HL Deb 25 October 1999 vol 606 cc75-88

(" . After section 322A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 there shall be inserted—

Local inquiries in London: special provision as to costs in certain cases.

322B.—(1) This section applies where—

  1. (a) the local planning authority for a London borough refuse an application for planning permission,
  2. (b) that refusal is in compliance with a direction made by the Mayor of London in accordance with provision made in a development order by virtue of section 74(1B)(a), and
  3. (c) an appeal against the refusal is made to the Secretary of State under section 78.

(2) If the Secretary of State causes a local inquiry to be held under section 320(1) to determine the appeal, in its application to the inquiry section 250 of the 1972 Act shall be treated as if—

  1. (a) for subsection (4) there were substituted the subsection set out at subsection (5) below, and
  2. (b) for subsection (5) there were substituted the subsection set out at subsection (6) below.

(3) If the appeal does not give rise to a local inquiry under section 320, in the application of section 322(2) in relation to the appeal the reference to section 250(5) of the 1972 Act shall be treated as if it were a reference to that provision as modified by subsection (2)(b) above.

(4) If arrangements are made for a local inquiry in relation to the appeal and the inquiry does not take place, in the application of section 322A in relation to the appeal the reference to section 250(5) of the 1972 Act shall be treated as if it were a reference to that provision as modified by subsection (2)(b) above.

(5) The subsection referred to in subsection (2)(a) above is as follows— Where this subsection applies to an inquiry, the costs incurred by the Secretary of State in relation to the inquiry shall be paid—

  1. (a) by the Mayor of London, if he is not a party to the inquiry and if the Secretary of State decides that the Mayor acted unreasonably in making the direction in accordance with which the local planning authority refused the planning permission, or
  2. (b) if the Mayor is a party or if the Secretary of State does not so decide, by such local authority or party to the inquiry as he may direct;
and the Secretary of State may cause the amount of the costs so incurred to be certified, and any amount so certified and directed to be paid by the Mayor or by any authority or person shall be recoverable from the Mayor or from that authority or person by the Secretary of State summarily as a civil debt.".

(6) The subsection referred to in subsection (2)(b) above is as follows— Where this subsection applies to an inquiry, or to costs incurred for the purposes of an inquiry, the Secretary of State may make orders as to the costs of the parties to the inquiry and as to the parties by whom the costs are to be paid; and—

  1. (a) the parties by whom the costs are ordered to be paid may include the Mayor of London if he is not a party to the inquiry and if the Secretary of State decides that the Mayor acted unreasonably in making the direction in accordance with which the local planning authority refused the planning permission;
  2. (b) every such order may be made a rule of the High Court on the application of any party named in the order.".

(7) In this section "the 1972 Act" means the Local Government Act 1972".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 306 [Mayor's functions in relation to planning around Greater London]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 543ZA: Page 171, line 6, at end insert ("or

  1. (c) any other body which the Mayor considers should be informed,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 309 [The Mayor's environmental report]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 543A: Page 172, line 24, at end insert—

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks, first, to add "housing conditions" and, secondly, "the effects of the environment on health" to the list of the matters that the mayor would include in a state of the environment report.

We heard what the Government said in Committee about not being over-prescriptive. We have therefore whittled down the list of matters which we believe should absolutely be included to these two essential items. The aim is linked to that set out for the mayor in his strategies in Clause 33(7) in which it is said that the point of the strategy production is, to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London".

Surely the point of the state of the environment report is that people and agencies may see the impact of the listed items on them and their state of health. All this information must provide the basic aim of improving life. Therefore, the link between the environment and health is critical. In terms of housing conditions, one of the greatest impacts on people's health and well being comes from the state of their micro-environment, that is their homes, their blocks of flats and their streets. The state of that micro-environment is a vital contributor to health.

One of the professions that has made a contribution to this debate and which very much feels that housing conditions should be included is that to which environmental health officers belong. They have frontline experience of the impact that housing conditions have on the state of people's health. The mayor will need to remain strategic and retain a general picture of improvement or deterioration across the boroughs. He will also need to determine whether housing conditions have improved or deteriorated over, for example, a five-year period.

We believe that both of these areas crucially affect the day-to-day lives of Londoners. That ought to be of sufficient significance to be listed alongside those matters that the Government are happy to list on the face of the Bill—for example, litter.

