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 450G not moved.]

Clause 282 [The Mayor's biodiversity action plan]:

[Amendments Nos. 450H and 450J not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 450K:

Page 150, line 40, leave out ("Commission") and insert ("Agency")

The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. As the Committee will be aware, on 1st April this year, the Countryside Commission merged with the Rural Development Commission into an organisation called the Countryside Agency. The amendment merely ensures that the correct name is on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 450KA not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450L:

Page 150, line 41, at end insert (", and () such non-governmental organisatlons as the Mayor considers appropriate")

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 450M, tabled by the Conservatives. They both seek, in one way or another, to ensure that the mayor will consult NGOs when preparing or revising the London biodiversity plan. Bearing in mind the Minister's earlier comments about giving the mayor a little elbow room, he may find our amendment more acceptable.

Amendment No. 450L provides for the mayor to consult NGOs, but he may choose those he considers appropriate. Any of us who have through the years received the excellent briefings from NGOs such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds will recognise the wisdom of the mayor consulting such bodies when preparing the biodiversity plan. The expertise in those organisations is such that he is unlikely to be able to replicate it among his limited staff. The Bill would gain something from having that requirement, while giving the mayor the necessary elbow room. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith

Amendment No. 450M, which is grouped with Amendment No. 4501., is now slightly inaccurate because the question of an environmental strategy group is no longer relevant in the light of what has happened earlier. However, the amendment seeks to add to the list of consultees in regard to the biodiversity section of the Bill. These are groups such as the London Ecology Unit, the Wildlife Trust, the RSPB and the Groundwork Foundation that have a special interest in certain aspects of the ecology of London. London's ecology is important. It has diverse flora and fauna and in many ways does not suffer from the disadvantages of the countryside where intensive agriculture restricts some of the plants and animals that otherwise one would expect to find. However, while intensive agriculture may be responsible for that loss, intensive agriculture is necessary to feed us all. So one has to live with that. However, there are aspects of London's ecology that are special and well worth preserving. The bodies mentioned in our list have a special interest and I believe it would be worthwhile to consult them. I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Whitty

We have returned to the position of prescribing exactly whom the mayor should consult. We have been over this ground before. On the biodiversity action plan the mayor is specifically required to consult English Nature, the Countryside Commission and the Environment Agency. Clause 34 also lists in relation to that plan not only the assembly but also the functional bodies; namely, the London boroughs and anyone else the mayor deems it appropriate to consult.

The additional organisations prescribed in the various amendments would in many cases be appropriate for the mayor to consult. However, I think we need to leave the mayor that discretion. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has referred to the fact that we have already discussed the environmental strategy group. However, with reference to the London Ecology Group which has been mentioned here, I thought I had already explained at an earlier stage that the London Ecology Unit would be subsumed into the GLA to provide for the authority its core environmental staff. In that sense, the LEU would cease to exist as soon as the GLA carne into existence. So the GLA can hardly consult with itself. I do not think that would be appropriate, even were we to be prescriptive.

Of course I am aware of the sterling work being done by the London Wildlife Trust, the RSPB and the Groundwork Foundation. I would expect the mayor to make his or her own decisions as to which of those groups to consult, but in practice I should expect all of them to be consulted on the biodiversity plan. However, we must leave a few matters for the mayor to decide for himself or herself. We have dealt with this argument previously and I should not flog it to death. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I am beginning to find different ways of accepting graciously the Minister's replies, while realising that we will get nothing challenging. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 450M not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 450N:

Page 151, line 8, at end insert— ("() The Mayor shall publish any plan within one year of the first ordinary election and subsequently every two years.")

The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to build on our ambitions to keep the mayor up to scratch as regards timing. The London biodiversity plan does not appear to have any great urgency about it. In this amendment we have suggested that the mayor should publish a plan within one year of the first ordinary election and subsequently every two years. There is no time limit on this matter on the face of the Bill. We think there ought to be. The point is simple and we think it is worthwhile. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, this amendment requires the mayor to publish the Biodiversity action plan within one year of the first elections and subsequently every two years. We do not presume to set a timetable for the mayor which would force him or her to work to the Government's priorities rather than his own. Those priorities must be those which have been set out in the manifesto for which the people of London have voted. That may mean that he or she will produce some strategies in advance of others. We believe that that is a totally valid way in which to proceed. We do not propose to put constraints in the way of making this the effective method of working. In the light of my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I will study with care what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 282, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 451 not moved.]

The Chairman of Committees

I should have pointed out to the Committee that Amendment No. 451 is not moved. It therefore follows that Amendments Nos. 451YA and 451YAA may not in those circumstances be moved because they would have been proposed as amendments to Amendment No. 451.

