Greater London Authority Bill

Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2007.

Further written evidence to be reported to the House for publication

Clause 29

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The clause reflects clause 2, which we debated earlier in our proceedings. It strengthens the role of the assembly when the Mayor prepares or revises his spatial development strategy, the London plan, and mirrors the strengthened assembly role in the Mayor’s other statutory strategies set out in clause 2, which the Committee agreed last Tuesday should stand part of the Bill.

The provisions for consultation on the London plan are set out separately from the Mayor’s other strategies under section 335 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The clause amends that section to require the Mayor to have regard to the comments of the assembly and the functional bodies in response to consultation on the drafts of, or the revisions to, his London plan.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

Will the Minister advise the Committee of the importance of the words “must have regard”? How is that a change from the current position in relation to the assembly’s role?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, and as we debated in earlier proceedings, the Mayor has an obligation to consult, but it is also important that the Mayor should have an obligation to have regard to the views of the assembly. That will strengthen the position of the assembly relative to the position under the 1999 Act. The clause is a helpful step in respect of the role of the assembly. The Mayor must also respond in writing to the chair of the assembly and explain which of the assembly’s comments he accepts for implementation in the plan and which he rejects. That will provide clarity and transparency in the relationship between the assembly and the Mayor in their debate on the London plan. The provision will put the London plan on the same footing as the Mayor’s other strategies.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

I am appraised of the fact that we are not to spend too much time discussing particular individuals, but, under the current regime at city hall, surely the main response to us from the Mayor would be that he was elected and that he can decide what to do. Would that really significantly improve the powers of the assembly?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The Bill makes it clear that the Mayor must respond in writing to chair of the assembly, explaining which of the assembly’s comments he accepts and which he rejects. Obviously, personal battles between the hon. Gentleman and the Mayor are not a matter for the Committee.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Can the Minister help with my question? Under the budgetary procedures for the assembly, the Mayor is obliged to respond to those matters on which he disagrees with the assembly’s proposed amendments. On first reading—as it is sometimes called for shorthand purposes—the assembly can amend the Mayor’s budget. He must respond in writing when he drafts his final budget and say why he disagrees with the assembly’s amendments. In practice, we receive about five lines on paper—just about enough to comply with the Wednesbury reasonableness test—to say that he disagrees with the assembly’s amendments because they are not consistent with his policy and what he believes to be the objectives that he was elected to carry out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central said.

I do not understand how such a provision will produce any other result from the Mayor. He will stick just within what is required by his lawyers to keep him within the law. If there were no hold over him in respect of the assembly having the ability to amend the strategies, all that will happen is a banal throwing back of them in his face. I accept that the provision is well intended, but I cannot help but feel that it has the whiff of a compromise that has been cobbled together by the Labour party so that the assembly is bought off with a minor right to have regard taken of its comments because the Mayor would not take the logical step of giving the assembly real teeth with which to amend the strategies. It is regrettable, therefore, that in this case, as with the previous clause that we referred to, the Government have ducked the chance of seizing an opportunity.

Tony Travers, the academic referred to on a number of occasions, has talked about the logic of developing a legislative role for the assembly in the sense that if it could amend strategies, that would require the Mayor not just to come back with a bland response, but to deal with the assembly. That would be a healthy thing. For these purposes, as we have said in debate on previous amendments, that could be achieved by some qualified majority, which is more than the simple majority that Conservative Members would prefer. However, we could live with that for the sake of compromise.

However, I still do not understand from the Minister how this measure will achieve much for the assembly in practice. It may require the Mayor to go through a formulaic process, and I suppose there is a point that that is more transparent than simply saying no without stating any reason. I go with the Government as far as that, but the point made by me and by others is that the way the Mayor operates—it could be any Mayor of any political party, because the nature of the post means that it is likely to attract big personalities, who sometimes have big egos—means that there is every risk that, under the current regime, any Mayor might give the assembly pretty short shrift in giving any reasons to it. Would it not be much better to give the assembly the ability to amend strategies? The Mayor would then have to take the assembly’s comments seriously.

In a nutshell, having regard is a very worthy concept, but to have regard and then make a rather basic gesture in response is not much of a power for the assembly to have. That is what practice tells us we are likely to get from the Mayor, unless this measure is significantly strengthened.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I shall respond briefly. Hon. Members have raised a series of concerns, and it is unusual to hear politicians criticised for the brevity of their responses. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst might find it inappropriate for the Committee to legislate, within either primary or secondary legislation, for lengthy responses that must be of 10 pages or more.

The spirit of the legislation is clear. The Mayor will need to explain adequately why he does not accept the recommendations put forward by the assembly. It would be rather too much to expect us to legislate for either the assembly or the Mayor to show different forms of politeness towards each other.

Clause 30

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clauses 31 to 35 stand part.

New clause 12—Amendment of TCPA—

‘(1) TCPA 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 12(3C) leave out “be in general conformity with” and insert “have regard to”.

(3) In section 13(1A) leave out “is in general conformity with” and insert “has regard to”.

(4) In section 13(5A) leave out “is not in general conformity with” and insert “does not have regard to”.

(5) In section 15(2A) leave out “are in general conformity with” and insert “have regard to”.

(6) Leave out section 21A.

(7) In section 26 leave out subsection (2)(bb).

(8) In section 74 leave out subsections (1B) and (1C).

(9) Leave out section 322B.’.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Conservative Members have tabled proposals, which are reflected in proposals tabled by the Liberal Democrats, to strike out this part of the Bill. We have done so because we believe it is probably the most important, certainly the most contentious and undoubtedly the least attractive element of the legislation. This part of the Bill fails those three tests because it constitutes the most naked power grab by the Mayor, or a future one, at the expense of the London boroughs.

Throughout the debate, the Opposition have consistently aimed to ensure that legislation that is passed is as devolutionary as possible. Whenever power has been devolved down from the Government to the Mayor, we have welcomed that. We have naturally sought to ensure that there are adequate powers of scrutiny to balance the Mayor’s new powers and that those powers of scrutiny be invested in the assembly or the boroughs as appropriate. However our general direction of travel has been clear—namely, to welcome that devolution of power.

In other areas, we have been anxious to see devolution go further, consistent with the vision outlined by the Secretary of State whenever she has spoken about local government more generally. We have been anxious to see neighbourhoods and boroughs empowered at the appropriate moment. That was the spirit in which we moved our amendments, sadly rejected, to the Mayor’s housing strategy.

Here, we have the clearest example in the legislation of that devolutionary spirit being overturned. We already have a system of planning that gives the boroughs not just the lead role, but a vital function to play in reflecting local public opinion when it comes to shaping the future of our communities. These changes will, in crucial ways, deprive the boroughs of the capacity to discharge their functions and to reflect local opinion. Therefore, it is in a devolutionary spirit that we oppose them. However, it is more than a commitment to the principle of devolution that prompts us to ask for these clauses to be removed and the Government to think again.

We also believe that the clauses fail the crucial efficiency test that should apply to new legislation. The Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked Kate Barker to look at land use planning because there was a widespread consensus that our planning system was dysfunctional: it was too slow, too bureaucratic and in need of reform. Kate Barker’s recommendations, some of which are more attractive than others, all seek to move in one direction—to make the planning system more transparent and speedier, and to serve the interests not just of business, but of those of us who believe in meeting our housing supply problems more effectively. The spirit of Kate Barker’s review, however, is not reflected in these clauses.

Let me turn to the powers in clause 30 that enable the Mayor to direct changes to the local development schemes proposed by the boroughs. Any number of acronyms exist across the UK for the specific plans that boroughs, or the principal planning authorities, put forward to master-plan their area. There used to be UDPs, or unitary development plans, and there are now LDFs, or local development frameworks, in many parts of the country. Those plans are LDSs in London, for the sake of the Bill. Whether they are UDP, LDF or LDS, the principle remains the same, and that principle is KIL—keep it local.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Very good.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Thank you. The important thing about those schemes is that they allow community groups and stakeholders to shape the development of their area.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

Kill Bill.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I have no wish to expose the Bill to Quentin Tarantino-esque evisceration, but this is one part of it that we want to kill.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I would settle for Uma Thurman.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if there were an Uma Thurman role in the Bill, it would fall to the Minister for Housing and Planning.

The importance of keeping local powers local is that they allow the people who live in a community a vital say in shaping how that community develops. They ensure that the affection that local people have for the area in which they have grown up or in which they work and live is reflected in the strategic view that locally elected representatives take of the development of their area. Under clause 30, the Mayor will acquire a power, which currently only the Secretary of State has, to direct changes to that plan. That means that the Mayor could rewrite the plan in accordance with either his strategic or his ideological objectives. We are concerned that that is a further dilution of the powers that local people have.

It is understandable why the Secretary of State should have the power to direct changes, but one point that we need to make about the Secretary of State directing changes is that that process slows down planning significantly. We have already had a number of examples of districts and local authorities outside London coming forward expeditiously with an LDF, submitting it to the Secretary of State and then having it thrown back in their face, forcing them to go back to the drawing board. During this period in the process of planning, the certainty that developers expect and that residents have every right to expect is denied them. The process of plan making has become slower and more cumbersome following the changes to planning legislation made by the Government. They claim to want to make the planning system more streamline, effective, market conscious and sensitive to community involvement, but they have succeeded in slowing the process, which has disappointed developers and irritated residents.

Clause 30 introduces another layer of complexity to the scheme. Currently, the Secretary of State can direct changes: clause 30 means that the Mayor could also direct changes. The senior planning officer in a local authority may attempt to develop a local development scheme with elected members of the authority, by consulting local amenity groups, and by doing everything possible to talk to those commercial interests that keep the borough lively and successful. What happens to that process when that officer has heavy-handed intervention not only from the clunking fist of central Government, but from the south paw from city hall? That double whammy will leave local planners punch drunk. For that reason, we believe that the power direction should be struck out. It serves neither the interests of efficiency or the priority of community involvement.

On the importance of community involvement in planning, some inevitably say that Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and localists are all too keen on local boroughs deciding things because they are closet nimbys—people who hide behind the language of localism because of their resistance to development. Allow me to take that argument head on. As the Minister for Housing and Planning has graciously acknowledged to the Committee, and in the House last night, those of us charged by the leader of the Conservative party with coming up with housing and planning policy have made it clear that we believe in increasing the supply of housing. That is the coherent view of the Department for Communities and Local Government shadow team. It is also the view of the leader of the Conservative party, as he outlined in his speech to the Conservative party conference.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Sometimes.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister for Housing and Planning says, “Sometimes”, but I urge her to come up with any evidence that the leader of the Conservative party has argued against an increase of the housing supply. He has actually taken a lead in shaping the debate, and has pointed out some of the obstacles that we will have to overcome to deliver an increase in the housing supply. I have alluded to the obstacles that have been created by the Government’s planning legislation. I am sure that the other obstacles will come up later in the debate.

The first canard, which I have effectively nailed, is the idea that the Conservatives are in some sense opposed to more housing as a solution to housing supply problems. Let us look at the facts on the ground—what boroughs in London are doing to deliver housing. In her more partisan moments, which thankfully are rare, the Minister for Housing and Planning makes the point that Conservative boroughs are somehow resistant to the notion of providing additional housing. Earlier, I pointed out that if one looks at the targets set by the Government, and then at the performance of Conservative boroughs, one can see that Wandsworth has exceeded its target for housing completions by 168 per cent., Westminster by 124 per cent., and Kensington and Chelsea, which was pointed out as a laggard by the Minister, by 104 per cent. When we look for the local authorities in central London that have been poorest in meeting their housing targets, I am afraid that we find local authorities such as Camden, which was until recently under Labour control, and Southwark.

The same pattern occurs in north London. The local authority with the best record of meeting housing targets is Conservative-controlled Barnet, which is on the threshold of a significant and exciting array of new developments. Looking at east London, we see that Bexley has met 205 per cent. of the target for housing completions, more than doubling the target level of housing set by the Government. I should say, in a spirit of bipartisanship, that the best-performing local authority in east London is Greenwich, which is Labour-controlled. But I shall deal with that in a moment when I discuss the inappropriateness of extending planning powers to the Mayor. There are specific factors relating to Greenwich: it is sui generis for various reasons.

Across London, Conservative boroughs perform the best in meeting the housing obligations placed on them by this Government. Conservative local authorities have also been speedy and effective in dealing with planning applications. Who are the laggards? Again, they are the local authorities like Lewisham, where Labour has been in control. Lewisham has processed only 53 per cent. of major planning applications in the time scale laid down by the Government. That is in stark contrast with Westminster, for example, which processes about three quarters of planning applications.

We have established that if we want housing completion figures to rise and planning applications to be processed speedily, the answer is not to transfer more powers to the Mayor, but for Conservative administrations to run boroughs. In that respect, the answer to the Minister’s bedtime prayer for more homes in London is not legislative change, but change at the ballot box. I do not know where the Minister is fortunate enough to live when she has to spend time in London, but I presume that it is probably in Westminster council’s area. If that is so, she is fortunate enough to be living in an area that exceeds its housing targets and processes its planning applications quickly. If that is not so, perhaps she would care to enlighten us.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

The hon. Gentleman reminds me of Gordon Strachan in the Aberdeen team of 1983, who, although he was overshadowed at the time by giants like John Hewitt and Willie Miller, later rose to greater prominence. This is a good attempt by the hon. Gentleman to make his name, but can he stop for a moment and think? If he is really thinking of structuring a critique of the Bill on the grounds of political leadership of the boroughs, for every Kensington and Chelsea that he names, we can mention a Hillingdon. There are arguments on both sides. This is a poor way to approach the matter. We are trying to talk about city standards, not parish pump politics. Of course, I mean Hillingdon a few years ago, not today.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am flattered to be compared with Gordon Strachan, rather than Willie Miller, who was a captain of rare skill although sadly his managerial career was not as happy. That suggests that we should all know our place—and I know mine. I shall try not to get above myself in this Committee and elsewhere. However, I will correct the hon. Gentleman, who normally has scrupulous regard for the facts, on the facts themselves, and I hope this will not be construed as my getting above myself. Hillingdon has managed to exceed its housing targets by 106 per cent., whereas the London borough of Ealing—in the figures covering the period when it was under Labour control—only met 84 per cent. of the housing targets set by the Government. Tragically, under Labour control, Ealing council did not meet those housing targets and did not deliver the completions that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would have championed for his constituents as a good constituency Member of Parliament.

I make these points about political control because the Government have continually misrepresented the Conservative position and argued that our localism is a cover for a deeper ideological resistance to increasing housing supply. The facts on the ground—the record of Conservative councils—show that that is not so. Thus, a major strut of the Government’s justification, not just for this legislation but for some of their other legislation, is at a stroke removed.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

As the hon. Gentleman has broached the subject of politics, does he not appreciate that there is a clear political distinction in the Government’s mind between meeting housing targets and meeting affordable housing targets? That is at the heart of our politics. Does he accept that Westminster city council, which he has prayed in aid, took legal advice to challenge the Government and the Mayor of London on meeting the 50 per cent. target for affordable housing? We therefore had the situation exemplified by the Paddington basin development, in which there were 1,000 new homes, of which only 250 were affordable, despite the desperate level of housing need. Does he not agree that from the Labour party side the politics is in meeting housing need and making affordable housing provision, not just in housing for millionaires?

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Everyone in the Committee knows her commitment, not just to increasing housing but to increasing affordable housing, and to doing something to tackle inequalities in London in housing and in other areas. We should, however, recognise something that in certain more candid moments the Mayor has acknowledged. It is that the uniform target of 50 per cent. affordable housing, together with—within that—70 per cent. socially rented housing, may not be appropriate in all developments. As I mentioned the last time we discussed housing strategy, in the area set aside for Olympic development the Mayor has himself allowed housing for which the target has not been met.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

rose—

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course. It is important to recall that even though there is a London housing market, there are also sub-regional markets, and important factors that govern housing in different parts of London. Any local authority must weigh a number of factors. At the moment, when a developer considers proposing a development, there are a number of obligations that he must envisage. There are broader, section 106 obligations that he may have to meet. Then there is the affordable housing obligation, which is often part of the section 106 negotiation. If the Government now have their way—after last night’s results, there will be the broader planning gain supplement obligation that the developer will have to consider fulfilling.

There have been a number of occasions when, having looked at the scale of the obligations, developers have said that a development may be unviable. From the figures in Inside Housing that I quoted earlier in our deliberations, we have seen that setting the affordable housing criteria wrongly may cause the developer to decide to withdraw his application. That would mean not only no housing for millionaires, or for the intermediate market, but no affordable housing either. Although the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North may think that we do not need housing for millionaires, the question in my mind is who would fund the Labour party if we did not. Anyway, my broader point is that there needs to be an element of local discretion.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

We have been entertained by the notion that no Tory council is nimbyist and that all Tory councils want to build houses. I assume, therefore, that the early-day motions tabled by the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, which oppose house building in almost every region, must have been an administrative error. The hon. Gentleman is now struggling, however. He has yet again named one development to which he is clinging like driftwood. It may be that one development does not suit, or that another could be better. Does he, however, support overall the Mayor’s target?

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention made two apparently unrelated points, but there was a deep logic behind them that he himself may not have realised, although I suspect that he did. He referred to the various early-day motions of some of my hon. Friends who have expressed concerns about aspects of the south-east plan, or the east of England plan, or any of the plans that have been regionally decided. The concerns relate to the whole philosophy of central target setting as a way of meeting housing need. They reflect a philosophical divide between the Labour party and the Conservative party which is also reflected in the discussion on affordable housing targets. Our view is that using targets as constraints, as straitjackets, and as ways to compel particular developments can often be counter-productive. An analogy that I would use is the way in which the economy was managed in the 1960s and 1970s by proliferation of centrally set targets.