In his reply on the last occasion, the Minister made the point that these were areas for which the mayor was not directly responsible and that it would therefore seem an unnecessary burden on the mayor should he decide that other priorities ought to be pursued. We have carefully considered that point. However, I hope that the Minister by now feels minded to accept the fact that the impact of the environment on health is one of the main points of producing a state of the environment report and that that link is absolutely vital to Londoners who will eventually read the report.

In the meantime., I hope that the Government will have considered that these two elements are worthy of inclusion. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 543B, 543C, 543D and 545A are grouped with this amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

No, they are not.

Lord Dixon-Smith

Are they not? I beg your pardon.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, they were grouped and then they were ungrouped. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for raising this issue. We are concerned that all the relevant issues should be taken into account by the mayor in producing the report. However, we do not believe that these two issues should be set out as matters which could join a potentially endless list in terms of adding them to the list in Clause 309.

I remind the House that the Bill already states that the mayor may include information about any other matters in relation to Greater London which he or she considers are appropriate, thus giving the mayor the discretion to include matters of his or her choice which the Bill does not specifically state. It allows the mayor a free hand to include anything which he or she considers might be relevant or of importance to Londoners.

The problem is that housing conditions and the effect of the environment on health are not within the mayor's direct control. If the mayor considers them to be appropriate, he or she can include sections on these issues. However, we see no reason to add any of them to the existing list in the Bill, thereby adding to the mayor's and the GLA's workload by requiring the state of the environment report to include a section on each or any of them.

In debating these issues, we have to be mindful of the role of the boroughs and the responsibilities they have. In this respect, the housing role is obviously relevant. Clause 309 requires the mayor to consult the Environment Agency, each London borough council, the Common Council, and any other person whom the mayor considers it appropriate to consult before producing the report.

A requirement to include every single potential item considered by the noble Baroness to be relevant will produce an over-prescriptive definition for the mayor to work to. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, with the leave of the House, can I ask the Minister why, therefore, "litter" is included in the list in subsection (3)? If anything is local, litter is local. I can well understand that a borough being consulted about litter would be very happy to say, "Mayor, you deal with that." However, it seems a very odd inclusion if matters as substantial as the ones to which my noble friend has referred are excluded.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, the point is that the list includes those matters about which information may be available. I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about local authorities which may choose to hand over litter. I would point out, however, that very few of those local borough councils would wish to hand over their housing responsibility to the mayor.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I reassure the Minister that we did not intend the list to be endless. That is why we removed some of the matters we felt were important, leaving the two essentials, as I have pointed out.

I do not believe that our amendment would result in taking away any of the boroughs' responsibility for housing. They will obviously deal with housing need and with the question of putting in bids to improve their housing. However, good housing is crucial to improving the lives of Londoners. I am therefore surprised that the state of the environment is not to be included on the face of the Bill as something to which the mayor must pay regard.

I am not sure that I have heard the Minister respond to my point relating to strategy production and the state of the environment report. The Bill refers to the fact that the report is intended to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London. However, I shall dwell on her answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 543B: Page 172, line 25, after ("other") insert ("relevant").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for putting myself in an offside position. However, I believe that the Government's Chief Whip would be pleased and thrilled to think that I was anxious to get on with the business.

Of the amendments in this group, two are important and two are less so. Amendment No. 543B deals with a minor matter. The clause empowers the mayor to produce a state of the environment report. The amendment proposes that when the mayor is introducing other matters in relation to Greater London which he considers appropriate they should be "relevant". If one is an optimist, one believes that no mayor would dream of putting anything irrelevant in any report. But, my Lords, you never know. Elections are strange things; we do not know who the mayor will be or what will happen.

Amendment No. 543C introduces the concept of an environment strategy group which should be involved before the mayor consults the Environment Agency, London borough councils and so forth. That is an important paving amendment about which I shall have more to say later.

Amendment No. 543D lists the main atmospheric pollutants about which we believe information should be contained in any environment report published by the mayor. I dare say that the Minister will say that that is being overprescriptive—it would be remarkable if he did not. But we believe that it is worth wasting—I am sorry, worth inserting—those. I apologise to the House; there is an awful lot of waste in environmental matters.

I return to the issue of an environment strategy group dealt with in Amendment No. 545A. The mayor is required to produce a series of reports in the environmental field. He has to produce a document to be known as the London biodiversity action plan; he has to produce the municipal waste management strategy; he has to produce a strategy for air quality; and he has to produce a strategy for noise. Those are significant issues.