[Amendments Nos. 451YA and 451YAA, as amendments to Amendment No. 451, not moved.]

Clause 283 [The Mayor's municipal waste management strategy]:

[Amendment No. 451ZAA not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 451ZAB to 451ZAE had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 451ZAF not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 451ZAG:

Page 151, line 13, after second ("the") insert ("minimisation,")

The noble Baroness said: With this amendment, we move into the detail of the waste strategy or new waste strategy, or whatever it will be known as. This amendment seeks, as did several other amendments that we had in this group but have withdrawn, to include the word "minimisation" and the concept of minimisation in the mayor's waste strategy.

When we come to the subject of a waste strategy, to omit the word "minimisation" is to ignore what is happening with the whole of the waste production stream. Originally, the Government had a target that 25 per cent of household waste would be recycled by the year 2000. London is recycling 11 per cent of its waste at the moment, and that fairly patchily. Some boroughs are doing very much better than others. The borough of my noble friend Lord Tope is doing especially well in that respect.

However, it is very uphill work. No matter how hard the boroughs work to recycle as much as they can, waste seems to grow and grow. Simply aiming to recycle the waste and transport it in a more efficient way, together with all the other current objectives that the strategy aims to achieve, is absolutely not enough if any real impact is to be made in this area. In fact, minimisation should be the prime responsibility of the mayor if he takes a long term view.

Recycling initiatives have experienced great difficulties for a number of reasons. They are not in themselves particularly energy efficient and it is often difficult to use the end products again, although I believe that industry and commerce are getting much better at tackling this area of work. In addition, whichever way we look at it, the landfill sites are running out. By 2010, the south-east region is likely to run out of space for landfill site disposals. Incinerators certainly represent one possible change of direction. However, they are going to hit very hard the people who do not want them in their back yards. In any event, in terms of environmental sustainability, minimisation has to be the way forward.

However, minimisation is incredibly much more difficult to achieve. It will mean persuading people that they want to do without things or do them in a more difficult way. For example, when we adjourned for our dinner break—for which we were all duly grateful—many members of staff in the canteen were taking away their meals in take-away boxes. Although that sort of practice makes life easier for all of us, it would have to stop under a minimisation plan because it produces vast amounts of waste.

The mayor needs to be given some ammunition to target those things which people will reluctantly give up. Large shops will be reluctant to give up practices which make packaging and selling easier; they will prefer to recycle them, because it is cheaper in the short term and they do not have to look at different ways of doing things. But minimisation is absolutely essential and must form part of the mayor's strategy. Anything else would be short term. Minimisation is the medium and long-term future. It must be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I find myself in almost total agreement with the noble Baroness in terms of what she said, with the possible exception of the implied abolition of the dinner break. What the noble Baroness proposes in this amendment could actually lead to the exact opposite result. Waste minimisation is such an integral part of waste management that separating it out, as proposed by the amendment, would send the message that waste minimisation and waste management were two different things. That seems to me to be entirely the wrong message and, indeed, the wrong implication of what the noble Baroness was just saying.

Therefore, although I totally agree that waste minimisation is absolutely a central part of waste management and the whole waste strategy, to say that it is different would actually give the wrong message to the mayor as regards the way in which the strategy was drawn up. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my support for almost everything she said, but that she will not actually pursue the amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

Before my noble friend decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may add a few words to the debate. We really are getting into a very strange situation where things which are most important are left out of the Bill and those which are less important are left in the Bill; in other words, part of the waste management strategy is in the Bill but part of it has to be kept out of it. Either we should just talk about waste management, or we should talk about all the elements of waste management. We should not be selecting waste management and some of its elements, which is what is in the Bill at present.

I urge the Minister to rethink these clauses, which are not very well drafted, in the context of the guidance of the Department of Environment and that under the Environment Act, which everyone has been seeking. The whole idea of waste minimisation is a central part of that process. Although the abstraction by the collection authorities and the recycling of products is very important and forms part of the waste minimisation idea, the latter is also an attempt to try to encourage people—for example, those who run large businesses—to demand less packaging from their suppliers. A whole host of things, like making encouraging noises and the kind of leadership role that we expect the mayor to take, can be exercised through the word "minimisation" in what is, particularly in major cities, one of the major strategies which the mayor has to get right.

We have talked a good deal during the proceedings on the Bill about the effect of what happens in London on other local areas. I do not believe that there is anything that London does which causes more ill-humour and more disadvantage to its surrounding areas than waste management, or lack of waste management. This is something that we need to get right in the context of this Bill. Alongside my noble friend, I urge the Government to take the matter a little more seriously.