We believe that we need supply-side changes to ensure that the market works effectively, with powers of intervention for local communities to ensure that their interests are effectively addressed.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

Not wanting to be described as another item of driftwood, I offer to my hon. Friend the observation that the way in which Croydon, a Conservative council and a big social housing provider until 1994, is once again building council housing—with the aid of a Government grant, I admit—is another sign of activism by Conservative councils to provide much-needed social and council housing in the capital.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Conservative boroughs’ desire to invest in housing is attested from the south in Croydon—I shall not make a distinction between the south-east and south-west—and from the north-west in Barnet, where, as I have mentioned, the borough wishes to proceed with exciting plans to increase dramatically both commercial and residential development. I am not pointing to any specific example, although I shall come up with some later. I am making a broad point of how one can increase supply overall.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

As I think the hon. Gentleman recognised, the Mayor factors flexibility into the 50 per cent. target to meet some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises. To follow him down the road of not being too rigid in targets, one of the ways that that has been done is by encouraging boroughs to work together in local partnerships. My Conservative-controlled borough is working in partnership with another Conservative-controlled borough in north London which effectively refuses to allow the borough any access to the housing provision that he said was being built. Is he satisfied with how boroughs even of the same politics—his politics—are working together to meet housing requirements and ensure that the high-cost boroughs not expected to meet the targets get access to housing provision?

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I recognise that it was not made in a partisan spirit. As a Member of Parliament for a constituency covering both Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, she represents the two boroughs with the highest housing costs in Britain.

Residents of Westminster have a particular concern, because Westminster is the entry point for many new Britons and newcomers to Britain. As a consequence, migratory and economic forces create huge pressure on housing in Westminster. When it comes to meeting its statutory requirements to house the homeless and fulfil housing need, Westminster faces almost unique challenges. There is a case for considering how other boroughs could support Westminster in meeting that housing need. I agree that there is room for improvement in co-ordination in that respect. I do not believe that the Mayor is the right person to drive the process, but I recognise the importance of that.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

Is not my hon. Friend exactly right in decrying the disadvantages of centrally or regionally set targets, as they have produced an excess supply of one and two-bedroomed flats when the need is for family housing? A 10-year delay in re-housing people out of social housing—perhaps in one or two-bedroomed facilities for a family of four or five—shows a fundamental failure of centrally provided targets. Surely it is at a local level that boroughs are best placed to provide much-needed social housing in London.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Once again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In the current planning system, we have in effect a system similar to the one that gave us the Lada, the Polski Fiat and the Yugo—a system that concentrates on production but not quality. One of the concerns about housing supply in this country is the over-supply of one and two-bedroomed flats relative to the supply of family homes.

The Minister for Housing and Planning acknowledged that in a groundbreaking interview with The Observer; I recommend such interviews to all Committee members. She acknowledged the need for more family homes and fewer one and two-bedroomed flats in the balance of supply. It was a mea culpa, or at least an acknowledgment that the Government had got it wrong. She pointed out that there were a number of attractive developments of family homes—in Barking and Dagenham, for example—which just might point the way forward, but what she did not acknowledge was how centrally set targets had been responsible for the problem.

Specifically, the target for which people aimed was the number of housing units completed—not, as might have been the case, the number of rooms or amount of floor space, so that overcrowding and the need for family homes might be addressed. The Government might change those targets, but they are still so addicted to their centrally set target culture that all we will get is a roomier Lada. Talking of which, I shall give way to the Member for Battersea.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

The hon. Gentleman acknowledges the need for a regional housing strategy. Surely he accepts that the current function of ensuring that local housing strategies conform with the regional housing strategy lies with the Government office for London. The Bill is devolving that power from GOL to the elected Mayor of London. Who does the hon. Gentleman suggest should be responsible for the regional housing strategy?

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which accurately reflects the position of those on the Labour Benches. However, it was better made in our debate last week when we specifically discussed our housing strategy. As I acknowledged at the time, housing and planning are intimately interlinked. Our point was that we wanted London councils, as did all local authorities before the advent of regional government, to arrange such matters between themselves in a co-operative fashion. Our view did not prevail then, nor do I wish to revisit that debate as I want to move on to other planning issues. However, I acknowledge that the two are linked.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

The debate goes to the heart of an important issue, which is localism versus the strategic needs of the city as a whole. The hon. Gentleman kindly appreciated the dilemma of central London boroughs in respect of their housing pressure. They are not alone. If there were no strategic authority and, above all, one that has a democratic mandate, too, in what way does he suggest a borough such as Barnet and Enfield could take the overspill housing demands of a central London borough if it were not by strategic direction? Altruism?

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Lady is tempting us to advance on a longer argument about how local government operates and, for that matter, the way in which support is provided from central Government to providers of social housing. Tempting as that route is—there might be another opportunity for her and I to have such a conversation—my point about broader planning issues is that we already have a centralised planning system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central said, that system has often meant inadequate houses in the wrong places built in the wrong way, not through malice but through a failure of the centralised system.

There is a better way to take account primarily of local feeling, which includes greater freedom for local authorities and also takes a more sensitive account of market pressures, as Kate Barker suggested. It is by moving in those directions that we can develop a more effective housing and planning strategy for the whole nation. I should have described the process as a more effective housing and planning policy because, as the hon. Lady said, I distrust the principle of strategies. As she probably knows, a new book on estates by Lynsey Hanley has been widely reviewed this week. It points out some of the problems that we have had with social housing. Some of them were at their most acute when strategic powers were exercised by visionary individuals who did not take sufficient account of local sentiment, a phenomenon that is also happening outside London in our pathfinder and housing renewal areas.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

That is another interesting debate. However, I prefer the steel of my local Tory planning chairwoman who said at the weekend, as a reason for not building any more houses, that housing in the borough was skewed towards the poor. To be fair to her, she said it was skewed towards the rich and the poor—those two nefarious or meritorious groups being equal. I prefer that approach to the crocodile tears of the Member for Croydon, Central about families, because how does the hon. Member for Surrey Heath justify the fact that only four social rented homes were completed in Kingston in the past financial year, six were completed in Havering and nine in Wandsworth? Is his real reason for opposing the targets that have been set so that Tory councils can build almost no social housing at all?

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Absolutely not, and I acknowledge that, when the planning chairwoman at Hammersmith and Fulham said that, she was opening a large debate. One of the matters that the local authority in Hammersmith and Fulham has to grasp is the broader question, which goes to the heart of what the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Chancellor of Exchequer seek to do, of expanding the provision of low-cost home ownership schemes.

It is the Government’s aim—once again, another target—to increase the number of people who are home owners from 70 to 80 per cent. As they seek to do so, again they come up with a host of new schemes and a plethora of new targets. However, this proliferation of schemes and targets has not succeeded in meeting that need. For a variety of reasons, there are increasing problems for first-time buyers trying to get on the housing ladder and a low take-up of the Government’s low-cost home ownership schemes. I shall not rehearse the dreary statistics that show the Government’s failure because I know that they are engraved on the Minister’s heart.

When it comes to intervening in planning applications, clauses 31 to 35 give the Mayor increased latitude. I have explained why it is that we believe that the powers exercised by the Mayor only make this already bureaucratic and complex system more so. I have explained briefly why we believe that those powers are anti-democratic. Crucially, the extension of the Mayor’s powers that would result from clauses 31 to 35 marks a remarkable erosion of local democracy.

At the moment, as Committee members know, the Mayor has the power, in specific cases, to direct refusal of a planning application if it conflicts with part of the London plan. What the Mayor wants is the power to direct acceptance of planning applications—in effect, to take over the whole planning function. The power of direct refusal is basically there as a back-stop. We could argue about whether or not it has been wisely or unwisely used. I will discuss the way in which the Mayor has used his planning powers and explain why some of us fear the extension of those powers. However it is important to recognise that a wide variety of planning applications are already being referred to the Mayor or prompting an expression of mayoral interest.

When we have discussed the extension of planning powers, the Minister and, indeed, the Mayor have said that they envisage the Mayor only exercising them on very few occasions. Again, unfortunately, the facts suggest that that just ain’t so. The Mayor has expressed an opinion in more than 1,200 planning applications since his office was created. Many of those have been applications—more than 200 of them—that have passed the strategic test which the Government have set.

It is interesting that the Government have brought forward an order—a piece of secondary legislation—that will define the test and allow the Mayor to intervene positively to take over a planning application. Far from the test being tighter and the definition of “strategic” being more narrowly drawn than was hitherto the case with previous interventions, the definition is, to all intents and purposes, almost exactly the same. Therefore we believe that the Mayor will have the power to intervene in a dramatic number of cases.

Why do we believe that? The Mayor has already chosen to intervene using one reason as a casus belli—a justification for intervention—and then suddenly found lots of other reasons subsequently to justify it. For example, under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, the Mayor can intervene if a building is particularly high, over a specific number of metres and, implicitly, over a specific number of storeys. Therefore, he can intervene if it is over 30 m, over 10 storeys and in any area apart from the City of London. However, having intervened on the basis of height, the Mayor has then used his powers to say a host of other things about that development. The intention of the secondary legislation was to ensure that the Mayor is a guardian of the London skyline, but he has used that power as a Trojan horse to interfere, or to seek to interfere, in a host of other factors.

For Labour Members, the notion of using one justification for intervention and then doing something completely different will remind them of the Iraq war, where one justification was used before other justifications were deployed. I make no comment about the rightness of such a strategy when it comes to foreign affairs, but any Labour Member who felt a moment’s doubt about the strategy will see why many Londoners are concerned at the possibility that the Mayor will say, “I believe that this massive building could be a weapon of massive destruction to London’s skyline”, and then seek to intervene on that basis. The Mayor may then change the planning application in all sorts of ways.

For those people who are inclined to believe that the Mayor will exercise his power with restraint and discretion, the Mayor himself has lifted the skirt to reveal the cloven hoof. He said of certain planning applications in which he had an interest that he would have wished to take over had such a power existed. For example, if we look at the development in Commerce road in Hounslow, we see that the Mayor intervened using a justification provided under the London plan. However, he intervened to recommend that the development was changed to conform with his vision, and in a way that would have taken it out of conformity with other aspects of the London plan.

The Mayor will use any opportunity or justification he can to express an opinion. Once that justification has been accepted, he will allow his own vision to take over. In that respect, the order laid before us by the Government provides potentially limitless opportunities for the Mayor to intervene. As hon. Members know, there are 180 different targets and objectives in the London plan that planning applications are invited to meet. It is almost impossible to conceive of a planning application that would meet all 180 objectives perfectly. Therefore, the door is open for mayoral intervention in many planning applications that, at the moment, people would not consider to be genuinely strategic.

On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Mayor would only have the power to intervene in those planning applications that go to the heart of the London plan, but nowhere in the legislation, or in the orders that have been laid before us, is there any effective guarantee of constraint on the Mayor’s powers. More than that, the Bill contains a positive incentive for the Mayor to intervene as often as he can get away with. If the Mayor intervenes, he takes over control of the section 106 negotiations in a planning application. As we are all aware, section 106 applications are a vital part in securing consent for a planning application.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that the large expansion of mayoral power and ability to meddle will necessitate a significant increase in the bureaucracy that works for the Mayor at city hall? It seems inconceivable that the Mayor would be able to meddle to the degree that we fear with his current staffing levels.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Mayor has already been advertising for planners, lawyers and others to join him, so that he can expand his writ in planning. The Mayor has made it clear that he expects the growth of his planning and legal support teams to increase year on year for the next two years. It is clear that the Mayor is anticipating a power grab and, more than that, a money grab. As my hon. Friend points out, the growth in staff will add to the precept that all of us face as residents and council tax payers in London. The other side of the money grab relates to the section 106 agreements.

We recognise that there should be an offset for those who bear the additional burdens that may come as a result of new residential and commercial development. The section 106 negotiation is a way of ensuring that the community that bears the cost of any planning change gets the benefit as well. However, the Mayor will be able to take over section 106 negotiations, which means that the money from the developer that is associated with a planning application will pass through his sticky fingers. That is a clear incentive and a sweetening of the temptation for the Mayor to intervene and gives him a chance to take over those applications, because it means his having more control over resources and, potentially, having the power to shift those from areas where he has directed that a planning development should take place to where he may have another political interest. The Mayor can say, “Okay, your borough happens to be run by a political party opposite mine, so I will take over these planning applications, force you to accept them, negotiate the section 106 agreements, then take the cash and give it to my supporters somewhere else in the capital.”

There can be no clearer risk of inflaming public opinion, leading to even greater public resistance towards development, than a regional figure compelling an area to accept new development, then robbing it of one of its key benefits and passing it on to another area. In that respect, the clauses will do nothing to encourage support for new housing and development and may imperil that support. It is important that we recognise that this provision is analogous to one contained in the Government’s plans for a planning gain supplement, which could also lead to people accepting a development in one area and finding that some of the money that they should get to mitigate its effects is being spent elsewhere. Both these provisions—particularly the one relating to power that the Mayor might have—will only increase hostility towards housing development.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

That seems to be an argument against having a Mayor or against having a Mayor with any strategic planning powers. If that is the hon. Gentleman’s position, so be it. If it is not, what powers does he think that the Mayor should have? The hon. Gentleman’s speech sounds like a rant based on the parochial interests of Tory boroughs or antipathy towards the current Mayor.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My point is not specifically about the Mayor, although he has shown his desire to intervene in many more planning applications than is currently the case. I am saying that there should be an organic, democratic link between accepting development and securing the benefits. That link is broken by the Bill and elsewhere by the Government’s activities, as a result of which a future Mayor, whatever his political complexion, may act in a cavalier, high-handed manner towards those boroughs in which development is taking place.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Is my hon. Friend aware that his argument is reinforced—and that of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush, who intervened on him, is undermined—by the results of the Government’s consultation, which indicated that London boroughs overwhelmingly opposed significant change to the planning powers, at a time when the majority of those boroughs were Labour-controlled? The majority of residents groups and individuals who responded to the Government’s consultation opposed any significant change to planning, arguing that the Mayor was too distant and remote to take validly informed decisions on planning issues.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Irrespective of their political colouring, London boroughs have been deeply concerned about this aspect of the Bill. One would expect boroughs with different political leaderships to be more or less enthusiastic about the Mayor acquiring new powers, but there has been a near-universal consensus on the part of London councils that are concerned about what the clauses under discussion would do for the integrity of the planning process and for local democratic accountability.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

I should like to mention the current incumbent in the mayoralty. He would quite openly accept, would he not, that he is in favour of redistribution of wealth? So he could quite rationally argue that under the new planning powers he would like to transfer moneys away from one part of London to another. Once again, the Greater London authority would have greater powers to transfer moneys away—particularly away from south London.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, we recognise that redistribution is intrinsic in the function of the Treasury. It is something that central Government should do to help alleviate poverty—both absolute and relative. But my hon. Friend referred specifically to the Mayor of London. We all know what his or a future Mayor’s agenda might be: it might be to punish local areas that have had the temerity to elect a party of a different colour.

We know that this particular Mayor has a tendency to demonise some boroughs and to cosset others. I shall not rehearse the arguments that we heard earlier about the way in which he has shown his disdain for some local authorities—whether the newly elected Conservative administration in Hammersmith and Fulham, or the long-standing and successful Conservative administration in Bexley.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

And Liberal Democrat boroughs.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Yes indeed. All we know is that the Mayor is prepared to be personal, but we shall seek not to be.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

Did 25 years of London without a strategic authority not convince the hon. Gentleman that issues such as housing can be dealt with only on a London-wide basis? If it is left entirely to the boroughs to decide whether they should have affordable housing, there will be parts of London that decide they do not want it. They will have it if it is unaffordable affordable housing, but they do not particularly want housing for low-income families. That has been amply demonstrated by Wandsworth, which for many years told developers not to bother about affordable housing. Only when the Mayor took office did they reluctantly accede to 25 per cent., and now they are being dragged kicking and screaming up to 33 per cent. Essentially, however, it is a borough that does not want to be forced to put in affordable housing for low-income people. That demonstrates that we need a London-wide, not borough-wide approach to the subject. of affordable housing.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is proof of his passion and commitment to the cause of affordable housing, but as I pointed out when he made a similar intervention earlier, we discussed previously the pros and cons of a regional housing strategy for London, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central pointed out, Croydon is an example of a Conservative-led local authority that is doing very well on sketching out and delivering on the need for commitments to greater affordable housing. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, therefore, I shall move on, having accepted his passion for pointing out contrary examples.

A number of developers are concerned—not just in relation to section 106 but in a number of other areas—that the extension of the Mayor’s planning powers to allow him to intervene will create the potential, or indeed possibly a demand, for parallel negotiations. Developers are concerned—but crucially the issue should also be a matter of democratic concern. Under the proposals in the order that accompanies this legislation, the borough is supposed to be the lead authority that negotiates with a developer on particular planning applications. Things are supposed to proceed sweetly. The Mayor has the capacity to take the application over, however, if it conflicts with any aspect of the London plan that he considers to be significant—perhaps because it crosses the height threshold.

A canny or cynical developer might think, “Hmm, we can play the borough along for a bit and get involved in negotiations with it in some detail, but we really need to convince the Mayor. If we can convince him strongly enough of the merits of our application, he will take it over at the appropriate moment and we will have won.” There is a significant incentive for developers to treat the borough as the poor relation in the planning process. Genuine democratic control and oversight of the planning process will move away from the borough, which is supposed to be managing it, to the Mayor and his team, who will be covertly taking over a planning application prior to overtly saying that they wish, after eight weeks, to decide on its merits.

Having said that a canny or cynical developer might wish to do that, with the precedent having been established in development circles, the danger increases that the whole planning process will become not only less democratic, but more expensive for the developer, as it maintains two parallel sets of negotiations. One part of its team will be working with the Mayor on what is really going to happen and another part will be working with the borough on what might happen. The other danger is that the Mayor could be working on his pet scheme with the developer while it is, at the same time, in negotiation with the borough.