It may be that the mayor will be able to put together a professional team of advisers who are so competent and sufficiently read in all those fields that he will need no further advice. However, he will be extremely fortunate if he is able to do so. In Amendment No. 545A, we propose a new schedule which establishes an environment strategy group for London. Its membership is not specified, but we suggest that it should consist of people with knowledge and experience relevant to the environment and the issues in respect of which the mayor must produce reports. The commercial world and, more importantly, the academic world contain people with knowledge of what is happening in the more strategic sense. We believe that they could make a real contribution to the work of the mayor in producing all the reports that I have mentioned.

As an aside, I find it fascinating that a little further in the Bill we come to consider a cultural strategy group. Apparently, there is no problem about having such a group, although perhaps there is more executive history in that area. I believe that the environment is a far more significant issue as regards London, Londoners and the future of London. I hope that those people involved in the cultural debate will not take umbrage at what I am saying, but I believe that cultural matters can be extremely controversial if they are heavily and articulately advanced. But the environment in London is critical to London's strategic future. I have no doubt that the mayor, if he is obliged to work with the Bill as it stands, will do his best, but the purpose of the amendment is to make it possible for him to do better. That is a worthwhile ambition and I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 543B. I am not sure that I understand the rationale for it. The mayor will decide what additional matters are relevant or appropriate. I do not believe that the amendment adds a great deal to the Bill. However, the other amendments are more substantial.

Amendment No. 543D requires that the mayor includes information on specific pollutants in the air quality section of his report. We debated a similar amendment in Committee. I understand the reasons behind the amendment and I agree that the pollutants listed are important. However, the amendment is unnecessary and overdetailed—I am trying to avoid using the word "prescriptive". In any case, the mayor will have to pay attention to the majority of pollutants listed in the amendment, with the exception of PM2.5. These pollutants are listed specifically in the national air quality strategy which the mayor, under Clause 317, will be required to implement in London.

There is, of course, nothing to prevent the mayor from adding PM2.5 or any other pollutant to the strategy he or she produces. The Bill has the necessary flexibility for that but we do not need to repeat the list. We need a little flexibility.

Amendments Nos. 543C and 545A deal with the environmental strategy group. We debated the provision of such a group in Committee. At that time, the Opposition had slightly grander plans for the group. The amendments now on the Marshalled List indicate that they envisage only a limited role for such a group; that of advising the mayor on the issues to be covered in the state of the environment report.

It is important that the mayor mobilises all the expertise he can get. He must decide how all of those strategies which he is required to deliver can be delivered. But we want to leave a little bit of flexibility on how he delivers his obligations under this measure. He might decide to work in a number of different ways. For example, he might decide to bring together some kind of strategy group as prescribed here or to use a round table model using senior officers from the GLA, the functional bodies, the London boroughs and so forth and other environmental experts. Alternatively, he might do so by appointing a series of different environmental experts to work throughout the authority on the range of responsibilities in the different strategies. It may be to gather groups of advisers on each of those strategies. More probably, it will be a combination of those in order to produce a degree of consensus behind each of the strategies.

There is a different position as compared with the cultural strategy group which we are setting up in the next section because in this section the mayor has the prime responsibility in relation to drawing up these strategies. It is the mayor's responsibility to deliver.

In the cultural area, we are primarily concerned with setting up partnerships where others in the cultural scene around London will deliver. I make no implication about the importance of the environment and culture. The noble Lord was getting himself into deep water over that. But it is a different relationship. The relationship in the environmental field is clearly a mayoral responsibility. In the cultural field it is a cooperative and collective one—that is the difference. The mayor may well set up a strategy group of some sort, but he cannot be required to do so on the face of the Bill. I beg the noble Lord not to press the amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As always, he is helpful and informative, even when he does not completely agree with me. I hear what he has to say, but he has to produce a "state of the environment" report, which will need to pull together all the other specialist aspects which I mentioned earlier and on which the Minister touched. Bringing together a lot of specialists can be a successful way of producing a unified report, but it can also be a successful way of producing an almost interminable disagreement on points of detail.

It was partly with that in mind as well as the significant importance of this particular issue for the whole strategic future of London that we tabled the important Amendment No. 545A. I have heard the Minister's comments and I shall study them with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 543C and 543D not moved.]

