Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 109: 109: Clause 40, page 42, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 on page 43 and insert— ““(2) The London climate change mitigation and energy strategy shall be in general conformity with national policies and strategies.”” The noble Lord said: We are in danger of going round and round in circles on this subject. I should probably have participated in the last debate on the subject by moving an amendment like Amendment No. 109 then, but it is worth going over the subject again because we are all basically saying almost the same thing, so the wording of the Bill is very important. Amendment No. 109 would give the Mayor maximum flexibility in producing a climate change mitigation and energy strategy for London. It is true that national measures, and even international co-operation, are important in facing this challenge, so our amendment provides that any strategy produced by the Mayor should be in general conformity with national policy and strategy. We do not want a future Mayor to duck any of his environmental responsibilities in any way, so we totally support the climate change mitigation strategy being a statutory obligation. Our amendment in effect says that there should be room for manoeuvre, which is something that has been said in other debates that we have had. Perhaps climate change can be tackled by certain individual actions, or by localised solutions to specific problems. By being allowed a little slack from the national policy—I believe that the London policy should be stronger than the national policy—the Mayor could also be more enterprising in his strategy, as my honourable friend Michael Gove conceded that the current Mayor has been. London also presents its own particular puzzles compared with other parts of the country. The relative size and density of its population, its constant development, and its high levels of traffic and congestion, along with its status as a transport hub, all mean that London needs not only to do more than other authorities, but to act appropriately in facing the specific challenges involved. Not only is it the case that it might be appropriate for London to have a more modified strategy, but within this it is also the case that particular policies might suit some boroughs more than others. It might be necessary to be stronger in some areas than in others. We would hope to see room for such flexibility in any provision. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his presentation must have mentioned flexibility about 20 times and I mention it again. We want to ensure that we get the working right. Towards the end of our debates on Wednesday, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, advocated the great advantages of keeping the primary legislation as flexible as possible, not spelling out too much in terms. This is also our ambition here. We seek to give the Mayor the flexibility to adapt his strategy to suit the particular needs of London; the flexibility to innovate or to introduce new measures that are not foreseen by the Bill; and not to be too bound by provisions of the Bill if national climate change and energy priorities alter substantially in the future. We therefore believe that the recommendations set out in Clause 40 are too prescriptive. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State powers of direction if the strategy was clearly not conforming with the national approach. I want to stop all landfill waste from London because most of it goes into Essex. If I had been here on Wednesday, I would have made that proposal, but I beg to move this amendment today.