A well-staffed borough with a planning committee that takes its obligations seriously and planning officers that look closely at applications may come up with a range of detailed improvements to a plan. However, the developer does not necessarily need to take account of those, because it knows that it will eventually get its way through the Mayor. In that respect, the potential for parallel jurisdiction works in nobody’s interests.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

My hon. Friend mentions local boroughs being well staffed by planners. Surely, one complication arising from these additional powers is that there is already a substantial shortage of planners, partly because of the creation of the GLA. My local authority is a good 40 per cent. below the levels required. In terms of accountability and parallel processes, does he agree that there are complications for residents as well, in that the Mayor’s office is clearly not capable of dealing with all the interests and concerns expressed by residents? The Government propose an arm’s length process under which local boroughs are responsible, rather oddly, for communicating feedback on behalf of the Mayor in respect of any application that he is considering. Surely, that is not workable.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Mayor is being given significant new powers under the Bill. However, the Mayor as a planning authority is a curious creature, because as my hon. Friend says, not only is he likely to be sucking up planning expertise and taking individuals from already understaffed planning departments, but the way in which he makes his decisions is different from any other planning authority in the country. Most planning decisions are made by committees and most committees are enjoined by statute to act in a non-partisan, non-ideological, non-party political way. They act quasi-judicially. Most planning authorities recognise and take seriously their obligations and the need to take account of public feeling. They make their decisions in public and often allow members of the public to make representations.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

The hon. Gentleman is assuming a Jim Leighton role. He is being unduly defensive. Having tried to demonise the Mayor as a cloven-hoofed, sticky-fingered skirt-lifter, he now seems to imply that every planning application in the city could, potentially, wash up on the Mayor’s desk. The vast majority of planning applications in this city, as in most other cities, are decided under delegated powers by officers. We are talking about a tiny proportion of planning applications—precisely, those that have a huge strategic impact—that the Mayor will consider. The Mayor is not a dictator, much as the hon. Gentleman may wish to characterise him as such. There is a process of democratic accountability and let us not forget that there is an effective London assembly as well—there are some distinguished examples of it in this Committee Room.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman makes a number of very good points. He refers to the distinguished goalkeeper, Jim Leighton, who served Aberdeen. Leighton’s capacity to play a defensive role is similar to that of my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, Central and for Bromley and Chislehurst, both of whom are similarly remarkably agile. They always have their eyes on the ball, and ensure that the Conservatives do not score any own goals. More broadly, the hon. Member for Ealing, North was making a material point about the number of planning applications that are dealt with by planning officers using delegated powers. Indeed when it comes to issues such as extensions, windmills on roofs and all the sorts of things that we might want to do to improve our own homes, the Mayor will not intervene.

In his Christmas letter, which I have now had the opportunity to read, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush did suggest that we Conservatives would be seeking to argue that the Mayor would even be trying to influence planning applications that related to garden sheds. May I now place it on the record that we recognise that even if the Mayor was in pursuit of a newt sanctuary, he would have no intention of interfering in what happens in any of our garden sheds. None the less, the figures show that the Mayor has become an increasingly active figure when it comes to planning applications that fall between the truly strategic and the truly intimate, personal and local.

In 2004-05, as I mentioned earlier, the Mayor was involved in 291 applications. As I said, the Mayor has also found a variety of reasons to become involved in a growing number of planning applications, and there are 180 different targets or requirements of the London plan, any of which—if the development is not in conformity—might trigger the Mayor’s interest and might provide him with an opportunity to say that he wished to take the plan over.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

My hon. Friend continues to speak about the parallel process. Could not taking away the discretion and initiative at a local borough level mean that many schemes end up not being pursued? For a town such as Croydon, which has more than 350,000 people, regards itself as separate from London in some ways and has had a long history of significant planning initiatives of its own, surely the Bill offers the prospect of returning to the type of interference and confusion that we saw when the Greater London council was in existence?

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and if these clauses were to pass intact and unamended, there would be concern not only in town halls but among many London residents about the consequences of a more interventionist planning regime from an explicitly interventionist Mayor—this one or indeed any future one. As I pointed out, the Mayor is a unique planning authority. He does not meet in public in a collegiate fashion. He does not have the opportunities of most local authority planning committees to hear different voices, which can stress the pros and cons of any scheme. He is a one-man planning authority.

Earlier, we used the phrase “municipal Bonaparte”. It was very striking that the Bagehot column in The Economist this week picked up on that view and depicted the Mayor of London as a municipal Bonaparte. One of the key ways in which he could become the Napoleon not just of Notting Hill but of every borough in London is the way in which he seeks to exercise his planning powers on his own. How does the Mayor take a planning decision? We know that he will have lawyers and planning officers who can help him come to a view, but when that decision is taken, it is not taken in a formal way with the Mayor explaining in public to those most affected why he has come to that decision. He can make that decision in the bath. He can make it while he is shaving, in the stands at Craven Cottage or anywhere he likes and then deliver himself of that judgment by posting up on the internet what view he has reached. The order laid before us by the Minister and the Secretary of State mercifully creates provision for the Mayor to enable public involvement in such decisions. It is the Mayor who decides so, if he wishes to under certain circumstances, he can say, “Oyez, I am prepared to make the decision public.” Ultimately, however, the power to make those decisions will remain with the Mayor. The degree of additional accountability that the order envisages is timing.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Is my hon. Friend aware that his argument is greatly reinforced by the knowledge that the Mayor’s exercise of his current powers has been criticised by the assembly on a cross-party basis since the GLA was created? All parties on the assembly, including that of the Government, signed up to that criticism in the assembly scrutiny report “Behind Closed Doors”. The Mayor himself withdrew the facility that he had initially granted to assembly members to scrutinise and pass comment on planning applications coming to him in advance of his decision on the ostensible grounds that there was not enough officer time to permit it. He actually closed the door even more and reduced the ability of the goalkeepers to deflect the occasional dubious shot.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. When the Mayor took office, he promised some of the most open and inclusive governance anywhere in the United Kingdom, yet as my hon. Friend said, when the GLA planning committee asked for a limited say and a role in the exercise of the Mayor’s planning powers, which was only right, it was told in no uncertain terms where to leave its request. It was downgraded from a planning committee to a planning advisory committee. Before we vote on the clauses, I recommend all members of the Committee to pay close attention to the assembly’s report “Behind Closed Doors”, which paints a damning picture of the Mayor’s high-handedness when it comes to the exercise of his planning powers. That does not give us any reason to believe confidently that he will exercise limited capacity to meet in public to bolster public confidence.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

May I invite the hon. Gentleman to speculate on what a Mayor who is a one-man planning authority might do about a planning application in which he has a personal financial interest?

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. While there is absolutely no reason to believe that the current incumbent is anything other than a man of spotless integrity, it is the case that he has in the past met developers before deciding subsequently on applications in which they had an interest. The Mayor has acted in a way whereby, if he were a local councillor, almost any other local authority in the country would see him up before the Standards Board before we could say “strategic development”.

The reason why Opposition parties are so worried about the exercise of the Mayor’s planning powers is again the potential for a future Mayor to act in a way that would not be in the best interests of the city or of open government. The fact that the Mayor can meet developers, listen to them and possibly enjoy their badinage over lunch and then go off and come up with a conclusion on a planning application in which they have a direct interest runs against the spirit of how planning operates throughout the country. There are good reasons why members of planning committees have to exercise a degree of care about whom they meet and what they say before they make a judgment.

Conservative Members have had worries about the Standards Board regime and now is not the moment to rehearse them. All that I would say is that I cannot see a safeguard in the Bill that would prevent the Mayor or future Mayor from spending great time and energy with developers in private before deciding subsequently on an application in which he had an interest.

One of the Conservative amendments would provide greater public scrutiny of the Mayor’s exercise of his planning powers. I hope that Labour Members, whatever they think of the current Mayor, recognise the potential for abuse of the clause’s powers, and that they will look favourably on that amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Is it not key for Members to try to depersonalise the matter and to accept the general principle that openness and accountability, particularly in planning where money can be involved, is essential for public confidence? Would it not be helpful for all Committee members to imagine the worst possible candidate for London Mayor—

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Jeffrey Archer.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Perhaps so—and to ask whether they would be happy for that individual to hold the powers in the Bill.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, because he underlines our concerns. Whatever one might think about the current incumbent and his ideology, and however welcome his commitment to increasing affordable housing might be, we must bear in mind the broader point that current planning law takes full account of the potential for corruption and abuse of power in the planning process. As the Minister pointed out during debate on the planning gain supplement last night, a stroke of the pen can transform the value of a piece of land tenfold or more as a result of a planning decision. Access to planning powers unlocks the door to wealth. For that reason, I agree absolutely that all of us should contemplate the powers in the hands of one individual in office who might be the worst possible person to exercise those powers.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Does the hon. Gentleman’s anxiety apply similarly to Secretaries of State, who equally take decisions on appeal cases and call-ins? They are bound exactly as the Mayor will be—not simply by the broad framework of planning legislation but by propriety guidance and, perhaps most importantly, safeguards in common law, which have been in place for a very long time.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister makes an interesting point about Secretaries of State. Before the creation of the Department for Communities and Local Government, when we still had the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, a number of concerns were raised about how the Deputy Prime Minister spent a great deal of time in the United States of America negotiating with an individual who had a material interest in a significant—and, I acknowledge, strategic—development in London.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I will in a moment. The great deal of parliamentary scrutiny that the Deputy Prime Minister came under only underlines our concerns about the importance of ensuring that the Bill contains every safeguard possible.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware—I hope that he is not suggesting otherwise—all those safeguards operated in that case, which is why the Deputy Prime Minister did not take those planning decisions. He made it clear at every stage that he has never done so. Considerable safeguards are in place, including those in the common law, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not implying otherwise.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister springs chivalrously to the Deputy Prime Minister’s defence. I say only that if one moves from the specific to the general, one recognises in giving the Mayor such powers the potential for an exercise of those powers that is not necessarily in the best interests of the public or open government. At the moment we have a system in which, because planning applications are decided in boroughs by planning committees, a greater degree of transparency exists.

One of the other areas of complexity that could be introduced in relation to the Secretary of State’s call-in power is that, as Kate Barker pointed out, the Secretary of State probably exercises his or her call-in power too promiscuously when it comes to ensuring that the planning system operates as effectively as possible. Kate Barker referred to something that she called planning by appeal—the way that developers sometimes play fast and loose with the local authority because they are confident that on appeal, a planning inspector or indeed the Secretary of State will decide in their favour. It is our concern that that problem could happen on a London level, and that we will, in effect, have developers who play fast and loose with local boroughs because they want the Mayor to decide. The fact that the Secretary of State will still have a call-in power makes things more complicated. We have a potential situation in which a developer feels that it can negotiate successfully with the Mayor, and there is then an application to the Secretary of State to exercise his or her call-in powers. In such a situation, a development is made yet more bureaucratic and complicated.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As I understand the hon. Gentleman’s position, his party supports the role of Secretaries of State in decision making on appeals and call-ins. I have heard Conservative Front Benchers articulate that position. Will he clarify whether the position has changed?

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I absolutely support the role of Secretaries of State, and nothing I said would suggest that I want to change that position. The point that I am making is that the powers are significant and serious. Kate Barker has argued that in the interests of speeding up the planning process, the powers should be exercised less often and that we should recognise that they should be used sparingly. The Conservatives agree with that position. A concern that we have about the Bill is that such significant powers are likely to be exercised in an analogous fashion by the Mayor. Given what the Mayor has said, and the increasing number of planning applications in which he has become involved, there is a danger that he may exercise the powers much more promiscuously than any of us would want.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

A promiscuous skirt-lifter!

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

The hon. Gentleman is almost entering the Doug Rougvie phase of his defence in which he tends to play the man rather than the ball. He is almost becoming a John McMaster in that respect.

May I urge the hon. Gentleman against over-egging the rather elegant confection that he is creating for the Committee by bringing in extraneous matters such as visits made to the United States by the Deputy Prime Minister? Those comments were not a means of discussing the issues of the day. He is making a powerful point, but he demeans it by over-personalising matters. I mean that not as a criticism, but as a friendly, helpful comment.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Before you reply, Mr. Gove, may I say that as the referee of the Committee, I will produce a yellow card if there are too many long-winded interventions in the future.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Thank you, Lady Winterton. The referee is always right.

The hon. Gentleman made an entirely fair point. To underline it, and for the reassurance of the Minister, I had no desire to cast aspersions on the Deputy Prime Minister. I wished to point it out merely because it is the most current and contemporary example of controversy arising from the exercise of planning powers. How much more controversial could the exercise of the powers be in the hands of someone less scrupulous and respected than the Deputy Prime Minister?

I shall make one final point. The Government use the need for greater efficiency as one of their principal justifications for the extension of planning powers. We are led to believe that it is by giving the Mayor the planning powers that the planning system in London will become more efficient. The Government have to acknowledge that when real efficiency and speed is required in planning, the Mayor’s hand is nowhere to be seen. Why is it that the Olympic delivery authority and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation are exempted from the Mayor’s powers? Is it because the Government implicitly recognise—interestingly—that there may be a conflict between the speed and efficiency that those major areas of development require, and the unnecessarily bureaucratic and Byzantine structure set up for the exercise of the Mayor’s powers? It is for all those reasons that we believe that the clauses should be removed from the Bill.

I ask Labour Members to reflect on what their own local authorities have said about the Mayor’s exercising of his powers, and on what they know of their own Labour local authority colleagues. Is it right that the voice of those people elected by, and intimately aware of the concerns of, their communities, and who are knowledgeable about the impact of planning applications on the balance of work and other community needs, be muted, while the voice of the Mayor is amplified? Is it right that he should have the opportunity to intervene when the London plan gives him such extensive freedom to intervene? Is it right that he should be able to intervene on one basis, such as the height of a building, and then use that justification to meddle in every other aspect of a development? Is it right that he should exercise his powers sitting alone, many of them in private and effectively unscrutinised? Is it right that we should be setting up a process that encourages developers to negotiate in parallel, downgrading the role of boroughs and increasing the potential for covert deals that work in no one’s interest? It is for all those reasons that we should consider striking out this element of the Bill. We can then proceed quickly to give a fair reading to the attractive parts of the Bill so that it can pass to Royal Assent.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I support much of what has been said by the official Opposition spokesman and the deletion of clauses 31 to 35. It is worth considering the backdrop to this debate on planning by looking at the findings of a survey in September 2006 in which 1,000 Londoners were asked about the proposed additional powers for the London Mayor.

In that survey, 54 per cent. of Londoners opposed plans to award the Mayor extra powers to decide planning applications across the capital. Only 27 per cent., just over one in four, supported proposals to award the Mayor further powers over planning. An overwhelming three out of four Londoners named their local council as being the most appropriate body to have planning powers in their area.

I know that the Mayor has responded with his own opinion poll. In my personal experience of constituents’ views, the role of local authorities in planning is not greatly appreciated, but the role of the Mayor is even less appreciated. The best example of that is a development of a strategic nature, Durand close, that I have previously referred to and which the Mayor called in but then proceeded to raise issues of a non-strategic nature.

As part of the backdrop, it is also worth providing the statistics to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred, on the number of plans with which the Mayor has been involved since the introduction of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, under which 291 applications have been classified as strategic and referred to him for comment. Interestingly, he has directly refused an application on only four occasions, a number that most people would feel is acceptable. However, the concerns must be that these changes will significantly increase the volume of applications that the Mayor will look into, in a way that will go against the grain of what local people want to see happen.

I now want to look briefly at the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2007. I know that it is going to be the subject of consultation and hope that the Minister will set out the form of that consultation. However, the order goes to the heart of what we are discussing today and the matter of what is and is not an application of potential strategic importance.

I have considered the order carefully and a number of significant questions leap out of it. First, the heart of it is in article 7, which considers the Mayor’s power to direct refusal or permission, and, in particular, article 7(1)(a), which uses the words

“contrary to the spatial development strategy or prejudicial to its implementation”.

I hope that the Minister will explain what “prejudicial” means. Does it mean greatly or just slightly prejudicial? If she says that that matter will be resolved in the courts, that will be regrettable. We need much more precision from her on that point.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I would like to clarify something, before the hon. Gentleman develops his important and interesting remarks. Article 7 deals with the power to direct refusal of permission. The Mayor already has that power. Article 8 applies to the new powers that he will be given under the Bill.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the Minister for that clarification. None the less, I hope that she will clarify the point further.

There are some definitions in article 8 that the Minister could helpfully clarify. In article 8(1), for example, the term “significant impact” is used, and I hope that she expands on what constitutes a “significant impact”.

Article 8(3) says:

“In deciding whether to give a direction the Mayor must take account of the extent to which the council of the London Borough is achieving, and has achieved, the relevant targets set out in the spatial development strategy.”

There is potential for that to be used as a big stick to beat a borough around the head if the Mayor believes that it is not complying with all relevant targets. I hope that the Minister will expand on what restrictions might apply to that article.

There is some satisfaction in that the Minister has introduced article 10 on determining an application. However, I hope that she will clarify the extent to which there has to be consultation, how far local residents and other objectors will be involved in the process, how the matter is to be addressed and what record will be made of that process.

London Councils is particularly concerned about schedule 3(b) to the order, under which an application might be deemed strategic if other planning permissions had been granted in the vicinity in the previous five years. That could open up a huge number of planning applications that would not previously have been covered by the Mayor’s remit. I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the schedule on the expansion that might be expected in the number of applications that the Mayor will consider.

The Committee should consider an interesting classification:

“Development to provide a large or regional casino”,

which falls under category 1E of the order. That seems to be considered a strategic development, which is a departure from the nature of planning relating to all the other categories set out in the document. Does the Minister concur? Is it correct that the order, which focuses on the planning issue, appears to include a provision relating to a casino application, which seems to be outside the remit of every other category in the list provided?