[Amendment No. 544 not moved.]

Clause 311 [The Mayor's municipal waste management strategy]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 544TA: Page 173, line 34, after second ("the") insert ("minimisation,").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 544TA seeks to include minimisation in the waste strategy which the mayor must produce. When we discussed the issue in Committee, the Minister's response was that he would not accept our amendment, which sought to insert the word "minimisation", because minimisation was such an integral part of waste management, that to separate it out, as our amendment proposed, would send the message that waste minimisation and waste management were two different matters.

However, looking at the other terms which the Government have chosen to include on the face of the Bill: "recovery", "treatment" and "disposal", I should have thought those terms to be equally absolutely part of waste management. I cannot quite understand why minimisation is taken as implicitly part of waste management and why, for example, recovery is not to be taken as implicit, since it is on the face of the Bill. The Minister was kind enough to say at the beginning of his reply that he totally agreed with my remarks on the importance of waste minimisation—indeed, I should not expect him to disagree.

However, since that time I have given some more thought to the matter and made inquiries in the local authority area and it seems that waste minimisation is one of the most difficult areas to tackle. Although local authorities are now responsible and indeed, empowered, to put into place waste minimisation strategies, that is happening remarkably slowly, probably because it is such a difficult area to tackle. But if, as the Minister accepted, it is such an important area to tackle, it must be on the face of the Bill. We do not want to repeat the experience of it taking a long time to tackle because it is a difficult area. I should like to give one example where minimisation might mean something very different from waste management.

In Committee, we took the example of take-away boxes being used, in fact, by staff in your Lordships' House, but also throughout London. Little triangular plastic take-away boxes are used for sandwiches and rectangular ones for hamburgers and so on. At huge events, such as those which take place in the Royal Parks, an enormous quantity of take-away containers are used. In a minimisation strategy, the mayor might decide to encourage, cajole and require people supplying take-away food to do so in packaging that minimised waste in two ways.

There is now at least one company of which I am aware in Somerset which produces take-away food boxes from the waste produced in making chips. Potato starch is used to make the boxes, which are used for take-away food and can then be composted. That seems to me to be a perfect example of minimising waste twice. That is the sort of use of minimisation at which the mayor might choose to look—my noble friend is laughing because I often refer to potatoes in Somerset, and I did so when he visited our area committee. However, that is a small example of where minimisation is important. If it is not included on the face of the Bill, the mayor will necessarily continue to concentrate on recovery and disposal.

I stop with the example of take-aways as an area where a huge impact could be made. The outlet does not in fact have to pay for any disposal because people take away the packaging from the premises. It usually ends up in dustbins or on the roadside, creating extra problems. In the great generality of things, and as we look to the next 10 and 20 years of what the mayor should be doing for London, minimising waste should be written onto the face of the Bill, particularly to send the message that that is the future for waste. I beg to move.

7.15p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I am happy to rise to speak to my Amendment No. 544UA, which is grouped with Amendment No. 544TA.

It is not an interest which needs to be declared, but I speak as an Essex nationalist, and indeed, a Home Counties nationalist and a representative, in some sense, of counties far beyond the immediate Home Counties. Everyone who lives outside London will have an instant empathy with this particular amendment. Thirty-seven per cent of London's waste has been disposed of in Essex for a very long time. It goes to many other places. We should be grateful for progress which prevents London's waste from being dumped into the sea any more, but it is still dumped outside London.

It is a real problem in two senses for those counties obliged to receive London's waste. First, the counties have all the local environmental interference that results from having large waste disposal facilities, when they have not had the privilege of producing the waste themselves. More importantly, if London's waste is filling up space in other areas, it means that they will in fact run out of their own space more quickly. They then have a problem not only in disposing of London's waste but also in disposing of their own. That is a real difficulty. Technologies are coming into being, of which the south-east London combined heat and power installation is perhaps the most modern and prominent, which permit the disposal of waste within an urban area and actually benefit the local community at the same time. The heat from the disposal process can be used to heat houses, and it also generates electricity which goes into the National Grid.

Those technologies are sophisticated and expensive. It is interesting that that particular installation causes apparently almost no concern to people in the locality. It certainly causes no interference; there are no smells, it is exceedingly well controlled and it is a very successful installation.