10.45 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

While my noble friend was speaking, I searched again through Clause 283 to determine what the Minister meant when he said that although he agreed with everything I had said the Bill already placed an adequate duty on the mayor to ensure that waste is minimised. However, I failed to find any such duty. Clause 283 refers only to, the Mayor's proposals and policies for the recovery, treatment and disposal of municipal waste". The Bill concentrates on dealing with waste as it occurs and does not seek to place a duty on anyone to minimise it. We shall certainly return to this matter. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 451A not moved.]

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 451B:

Page 151, line 14, leave out ("municipal")

The noble Baroness said: The object of this amendment is to remove the word "municipal" from the waste management strategy. We could have tabled a large number of amendments all saying the same thing. We have simply chosen this one in order to discuss the principle of the matter.

The definition of "municipal waste" as provided for in this Bill—my noble friend will discuss this in a moment—is rather curious; namely, all that waste which reaches the waste collectors. That is it. However, that is not a satisfactory description of waste. It would be better to talk simply of waste management and not of municipal waste management. Then the mayor would have a strategic role in dealing with waste management and minimisation through to disposal of the waste that arises in London. That would include, for example, builders' rubble and dangerous waste, to which reference was made earlier in the Committee stage.

The Minister has told us many times that we must not restrict the mayor's freedom and capacity for action. However, to my way of thinking this description of municipal waste does just that. I repeat to some extent the point I made earlier. The Bill does not state that the mayor should act in a leadership role to encourage businesses to deal sensibly with their waste. It simply states that whatever waste comes into the hands of the waste collection authorities shall be dealt with under a mayoral strategy. I believe that it would be better for the mayor to have the freedom to consider how all of London's waste is disposed of, whether it is disposed of, or recovered, or managed, or reduced by the private sector under his encouragement, or whether it is dealt with by the waste collection and disposal authorities through their contracts with the private sector. It seems to me that the word "municipal" is a limiting as well as a rather curious definition within the waste terminology. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I support the amendments spoken to by my noble friend. I hope that the Minister will explain what is the point of the mayor's waste strategy. It is surely to turn waste into something that is less costly to deal with and to minimise it and, where possible, to obtain energy from waste, for example. Given that those are the sorts of objective that the mayor's strategy should aim at, the kind of waste that he has to deal with is not particularly relevant. He should establish broad, long-term aims that may encompass many kinds of waste which will he dealt with in different ways.

The source of waste is perhaps the least important concern; what matters is where it goes and what benefits and drawbacks there are in its disposal. Perhaps the Minister could define how this purpose is served by trying to split waste into many different categories. The waste collection and disposal authorities at borough level should have regard to dealing with particular kinds of waste, not the mayor.

Lord Whitty

There is something in what the noble Baroness has said. We believe it is right that the mayor should have a view on other waste streams and how they are dealt with. There are many lessons of good practice. In the earlier provisions dealing with the environment report, the Bill provides for the inclusion of information on all waste, including the kinds of waste to which the noble Baroness referred. That is where the leadership, the education and the best practice roles arise.

The municipal waste strategy deals with the area where the mayor—either directly or more generally—has powers relating to the public sector but where the local authorities effectively have the control. We want the strategy to be a vehicle for real and concrete change. It should therefore contain policies that the mayor can deliver and which are capable of being implemented in the main by the local authorities, if necessary through powers of direction.

There are no mayoral powers of direction over the private sector. There would be little value in developing a strategy of action for the management of waste generated by the private sector, especially if it contained measures that it was not prepared to accept and which would be unenforceable. The municipal waste management strategy relates to an area where there is ultimately a mayoral power of direction but which is primarily a local authority responsibility. The other areas are of course important and will be covered within the environment report and what flows from it. With that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

We accept that the Bill as drafted does not give the mayor powers of direction in respect of non-municipal waste, as it is defined. But in these days of partnerships—often very productive partnerships—is it right to stop the mayor including in a strategy proposals as to how other types of waste might be dealt with? There might be advantages in dealing with municipal and other waste in the same way—or, at least, in relating the issues which arise one to the other. To preclude the mayor from extending a strategy simply because he cannot enforce it seems to me—I am sorry for the pun—to be a wasted opportunity.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

The Minister's response to what we have said rather proves the point I was trying to make: the emphasis on municipal waste, as my noble friend has just said, rather limits the mayor's power to take a leadership role in this area.

Let us take, for example, the dangerous waste that emanates from hospitals. That can be disposed of in a number of different ways. A mayor may be able to encourage hospitals to deal with their waste in groups and possibly persuade them to dispose of it on their own sites, or on sites of hospitals in less crowded parts of London, in a way which is specifically directed at the disposal of that dangerous waste.

