Greater London Authority Bill

I shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 108 and 114. The purpose of tabling these clearly probing amendments was to draw out a damper from the Minister, which he has kindly provided. It is vital that in Committee we discuss those issues that were highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The distinction between ““binding”” and ““non-binding”” links between national and GLA policies needs to be clarified in the Bill. For example, if you have a thought in your mind about government policy and then look at page 163 on the Mayor’s strategy on climate change, where he talks about his aviation policy, you will see that he will, "““challenge the need for further runway expansion at UK airports””." That may be one of the first areas that will test exactly how well this Bill is drafted. I suspect that Amendment No. 109 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is intended also to test that. We will have another opportunity to continue debating this matter under that amendment. Since Second Reading and my tabling these amendments I have received a helpful answer on the subject from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for which I am grateful. When we last debated the Bill in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, replied to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on the waste strategy. He said: "““To reduce the environmental impact of our waste and especially to take account of climate change impacts, we have got to reduce the amount that we send to landfill””.—[Official Report, 9/5/07; col. GC 225.]" That is absolutely right. I certainly do not disagree with that sentiment, but it gives rise in one’s mind to the question: what would take precedence? Would it be the Mayor’s climate change strategy or waste strategy? What sort of guidance would the Secretary of State be able to give on any of the contentious areas, such as aviation and waste? What happens if, behind the scenes, the Secretary of State encourages the Mayor to take action where he can and to innovate, which would be terrific, but prays in aid his guidance as soon as there is a disagreement? We might not have had the congestion charge, for example, if that had been the case then. My amendments simply probe exactly how far the Government will allow the leash to go.