There are other references in part 3 to phrases that require clarification. For example, it is not clear whether “prejudice” means a lot of prejudice, although the scale of intervention under category 3 development will allow the Mayor much greater intervention than is appropriate or acceptable. Bearing it in mind that local authorities will still have to be in general conformity with the London plan, category 3 sets out when intervention will be possible.

Category 3A and part 3 are about developments that affect strategic policies, but, interestingly, the loss of housing has been singled out as opposed to the loss of employment, for example. Can the Minister clarify the thinking behind that? The 2007 order, on which she will be consulting, requires significant clarification, and I hope that she will use this opportunity to respond to the points that I have made.

Broadly speaking, Liberal Democrat Members see eye to eye with London Councils on its position on the planning powers that the Mayor will be granted. His decision-making process should be much more transparent, as transparent as the activities of the borough planning committees—a matter to which we shall return in our debate on amendment No. 52 under clause 31.

Any transfer of powers to the Mayor should not involve making the planning system more complex or the introduction of additional delays. The worry is that that will clearly be the case. The number of cases that the Mayor intervenes on should be minimised, but nothing in the order suggests that that will happen. On the contrary, the scope for the Mayor intervening has been widened significantly.

There should be an acid test of whether the Mayor’s approach is right and whether his intervention is reasonable and necessary to ensure the delivery of the London plan. Liberal Democrat Members believe in the strategic nature of the authority, as well as the right to put forward the London plan, the housing plan and the spatial development plan, but we believe that the basic test of whether it is reasonable for the Mayor to intervene to ensure delivery of the London plan is required.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to worries about section 106. The current or future Mayor should not be allowed to use his powers to take over an application simply if there is a minor difference with the local authority because he wants to access the funds that are available under section 106.

To conclude—

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

I hear the word “conclude”. Is the hon. Gentleman about to mention affordable housing—a topic that, to be fair to him, was referred to by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath? It is a priority for the Mayor and central to such powers. However, once again the Liberal Democrats have not mentioned it. Will the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington tell the Committee whether he, Liberal Democrat councillors and the Liberal Democrat party support the Mayor’s target on affordable housing? If so, will he condemn the London borough of Islington, which is achieving 20 per cent. affordable housing when its target is 50 per cent?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am happy to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, although we had a debate on housing last week. As for whether the Liberal Democrats support the Mayor’s affordable housing target, I must say that we do. As for whether each borough delivers precisely the Mayor’s target, we need to allow boroughs flexibility in delivering the Mayor’s targets, but I am of the view that Liberal Democrat boroughs should seek to hit them. Unfortunately, in the London borough of Sutton, where the local authority has taken an active role in ensuring that substandard housing was replaced by good-quality new affordable housing, the Mayor’s intervention delayed the project by 10 months, rather than assisting the process.

Yes, we support the basic principle, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is prone to citing individual local authorities in his interventions. I am not convinced that that is terribly helpful, as each of us could produce our own list of local authorities, of all political complexions, that we felt were not delivering. When I moved to London in the early 1980s, I lived in Islington—then the socialist republic of Islington—and I am sure that the Liberal Democrat local authority is doing a much better job than was being done then.

To conclude, we should ensure that the Mayor focuses on strategic issues when he intervenes; he should not be permitted to comment on non-strategic matters as happens now. Nothing in the provision will stop the Mayor doing that. On the contrary, his non-strategic interventions will escalate. It is disproportionate and unjustified to give him the discretion to take over a potentially larger number of planning applications.

Interestingly, London Councils says that the Mayor has not been able to prove that important strategic applications are frequently hindered by local authorities. The councils are concerned that if the Government proceed with the draft order it will enable the Mayor to take over a larger number of applications than is appropriate, and I support them in that view—particularly, as I mentioned earlier, in relation to the potentially massive expansion in the number of applications in which he might intervene that could result from the proposal that planning applications within a given area in the previous five years must be taken into account.

I hope that the Minister responds to those specific points on the draft Mayor of London order. I shall listen carefully to her response, but the tenor of the order suggests that the concerns that we expressed on Second Reading about planning have not been addressed and that it will require a significant U-turn by the Minister to satisfy us.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

I intend to be fairly brief, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath spoke eloquently and extremely effectively—with supportive comments from the Liberal Democrats—to the Opposition amendments, which go to the heart of the Bill. First, however, I wish to raise a couple of points.

First, the my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North suggested that only a few applications will be called in. I am reasonably sure that he is right, but the problem is that the Bill gives the ability to call in a great number of applications. The Mayor may not call in or take over most of those. As a former councillor, I received every week a list of the planning applications that had been submitted to the borough. They included almost everything from new lamp posts and illuminated advertising all the way up to developments of 2,000 homes.

It is inconceivable that either the current or a future Mayor will start calling in large numbers of such applications, but it is a significant worry that he will be able to do so. For every development of 500 homes, there will probably be 500 loft extensions. However, we fear that he will call in the 500-home developments and other larger applications with some regularity.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Further to the hon. Gentleman’s point, the difficulty is that if we constantly get into hypothetical situations, we might find ourselves in the same position as, say, Alex McLeish in 1982, who never thought that one day he would become Scotland manager. We cannot predicate an analysis on the basis of what might be. Does the hon. Gentleman at least accept that if a planning application is of such significance that it affects adjoining boroughs, a strategic mechanism will be required? That is the nature of a very crowded city.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

There is some truth in that, but for large developments close to borough boundaries, existing powers provide for consultation with neighbouring and nearby boroughs. In the wrong hands, I fear that the proposal will give rise to a meddler’s charter. As we have seen in recent years with existing powers, some of the Mayor’s interventions on local councils will be highly selective, media-driven and politically motivated.

I shall return to the point about a worst case scenario raised by the hon. Member for Lewes, which involves cases under a different type of Mayor. I ask Labour Members to imagine a Mayor who pledges to deliver no affordable housing in London, who is given those powers to meddle and intervene in the 32 boroughs and who takes over developments and directs that no affordable housing shall be built. If that Mayor were close to a developer or set of developers, the accusation would arise that they were influenced by a developer seeking to maximise their profit by not delivering affordable housing. The hon. Member for Ealing, North might think that that is a hypothetical scenario, which it probably is—it probably will not happen—but we must look beyond the current personality and consider what could happen under a different Mayor.

Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent South)

Does the hon. Gentleman think that if a Mayor failed to deliver any affordable housing in London, they would be democratically re-elected at the next election?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

The hon. Lady is probably right, but housing policy will not necessarily be the principal factor in determining the course of the London mayoral election, which is held every four years. The principal factor might be the condition of the tube, public transport, the buses, crime and so on. We have had two such elections, and affordable housing and housing and planning policy were probably not in the top five factors in determining the result.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Briefly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in a mature democracy democratic accountability should run parallel with the decision-making process, rather than its being exercised every four years?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

That is a helpful intervention. I shall come on to the importance of planning, which works differently from the normal democratic process.

I shall talk about the impact of planning and the overall development process in this country. The Government proposals threaten and jeopardise some of the central tenets of the planning system. We all know that that system is not perfect—now is not the right time to talk about its pros and cons—but it needs to be consistent across the country, yet the proposals seek radical changes in the metropolis of London.

There is an appropriate division between executive power on regeneration and development and the necessarily judicial or quasi-judicial power for determining individual planning applications. Generally, local authorities in Britain have somebody, such as a cabinet member, on the executive responsible for the overall development picture—a cabinet member for regeneration and development, perhaps. At the same time, every council has a planning committee, which operates in a quasi-judicial capacity, and it is important that those two processes are separate. A decision was recently made on Hammersmith and Fulham council deliberately to remove the cabinet member for regeneration from the 12 members of the planning committee, specifically for that reason. Unfortunately, the Bill proposes combining the two roles and creating a position for somebody to be in charge of the regeneration of the capital while also taking on a far bigger role in determining planning applications than in the past six years, which is fundamentally dangerous. Not only that, but, as we heard from hon. Members earlier, such determinations will not necessarily be made in public and will not necessarily need to respond to applicants, local planning authorities or the public.

I was interested in a submission to the Committee by the Mayor, who talked at some length about wanting to increase transparency, saying, “The Mayor has agreed to publish the reports on applications that are taken over in advance of when he hears representations and makes his decision, and to publish the reasons for his decision. The Mayor is also content for the meeting at which he hears representations to be open to the public and broadcast over the internet. He is also happy to take his decisions on any applications he has taken over in public.” I do not think that the Mayor has given a firm commitment to have the same open, transparent process as local authorities on planning procedures.

The fatal flaw in the Mayor’s submission, which has already been mentioned, is that he fails to understand the planning process in this country and the quasi-judicial nature of decisions, saying, “Under the proposed changes, planning in London will continue to be accountable, as the Mayor is ultimately accountable through the ballot box.”

Imagine again the worst-case scenario of a Mayor who does not believe in any affordable housing. The Mayor meets developers in private, possibly while on holiday in Cannes, and says, “Well actually, I’ve made my decision—like it or lump it. You can always get rid of me in three and three-quarter years’ time at the next mayoral election”.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

Given the hon. Gentleman’s concern for the probity of the planning process, does he think it appropriate for the chairman of a planning committee to meet a developer immediately before a major development comes before that committee to insist on significant changes to an application?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring, yet again, to the Prestolite site, although far be it for me to extend discussion about that case, which seems to have dominated our proceedings in recent days. I am not aware of the allegation that the hon. Gentleman is making, but if he wants to make it, I suggest that he put it in writing and I shall consider it.

The changes are ill conceived and ill thought through. They are a knee-jerk response to a perceived political need to give the Mayor of London more powers. They will fundamentally change many of the ways in which planning operates in the capital, which will inevitably affect how planning is viewed in this country. It is dangerous to combine the regeneration role with the inevitable role that local authorities can and must play in determining appeals and making determinations on individual planning applications in public. For that reason, clause 30 should not stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

I shall also try to be brief. I rise only to comment on the long contribution by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. He is not here at the moment, so I hope that I shall not misinterpret anything that he said. He took a curious approach to the provisions. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has returned, so I hope that he will not mind my saying that he set out to spook the Committee in his contribution to frighten it into believing that the powers that the Mayor will inherit will result in some terrible wrong. I believe that he is wrong. I do not know whether it is just his new oratorical style—a gothic style—that he has introduced in Committee. Perhaps matters of housing, and particularly London housing, are getting the hon. Gentleman down and are a little too dry for his palate.

I should like to open a cellar door and spread some light into the rather gloomy world that the hon. Gentleman has created of a Mayor who will interfere aggressively in many applications, who will misappropriate funds under section 106 agreements, who will take all his decisions while cloistered and hidden away, whether in Cannes, in the bath or wherever, and who will impose iron, unachievable targets on the poor borough councils by way of affordable housing and other matters. I have looked as closely as I can at the Bill and the regulations, and I cannot see any of that. What I see in the Bill is a modification of the strategic powers of the Mayor in an appropriate fashion and, in particular, to help to achieve important London targets in the area of affordable housing.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington gave the game away. Fewer than 300 applications have been referred to the Mayor, and in only four cases has an intervention been necessary. The hon. Gentleman foresaw a possibly significant increase to perhaps five or even six such cases under these powers. Surely, if there is any strategic role for strategic authority, the powers set out in the Bill do not go beyond that. It is disingenuous of the boroughs and, indeed, some Opposition politicians to try to spook local residents’ groups and others involved in the planning process by saying that what will happen is a sea change.

I say the same in relation to section 106 agreements. On determining applications or section 106 agreements, the key point, even where the Mayor has intervened, is collaboration with the boroughs, adherence to local plans as well as strategic plans and taking the boroughs along with him on section 106 agreements.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham has referred to the decision-making process. It seems to me, looking at what the Mayor has said and what the regulations say about that, that it is just as consultative and democratic as any process that the boroughs undertake. Indeed, a number of boroughs—I mention Wandsworth, Westminster and Hammersmith and Fulham—do not allow the public to make representations at their planning committees. The Mayor’s intention in publishing and consulting on his proposals probably goes further than many of the boroughs in that respect.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with considerable interest, and I am particularly interested in his argument that section 106 agreements are democratically accountable locally. I do not have the record in front of me. Did he therefore vote against the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill last night—a Government Bill that would take that power away from local authorities?

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

I will have to check Hansard, but I have a feeling that I voted with the Government. I am so pleased to hear Conservative Members being so keen on section 106 agreements and on getting additional resources from major planning decisions into local communities, which is an extraordinary sea change. The last time that the Conservatives lost power in Hammersmith and Fulham, they did so with a huge bang in which they granted several billion pounds of planning applications on one day, a week before they lost power, with virtually no section 52, as I believe it was, agreements attached to them. I think that with Chelsea harbour, a not inconsequential development on the riverside, a footpath was the planning gain. It is therefore good to see that Conservative Members keen on planning gain. I wish they had supported the Bill last night and would support these powers, because these powers can only assist local communities in getting proper additional community facilities in their area.

Finally, I said that I would not be long.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I hear the word “finally”. The hon. Gentleman said that the spokesman for the official Opposition has sought to spook hon. Members and that he does not recognise Opposition Members’ concerns in relation to planning changes. He may be able to dismiss our views, but what are the views of Labour authorities and councillors in London on the shift of planning powers from them to the Mayor?

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

There are not many around me at the moment, so I would have to go some distance to find that out. There is survey evidence of Londoners undertaken by the Mayor, but I know from the hon. Gentleman’s comments that he prefers anecdotal banana stall evidence from his constituents.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

There are relatively few banana stalls in my constituency, but what I was referring to was the survey carried out by London councils that interviewed 1,000 people.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

Questions can always be asked in a particular way, but I tend to prefer the questions and evidence from the GLA, which was the Mayor’s survey on those matters. That showed that an overwhelming majority of Londoners supported the need for the Mayor’s affordable housing target and that a clear majority supported his intervention, particularly when it was necessary to ensure that those targets were achieved.

My “and finally”, unlike that of the hon. Gentleman, will include a reference to affordable housing because that is a key issue for London. I will not repeat the comments I made in Committee last week, but locally I have a situation where the chairman of the planning committee believes that housing in an area that has the fourth highest property prices in the country is skewed towards the poor. The leader of the council is aiming to build property for people on incomes of up to £60,000, but he has miscalculated because, on the basis of the housing he intends to build. it will be £80,000 plus at the top of the range.

There is a complete abdication of responsibility by some borough councils. They are not tackling a clear statutory responsibility, which those who elected them wish to see carried out. That goes to the heart not just of discharging statutory duties, but of good governance in a local area. Where there is a failure to achieve affordable housing and an abdication of responsibility by local councils, it is often on a nimbyist and parochial basis. Surely, we have reached the point where we need some strategic direction on precisely that issue.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s appeal that strategic powers be exercised. In his own constituency on the Goldhawk road he will be aware of the Allied Carpets planning proposal. Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is Labour controlled, rejected that planning application because aspects of it were not in conformity with its local development plan. However, the Mayor suggested that the application should be agreed. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Mayor and thinks that the statutory powers should have been in existence to enable the Mayor to direct the local authority to approve the Allied Carpets scheme on Goldhawk road.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

If the Prestolite scheme, which is at least as major a development, has received too much attention, the Allied Carpets scheme, which is a small development, should receive as much attention. Hon. Members who do not live on the Goldhawk road—I know that is a minority in the Committee—may begin to get bored. I am not sure what more I can say on that issue. I spoke about the Allied Carpets development at length on Second Reading and in Committee last week. I have given my view very clearly on the matter. It is a small government issue.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

And the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the Mayor.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

I do. The Mayor intervened because he believed, wrongly in my view, that a building of merit would be put on the site. It may well be a building of merit, but not on that site. The Mayor did not pursue the point. As I have said, he believed that it was a sensible development for the site, but he did not appear at the public inquiry and the matter was not pursued. It is a red herring.

In the Mayor’s polls, and in the London councils poll as well, which is rather more self-serving, Londoners take a clear view that strategic powers are needed, particularly in housing. However, I suspect that more Committee members than care to say so share a common-sense view that major developments—for example, the White City opportunity area in my constituency—should have a regional and strategic role. I wish that rather than being in thrall to a political mantra, whether it is supporting Conservative boroughs or opposing a Labour Mayor, Opposition Members would articulate that a little more clearly.

I was pleased to hear what Liberal Democrats said about supporting the Mayor’s housing targets, but the fact remains that Conservative and Liberal Democrat boroughs particularly, although not exclusively, are not meeting those targets and have no incentive to do so. If London is to be properly planned with proper accommodation for all its citizens and not only those on incomes of £60,000 or £80,000 a year, the powers are necessary.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

One thing has been established absolutely beyond question in our debate so far. We all know now what the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush would choose as his specialist subject if he ever went on “Mastermind”. I do not intend to go into quite the same detail on the history of the London borough where I once served, but I will bear it in mind in commenting on the Bill’s planning package.

My comments have two parts. First, there is the question of the Mayor’s strategic role. I do not have a problem with the Mayor having a strategic role, but the point is that nothing that we have seen so far—neither the proposed primary legislation nor the draft order—has defined “strategic”. That concerns us.

There is also an important philosophic point that the Government’s proposals seem to breach. When the Greater London authority was created, it was argued in its favour that there would be a distinction between the Mayor as a driver of strategy and the delivery of service. What we are seeing in housing and planning is the Mayor moving, albeit in certain circumscribed areas, into service delivery. That is a change in philosophy and in tack, and the histories of the old Greater London council and London county council demonstrate that there is a risk of conflict with the boroughs if it is not handled properly. One of the reasons why a number of the Labour London boroughs did not weep as much as Ken Livingstone would have liked over abolition in 1985 was the long-running conflict under administrations of all parties between the boroughs and County hall, involving rather more limited planning powers than are proposed here.