Of course the mayor could not force hospitals to do that; however, a direction to hospitals, a leadership or partnership approach, might well result in a satisfactory method of disposing of dangerous waste. The same could be said, for example, about the minimisation and disposal of the cardboard packaging which surrounds so much of what we buy and in particular what is delivered to large companies. I know of quite small authorities which have already started in a small way encouraging local businesses not to dispose of their waste into the waste stream but to sell it directly to those who recycle or re-use such waste. That has come about as a result of the leadership role taken by those authorities. I see no reason why the mayor should not be encouraged to take that kind of role in relation to London. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 451C not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 451D to 451M had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 451N:

Page 151, line 30, at end insert— ("() such non-governmental organisations as the Mayor considers appropriate,")

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 451P and 451Q.

Amendment No. 451N would require the mayor to consult NGOs when preparing or revising the waste strategy. I shall not re-run at length the arguments I gave as to why the mayor should consult on the environmental strategy. But some of them are equally pertinent here.

There may be difficult issues that the may or may not wish to confront. I give merely one example of an area where volumes and volumes of waste—I do not have the exact figures—are produced every year. I refer to the area of disposable nappies. Few organisations have done more to raise that issue than has the Women's Environmental Network, and few organisations other than that one have come up with alternatives acceptable to mothers with small babies. That is the kind of organisation that the mayor should be required to consult.

Amendment No. 451P is a fairly obvious proposal. It requires that the mayor should consult not merely disposal authorities but waste collection authorities in Greater London when preparing or revising the strategy. That seems to me self-evident and I should not need to explain it at length. However, if it is not and the Minister does not agree with me, I shall return to the matter.

Amendment No. 451Q requires the mayor to consult not merely on the disposal of waste but also on its handling and transportation. When we consider the amount of waste that is shifted around the city and the fact that one waste company alone shifts 600,000 tonnes a year by river, thereby saving some 400 lorry movements a day, we can begin to see the scale of the involvement as regards handling and transportation issues. These matters should be included alongside disposal, as they can play a major role. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

So far as concerns waste collection authorities, under Clause 34 the list of statutory consultees for all the mayor's strategies, including this one, includes the London boroughs, which are the collection authorities. As regards the rest, again we are in a situation where I wish to give the mayor discretion and the noble Baroness wishes to prescribe. I do not know whether we want to go over those arguments again. The more one prescribes certain bodies, the more one excludes other bodies. Again, I should prefer to leave it to the mayor's discretion.

11 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I hear what the Minister says, and once again I am struck by my inability to find new ways of saying that I will withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 451P and 451Q not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 451 to 451X had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

On Question, Whether Clause 283 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Dixon-Smith

In moving that Clause 283 shall not stand part of the Bill, for the convenience of the Committee I should like to couple with it Clauses 284 to 289. The amendments are a series of probing amendments, which I do not really expect the noble Lord to accept. However, I find myself wondering why we inserted into the Bill the suggestion of handing the mayor the problem of handling London's waste disposal when in fact he has nothing to do with it. He will have nothing to do with collection or disposal. The Environment Agency regulates quality control of the business and the Secretary of State has overall control. The only reason I can see is that it might just pull the Secretary of State's irons out of the fire in that it might save him from having to take a number of difficult decisions which he might hope that the mayor would take on his behalf.

There is yet another problem. It is that the Bill has no timescale for the mayor to produce an effective strategy. By the time he is likely to do it, given the generous timescale being given in regard to other things, the crisis over the disposal of London's waste will have come and gone, because it will have to have been dealt with before any strategy is required to appear. I have not found a timescale on the face of the Bill.

This is what I would call a general shot across the bows. I would accept that there is some validity in what is proposed in the Bill if in fact the mayor was going to be given some responsibility for the provision of facilities for the disposal of London's waste, or some such power. But he has nothing. All he has to do is to write a plan, and I do not think that is likely to achieve anything. We have heard enough about the problem of London's waste and I will not talk more about that problem at this stage.

I think there is a case to answer as to why these clauses are included, and I look forward to what the noble Lord the Minister has to say. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says that this is a shot across the bows and he has coupled with his Motion a number of subsequent clauses relating to waste. Of course it is true that direct powers of the GLA with regard to waste are not there, but the powers of direction are there. We said in the White Paper that we had considered the option of making the GLA the disposal authority for the whole of London, but that we considered that to be unnecessary and likely to involve a massive duplication of bureaucracy. It would require the GLA to become involved in areas which, by and large, are being dealt with adequately by the local boroughs within London. Nevertheless, there are some very serious pan-London issues involved here which affect areas beyond London, including the Royal County of Essex. So there are some very serious strategic issues involved here which, with the re-creation of a strategic authority, it is sensible for the GLA to undertake.

