I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate. I was stuck in Committee.
I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise in these matters, and have known of it for a long time. Does he accept that the logic of his argument should be that the thresholds for any matter that is referable to the Mayor should be raised rather than lowered, to ensure that they are truly strategic and to avoid any needless conflict between the strategic and the operational? Secondly, in terms of the general principle, if the Mayor is to be a planning authority, whether with positive or purely negative powers, on reflection after six years, can it possibly be desirable for a planning authority—in effect, a one-person planning authority—to be given those powers? Would it not be logical for us to look again at the requirement for the Mayor to consult the assembly and the boroughs, and at whether he should be obliged to make his planning decisions in public and in a more transparent fashion?
Greater London Authority Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Robert Neill
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 12 December 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Greater London Authority Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
454 c775 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:42:32 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_364924
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_364924
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_364924