It would be undesirable not to learn the lessons of history and to repeat that mistake. That can be avoided by keeping the Mayor to broad-brush strategy—by keeping him away from detailed target setting, which failed on the national stage, leaving the broad issues to the Mayor’s strategies and letting the boroughs deal with delivery. That is not only important for basic philosophy and accountability; it is important to public confidence. I think that we would all agree that there is no area in which it is more important and perhaps more sensitive to maintain public confidence than in planning. My experience as a member of a planning committee of a London borough council reinforces that.

For all the reasons that have been rehearsed, the measures run the risk—inadvertently, perhaps—of undermining public confidence. First, they run that risk because they undermine transparency, and secondly, they reduce accountability because a number of significant decisions may be taken at a more remote level. London is sometimes regarded as a tight geographic unit, particularly by those outside. In fact, it is usually diverse. As well as being a great city, London is also a collection of villages and communities.

For people in outer London, there are substantial geographic units. People who live in Orpington regard Bromley council as a pretty large unit, and their community is a smaller unit than that. They can live with the idea that Bromley council takes their planning decisions because they send their representatives to it. However, to have a significant number of decisions taken even further away will undermine their confidence that the system works for them and listens to them. That is an important point that is missed.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Is not the point of the whole debate that there will be instances—not many, but some—in which it is entirely reasonable for a local community to have concerns about a planning decision, for or against, but where their local interests conflict with the strategic interests of Londoners as a whole? There are occasions when their local interests have to be overruled in the strategic interests of the city and it is right that the Mayor should have that power. Therefore, however powerfully the hon. Gentleman makes his argument, I am not sure that he actually deals with the central issue.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With respect, my argument deals with that point. On those rare occasions—there should be every endeavour to ensure that they are rare—people will accept their interests being overridden only if there is the maximum transparency and they have the maximum assurance that they have had a fair crack of the whip, to use a colloquial phrase. My concerns are related to the definition of “strategic”, which is potentially too wide and will therefore be used in too many such cases, and to the procedure by which it is done. People will not have confidence that they have had a fair crack of the whip before that hard decision is taken.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Speaking as a Member of Parliament who does not represent a London area, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help me. As I understand it, the argument is that the powers will be exercised rarely on a strategic basis, and strategic was the word that was used. None the less, we have heard the Mayor apparently commenting on the Goldhawk road, with which I am not familiar, and Allied Carpets. We were told by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush that it was a very small matter. Therefore, the Mayor appears to be ready to intervene on small matters already.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he helpfully brings me on to my next point. The point has been made by Members of all parties that we should try to base our decision making on the evidence, and I agree with that. I have two points on that. First, the evidence amply demonstrated and submitted by London councils and other bodies does not prove that there is an overriding and crying need for change to the current system. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Lewes points out, the evidence does demonstrate that the Mayor has not always used his existing powers wisely, consistently or, dare I say it, sensibly.

The Mayor has intervened in a much larger number of applications under his current limited powers than he tells us he would with his new powers. I am sorry to say that his track record does not give us any cause to believe him. Frankly, he has sometimes been capricious in the use of his current powers. In the Second Reading debate, I instanced a number of examples in which he used his planning powers in what appeared to be contradictory manners. Therefore, the Mayor is his own worst enemy. People are sceptical about the way he plans to exercise his powers in the future, and we can only go on that evidence that we have thus far, so that is a concern.

Let me give one further example, which relates to the Mayor’s philosophy about seeking to increase densities in London. My concern is that the Mayor drives that philosophy with an exceedingly rigid and almost fanatical approach. We all know that London is going to have to increase densities in the appropriate places to accommodate the growth in population, but the key test is “appropriate places”. There is concern that the Mayor does not—[Interruption.] There are parts of Bromley where it can be accommodated. Bromley council has approved and is pushing ahead with a very high density scheme in Bromley town centre, which is a transport hub. It is close to the stations and shopping centres—exactly the right place to put high-density development. So that comment does not work, if I may say so.

Equally, there is a lack of similar discernment by the Mayor. In outer London there are places where significant densification can take place, but there are established suburban areas of a settled physical and environmental character where it is not appropriate. The Mayor, however, perceives any application in such areas that comes within his purview as being driven overwhelmingly by questions of number and density. That lack of discretion and of concern for local context and character gives real cause for concern.

There was a specific recent example in my constituency on the Ravensbourne college site in Chislehurst. A planning application has been allowed on appeal, but the Mayor had argued to the developers for a higher density than the inspector ultimately thought was appropriate. That does not give Chislehurst residents much confidence in the way in which the Mayor would use his powers. He is seen as desiring to drive things up even further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said, that is a real concern for many of us—that the Mayor will be dealing with the developers and pushing them in his political direction in a way that is not transparent. He handled that application by seeking almost to ratchet up the densities, which is clearly harmful to the local environment. That is a clear demonstration of the dangers of granting the powers without significant checks and balances, which are not currently present.

The second point that I wanted to make was on the practicality of handling the powers. There are two matters. One is the definition of “strategic”, in relation to which observations have already been made regarding specific parts of the draft order. I shall add just one more, because there will be other opportunities to consider the detail of the draft order. Under the draft order, the Mayor can intervene in central London—in the city of Westminster—in relation to any development over 10 storeys. Such a development is hardly strategic in the context of the centre of London. Indeed, it is questionable whether it would be strategic in Bromley or somewhere like it. It is an extremely widely drawn part of the definition. It is part of the package, but I mention it nevertheless as an example of where we should reconsider. Left as it is, that element would allow the Mayor to intervene in a huge number of applications—hundreds or perhaps thousands, if not more. That cannot have been the intention. Perhaps something slipped in the drafting, but it needs to be looked at.

The final matter relates to amendment No. 52.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate that now.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Well, when we get to it, I will come to it. The Committee will be aware, however, of the need for transparency in all things, including in relation to the subject of that amendment. The reason is the criticism by the London Assembly of the Mayor—it was referred to earlier—in relation to the report “Behind Closed Doors.” That criticism was cross-party, well founded and supported by independent academic commentators. It would be a good thing were that to be accepted and were it to be spelt out that it will be specifically dealt with. I stress the importance of that point.

The planning clauses are part of a package, and the concern is that the package is a centralising rather than a devolving measure, which takes away power from the boroughs. We do not like the principle, but if we do not have the numbers to change it, there are some specific practical details to consider that I hope the Government will re-examine. The points on the order, its contents, and whether the need for transparency should be in the Bill are important matters of principle and important to public confidence. Ultimately, planning systems work and are kept clean only if the public have that confidence.

Debate adjourned.—[Jonathan Shaw.]

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking clauses 31 to 35 stand part and new clause 12—Amendment of TCPA—

‘(1) TCPA 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 12(3C) leave out “be in general conformity with” and insert “have regard to”.

(3) In section 13(1A) leave out “is in general conformity with” and insert “has regard to”.

(4) In section 13(5A) leave out “is not in general conformity with” and insert “does not have regard to”.

(5) In section 15(2A) leave out “are in general conformity with” and insert “have regard to”.

(6) Leave out section 21A.

(7) In section 26 leave out subsection (2)(bb).

(8) In section 74 leave out subsections (1B) and (1C).

(9) Leave out section 322B.’.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. O’Hara. We paused before lunch by agreement not to have an interrupted response to what has been an extensive debate on the planning clauses before us and also, of course, to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North a little more time to sharpen up his stories about Scottish footballers. I understand that he has four remaining members of the team to get through by the end of the afternoon.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

It is unfortunate that the Minister is emulating players such as Neil Simpson and Mark McGee in getting her retaliation in first, but I admire her for it.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The clauses that we have before us and the new clause that we were debating are important components of the Bill. That part of the Bill is about giving the Mayor more responsibility to ensure that housing and affordable housing needs in London are delivered in practice. Currently, the Mayor only has the right to block things and he should be able to support much-needed major strategic development in the interests of the capital as a whole. It is important that there are safeguards to ensure that the discussion is focused around those major strategic applications. I will come on to discuss those because we have set out the order in an attempt to give effect to that intention.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

The Minister talks about the importance of the clauses in delivering affordable housing, but what happens if the democratically elected Mayor has a totally different view from her on the issue of affordable housing? How would she deal with that?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Affordable housing is now so central to London that it will always be of importance to an elected Mayor. However, affordable housing also has wider repercussions across the country in terms of the impact on the London economy and the impact on the wider housing market in other regions. It is an issue that the Secretary of State would always expect to be dealt with properly in London and in other regions. Affordable housing has much wider repercussions.If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that a future Conservative Mayor would not see affordable housing as such a priority, shame on such a future Conservative Mayor—he would certainly struggle to be elected on that basis.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

No, I am certainly not arguing that. I am arguing that there may be a scenario in which there was a maverick Mayor who decided that there should be no affordable housing in London, passed a London plan accordingly, and intervened in the boroughs to try and prevent affordable housing from being built. He may then say that he is able to do so because of the Bill as amended here today and that if people did not like it, they would have to vote him down in the next election.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I should inform the hon. Gentleman that to achieve such a scenario, there would have to be, if not a Conservative Mayor, some kind of maverick right-wing Mayor who was hostile to affordable housing. There would also, in fact, have to be a Conservative or right-wing Government in place who were hostile to affordable housing. We have made clear the importance of affordable housing within the national policy framework and the planning policies that need to be picked up as part of the London plan. Therefore, under the current policy framework, it would simply be impossible to produce a London plan that could pass the planning process and that did not take seriously the needs of Londoners for housing, including affordable and social housing. That is the policy framework in which we operate.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

I hate to criticise my hon. Friend, but I support the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham because the scenario is perhaps not as unlikely as she is making out; in fact the new Conservative council in Hammersmith and Fulham is doing exactly that. It has a principled opposition to all forms of affordable housing. No affordable rented housing, and shared ownership housing only if it is out of the reach of any—[Interruption.]

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a serious point.

Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)

Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. Affordable housing needs to be higher up the political agenda so that those putting themselves forward for the position of Mayor would have to make clear where they stood on this issue. I doubt whether we would see any Conservative mavericks, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham calls them, or any Conservative Mayors elected for the foreseeable future.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Opposition Members may wriggle at the suggestion that perhaps Conservatives might not be as enthusiastic about social housing as they like to protest, but the evidence does not support their protestations.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

Our debate on affordable housing ignited my interest in my own borough of Merton where a Conservative group is now in power with no overall control. I had a phone call from the leader of the Labour group only an hour ago who explained to me that currently Presentation housing association is considering suing the council as a result of the Conservative group’s decision not to pursue a scheme on which it had already spent quite a large sum of money. As a result of the sitting of the overview and scrutiny panel last night, some cases where the Conservative councillors were trying to get rid of affordable housing will now be referred to the Standards Board. It would seem that there may be a pattern here. It may not just be afflicting trendy west London, but also quieter south London.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not know the circumstances of the individual case and obviously there are limitations on the ability of Ministers to comment on individual cases that may be going through the panel or the standards procedures. However, I am aware from reports that have come to us via the Housing Corporation, which we have asked to look into the current provision of social housing in London, that Merton has been considering adopting a policy that identifies particular areas where it does not believe that there should be additional social housing. Mitcham, for example, is considered an area where no social housing should be built. Concerns have also been raised about the approach from Hammersmith and Fulham council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush has mentioned, and Barnet council too.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Further to the points that were being made by Opposition Members on this very matter, I checked the figures for affordable housing provision for some of those boroughs and discovered that Barnet, which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath cited in aid of his argument, produced only 8 per cent. affordable housing as against the Mayor’s preferred target of 50 per cent. My own borough of Westminster produced only 11 per cent.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Certainly some of the figures that I have picked up included Bromley, which in 2004-05 delivered 14 per cent. affordable housing. The Committee will be aware that I previously quoted the example of Wandsworth, which in 2005-06 seems to be delivering only nine social homes as supported by the Housing Corporation. In an area as large as Wandsworth that clearly raises some concerns.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I entirely share the hon. Lady’s concern about the lack of provisionof social housing. Perhaps she could remind the Committee what the figures are for the delivery of social housing overall nationally since 1997. Is it not the case that in every year since 1997, the Government have presided over fewer social housing completions than the preceding 10 Conservative years?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman should be rather cautious about calling on the experience of the early ’90s as the defence of Conservative housing policy. He is certainly right to say that there was a period in the early ’90s when it was rather cheaper to buy back social housing than it was more recently. The previous Government and the housing associations decided that in order to step into what was an extremely shaky housing market, it might be wise to start buying properties that developers were unable to sell because the housing market had gone into freefall. We had a devastating housing market crash and a collapse in land values, triggered by the economic management of the previous Conservative Government. He will appreciate that we would not want to follow that approach to bringing down the costs of delivering more affordable housing.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the Minister for taking us down memory lane once more. There are two important points to make. First, I was talking about the completion of new houses, whereas she was talking about an entirely different process. Secondly, we all agree that there was a period of economic turbulence in the early ’90s, but that period came about because of our entry into the exchange rate mechanism.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. That is enough from memory lane. Let us return to the present and the future.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I would point the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to some of the interest rate decisions and economic management decisions that were made in the late ’80s, in advance of the exchange rate mechanism, as being contributory factors. Either way, we are agreed that the economic policy of the previous Conservative Government threw the housing market into freefall and had a devastating impact.

The hon. Gentleman raised a wider issue about overall house building and housing delivery. He tried to claim that the Conservative boroughs in London were doing well. It is certainly true that Wandsworth, Bromley and Westminster have done better on overall housing than some other boroughs, although they have done relatively badly on affordable housing. Kensington and Chelsea delivered 43 per cent. of its housing target, while Barnet managed 86 per cent. and Redbridge managed only19 per cent. Before the hon. Gentleman tries to parade the Conservative boroughs, he should accept that there is a mixed picture among the London boroughs and that many of his Conservative colleagues are not quite as enthusiastic about additional housing as he might like them to be. Indeed, his colleagues on the Conservative Benches are not as enthusiastic about additional housing as he might wish them to be.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

According to the figures for housing completions in 2003-04 and 2004-05, the boroughs with the weakest performance were Waltham Forest, with 45 per cent., Merton, with 54 per cent., and Lewisham, with 55 per cent. Those three boroughs at the bottom of the league—the Partick Thistle, the Greenock Morton and the Gretna, in Scottish football terms—were all Labour controlled during those years.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for using the figures for 2005-06, which, being the most recent available figures, seemed to be the most appropriate. As I said, Kensington and Chelsea delivered 43 per cent. of its target and Redbridge, which seems to be one of the worst performers on the list, delivered 19 per cent. of its housing target.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The Minister is illustrating the point that it is risky to cite individual examples. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush was the leader for Hammersmith and Fulham, although he does not frequently mention his constituency in his interventions. He referred to Islington, which has not sold land at nil value, as Hammersmith and Fulham did when he was the leader, but which has occasionally sold land at market value, so as to get capital receipts that can then be spent on new schools, for instance. When the Minister deals with individual cases, it is important that she should compare apples with apples.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing that Islington had failed to deliver on housing because it was building schools. His intervention did not sound like a ringing endorsement of Islington’s housing approach.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

It is in line with the Mayor’s targets.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Islington is in line with some of the Mayor’s targets, with 93 per cent. in 2005-06 and 76 per cent. in 2004-05. I cannot find the figures for affordable housing swiftly enough for the hon. Gentleman, although some of the other Liberal Democrat boroughs might not have been so successful.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Is my hon. Friend not aware that the disparity in performance between boroughs that Opposition Members are parading before us makes the most powerful case for a central strategic role? Does she agree that Opposition Members have made the case for us? Might it not be an idea to move to a Division, given that they will certainly support us on this occasion?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We have before us wide variations. Some will be one-year variations due to land supply issues in a particular borough while others will be more systemic and reflect a borough’s ongoing failure to deliver enough homes to meet the needs not only of the borough, but of the city as a whole. That is a reason why the strategic issues—the wider needs of the city—should also be considered by the Mayor.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I implore the Minister not to listen to the entreaties, siren-like though they may be, of the hon. Member for Ealing, North. While not wishing to go down memory lane, I wish to explain to the hon. Lady that in the ’80s and early ’90s, when I used to advise Gosteleradio, the state television and radio agency of the Soviet Union, I walked every day past Gosplan, the central planning agency of the Soviet Union. It had five-year plans and a central scheme, but not one time did they ever work.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

They clearly could have learnt a few lessons from Islington with its achievement of 93 per cent.

Members of the Committee will recognise the importance of the strategic powers that we have discussed many times. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North was entreating me to speed up and put matters to the vote, so I will try to accelerate, although I cannot resist the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who asked a series of wider questions about attitudes towards development. As he said, he wants to champion his party’s credentials in favour of development. However, such matters involve not only the boroughs, but the attitude of MPs towards development.

I would certainly not criticise Conservative MPs who oppose individual planning applications that may be badly designed or inappropriately sited, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman may have taken such action in his constituency, but several of his hon. Friends—not only those on the Back Benches, but those in London—are opposing increased housing overall, especially the shadow Chief Secretary, who has said that suburbs such as Barnet are under attack from the Deputy Prime Minister’s excessive targets for new house building. Moreover, the shadow Minister for London has complained about over-development in Beckenham.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath challenged me to come up with a single incidence of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) arguing against increased housing. I could not resist the temptation to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the words of his right hon. Friend, who said:

“Oxfordshire does not want—and cannot manage—the extra ... houses Labour wants to impose.”

Obviously, I would not have brought the right hon. Gentleman into the debate had the hon. Gentleman not raised such matters. However, I am happy to furnish him with a copy of the right hon. Gentleman’s election manifesto, in which he made those claims. The purpose behind the Bill is to ensure that the overall strategic issues behind the London plan can be delivered, regardless of the politics of individual boroughs or MPs.