It is important that, in relation to the collection, recovery, minimisation, disposal and transportation of waste—all the issues that the Committee has debated for the past hour or so—the GLA has a coherent strategy. It may well be that by better co-ordinating the boroughs and, if necessary, using a degree of direction in so doing, there will be a more integrated approach to waste disposal across London. In any case, as part of the general environmental obligations on the GLA it is necessary that, in conjunction with the other public authorities involved, waste disposal is seen as a major arm of the delivery of a better environmental quality of life within London, of which municipal waste disposal is a very important aspect.

Clearly, there is a national waste strategy into which all of this must fit and to which, in many ways, the Greater London waste strategy will make a major contribution. The fact that the GLA is not itself a waste disposal authority may perhaps make it easier for it to provide strategic direction. Were it to be bogged down in the detailed logistics of individual waste disposal operations, as the London boroughs inevitably are, the commitment to the strategic approach would be that much less.

Therefore, I hope the noble Lord agrees that a strategy for waste disposal is in the best interests of London and that the necessity for the GLA to co-operate with the London boroughs and neighbouring authorities around Greater London is an important responsibility. I hope that the noble Lord will allow this clause to stand part and not press his opposition tonight.

Lord Dixon-Smith

The Minister has had a pretty good shot at replying. I need to study his observations with care. Although we are dealing initially with Clause 283, this is a series of probing amendments. I have spoken to all the following clause stand part amendments, and I do not intend to raise the issue again this evening. I must decide whether or not to raise the matter on another occasion.

Clause 283 agreed to.

Clause 284 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:

[Amendments Nos. 451Y to 451ZD had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 451ZE not moved.]

Clause 284 agreed to.

Clause 285 [Duties of waste collection authorities etc.]:

[Amendments Nos. 451ZF and 451ZG had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 285 agreed to.

Clause 286 [Directions by the Mayor]:

[Amendments Nos. 451ZH and 451Z1 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 451ZK:

Page 152, line 30, leave out paragraph (b)

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 451ZK, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 451ZKA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Amendment No. 451ZK proposes the omission of paragraph (b) of Clause 286(1). That paragraph would allow the mayor to give a direction that required a waste collection or disposal authority not to exercise a function. Perhaps the Minister can give an example of how that power might operate. I assume that the function in question would be a statutory one. I have been trying to think of a regal analogy. Perhaps this is not a Henry VIII clause because the Secretary of State does not put himself in that position, but, as I read the provision, someone is promoting the mayor to that position by allowing him to stop a waste collection or disposal authority from exercising a function. It is not immediately obvious to me what circumstances would give rise to that, and I should be glad if the Minister could put some flesh on the bones. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Amendment No. 451ZKA involves a slightly different matter. Clause 286 deals with the question of the mayor giving directions with regard to the disposal of waste and municipal waste management in relation to his municipal waste management strategy. The amendment requires him to have some regard to the costs of what he is proposing to regulate on and the effect of those costs on either the disposal authorities or the collecting authorities—the boroughs.

The question of costs in waste disposal is significant. The cost of disposal through incineration, with energy recovery and an element of waste recovery, is very high. Nonetheless, I suspect that that will have to be the main means of disposal for London's waste in future. London's waste which is sent to landfill now suffers a considerable fiscal penalty, quite deliberately to discourage waste from going that way and, more importantly, to try to encourage recycling. The recycling market is in a very bad state—in nearly as bad a state, I might say, as farming, if one wants a valid comparison. However, the amendment seeks simply to make costs an important consideration to which the mayor should have regard. The Minister will say that we do not need to tell him that, but I believe that the amendment was worth tabling and I look forward to his response.

Lord Whitty

The noble Lord will not be surprised that I regard the amendment as unnecessary. When preparing or revising a strategy, the mayor must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. That guidance advises that when choosing the waste management option to be followed, all authorities must be guided by the principle of using the best practicable environmental option, which, as I said earlier, was defined by the Royal Commission as a procedure which establishes, for a given set of objectives, the option which provides the most benefits or least damage to the environment as a whole at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as the short term.

Therefore, the question of acceptable cost will be covered by the guidance which the mayor will be following. Moreover, we are looking at the scope of the mayor's powers of direction in that respect, and we are looking at the impact that it will have on the London boroughs and the waste industry in general. Constructive discussions are already taking place between ourselves and the London boroughs over those issues. Before the Bill finally leaves this House, I hope to write to the noble Lord and others setting out the proposals in that area. It is hoped that that will be before we reach Report stage.

