I take what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said in putting his view on the record. I will not repeat everything I said, but AmendmentNo. 109 is exactly the same as Amendment No. 108, with the addition of subsection (2). I do not know why they are not linked together—it is not my role in life to question that—but everything I said on Amendment No. 108 is relevant to AmendmentNo. 109 in so far as it seeks to add, "““in general conformity with national policies and strategies””."
It still leaves an undesirable situation. The Mayor would not be required to cover a minimum number of critical issues and strategies. That could mean that he could produce a strategy with little or no content and still meet the requirements placed upon him. Nor would the Mayor have to have regard to any guidance produced by the Secretary of State, which we think provides an important link between the national policy and the strategy. The requirement to have regard to guidance is not unusual in respect of the Mayor’s strategies. Nor, under the amendment, would the Mayor need to consult the energy companies, the energy regulator or the main energy consumer body in writing the strategy. All of them are key stakeholders and potentially key delivery partners.
Unlike Amendment No. 108, Amendment No. 109 stipulates that the strategy should be developed in general conformity with national principles, but as it strips away all the detail, to which I referred earlier, it is unclear what areas of national policy it should be in conformity with. We therefore think that this is a poor substitute for the safeguards currently in the Bill.
As I have mentioned, the requirements in the Bill that the Mayor should assist with the implementation of national policies would not tie the Mayor into actively supporting specific policy proposals that he opposes. In this sense, it is similar to the provision ““in general conformity with””. However, the requirement to contribute to the implementation of national policies makes clear that the Mayor should consider opportunities to assist the application of specific national policy initiatives in London where he believes that his involvement would make the implementation of that policy more effective in London. I am sure that he will be the first person through the door wanting to make a positive contribution in that respect.
I have raised the example of energy efficiency measures, but we must bear in mind that it is in line with everything I said on the previous amendment. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said about London’s waste, but, to us outsiders, Essex is all part of London anyway.
Greater London Authority Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Greater London Authority Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c10-1GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:47:00 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396425
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396425
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396425