Clause 30 deals with local development schemes, which set out what issues the borough will address and what the time scale will be. That will not include the content of the plan, which is an important point, because the clause allows the Mayor to direct the boroughs on what should be in their work programme. For example, if a borough is not planning a strategy on waste, it might be reasonable—given the city’s difficulties in dealing with waste and its importance under the London plan—for the Mayor to consider directing a borough to include a waste document in its planning scheme or to draw up a waste strategy.

The clause will not allow the Mayor to draw up a waste strategy for the borough; it will simply allow him to direct that the borough should include a waste strategy in its planning process.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath argued that the mayoral power of direction duplicates the Secretary of State’s power of direction. I do not think so. Without the power, the Mayor would have to ask the Secretary of State to intervene on his behalf to deliver the London plan, and things would become more bureaucratic and duplicative. The Government want to devolve to the Mayor and to remove the need for the Secretary of State to intervene in regional issues. The Secretary of State will still be able to direct on national policy issues, but regional issues should be a matter for the Mayor.

Subsections (2) to (7) of new clause 12 would remove the requirement for borough unitary development plans to be in general conformity with the spatial development strategy and replace it with a requirement for them to have regard to it. In practice, the change would apply to the old system of unitary development plans, so it would not have much effect as we are replacing those with local development frameworks. However, I shall address the intention behind the new clause rather than its practical effect.

The Government think that the new clause does not take the right approach. The requirement for general conformity has been part of the planning system for many years, stretching back well before the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The new clause would effectively reduce the boroughs’ requirement to look beyond their borders and do their part in meeting new housing and other development challenges faced by London and the country.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Is the Minister aware of the briefing from the Mayor’s office discussing the general conformity clause? It says that the clause, which she is defending,

“is a legal minefield that will mean local authorities and the Mayor could end up embroiled in judicial reviews, with London council tax payers footing both sides of the legal bill. This will rightly be seen as a waste of public money.”

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I have some shocking news for the hon. Gentleman: we do not agree with the Mayor on everything.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Only when it is convenient.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The legislation that we have introduced reflects the best approach, as set out in much wider planning legislation. As I said, it involves a principle that has been in planning legislation for a long time.

There is a difference between conformity and general conformity. General conformity does not mean slavish adherence to individual details of the plan. Only where a borough plan contains an inconsistency or omission that would cause significant harm to the London plan’s implementation should it be considered not in general conformity. The fact that a borough plan is inconsistent with one or more of the plan’s detailed policies, either directly or by omission, does not necessarily mean that it is not in general conformity. The test is how significant the inconsistency is to overall delivery of the London plan.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

In that case, if the phrase “general conformity” is legally clear, how clear is “have regard to”?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The phrase “have regard to” is used not just in the Bill, but in other aspects of legislation, and I think that it is seen as weaker than “general conformity”. Clearly, judgments must be made about the strength of the relationship for different aspects of the Bill, the planning process and other development processes. We think that “general conformity” captures the relationship that ought to exist between individual borough plans and the London plan. It has done so for some time, and it reflects the long-standing planning policy relationship between local and regional plans.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am interested in that point. This morning, we were told that an obligation on the Mayor to “have regard to” the assembly’s views will strengthen its position. Now we are told that that is a rather weaker concept. Clearly, what is good enough for the assembly is not good enough for the Mayor. Do I take it that the Minister wishes the Mayor to have a greater hold over the boroughs than the assembly has over the Mayor?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is following the details of which issues we are discussing, but I think that it is right that the Mayor should have regard for the assembly’s views. The expectation that the Mayor be in general conformity with the assembly on a series of issues is challenging. The role of the assembly is to scrutinise; the role of the Mayor is to be the executive force in the city.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Minister has missed my point. If the use of the term “general regard” is good in one context, why should the Mayor not have general regard for a borough’s development plans in the same way that he should have general regard for the assembly’s comments?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Okay, now we have a third variable. We have “have regard to”, “have general regard” and “have general consistency”. We also have the possibility of “consistency”. There is a series of variables that we could apply. The point I made earlier was that different variables will apply to different sections of the Bill, because we are talking about different relationships and the different roles that the executive and scrutiny parts of the GLA must fulfil.

As we made clear on Second Reading, we are strengthening the position of the assembly. The independent inspector who examines a borough’s draft plan is the final arbiter of general conformity, not the Mayor. The Mayor can give his formal opinion, but the inspector rules on the issue.

New clause 12(8) would remove the power of the Mayor to refuse a planning application that was contrary to the London plan. It would not be right to remove that power, which is about dealing with major strategic planning applications. However, the issue goes to the heart of the disagreement between us. There are some strategic issues that affect London as a whole, over which it is important that we take a London-wide view. The decisions of an individual borough can have an impact not only on neighbouring boroughs, but on the city as a whole, its housing market and its prosperity. On that basis, it is right that the Mayor should continue to have the power to direct that planning applications be turned down.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

Will the Minister reassure us that the proposed procedures conform with the Human Rights Act 1998? She will be aware of controversies in recent years concerning that Act and the right to make representations in person when a planning decision is being taken.

A House of Commons Library paper states:

“Case law from both the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights has accepted that the taking of planning decisions by democratically elected politicians does not breach the convention. However, that conclusion is partly dependent upon procedural guarantees of fairness.”

Will the Minister tell us what the “procedural guarantees of fairness” in the proposed process are, given that it appears that decisions could be taken in behind-closed-doors meetings that nobody else is allowed to attend?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I will say more in due course about the procedures that need to apply and the safeguards that need to be in place, as well as about the safeguards provided by the Human Rights Act and the common law. First, I shall finish my remarks on new clause 12.

In the past six years, the Mayor has carried through 18 directions in London—an average of three per year. That number is out of an average of about 90,000 planning applications per year. I calculate that0.003 per cent. of planning applications in London are so directed by the Mayor. I am sure that a correction will flutter its way toward me if I have miscalculated my percentages, but 0.003 per cent. seems like a small proportion of planning applications. Therefore, it is right that the Mayor continues to have the power of direction.

Clause 31 introduces a parallel positive power. The Mayor currently has the power to block applications—what are effectively negative, anti-development powers, which can stop things that are important to the London plan. Those powers should be balanced bythe ability to support things that are important to the London plan, as against taking an unbalanced, anti-development approach.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

The Mayor is arguing in favour of the Bill on the basis that he will have involvement with only 1 per cent. of planning applications. If the Minister’s calculations are correct, that suggests that the number of applications he considers will go up by 333 per cent. If that is the case, surely it is too radical a change in approach to all planning applications.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Okay, I said that the Mayor had taken a decision on 0.003 per cent. of applications—not 3 per cent., but 0.003 per cent. That applies to the average number of cases on which he has taken a decision as a proportion of the planning applications in the most recent year; there may have been more applications in a previous year, which would change the percentages accordingly. Either way, 0.003 per cent. or 0.001 per cent. both seem pretty small figures to me.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

I apologise for misleading the Committee. The figure of 333 per cent. was far too low—the number of applications that the Mayor would consider would be 333 times larger. The Mayor is arguing that he should have control of 1 per cent. of total applications; if the Minister says that he currently controls 0.003 per cent. of them, 1 per cent. would represent a huge change.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

There may be some confusion about the number of decisions that the Mayor has taken and the number of cases that pass the threshold set out in the schedule. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall come to those issues later, rather than go round in circles discussing different small percentages.

Opposition Members are uneasy about any planning—

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Yes, but I shall then make some progress.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

I thank the Minister for giving way. May I take her back to Boxing day? It is worth considering how the Mayor is going about rejecting planning applications. Does she approve of a press release being issued to the Evening Standard on a no-approach basis on Boxing day? Is that the correct way for an elected person to determine planning applications in this country?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman obviously has concerns about the Mayor’s work-life balance and the timing of his holidays. Many of us would not want to issue press releases on Boxing day. Nevertheless, it is not for me to discuss with the Mayor exactly when he chooses to issue them.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

One advantage of the existing planning system—I mentioned it earlier—is that a planning report comes before a democratically elected and open committee that considers the officer’s recommendation and determines “yea” or “nay” accordingly. In turn, that recommendation will have been made after an investigation of the planning document, whether before a plan or a Bible.

The application that I mentioned was rejected by the Mayor on Boxing day. The report in front of him stated,

“on balance, the application will deliver substantial numbers of affordable homes, significantly above the overall strategic target for boroughs.”

Is the Minister still such a fan of the new process? Under it, the Mayor will be able to determine hundreds of applications across London in that way.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

No. I want to respond to that specific point, but only after I have made a little progress. The hon. Gentleman will know that obviously I cannot comment on individual cases that may yet go through the appeal process. He should also take into account the parallels with the Secretary of State’s planning process and not simply that of planning committees. However, I shall come back to the issue.

What we are discussing involves a city-wide role; big developments have an impact on the city as a whole, and that is why there should be a positive role for the Mayor—[Interruption.]

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. If Committee members wish to conduct audible conversations, I would prefer them to do so outside.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. We want the Mayor to intervene in and take decisions on only a small handful of cases; we do not think that he should decide a large number of cases. The order is designed to achieve what we want. It will be consulted on, and we will take into account the views expressed in this Committee as part of that consultation.

I should clarify the most recent figures. Some 90,000 planning applications are ongoing in London—there are sometimes as many as 100,000—and the current arrangements for the Mayor’s negative powers mean that about 300 cases a year are over the size threshold. That is about 0.3 per cent of cases—less than 1 per cent. of cases. The Mayor has on average used his powers of direction on three cases a year, because the fact that a case is above the threshold does not mean that it is necessarily an appropriate one for intervention. We are also applying the same threshold to the positive powers on housing, retail and commercial development. We are changing the thresholds on waste, and I hope that hon. Members will support our proposals, given the significance of waste issues for the Committee. I know that we shall discuss those later.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

On a point of clarification, of those applications that passed above the size threshold, what proportion did so as a result of the space that they occupied—the square footage or square meterage—what proportion did so because of the size of the development, by which I mean the number of dwellings, and what proportion did so because of their height?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I do not have the detailed figures to hand. I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with them, if he so chooses. He raises the kind of issue that we can discuss as part of the consultation on the order. As I said, we are applying the same thresholds to the positive powers on housing, retail and commercial development. That means that we would not expect any additional cases in those categories to be referred to the Mayor or to be passing the thresholds as a result of introducing these new powers. We are talking not about an increase in the number of cases referred to the Mayor but about continuing with the existing thresholds. All of those cases will currently be passing the thresholds, so we are not causing an increase.

We are changing the thresholds on waste and our approach on casinos and bus depots, and there are specific reasons for our doing so in each case. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made a specific point about casinos. He will be aware that the decision to issue a casino’s premises licence still rests with the London borough, as the licensing authority. It would not be possible for the Mayor to give the go-ahead to a casino and for a casino to start running in a borough that did not want one, because the borough retains the ability to license the casino in the first place.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

I think that the Minister omitted tram stops and depots. Can she confirm whether they are included, as that is of particular interest in west London, given the Mayor’s controversial proposal for a west London tram?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman will have seen the wording of the draft Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2007. We have added the specific reference to bus depots, because the Mayor has a concern that bus depots might be under pressure from housing or retail development and they are desperately needed to provide for the increase in buses and transport in the capital. If I may, I shall wait for the detailed clarification on trams to spring into my mind. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the order is not specifically being debated in this Committee. We will consult more widely on it, and I am happy to get back to him on that matter.

I return to the core issue of the number of cases to be decided by the Mayor. We are not increasing the number of cases that will pass the threshold. We are making it clear that there are additional tests in the order. The Mayor will need to demonstrate that a development is

“of such a nature or scale that there would be a significant impact on the implementation of the spatial development strategy.”

He must also take into account how far the council is delivering on the “relevant targets”. “Relevant” is important, because if the application were a housing application and the borough were meeting its housing target, that would be something that one would expect the Mayor to take into account—rather than him simply saying that there were grounds for intervention because the borough was not meeting its waste targets, for example. If a borough is delivering well on both affordable and overall housing, the application may be less significant to the London plan than if the borough is persistently failing to deliver the homes that are needed. That is the kind of territory around which the Mayor will need to make the case.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Mayor would be able to exercise his powers only over planning applications that went to the heart of the London plan, whereas in the order a new form of words is used that covers applications with a “significant impact.” As we all know, going to the heart of the London plan would mean tearing it apart, or propping it up. Significant impact is a lesser threshold. Will the Minister say why the threshold was weakened between Second Reading and the order?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have consulted extensively across and beyond London on a series of different possible tests, and we will consult further as part of the order. We are attempting to find a workable form of words that will allow some kind of clarity for developers, for the boroughs and for the Mayor as well. We are open to responses during the consultation, and we shall continue to consider. For example, we looked at whether there should be a geographic test—that was one of the issues on which we consulted as part of the earlier review. I think that there are still significant merits to that test, but London First argued that it would lead to greater uncertainty, and it was uneasy about it. Nevertheless, we will listen to the consultation response. Our clear intention is for the Mayor to decide on a small handful of cases—the same as for the negative powers, and the order should properly support that. The cases should be the right ones, and the right strategic focus should be delivered, but we shall continue to listen. After representations from London Councils and from London First, we have also changed the process so that the Mayor does not take over cases at the beginning, and can intervene only after the borough has dealt with the case in the normal way.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked some questions on the schedule, and there was an issue about whether category 3B included a wider category of cases. The provision simply transposes the thresholds and categories that were in place for the negative power. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I do not want the order to end up covering cases in which—simply coincidentally—there is a development in the same area as one that is completely unrelated yet happens to have occurred in the previous five years. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that there are also cases in which the planning applications for major developments are submitted in phases. Individual applications concentrate on a section of the plan, but the overall development may be extremely significant, so that overall strategic importance needs to be considered.

We believe that the existing definition of negative powers has not caused problems and we are therefore inclined to retain it, particularly as people are used to working with it, but I have asked officials to consider that and examine the cases that are emerging in practice. I am happy to examine further representations from boroughs if problems are being caused in practice.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington also asked some broader questions about the schedules. May I say to hon. Members that as far as possible we have replicated the criteria for the negative powers, because that allows for consistency and a simple standard, and tends to simplify the planning process? However, we recognise that in some areas the categories have been designed around the negative powers and therefore might not apply as appropriately to the positive ones. So we envisage certain adjustments and changes and will listen to the consultation responses to ensure that we give best effect to our policy intention, rather than produce confusing or perverse consequences owing to the way in which we have replicated the approach to the negative powers.

Hon. Members asked about propriety, which is important. The Mayor will indeed be an individual decision maker and we have made it clear that he cannot delegate his powers to someone else if, for example, he has a conflict of interest, financial interest or development conflict. He will be the decision maker in the same way as a Secretary of State, but there will be some applications on which he should not and cannot make a decision, such as those on certain Olympic developments because he has clearly championed the Olympics. That is one of the reasons that the Olympic Development Agency’s powers will not be one of the areas in which he can take control of decision making—clearly he cannot play both roles. That is important.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for that clarification. As well as championing the Olympics, the Mayor has championed tall buildings. Yet the Bill contains a provision for him to intervene on planning applications for buildings more than 30 m high—10 storeys. If the Mayor cannot intervene in Olympic planning applications because he has, in technical terms, a predetermined view, why on earth should he be given the freedom to interfere in tall building applications when he has, in planning terms, an explicitly predetermined view?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the process contains a series of safeguards, which I shall spell out to Opposition Members. It is important that decisions be taken fairly, that people do not take them on matters in which they have a personal or financial interest, where they have not considered all the evidence or where they could be said to have prejudged the application. In the current process, those safeguards apply to planning committees and the Secretary of State and are in common law as well as codes of practice—they are not in primary legislation. The Mayor must abide by that common law in precisely the same way as Secretaries of State and planning committees. He must also have a clear code of practice to ensure transparency in the way in which he operates.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

But if those safeguards are so strong—from what the Minister says, they sound very strong—why is it still necessary to exempt the Olympics? My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath asked about the difference between predetermination in Olympic applications and those for tall buildings.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The issue around the Olympics is that there is no need to include it. We did not make a specific decision that, because of the Olympics and propriety issues, we need additional safeguards or consideration. We do not think that there is any need to include the Olympics because, given the Mayor’s championing role, he should not be taking those decisions. There is a series of reasons for that. I do not think that it is about providing extra special protection—there is simply no need for the Mayor to have that role. Obviously, he will have to take his own decisions to ensure that in other cases where he is playing the role of champion he should not take over the planning application process and go against those common law safeguards, which will be in his code of conduct as well. Whether that prevents him from taking over policy issues is a different matter because, for example, the Secretary of State could be said to champion issues such as the green belt, zero-carbon homes and so on. Nobody argues that because the Secretary of State has championed those policies it is inappropriate for him to be the decision maker in an appeal. That is the difference in practice.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Will the Minister help me? I have been following her argument carefully and I understand what she is saying, but I am concerned about a practical matter. She said earlier that the Mayor would not be able to delegate his planning powers. I agree that, equally, there are certain circumstances in which on the face of it, applications that pass the test and should be determined by the Mayor, should not be, because of the championing role. But who then would take the decision? Would it go upwards to the Secretary of State or should somebody else deal with it? The Mayor has no junior Minister.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Indeed, so the borough would take the decision unless the Secretary of State called it in for some reason. The issue is simply about the Mayor having to choose under which circumstances he can exercise the powers that the Bill specifies. The Bill does not simply operate as a constraint on the cases in which the Mayor can intervene; there is also the common law and issues about propriety.

Hon. Members have raised questions about the Mayor taking decisions on his own. We must recognise that Secretaries of State are individual decision makers, and that they can take decisions on their own, in the bath or while shaving, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath suggested. I caution hon. Members about the idea of having to take the decision in public, because we could end up with an awful lot of people having a boring time while the Mayor sits and ponders matters. Important issues have been raised about whether evidence should be heard in public. There is no substantial issue in principle about the Mayor being an individual decision maker, however, as those provisions exist in our current system.