The noble Baroness's amendment seems to me rather illogical. It seeks to remove the power to require an authority not to exercise a function, but it leaves standing the power to direct an authority to exercise a function in a manner specified in the direction. The amendment is therefore seriously flawed in that respect. The noble Baroness asked for an example where a direction might work. One example might be where a direction might seek to deliver good practice by directing an authority to adopt better methods of collection or processing which were currently being used by another authority, whether inside or outside London. That would provide the mayor with a power to direct an authority to operate a better practice which was already extant in another authority. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.

11.15 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

That example seems to fall squarely within Clause 286(1)(a) where the direction can require an authority to exercise a function in a manner specified in the direction. I do not seek to take out that provision. I had hoped for an example from the Minister where the direction tells an authority not to exercise a function.

I remain concerned. Perhaps it is arrogant of me to think that because I do not understand a provision, I should be concerned about it. Is it possible for the Minister to write to me following this stage to give me a practical example of how this power could be used?

Lord Whitty

I am happy to undertake to write to the noble Baroness. However, the example I was given would direct an authority to stop using a direction and to replace it by another method. Therefore, there is a direction to stop doing something, as well as a direction to do something. However, I shall try to find a specific example which may clarify the point.

Baroness Hamwee

I am grateful for that. I make a distinction between the function and the manner in which it is exercised. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 451ZKA not moved.]

Clause 286 agreed to.

Clause 287 [Interpretation of sections 283 to 286]:

[Amendments Nos. 451ZL and 451ZM not moved.]

Clause 287 agreed to.

Clause 288 [Waste recycling plans]:

[Amendments Nos. 451ZN and 451ZP not moved.]

Clause 288 agreed to.

Clause 289 [The Mayor's air quality strategy]:

[Amendment No. 451ZQ not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 451ZR:

Page 154, line 24, at end insert— ("() matters which the Mayor considers should he drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State.")

The noble Baroness said: This provision would amend the clause dealing with the mayor's air quality strategy. It seeks to include in subsection (3) information on, matters which the Mayor considers should he drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State".

I make a distinction here between information, which is the subject of subsection (3), and proposals and policies which are the subject of subsection (2) where the mayor has the opportunity, as set out on the face of the Bill, to add to the short list.

Whether or not the mayor is specifically allowed to do so, I dare say that the mayor would wish to do so. However, I seek to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot say, "It is outside your remit to have views about specific types of information". For instance, the mayor or Transport for London might undertake research on attitudes to fuel, and the likely use of different types of fuel, such as liquid petroleum gas, or powering vehicles by electricity. It would be daft if the mayor could not pass on to the Secretary of State the results and information obtained. I refer, for example, to whether a level of tax might have an effect on the public's decisions about choice of fuel. If the mayor is aware of actions which could be taken, not necessarily by the GLA, but which could improve the air quality of London and are the responsibility of central government, I believe that the mayor should be able publicly to say so.

I hope that we can have an assurance from the Minister either that such an amendment would deal with the matter or that it is not necessary to have such an amendment because the points I make are implicit. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendment No. 451ZR would require the mayor to include in the air quality strategy such matters which he or she considers should be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State.

In many ways, the Bill's provisions on air quality are among the most radical it contains. They effect a comprehensive devolution to the mayor of the Secretary of State's role in local air quality management, as defined by Section 85 of the Environment Act. The mayor will, through the air quality strategy, set a framework within which air quality is managed at a local level. And it is the mayor who ultimately will approve local air quality management plans.

The Secretary of State will retain responsibility for setting the national strategy and national targets, but it will be for the mayor to oversee its implementation in the capital. Of course, it is the integration of strategic responsibilities for air quality, planning and transport at the heart of the Bill which place the mayor in an ideal position to do it.

Having said that, the Secretary of State will retain an interest in what happens in the capital and in the effect that that might have on the rest of the country. And it is the Secretary of State who will be held responsible for ensuring that national targets and international treaty obligations in respect of air quality are met. That is why we have included provisions at Clause 290 enabling the Secretary of State to issue directions to the mayor in certain tightly defined circumstances.

I therefore accept absolutely that the Secretary of State will need to be kept informed of progress in the managing of air quality in the capital. Provisions in Clause 289 already set out a range of types of information which must, be included in the London air quality strategy. We have been of the view that the provisions in subsections (2) and (3) covered all the kinds of information that the Secretary of State would wish to have drawn to his or her attention.

I am sympathetic, however, to the suggestions that there might be a particular class of issue which was so important as to merit being highlighted by the mayor as deserving the Secretary of State's particular attention. I would therefore ask for the opportunity to consider this suggestion, with the possibility of returning to it at a later stage. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

I am delighted to beg leave to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 289 agreed to.

