Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 107A: 107A: Clause 39, page 41, line 13, leave out ““to comply with any guidance or directions”” and insert ““to have regard to any guidance, and comply with any directions,”” The noble Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 107A and 107B respond directly to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Bill. Clause 39 places the Mayor and the Assembly respectively under a duty to address climate change so far as it relates to Greater London. The Secretary of State may issue guidance or directions to the Mayor and Assembly on the way they should perform their duties. The Bill currently requires the Mayor and Assembly to comply with any guidance or directions that are issued. Amendments Nos. 107A and 107B change the requirement in respect of guidance so that the Mayor must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Grouped with these two amendments are Amendments Nos. 108 and 114, on which I shall give a view. Of course, that does not in any way prevent the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, moving the amendments or speaking to them in due course. Amendments Nos. 108 and 114 would significantly reduce the detailed requirements and definitions relating to the London climate change mitigation and energy strategy and the adaptation to climate change strategy for London. Therefore, they should both be resisted. We cannot accept them. Amendment No. 114 would prevent the Secretary of State issuing guidance to which the Mayor must have regard and that could be valuable in ensuring the adaptation to climate change strategy is as effective as possible. It could also increase the risk of the Mayor's adaptation of the climate change strategy for London conflicting with national policy, which could undermine the Government’s overall policy for preparing and protecting London and the wider UK from the effects of climate change. In particular, it could result in that strategy not being based on the best scientific evidence, as the amendment would preclude the Secretary of State from issuing guidance to which the Mayor would have to have regard on evidence and predictions of climate change and its consequences and on the bodies, persons and organisations to be consulted. Amendment No. 108 would remove the provisions that specify the issues that the Mayor’s London climate change mitigation strategy should cover and who the Mayor should consult in preparing it. Were the amendment to be accepted, the Bill would not specify the issues that the Mayor’s London climate change mitigation and energy strategy was intended to cover. Even the definitions of climate change and mitigation for that strategy would be deleted. No other statutory strategy that the Mayor is required to publish is as undefined and vague as the amendment would make the London climate change mitigation and energy strategy. It would severely undermine a key reason for putting that strategy on a statutory footing, which is to ensure that future Mayors continue to focus on the key climate change and energy issues that are critical for London and the UK. To ensure that that happens, it makes sense that we set out in the Bill the key issues that the Mayor, as a minimum, must cover in his strategy. We have done that in close consultation with the Greater London Authority. I make absolutely clear that in listing the areas, we do not seek to limit the Mayor’s flexibility to cover other issues that he or she believes are important for London. The areas that we have set out that the Mayor must cover in the strategy are broad in definition and scope, with a great deal of flexibility for the Mayor to define and deliver in a way that maximises benefits for London. The Mayor will also, of course, have freedom to cover other areas and publish other data in his strategy. Amendment No. 108 would also strip away or severely weaken the London climate change mitigation and energy strategy’s close link to national energy and climate change policy. I am reading out a lot about the consequences of Amendment No. 108. It may not look very much on the Amendment Paper, but it would make a substantial change to the Bill, which is why I am going through it in some detail. It is vital that the Mayor develops the London climate change mitigation and energy strategy in a way which assists with national energy and climate change mitigation policies. These include issues which cross regional boundaries and include fundamentals such as meeting our national emission reductions targets, ensuring security of energy supply and working within the bounds of a competitive energy market. Many of our national policies are designed to implement or complement European or international policies. That is why the Bill requires that the Mayor’s London climate change mitigation and energy strategy contains his proposals for assisting in the implementation of national policies. Our aim is to prevent him from pursuing policies which would block or hamper the delivery of national policy initiatives; and to require him to focus on developing proposals and policies which will work with, rather than against, national policies. I understand that there are concerns that that prevents the Mayor from innovating, and that he will be required to play an active role in implementing specific national policy initiatives with which he may not agree. That is a misinterpretation of the intention and effect of the Bill’s provisions. Aside from the issues that we specify that the London climate change mitigation and energy strategy must cover, under the current proposed provisions of the Bill the Mayor will have flexibility to determine where he is best placed to assist with the implementation of national policies in their broadest sense: "““reducing emissions in line with our targets, maintaining security of supply, tackling fuel poverty and maintaining competitiveness””." We think that there is a good deal of flexibility for the Mayor there. The Mayor may choose to assist by proactively supporting a specific national initiative. A good example might be working with energy suppliers, or their successors, to meet or exceed their targets under the national energy efficiency commitment, as many local authorities already do. He is not required to do that. He may choose to assist through a series of entirely new innovative regional initiatives in London. Amendment No. 108 would leave us in an odd position. The Secretary of State would retain a power of direction, should the strategy be inconsistent with and damaging to national policies, but the Mayor would not have to have regard even to those national policies when writing the strategy. Relying solely on the power of direction would be ineffective and a blunt way of ensuring consistency with national policy. Finally, Amendment No. 108 removes the list of key bodies the Mayor must consult in preparing the London climate change mitigation and energy strategy. He would still be required to consult the bodies listed in Section 42(1) of the GLA Act, but the amendment would remove the specific requirements for him to consult bodies with an important interest in energy issues. It is vital that the Mayor consults energy companies, the energy regulator and the main energy consumer body in writing that strategy. It will have an important impact on their work and, in turn, they will need to have a role in delivering any effective strategy. I am sorry to put such a damper on Amendment No. 108, although I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Baroness will say in support of it. We have taken the view that the provision is very important. It does not curtail the Mayor. He still has an enormous amount of flexibility. I hope that there has been no misunderstanding about how the Bill is drafted. It has been done in co-operation of course with the GLA and after consultation. I beg to move.