The Mayor would not be able to take over an application on the basis of small concerns about section 106 disagreements; any takeover would have to be on the basis of an application’s significant impact on the London plan. It would be hard to argue that a limited section 106 disagreement had a significant impact on the London plan. That is the crux of the decision making. The resources from the section 106 agreement would go to the organisations responsible for providing those services, just as they do normally.

It is sensible to provide for a positive power that matches the negative power. It will apply only to a small number of cases, and we will continue to consult on the order and how we ensure that we get the details right. The provision will help with the delivery of the London plan, which is important, and it will allow a sensible, strategic approach to an important capital city that requires good planning for its economy and its housing market.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

I made a specific point, which the Minister has not answered, about the compatibility of the process with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

We believe that the legislation is compatible with the Human Rights Act, and one of us has signed a declaration to that effect. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is an obligation on every public body to interpret the legislation in compliance with the Act, too. There are some interesting issues about being able to hear evidence in public, and the taking of the decision in public may be impractical. We do not require the Secretary of State to take her decisions in public, with people sitting around her as she does so. The legislation before us complies with the Human Rights Act, and all powers would need to be exercised in compliance with it.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

The current Mayor would be very happy to take those decisions in public. Does the Minister think that he has shown a misjudgment as to its practicality in expressing that view?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

If the current Mayor wants a load of people with him as he pores over documents, he is welcome to do so. We are cautious about requiring it in legislation, but it is important to provide transparency of process. I am not sure how much transparency there is in sitting in a room and watching someone’s face twitch while they read particular pages of a document. That is slightly different from a public committee. Nevertheless, the Mayor will have some scope to choose how he interprets certain aspects of the Bill. With that, I urge hon. Members to allow the clauses to stand part of the Bill, and to reject new clause 12.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. O’Hara. I begin by giving notice to the Committee that we would like to press new clause 12 to a Division at the appropriate moment later in the Committee’s proceedings. I would also like to give notice that we are disappointed that the Minister, after the force of logic deployed earlier in the debate, still feels that she has to stand by the clauses and has not recognised how poorly drafted they were by those whom she charged with that duty.

I want to mention three things in emphasising why we feel that it is important to insist that the clauses be removed. First, I congratulate the Minister on noting that the hon. Member for Ealing, North had managed, in the debate this morning, to mention seven members of the Aberdeen football team who won the European Cup Winners Cup in 1983. She pointed out that he still had four to name. I have to correct her on a point of fact—it is always painful for me to do so. There are in fact five whom the hon. Gentleman still has to name because, as she will be aware, there was a late substitution that materially affected the result of that football match.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

The hon. Gentleman is defending his position much in the style of Neale Cooper. Does he realise, in using the tactics of Eric Black and Peter Weir and being slightly more aggressive, that he should actually be retrenching rather than attacking? Done it!

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Like me, Mr. O’Hara, you will be delighted to know that the hon. Gentleman has managed to write himself into the history books by managing to mention in the course of one day’s debate on the Greater London Authority Bill all 12 members of that winning team. For the consideration of the Committee, I have produced a research paper on what happened to every member of the team. I shall not go into those matters now, but I would be happy to share it with hon. Members afterwards.

I want to raise two points briefly. The first is the Maginot line argument, and the second is the “Minister falling at the first hurdle” argument. In the order that has been laid for our consideration as part of the clauses, the Government have gone into some detail as to what might be termed a strategic application. Indeed, several of the categories mentioned would seem to anyone to qualify as strategic: aircraft runways, heliports, railway or tram stations crossing over or under the River Thames. All of us would acknowledge that those were strategic. It therefore seems as though a defence has been created in the order against the arbitrary exercise of mayoral powers—that we have an effective defensive line, as it were.

The problem, as we all know, is that one can always move around defensive lines. The Maginot line can be outflanked. The Ardennes in this Bill, as it were—the area that is thickly wooded but can be penetrated by a determined attacker—is in article 8 of the order, which states that

“the Mayor may ... if he considers that any of the issues raised by the development”

would have

“a significant impact on the implementation of the spatial development strategy”,

determine that planning application. The Mayor can say, “Well, it may not meet any of the criteria”—so carefully laid down by the Government in their order—“but I believe that it will have a significant impact.”

As the Minister has conceded, “a significant impact” is a lesser threshold than going to the heart of the London plan or the spatial development strategy, which is the test that she introduced on Second Reading. Despite the fact that she insists that she does not always agree with the Mayor, the Mayor’s desire to have more planning powers has been acceded to by the fact that we already have a weaker order than we were promised on Second Reading.

What does that mean in practical terms? I mentioned this morning a development in Commerce road in Hounslow that the Mayor took a view on—a negative view, as it happens. That development could have been decided in one of two ways, depending on the interpretation of the London plan. The Mayor said that the development deserved to go ahead because it fitted with the London plan’s requirement for more affordable housing. Many of us might choose to agree with him. However, in supporting that planning proposal, he undermined another part of the London plan, which is the requirement for strategic employment land to be made available in that part of London. There were two irreconcilable aspects of the London plan.

There will be many planning applications and many areas of potential development where an irreconcilable balance between aspects of the London plan may arise, and the Mayor will be able to decide which aspect he considers likely to have a significant impact on the London plan. The licence for him to intervene will be considerably greater than a casual reading of the order would lead us to believe. In that respect, we simply cannot support a transfer to the Mayor of powers that would give him the opportunity to interfere in a significantly greater number of planning applications than that on which he has already chosen to express an opinion. We rehearsed at length this morning the reason why the Mayor might wish to interfere in planning applications.

Having dealt with the Maginot line, I want briefly to discuss falling at the first hurdle. These comments relate to the Minister’s admission during her remarks on the Olympics and tall buildings, when she got herself into an uncharacteristic fankle. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, “fankle” is an old Scots word that manages to combine both tangle and twist, but with a particularly parochially appropriate and alliterative power.

The Minister got herself in a tangle and a twist, much as I almost did in that etymological diversion, on the question of the Olympics and tall buildings. She said that the Olympics—and, for that matter, the Thames Gateway development, but particularly the Olympics—were taken out of the order because the Mayor has a view on them; he is a champion of the Olympics and we cannot have him interfering there. But we can have him interfering in all sorts of other areas where he has a predetermined view. The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either the Olympics can be included because we can trust the Mayor to deal with them—the Minister mentioned common law and other guarantees—or it cannot be included if we cannot trust him. Indeed, this Mayor or a future Mayor cannot be trusted if they have expressed an opinion.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Olympics and the ODA refer to specific sites, whereas policies on tall buildings, zero-carbon buildings and affordable housing apply across London as a whole? Those policies affect the city as a whole, as opposed to something that affects individual sites, which was the issue that he raised at the beginning, and the provenance of the ODA.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I fear that the Minister probably is not as familiar with the order as she should be, because if she were aware of precisely how tall buildings are dealt with in it and in the pre-existing one, she would recognise that tall building legislation does apply to specific sites: those that are adjacent to the Thames and those that are in the City of London. The order is geographically specific, and it includes other details.

I take the Minister’s point, but her Department has a generalised policy on, for example, zero-carbon development, and the Secretary of State exercises his or her power on specific planning applications within that framework. The Minister introduced the Olympic exception, as it will become known hereafter, so she is the person who has erected the hurdle, and she is the person who will fall at it. We cannot allow the clauses to become part of the Bill when they have such a weakly defined and contradictory order as their basis, and that is why I reluctantly confess that we shall vote against them.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The Minister made a valiant but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to convince Liberal Democrat Members that there was no possibility of mission creep in respect of the Mayor’s planning powers. His track record so far is one of intervention in matters that are of a non-strategic nature, and she is giving him scope to intervene to a greater extent in such matters. Therefore I shall certainly join the official Opposition in voting against the clauses.

Clause 31

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 36, line 20, at end insert—

‘ “2D Application to be heard in public

Mayoral decisions on planning applications shall be made in public after public oral representations by interested parties.”.’.

The amendment relates heavily to the debate that we have just had, and to an extent some of the arguments were pre-empted by the Minister in her summing-up. I do not think that there is any shame in the Minister having done so, because the amendment is so intimately involved with that debate and discussion. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that the exercise of the Mayor’s planning powers is put on a statutory footing when it comes to the question of public consultation. In the previous debate we rehearsed the way in which the Mayor—apart from the Secretary of State, who exercises a unique power—is a one-man or one-woman planning authority.

The case for public involvement in the process of the Mayor deliberating on planning applications has already been conceded in principle in the order that relates to the Mayor’s exercise of positive planning powers. The Minister has acknowledged that it would be perfectly possible for the Mayor, if he wished, to shape a public hearing after he had received an application from the individual or from the developer who was pushing a planning application or from the borough that was or had been responsible for deciding it. In certain circumstances, we already have a procedure to allow the Mayor to give his deliberations in public and to receive evidence in public. Unfortunately, the provision in the order allows the Mayor to decide the scope of the tribunal or hearing. It seems to us that our amendment would put on a statutory footing the requirement that we would set out not for the Mayor, but for all time through this House for the way that such a public hearing should take place.

If the Government believe that it is important on such a matter—they clearly do, given the detail into which they have gone in the order—to lay down centrally what a strategic planning application might be, for example, how much more important is it for Government to lay down how the Mayor should exercise those powers in public rather than leaving it for this Mayor or a future Mayor to decide on a matter of whim how he might seek to do so? When the Minister was discussing the exercise of those powers in public, she made it seem almost as though we were being invited to vote for some sort of return to ancient Greece, where the citizens of London would gaze on the Mayor—as though, like Socrates, he would sit there with one fist underneath his chin as he deliberated on the planning applications—waiting, waiting, waiting until he delivered himself of his view. The truth, however, is that what we would require and what the amendment seeks to promote is a means whereby the Mayor would have to justify in public the decision to which he came, to publish in public the papers that govern that decision, to take evidence in public from those who had a material interest and to ensure a greater degree of transparency.

I should say that that initiative, far from being the quixotic view of those on the Conservative Benches, is soundly based on the Greater London assembly’s report on planning, “Behind Closed Doors”, which I earlier commended to the Committee. If the Minister feels that for any reason the amendment is not drafted precisely as she would like, I will make her an offer. If she wishes to come up with an appropriate new clause either in the course of this Committee or on Report with a means of putting on a statutory footing how the Mayor should decide those applications, we are more than willing to meet her to discuss that. It seems that to leave the decision entirely to the Mayor in the order, which is pendant on our discussions, is to leave in the hands of a future incumbent of that office a power that we in this House should delineate today.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

This morning we had a full discussion of the risks associated with a one-man planning authority. In an intervention, I invited the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to speculate on the scenario of a Mayor with a financial interest in a particular application. I did not want to give the Committee the impression that I was impugning the present Mayor’s probity, but I think that we need to prepare for all eventualities. It is our business to tackle hypothetical situations, hence the need for the amendment to ensure that the process is totally transparent.

I have served as a local councillor on two councils. The first was Labour Hackney in the late ’80s, where little was done to promote affordable housing and council keys were sold to people who were not legitimate tenants. More recently, I served in the London borough of Sutton. I know the pressures that local councillors face when they are asked to consider planning matters in which they are discouraged from entering into any discussion with developers. Councils must have a full and open consultation process and go overboard in providing their residents with information about planning matters. If they do not, God forbid, the residents’ response will be very strong indeed. The amendment would make the process public by ensuring that everything is fully documented, all the documents in which decisions are based are in the public domain and everything is open to scrutiny.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham)

Is it not also the case that the current Mayor seems to support the amendment? His submission to us said:

“The Mayor is also content for the meeting at which he hears representations to be open to the public and broadcast over the internet. He is also happy to take his decisions on any applications he has taken over in public.”

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am grateful for that intervention. If the Government do not go down the road that we are proposing in the amendment, the Mayor has committed himself on record to certain things to which we will be able to hold him.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that this intervention will have nothing whatever to do with the working man’s ballet. He is making a powerful case in support of the official Opposition’s amendment. The last two words of the amendment are “interested parties”. Bearing in mind that there is not a person on this planet who is not interested in London, has he given any thought to the possible consequences of any person describing themselves as an interested party making oral representations? Surely that is a recipe for ultimate gridlock.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who speaks for the official Opposition, has addressed that point. He invited the Minister for Housing and Planning, if she is not satisfied with the wording of the amendment, to present an alternative. A precedent was set by the Minister for London when he agreed to draft an alternative to amendment No. 38. We hold out the hope that the Minister for Housing and Planning and Labour Members will see the amendment as straightforward and entirely in keeping with our debate, and we think that they can support it. It is about transparency. We do not have a proprietary hold on the amendment. If the Government want to come forward with their alternative, I am sure that it would receive support from these Benches.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. We certainly attempted in the order to introduce transparency into the procedures that the Mayor must follow. As a minimum, he must hear oral representations from the applicant and the local authority, if it so wishes, before making a decision. That goes further than requirements placed on other local planning authorities. There is no requirement for local planning authorities to allow oral representations to be made to planning committees.

There are also procedures for the Mayor to publish a statement setting out lists of other persons who will hear oral representations for other procedures to be followed and so on. As I said earlier, I have sympathy with the idea that, in fact, those oral representations should take place in public. We should take that into account in the order because it is an important part of the process of delivering transparency. However, I reiterate the fact that there are serious practical worries about trying to replicate the role of Socrates, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath suggested. If the current Mayor chooses to emulate Socrates, that is obviously a matter for him. However, I do not think that it is a sensible issue to be dealt with under primary legislation.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit with which she has so far approached the principle of openness, with which we all agree. Does she accept that, because of the importance to those involved of planning and the issues that we have discussed, the Government should concede as a matter of principle the commitment to having the planning hearings take place in public. Whatever wording is used, that principle is so important that it should be outlined in the Bill rather than be dependent on the concession of a Mayor or made under regulations? That is what we are driving at.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Again, I say that the matter is about process. It is better dealt with under secondary legislation than under primary legislation. I am happy to agree to the principle about hearing representations in public rather than in private, but such a process is most sensibly dealt with as part of the order under secondary legislation rather than by primary legislation. That approach reflects the practical approach that we take to other aspects of planning deliberations. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I do understand the intention behind it and have sought to set out the Government’s response.

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am disappointed that the Government have not responded in the way that we would wish, although I acknowledge the gracious way in which the Minister has dealt with the spirit of the amendment. There is a disagreement between us about how precisely to achieve the goal that I think we both share, although we have greater ardour in wishing to see the Mayor held to account publicly. We shall therefore press the amendment to a Division.

Clause 32

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

For the illumination of the Committee, because we lost the vote on that clause and because the other clauses are more or less consequent on clause 31 we are now reluctantly content to allow the other clauses the stand part of the Bill. As we lost the vote on clause 31, we will not contest the other clauses, so with the Minister’s permission and your permission, Mr. O’Hara, we can move on to the next debate. The final point that I wish to stress is that we and, I suspect, the Liberal Democrats may wish to table further amendments on Report that deal specifically with planning proposals. However, at this stage we acknowledge that the vote has been won by the Government.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

That is clearly understood and very helpful, thank you.

Clause 36

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clause 37 stand part.

Amendment No. 62, in clause 39, page 41, line 45, at end insert—

‘(iv) the London Waste Authority,’.

Amendment No. 64, in schedule 2, page 53, line 36, at end insert—

‘Section 356(3).’.

New clause 35—London Waste Authority

‘(1) After section 359 of the GLA Act 1999 (confidential information about waste contracts) insert—

“359A London Waste Authority

(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the London Waste Authority.

(2) The London Waste Authority shall have the functions conferred or imposed on it by this Act, or made exercisable by it under this Act, and any reference in this Act to the functions of the London Waste Authority includes a reference to any functions made exercisable by it under this Act.

(3) The London Waste Authority shall have—

(a) the functions of the waste disposal authority for Greater London for the purposes of Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43), and

(b) any other such functions as are conferred or imposed on it by this Act.

(4) The London Waste Authority shall exercise its functions—

(a) in accordance with such guidance or directions as may be issued to it by the Mayor under section 359B(1),

(b) for the purpose of facilitating the discharge by the Greater London Authority of the duties under sections 353 to 361E of the GLA Act 1999, and

(c) for the purpose of securing or facilitating the implementation of the municipal waste management strategy.

(5) Schedule 29A shall have effect with respect to the London Waste Authority.

(6) The control of places provided for the deposit of household waste in Greater London under section 1(1) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (c. 3) and 51(1)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) shall transfer to the London Waste Authority.

(7) The authorities established by Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the Waste Regulation and Disposal (Authorities) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985/1884) are dissolved, whereupon any remaining property, rights or liabilities are transferred to the London Waste Authority.

359B Directions etc by the Mayor

(1) The Mayor may issue to the London Waste Authority—

(a) guidance as to the manner in which it is to exercise its functions,

(b) general directions as to the manner in which it is to exercise its functions, or

(c) specific directions as to the exercise of its functions.

(2) Directions issued by the Mayor under subsection (1)(c) may include a direction not to exercise a power specified in the direction.

(3) The guidance or directions which may be issued by the Mayor under subsection (1) may include in particular guidance or directions as to the manner in which the London Waste Authority—

(a) is to perform any of its duties, or

(b) is to conduct any legal proceedings.

(4) Any guidance or directions issued under subsection (1) must be issued in writing and notified to such officer of the London Waste Authority as it may from time to time nominate to the Mayor for the purpose.”.

(2) After Schedule 29 of the GLA Act 1999 insert Schedule 29A set out in Schedule [London Waste Authority] to this Act.

(3) Schedule [London Waste Authority - consequential amendments] shall have effect.’.

