Greater London Authority Bill

No, thank you. When I want clarity I will not go to the Liberal Democrats for it. I have been disappointed there often enough. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush recalled that in his area he opposed a planning application on Goldhawk road, even though the Mayor was in favour of it, yet he now wants to give the Mayor the power to override the people whom he represents, and even though he knows that the Mayor made the wrong decision in the past. The hon. Member for Hendon discussed the Vauxhall tower scheme. He backed the Mayor’s decision to say yes to that scheme, but as the hon. Member for Vauxhall pointed out, every party in Lambeth opposed the scheme. Why? Because it did not provide enough affordable housing units at the time. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush says that the key thing that Labour wants to do is to increase the delivery of affordable housing. The Mayor frustrated that in connection with that planning application, so as the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich can see, the Mayor’s intervention is not always on the side of delivering more housing. Often, it is on the side of frustrating it. At the heart of this confused Bill lies a philosophical—indeed, an ideological—cleavage at the heart of the Department sponsoring it. We have, in the shape of the Minister for Housing and Planning, the voice of central control, and we have, in the shape of the Secretary of State, the sometimes muted voice of localism. In the course of her remarks today, the Minister said that the Bill was about allowing the Mayor to do his job. The Mayor will be best placed to intervene, she said. But the Secretary of State, speaking in Lewisham, said:"““Whether it is ensuring greater responsiveness to neighbourhood issues or giving greater control to local communities, it makes sense to ensure that local people can have a greater say in their areas. After all, they know their patch and its people best. They know which problems are top of the priority list. And, more often than not, they have a pretty good idea of what is needed to resolve them.””" That shows a clear split between the instinctive devolver and the clunking-fist centraliser. That is the not first time that the Minister and the Secretary of State have been divided. As I have pointed out, the Bill is about delivering housing, which is where they are philosophically divided. The Minister for Housing and Planning has said:"““Many people are still opposing the increased housing we need so badly. Yet it won’t just be young people who lose out if we don’t build the new homes the next generation needs.””" Those are admirable sentiments. However, the Secretary of State has been reported as urging local residents in her constituency to"““savour this sweet victory over the developers””," after she blocked plans for 1,700 new homes. The chairman of her council’s planning committee has said:"““I’ve spent about six years on the planning committee and in my experience whenever a group of residents…object to a development…she always backs them.””" The nimby Secretary of State and the pro-development Minister are once again responsible for introducing confused and incoherent legislation. With such a divided Department, is it any wonder that we have such a confused Bill?