I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention underlining the fact that whatever commitment is given by the present Mayor, a future Mayor could renege on it. I hope that whether they are given the powers or not, current and future Mayors will welcome more openness in the way that matters are handled, and not rely on future legislation to change the way in which they operate.
Amendment No. 4 lists the people who will be given an opportunity to appear in front of the Mayor before an application of strategic importance is determined by him. We support that, with one caveat. Perhaps inadvertently, paragraph (c) gives special status to constituency members of the GLA. We would want all GLA members to have the same degree of responsibility and access to the Mayor and to appear when matters of strategic importance are debated.
We are happy to support the official Opposition on amendment No. 5, which deletes the provision for the Mayor to carry out planning enforcement. We are a little less certain about amendment No. 18, which seeks to give the City special status in the handling of its applications. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich pointed out that special circumstances apply in all boroughs, so it is not obvious to me why the City should have special attention. However, as other aspects of the amendment are in keeping with our views, we will support it.
The Liberal Democrat amendment No. 31, which the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) kindly described as very similar to one of the Conservative amendments, was plagiarised and is identical. There are no differences, except that we lopped off a few of the provisions to sharpen the focus on planning applications of potential strategic importance. I do not see a need to reinvent the wheel if it functions effectively. As we have seen, there is substantial co-operation between Opposition Members displaying Liberal Democrat tendencies.
We fully support this group of amendments. They underline the need for a much more open planning process and a much tighter definition in the Bill of applications of potential strategic importance. Even if the Minister is not inclined to respond to the representations that the official Opposition and I have made, I hope she will listen to the former Minister for London, the architect of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, who knows the implications of the Government’s proposals. I hope she will take on board his concerns, as well as ours.
Greater London Authority Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Tom Brake
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 27 February 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Greater London Authority Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
457 c860-1 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:31:26 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_380384
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_380384
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_380384