New clause 36—Powers and duties of the London Waste Authority

‘(1) After section 359B of the GLA Act 1999 (inserted by section [London Waste Authority] (1) of this Act) insert—

“359C Sustainable disposal of waste

When exercising its functions under section 51(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (functions of waste disposal authorities), the London Waste Authority shall—

(a) do so in a manner calculated to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom,

(b) take into account any policies announced by Her Majesty’s Government with respect to climate change or the consequences of climate change, and

(c) comply with any guidance or directions issued to the London Waste Authority by the Secretary of State or the Mayor with respect to the means by which, or manner in which, the London Waste Authority is to perform the duties imposed on it by paragraph (a) or (b) above.

359D Publicity and advice

(1) The London Waste Authority may promote or undertake publicity in any form.

(2) The London Waste Authority shall promote—

(a) the reduction and reuse of waste in Greater London, and

(b) the sustainable management of waste in Greater London.

(3) The London Waste Authority may advise companies operating in Greater London on the items referred to in subsection (2).

359E Waste management

The London Waste Authority may apply for a waste management licence under section 36 (grant of licences) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) for the purposes of treating, keeping or disposing of waste that is delivered to it by a person other than a waste collection authority.

359F Power of the London Waste Authority to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament

(1) The London Waste Authority—

(a) may promote a local Bill in Parliament; and

(b) may oppose any local Bill in Parliament.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) applies only if the Greater London Authority—

(a) gives its written consent to the Bill; and

(b) confirms that consent in writing as soon as practicable after the expiration of 14 days after Bill has been deposited in Parliament.

(3) If the Greater London Authority does not confirm the consent as required by subsection (2)(b), it shall give notice of that fact to the London Waste Authority, which shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the Bill.

(4) If the Authority, in giving notice under subsection (3), states that it confirms its consent to the Bill if provisions specified in the notice are omitted or are amended as so specified, the London Waste Authority may, instead of withdrawing the Bill pursuant to subsection (3), take all necessary steps for the omission or, as the case may be, the amendment of the provisions in question in accordance with the notice.

(5) Without prejudice to subsections (2) to (4), the functions conferred on the London Waste Authority by subsection (1)(a) are exercisable subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Schedule 29B.

(6) Subsection (1)(b) applies only if the Greater London Authority gives its written consent to the London Waste Authority to oppose the Bill.

(7) If—

(a) the London Waste Authority deposits a petition against a Bill in Parliament, but

(b) the consent required by subsection (6) has not been given before the end of the period of 30 days following the day on which the petition is deposited,

the London Waste Authority shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the petition.

(8) The functions conferred or imposed on the Greater London Authority by this section shall be functions of the Greater London Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Greater London Authority.

(9) Before exercising the functions conferred on the Greater London Authority by subsections (2)(a) or (b), (4) or (6), the Mayor shall consult the Assembly.

359G Joint exercise of functions

(1) The London Waste Authority may discharge any of its functions jointly with one or more local authorities and, where arrangements are in force for them to do so,—

(a) they may also arrange for the discharge of those functions by a joint committee of theirs or by an officer of one of them and section 101(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) shall apply in relation to those functions as it applies in relation to the functions of the individual authorities; and

(b) any enactment relating to those functions or the authorities by whom or the areas in respect of which they are to be discharged shall have effect subject to all necessary modifications in its application in relation to those functions and the authorities by whom and the areas in respect of which (whether in pursuance of the arrangements or otherwise) they are to be discharged.

(2) Arrangements made under subsection (1) by the London Waste Authority and one or more local authorities with respect to the discharge of any of their functions shall cease to have effect with respect to that function if, or to the extent that, the function becomes the responsibility of an executive of any of the local authorities.

(3) Subsection (2) does not affect arrangements made by virtue of section 20 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (joint exercise of functions).”.

(2) In section 360(1) of the GLA Act 1999 for “359”substitute “359G”.

(3) In section 51(4A) of the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990 (c. 43) after “but” insert “in the case of a waste disposal authority that is not the London Waste Authority”.

(4) After section 51(1) of the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990 (c. 43) insert—

“(1A) It shall be the duty of the London Waste Authority to arrange for places to be provided at which persons resident in its area may deposit their household waste to be reused or recycled and to make arrangements for the reuse and recycling of such waste.”.

(5) Section 48(2) (duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 shall not apply to waste collection authorities in Greater London.

(6) After Schedule 29A of the GLA Act 1999 (inserted by section [London Waste Authority] (2) of this Act) insert Schedule 29B set out in Schedule [Promotion of Bills in Parliament by the London Waste Authority] to this Act.’.

New clause 37—Mayor to prepare minerals and waste development scheme

‘(1) PCPA 2004 shall be amended as follows—

(a) in section 16(1) after “district council” insert “and the Mayor of London”; and

(b) in section 16(3)(a) after “county council” insert “and the Mayor of London, as appropriate”.

(2) The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/2204) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) after “county council” insert “and the Mayor of London”;

(b) in regulation 12(3) after “scheme” insert “prepared by a county council”; and

(c) after regulation 12(3) insert—

“(4) Where paragraph (1) or (2) applies to a minerals and waste development scheme prepared by the Mayor of London, within 2 weeks he must send a copy of—

(a) the scheme, or

(b) the scheme incorporating the revision,

to teach local planning authority in Greater London.”.’.

New clause 38—Municipal waste management strategy

‘(1) The GLA Act 1999 shall be amended as follows—

(a) omit “municipal” in—

(i) section 353(2)(b) (the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy), and

(ii) section 353(5)(e); and

(b) in section 355 (duties of waste collection authorities etc.) for “Part II” substitute “Part 2 or section 89 of Part 4”.

(2) After section 357(4) of the GLA Act 1999 insert—

“(4A) Where the Mayor has been notified by a waste authority under subsection (1), (2) or (4) he shall consult the London Waste Authority.”.’.

New clause 39—London waste charging scheme

‘After section 359G of the GLA Act 1999 (inserted by section [Powers and duties of the London Waste Authority] (1) of this Act) insert—

“359H London waste charging scheme

(1) The Mayor may by order make a scheme to charge waste collection authorities in London for the delivery of waste to the London Waste Authority, to be known as the London waste charging scheme.

(2) An order under this section may—

(a) specify charges for the delivery to the London Waste Authority by a waste collection authority of waste;

(b) impose a charge per tonne of delivered waste;

(c) impose separate charges for different types of waste based on the technology or processes used to manage or dispose of such waste;

(d) make different provisions for different cases, including different provisions in relation to different waste collection authorities, circumstances or localities;

(e) provide for the times at which, and the manner in which, the charges prescribed by the scheme are to be paid;

(f) revoke or amend any previous charging scheme; or

(g) contain supplemental, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions for the purposes of the scheme.

(3) The power of the Mayor to make an order under this section includes a power exercisable by order to revoke, amend or re-enact any such order.

(4) An order made by the Mayor under this section shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by an order made by the Secretary of State.”.’.

New clause 40—Transfer schemes

‘After section 359H of the GLA Act 1999 (inserted by section [London waste charging scheme] of this Act) insert—

“359I Transfer schemes

(1) The power conferred by subsection (2) is exercisable in connection with the establishment of the London Waste Authority.

(2) The London Waste Authority may make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities from any body falling within subsection (3) to any other such body as specified in or determined in accordance with the scheme.

(3) Those bodies are—

(a) the London Waste Authority,

(b) any subsidiary of the London Waste Authority;

(c) any local authority in Greater London; and

(d) an authority established by Part 2, 3, 4 or 5 of Schedule 1 to the Waste Regulation and Disposal (Authorities) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985/1884).

(4) On a date specified by a scheme as the date on which the scheme is to have effect, the designated property, rights or liabilities are transferred and vest in accordance with the scheme.

(5) A scheme under this section shall not take effect unless and until it has been approved by the Mayor.

(6) Where a scheme under this section is submitted to the Mayor for his approval, he may, after consultation with the London Waste Authority, modify the scheme before approving it.

(7) The transfers which may be made by virtue of a scheme under this section include transfers taking effect before, onor after the dissolution of the joint waste authorities under section 359A(7).

(8) Schedule 12 (which makes further provision in relation to schemes under this section) shall have effect.”.’.

New clause 42—Litter

‘(1) Section 360 of the GLA Act 1999 (interpretation) is amended as follows.

(2) In the definition of “waste contract” in subsection (2) for “Part 2 of that Act (waste on land)” substitute “Part 2 (waste on land) or section 89 of Part 4 (Litter etc.) of that Act”.’.

New schedule 1—

‘London Waste Authority

This is the Schedule that is to be inserted as Schedule 29A to the GLA Act 1999—

None

Michael Gove (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

For the convenience of the Committee, the most material changes to the Bill are contained in the amendments and the schedules consequent to the amendments that stand in the name of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. As the most radical changes to the Bill are contained in the proposal that stands in her name, any response from ourselves and from the Government should follow on from that Member making her case and I am happy to let her do so if that is convenient to you, Mr. O’Hara.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to clauses 35 to 40 and 42 and amendmentsNos. 62 and 64 and the consequent new schedules. I apologise to the Committee in advance for what will be a failure to rise to the giddy heights of the previous debate when every 12 members of the Cup Winners cup team were mentioned. I have managed to include subtly within my speech a reference to every one of Britain’s entries to the Eurovision song contest between 1964 to 1977, with the exception of Lulu’s 1969 entry “Boom Bang A Bang” , which was frankly just too difficult. It is fair to say that I am surprised to be introducing these amendments, because a cursory glance at my website would reveal that waste disposal in London has not featured in my top 500 policy interests to date. None the less, having attended a Mayor’s briefing on this issue, armed with hot pins to retain my sense of purpose, I was completely converted to the case that was put to me. With your forbearance, Mr. O’Hara, I will spend a few minutes outlining the key points.

The central issue—establishing a single waste disposal authority for London—stems from the recognition that the existing arrangements and changes proposed by the Government are not capable of bringing about the step change in waste management that will be necessary if we are to offer Londoners the most efficient and effective waste management strategy and avoid liability for potentially extensive fines for landfill in future. Such an authority will enable us to drive further improvements on the waste hierarchy, reducing landfill and incineration, particularly without incidental benefit, and increase recycling capacity, helping us make further progress on the climate-change agenda.

Under the current proposal, the waste disposal arrangements for London remain cumbersome and unco-ordinated with no single body responsible for recycling and disposal operations at city level. The proposals do not alter the fundamental weakness in the system that has left London trailing in this country and internationally and allowed it to slip further down the league table of comparable city regions in recent years. However, all parties fundamentally agree about what we would like to see. We need efficient and effective management of the system and proper value for taxpayers; a dramatic reduction in landfill for environmental purposes and to avoid liability for landfill tax; incineration should be offset by the use of energy used for heat and power; the distance travelled during waste disposal should be subject to the maximum reduction possible; environmentally friendly transport methods should be used; and there should be increases in recycling and value for taxpayers. The Government’s favoured approach does not best place us to realise those objectives. That statement is based on past performance and on objective and independent research on the effectiveness of the strategy to date.

There are three key arguments, among many, which I should like to spend a few moments discussing. First, on the coherence of the existing arrangements, the Government have stated that creating a single waste disposal authority would mean separating functions of waste collection and disposal, which would make it more difficult to manage waste effectively and could cause confusion for residents about who was accountable for their services. That is a bizarre argument, given that 21 of London’s boroughs already have a two-tier waste management system, under which collection and disposal are separated.

The single waste disposal authority that I propose would have local political representation on its board. The proposed structure for the single waste disposal authority means that many of its day-to-day operations would be undertaken sub-regionally. Local residents tend to be aware of their local recycling and waste collection services, but waste disposal remains largely out of sight for the public. A single organisation responsible for waste disposal and accountable to the Mayor of London is likely to have a far higher public profile than existing waste disposal authorities and would be directly accountable to the people of London through the Mayor, rather than through joint waste disposal authorities that collectively process and dispose of between 60 and 70 per cent. of London’s waste. Those are little better than quangos, with no direct accountability to the people whom they serve. Waste management is separated between county councils, and between district councils in the shire counties, yet their recycling performance does not suggest that this makes waste management more difficult. The average household recycling rate in two-tier areas in 2005-06 was 31 per cent., compared with 23 per cent. in unitary areas.

The United Kingdom’s largest waste management company, Biffa Waste Services, in its response to the consultation on the Mayor’s powers, stated:

“We believe that time is rapidly running out to achieve sensible decision frameworks for one of the most significant flows of waste in the UK economy. London could be a benchmark for the entire UK economy by demonstrating boldness in its economic, technological, and socio-political decision making framework. It is unlikely that such vision can be achieved within the current framework compared to the strategic vision offered by the Mayor’s office”.

All of that broadly finds favour with the public,50 per cent. of whom—pollings rated 2:1—favour the strategic approach over the mess that we have now.

I accept that the structure proposed by the Government is, in some ways, a strengthening of the extant position, but it is a diagram—I know that we are not allowed to introduce visual aids, Mr. O’Hara—that Heath Robinson would reject for its unnecessary complexity. I am absolutely confident that anyone looking at that bowl of spaghetti would favour the clarity that a single authority would bring. What matters is not the bureaucratic structure but the extent to which a structure is capable of delivering on the environmental objectives of effective waste disposal.

I think we all agree that at the heart of this is the desire to reduce landfill for economic and, above all, environmental reasons. In support of the current delivery mechanism, the Government say that local authorities are on track towards reducing their use of landfill and therefore are not at risk of incurring the fines that will befall them if they do not meet their objectives. That is prayed in aid as a case for not needing the significant and radical change of having a single waste authority, but I do not accept those arguments.

London has two large-scale waste incineration plants that manage 20 per cent. of London’s waste between them. That is significantly more than in any other region, which has led to there being false confidence in London’s ability to meet landfill targets, particularly after 2010. The real tipping point with landfill targets will come between 2010 and 2013, but many London authorities have no plans or procurements to ensure that there will be an infrastructure in place to cope with that tipping point. The GLA estimates that four fifths of London’s authorities are at high or medium risk of not meeting their landfill obligations. Even the construction of the Belvedere incinerator would not substantially alter that position.

About two thirds of London’s waste is buried in landfill sites, and most of that amount is taken to sites in the surrounding counties. The Mayor has set a target that London should be 80 per cent. self-sufficient in managing its municipal waste by 2020. That level of self-sufficiency is needed to meet landfill directive targets and avoid landfill fines of up to £1.7 billion between now and 2020.

By 2020, London will need four times its existing capacity for recycling and three times its existing capacity for waste treatment. A GLA assessment indicates that four fifths of London waste disposal authorities are at risk of failing to deliver the landfill directive targets. Whilst the Government are concerned in the short term about changing governance arrangements and the risk of failing to deliver on early landfill directive targets, the real challenge is in the medium to long term. Estimated fines for landfill could be £35 million in 2010, rising to £139 million in 2013 and £232 million by 2020.

The Government have completely missed the point by focusing only on short-term landfill directive targets, because the targets will become progressively harder to meet. Waste disposal authorities in England must collectively reduce the biodegradable waste that they send to landfill to 75 per cent. of their 1995 levels by 2010, 50 per cent. by 2013 and 35 per cent. by 2020. It is because the real risk to London, in terms of failing to achieve targets, is in the medium to long term that I believe, as does the Mayor, that it is essential to make the radical changes needed to allow London as a whole to meet those targets by putting in place the support and investment mechanisms required to enable us to avoid those risks.

Both the amount of landfill and the risk of receiving fines could be reduced in several ways. Currently,20 per cent. of London’s waste is incinerated, and that level is set to rise to between 33 per cent. and 38 per cent. depending on whether the Government’s or the GLA’s figures are accepted. That is a substantial proportion of the UK total.

We need to take care that incineration does not drive out the scope both for new technologies, such as gasification and pyrolysis, and for recycling. The new technologies always sound to me like particularly unpleasant stomach complaints, but they are at the cutting edge of alternatives to landfill and incineration and produce a number of beneficial side products that, among other things, permit creation of heat and energy and provide scope for hydrogen production to feed London’s bus fleet.

It is absolutely clear that, on the basis of current developments, the scope for investing in new technologies and in plant to boost recycling is at risk of being driven out by the emphasis on incineration. Recycling as it stands is unsatisfactory and London’s performance is poor. Some London boroughs are performing well, but many others are not. Overall, London is the poorest-performing region for its recycling of household and municipal waste, recycling just 21 per cent. of household waste as against the English average of 27 per cent. Just one London borough is in the upper quartile of local authority recycling performance, and 18 London authorities are in the lower quartile.

Some argue that London faces a unique challenge, and that that should be taken into account when considering its recycling. However, although it is true that there are particular challenges to recycling in London, I do not believe that they are insurmountable. The best-performing European cities outperform London significantly. Hamburg recycles 57 per cent., Munich 42 per cent., Milan 39 per cent. and Berlin37 per cent. In north America, San Francisco recycles more than 50 per cent. of household waste and Seattle recycles 58 per cent.

As part of the consultation on the Mayor’s powers, the Government asked waste disposal authorities to forecast recycling rates up to 2020. The answers to that question show a total lack of ambition. Just one authority stated that it planned to meet the London plan’s target of recycling 45 per cent. of municipal waste. Collectively, the recycling rate forecast for 2020 was less than that for Europe’s best performers now, with some authorities aiming no higher than 25 per cent. That approach, coupled with a hunger for incineration, means that unless a different approach is taken now, the waste management system in 2020 will continue to lag 30 years behind.

A press release from London Councils on Monday stated that London should be compared with urban authorities in England and is therefore doing acceptably well. London Councils have trawled through the available research on recycling, and all that they have managed to show is that half of London councils are recycling less than Barnsley. It is my contention that London should be aiming to be a leading international city on recycling, and should be benchmarking against the best in the world, yet London Councils show the real lack of ambition that is the present position.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.