It is true to say that it would be perfectly possible for more of those installations to be established, provided of course that one disregards the NIMBY factor. One of the facets of modern society is that it longs to enjoy, and does enjoy, the amenities of modern life. It does not like to be involved in any possible ill consequences of that enjoyment. One of the less fortunate consequences of the way we live today is that we produce a lot of waste. I agree with the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to see waste production minimised. That is part of the solution to the problem.

London should be able to dispose of far more of its waste within its own boundaries than it does at present. This amendment would make the planning of that a part of the waste disposal process and of the mayor's municipal waste management strategy. I believe that that is a worthwhile ambition which should be included in the Bill.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am not able to accept this amendment, although I commend the noble Lord's commitment to those various technologies. I am sure they will play a major part in the mayor's waste strategy, as indeed will the more middle-brow technologies referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in terms of the recycling processes in Somerset.

There is a slight conceptual problem here. Clearly, waste minimisation has a role in all of the points of the cycle of waste strategy: in waste production, disposal, recycling, transport, and so forth. The mayor's state of the environment report will already contain information about minimisation. However, the strategy is specifically addressed to those matters which are within the specific control of waste collection and waste disposal authorities. If waste minimisation is interpreted literally, those authorities do not have direct control over the production of waste.

Clearly, minimisation is a major part of waste management strategy and lies within the responsibilities of those authorities which deal with the various aspects of waste. As regards encouraging those whose waste they collect to engage in waste minimisation projects, that is a different angle over which the authorities have no, or little, direct control. However, it is also part of the strategy. Were we to write in that provision as a part of the strategy which is separate from the various areas which are specified in the legislation, that would cut across those points in the cycle.

The guidance to which we refer in this clause would cover waste minimisation strategies in all those contexts and would give guidance as to how authorities could go about writing and implementing those strategies. The mayor would certainly be expected to include strategies for waste minimisation, but not as a separate item from the various stages of waste management. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness can see the conceptual difference and will not pursue these amendments.

I turn to Amendment No. 544UA. As a former London nationalist, I believe that Essex received a fair amount of rate income from the waste disposal plants and it was a service for which we paid. Nevertheless, I understand what the noble Lord is seeking and there is some logic to his long-term position. However, it is rather unrealistic in the short to medium-term to expect the London waste strategy to be able to achieve total self-reliance in terms of disposal of municipal waste within London. It may be a long-term and ultimate aim, but it is not one which would be achievable in the likely periods of the strategies.

In addition, those authorities, such as Essex, in whose areas it is planned to dispose of London's waste are involved clearly and centrally in the process of consultation. Therefore, they too may have a say in the direction in which we are moving. However, I do not believe that it would be sensible to place on the face of the Bill what generally would be seen by many people as an unrealistic objective in the foreseeable timetable. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the matter.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Dourer

My Lords, the Minister is right: I have great difficulty in understanding the conceptual difference between waste minimisation being part of a waste strategy and not being a part of it. If there were such a difference, it is unlikely that the Government would have empowered local authorities, through various measures, to be responsible for waste minimisation. I have difficulty in understanding how that legislation fits in with what the Minister now tells us about the mayor's responsibilities.

I shall read again with care what the Minister said in this regard. However, I still fail to understand why the Government refuse to put minimisation on the face of the Bill but are willing to include all other aspects of the waste cycle. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 544UA: Page 173. line 35, after ("waste") insert (''which shall include proposals for the disposal of London's waste within London").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I heard what the Minister had to say. I shall consider it carefully. I felt very much like a 22 year-old whose father told him that he had unreasonable ambition. I am sorry that the Minister feels like that about this subject. It seems to me that strategic ambition is worth while.

[Amendment No. 544UA not moved.]

Clause 314 [Directions by the Mayor]:

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount St Davids)

My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 544UAA, I should point out to your Lordships that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 544VA.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 544UAA: Page 175, line 6, leave out from ("direction") to end of line 8.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tabled a similar amendment in Committee. We agreed to go away and consider whether the second power of direction in this context was needed. We decided on reflection that it was not. Therefore, that is one power of direction for the Secretary of State that we should like to remove from the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, one down and one zillion to go! I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the point. Of course, I am very happy to have my amendment pre-empted.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 544VA not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 544VAA: Page 175, line 8, at end insert— ("( ) The Mayor may not give to an authority a direction under subsection (1) above requiring the authority—

  1. (a) to terminate a waste contract before the expiry of the term of the contract; or
  2. (b) to do anything which would result in a breach of any term of a waste contract.
( ) The Mayor may not give to an authority a direction under subsection (1) above requiring the authority to exercise a function in relation to the awarding of a waste contract if—
  1. (a) the authority is required to comply with the public procurement regulations in awarding that contract, and
  2. (b) in compliance with those regulations the authority has sent the second information notice relating to the awarding of that contract to the Official Journal of the European Communities.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 544VAA, I wish to speak also to the other amendments included in this group.