Clause 290 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:

[Amendment No. 451ZS not moved.]

Clause 290 agreed to.

Clauses 291 to 293 agreed to.

Clause 294 [Directions under the Environment Act 1995]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 451ZT:

Page 156, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("The") in line 10 and insert— ("(3) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted— (4A)").

The noble Lord said: This amendment and the following amendments seek to correct an error in the Bill's drafting relating to the mayor's powers to direct London local authorities in respect of European Community air quality obligations and other international agreements. The Bill as drafted would have the effect of giving the mayor the power to transpose EU directives on air quality and so forth. That is obviously nonsense. It is a legislative function properly the responsibility of the Secretary of State. These amendments correct the position and ensure that the power to transpose remains solely with the proper authorities. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 451ZU to 451ZX:

Page 156, line 13, leave out ("(5C)") and insert ("(4B)")

Page 156, line 14, leave out (", or subsection (5) above by virtue of subsection (5A) above,")

Page 156, line 16, at end insert— ("() In subsection (5) (power of the Secretary of State to give directions relating to obligations under the Community Treaties or to international obligations) after "local authorities" there shall be inserted ", other than local authorities in Greater London,".")

Page 156, line 21, leave out subsection (5)

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 294, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 295 agreed to.

Clause 296 [Consultation with the Mayor]:

[Amendment No. 451ZY not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 451ZZ:

Page 157, line 9, at end insert— ("(c) any local authority other than those in paragraphs (a) and (b) above which shall be otherwise affected"")

The noble Lord said: I am not optimistic about this amendment. However, as regards air quality, the atmosphere moves in mysterious ways. In Clause 296 we see, as a matter of substance on the face of the Bill, that there shall be consulted any local authority in Greater London or any local authority whose area is contiguous to the area of Greater London. Our amendment suggests that we should add to that: any local authority other than those in paragraphs (a) and (b) above which shall be otherwise affected".

Anybody who studies atmospheric movement in relation to pollution knows that it is an imprecise science. As knowledge is built up, one realises that the relationship between a source of pollution and the people it affects can be remarkably remote. The east coast of England, in periods of still, anticyclonic weather, suffers greatly from atmospheric pollution whose source of origin is in the Ruhr in Germany. Much of the sulphur dioxide that arrives in this country is not generated here but in the south of France and Spain. If we wanted to go back to the atmospheric movements that resulted after the Chernobyl disaster when the movement of radioactive materials made chasing what was happening rather more easy in tragic circumstances, we would find some mysterious facts.

Where an authority can show that it is directly affected as a result of air pollution deriving from London, it should be included in this list of consultees. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I am afraid that the amendment does not do what it is intended to do. Clause 296 of the Bill is all to do with whom local authorities consult when carrying out their own air quality management functions. It provides that local authorities in London and those whose areas adjoin London consult with the mayor of London when carrying out air quality reviews, assessments and preparing action plans. That is essential to the mayor's ability to fulfil his or her role.

The Bill does that by adding the mayor to the long list of consultees listed at paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 11 to the Environment Act 1995, whom local authorities are required to consult when carrying out air quality management functions.

The amendment would provide that any local authority affected by its own air quality management activities would have to consult the mayor. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intended.

The Bill already provides that the mayor should consult with the Assembly, the functional bodies, the boroughs, boroughs adjoining London and the Environment Agency when preparing or revising the air quality strategy. The Bill also provides at Clause 34(1)(e) that the mayor shall consult any other body or person whom he considers it appropriate to consult". That clearly includes local authorities that might be affected by the strategy.

Clause 290 would also enable the Secretary of State to intervene when the air quality strategy was considered likely to be detrimental to an area outside Greater London. That is a further safeguard for authorities outside London.

In the light of that reply, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment and will understand that the amendment that he intended is not necessary.

11.30 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation, which I shall study with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 296 agreed to.

Clause 297 [The London ambient noise strategy]:

[Amendment No. 451ZZA not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved amendment No. 451ZZB:

Page 157, line 25, leave out ("services")

The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 452WA and 452XA. The clause deals with the ambient noise strategy.

The first is a probing amendment. Ambient noise is defined to include noise related to transport services. I am querying the addition of the word "services". Will the Government confirm that cars, which are not transport services in the normal sense of the term, will be included and the noise from car traffic will be covered by the provision?

The other two amendments would add to the definition of ambient noise caused by construction works and roadworks. On reflection, I am not sure how appropriate the amendments are. Perhaps the Minister will assure me that they are matters for the local authority and that we are not missing an opportunity in the Bill.