This group of amendments appears to be fairly complicated but in fact deals with one issue. Your Lordships may recall that in Committee I indicated that we would bring forward amendments to clarify the scope of the mayor's power of direction and how that could be made to sit with the contractual nature of local authority waste management. This group of amendments makes it clear that the mayor's power of direction operates at the point at which a new contract is entered into between the local authority and the contracting parties, which will normally be required to go to tender. It does not introduce an overriding power for the mayor to introduce a break clause into contracts and override existing and on-going contracts.

Therefore, the intention is clear. It retains for the mayor a power to intervene when the contract is changed but not to engage in the legal complexity of overriding a contract because it does not comply with the overall strategy. I believe that point applies to all the amendments in this group. I hope noble Lords are able to accept them.

7.30p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I am concerned about these amendments. It seems that the group of amendments to which the Minister spoke includes these two and perhaps the two which follow, which are to insert new clauses. I have waited for some time to speak. I have been invited to an engagement downstairs, so I do not wish to return too soon after dinner. In that case, perhaps I may be allowed to comment briefly on those amendments.

The Minister stated that this power would operate at the point of contracts being introduced. I am worried by the timing. There is nothing to make clear that negotiations might not have reached a crucial point when the contract was on the point of being let. At that stage the mayor would have the right to intervene. That is worrying.

The public cost involved in waste disposal contracts is enormous. I want to be satisfied that whatever powers the mayor can exercise, he would in some way be obliged to have regard to the cost, the practicality and the environmental benefit. I do not believe that such points are adequately covered by this series of amendments. I would appreciate the Minister's comments.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, intervention prior to the contract being awarded would minimise any costs to the local authority concerned. The mayor's ability to intervene would be on the basis that a proposed contract, or proposed terms of contract, would be contrary to the overall strategy for waste management within London as a whole. Without being controversial, if one were to see an authority moving disposal of waste from one form of transport to another, clearly contravening the direction of the strategy, the mayor would need the power to intervene. If, however, the previous contract had been more or less in line with the strategy and the subsequent contract was likely to be the same, it is unlikely that the mayor would wish to redirect the authority.

There are, however, safeguards. All the contracts are subject to public procurement provisions so that intervention cannot take place after the second notice has been published. In any event, before issuing such a direction the mayor would need to consult the authority concerned. There are also safeguards relating to the disclosure of information in what would be commercial contracts or bids for commercial contracts.

We are therefore dealing with a situation where the mayor can see a local authority going outside the general direction which, by and large, London and the authority have been party to in drawing up the overall strategy. These are important powers for the delivery of the strategy. However, I do not believe that they are so wide ranging as to cause the kind of anxieties among local authorities regarding cost, disclosure and commercial partnerships about which the noble Baroness is concerned.

As there were, slightly surprisingly, no other interventions, I commend Amendment No. 544VAA.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I feel that he has not adequately answered the point about cost. Does he remember a time when people stopped sending barges down the river? There was great discussion in many London boroughs. We all had a sentimental attachment to barges going down the river. However, it was very expensive to continue such practice. Is the Minister aware of the cost implication?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, there are examples where there would be a cost implication but that should be covered through compliance with the strategy, in the first place, of the contract specification. It is in just such a situation that an additional cost may have to be incurred by an authority in order to comply with the overall strategy. However, that should be known at an earlier stage when the contract specification is established. In other words, if the mayor's strategy required the riverside boroughs, where possible, to move their waste by water—I am not saying that it would—that could be a provision, as far as possible, for the strategy. That would be known before the contracts were made. Yes, there are circumstances where that would be a greater cost to the authority than the alternative. However, it would be within the strategy and known well before the contract came up.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments 544VAB to 544VAD: After Clause 314, insert the following new clause—