The issues occurred to me on a Sunday morning, when the noise of pneumatic drills started on a building site almost next door to me, followed swiftly by the concurrent noise of the road outside being dug up. There is an expression of frustration in the amendments. The point is that we want to be assured that such noise is covered somewhere. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

It is the Government's intention that the mayor's strategy will include noise related to all modes of transport. That includes services for which the mayor will have responsibility, other road traffic, rail traffic, aircraft and water transport. Local authorities already have adequate powers under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to control the levels of noise and the times during which it may be emitted from construction and roadworks. It is not intended that the mayor should be consulted on the actions that local authorities may wish to take on local situations as they arise.

The noble Baroness specifically asked me to refer to services, including cars. This is one of the issues we are considering. Road traffic is included. The drafting may not be quite right yet. Nevertheless, I should like to consider in more detail whether or not the provisions in the Bill are sufficient and I wish to retain this clause for the present. I shall write to the noble Baroness when we have more fully considered the wording of the clause and hope that she will therefore feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

I shall be happy to do so on that basis. My noble friend asked why I had not included church bells. I had to tell him that at the time the roadworks were taking place I could not hear the church bells which were being rung immediately across the road. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 452:

Page 157, line 26, leave out ("aircraft")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 452 seeks to remove aircraft from the noise regulations. This is purely a probing amendment to discover what are the intentions of the Government as regards the mayor and aircraft noise.

There is concern at Heathrow about this matter because Heathrow is the world's busiest airport. It is a gem in the crown of all airports and a reason why London is such a successful city. There are two areas for consideration. First, at the present time noise is the responsibility of the Government and therefore we want to know what it is conceived the mayor could take over. Secondly, noise regulations are laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in relation to Chapters 2 and 3, and we recently narrowly avoided a huge dispute with the United States about the phase-out of Chapter 2. This is purely a probing amendment. What do the Government consider the mayor may do in that regard?

Furthermore, the planning for Terminal 5 is now in the hands of the inspector and we do not know what he is going to say. Also, we do not want to influence him. The regulations covering noise in relation to London City Airport are laid down in guidelines. So what, if anything, do the Government consider the mayor's position on noise to be? I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I am glad the noble Lord said that this was a probing amendment and I am sure he will forgive me if I do not pursue him down the road of discussing Terminal 5, for obvious reasons.

The definition of ambient noise for the purposes of the strategy will include aircraft noise, principally because such noise contributes significantly to noise levels and has its effect within the capital. However, the inclusion of aircraft noise in the mayor's assessment of the ambient noise climate will provide information. It will not alter the essential powers but its inclusion will help to inform him as to the impact of his strategies and enable the development of proposals to promote measures to reduce ambient noise levels and their impact on those living and working in London.

The only power that it is envisaged may be changed is one to give the mayor the right to be consulted about any changes in departure or arrival routes, or changes in capacity at the airports which may have significant environmental effects, and for his views to be taken into account. That is the only power the mayor will have in respect of aircraft movements. Existing powers, both national and international, will therefore not be affected. Amendments to give that right to consultation will be brought forward at Report stage and we may wish to look in slightly greater detail at whether the clauses as drafted are sufficient.

We will come back at Report stage on that wider issue, but as far as the noble Lord's concerns about where the power of final decision will lie, this will not affect those powers and responsibilities as they stand at present. I hope that the noble Lord will, therefore, withdraw his probing amendment. We shall doubtless return to the point on Report.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

That was a most successful probing amendment, because the Minister has said that he will bring something back on Report. I hope that he will consider in the meantime the question of international obligations which are laid down in Section 33(9). Will that include the guidelines of the international civil aviation organisations? I hope that the Minister will consider that point on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments No. 452WA and 452XA not moved.]

Clause 297 agreed to.

Clause 298 agreed to.

Clause 299 [Abolition of the London Ecology Committee]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 452YA:

Page 158, line 4, leave out ("On the establishment of the Authority,")

The noble Lord said: I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 452ZA. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill will abolish three existing organisations—the London Planning Advisory Committee, the London Ecology Committee and the London Research Centre—and subsume them into the main body of the Greater London Authority. We have already made clear our intention to abolish all three of those organisations on 1st April 2000 in order to allow a smooth transition to the new authority.

The amendments deal with a technical problem in that the Bill, as currently drafted, only allows us to abolish the London Ecology Committee on the establishment of the authority—that is, after the GLA elections have taken place. That would not allow us to plan properly in advance for the establishment of the GLA, which is clearly desirable. The amendments correct the position and put the London Ecology Committee on the same basis as LPAC and the London Research Centre. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 452ZA:

Page 158, line 6, leave out ("shall cease to exist") and insert ("is abolished by this section")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 452ZAA not moved.]

Clause 299, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.