asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What role the charitable sector is playing in the mental health sector in the north-west of England.

My Lords, the voluntary and community sector is a major provider of mental health services in north-west England. This sector represents a significant proportion of the mental health service capacity in the region. Voluntary organisations have a long history of providing extensive services which complement NHS social services and local authority provision.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware of Making Space, a leading organisation that operates throughout the north-west, the West Midlands, Yorkshire and recently London, of which I am the patron? It caters for more than 6,000 patients, relatives and carers each day and has attained its 25th anniversary. Will she join me in welcoming this and wishing the organisation all the very best for the future?

My Lords, I certainly am aware of the excellent work done by Making Space. I am delighted to join my noble friend in congratulating the organisation on its 25th anniversary and thanking it for its invaluable work in supporting people with mental health problems. The expansion of Making Space, as outlined by my noble friend, is a real testament to the quality of its services, which it provides not just to people with mental health problems but to their families and carers. I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for his invaluable contribution as patron of that organisation.

My Lords, the north-west of England has a complex mosaic of different ethnic and religious groups and people speaking different languages, from well established south Asian populations and African-Caribbean communities through to newly arrived refugee and asylum-seeker groups. It is clear that many of them suffer tremendous mental health problems and disadvantages. What are the Government doing to make sure that those groups are involved in mental health services locally and that local charities are not only encouraged but commissioned to deliver local mental healthcare to them?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right that mental healthcare provision in the north-west is a complex matter, given the diverse ethnic mix of people living there and their many disadvantages. The Government are well aware that in the past we may not have commissioned services as we should have done. We are now working with the voluntary sector and social services to ensure better commissioning on the ground so that people in local areas can receive the mental healthcare that is best suited to their needs.

My Lords, does the Department of Health keep under review the number of different service providers in the mental health field? Will it keep under review the implementation of the 2010 directive on tendering and procurement, which is causing many small providers to go out of business?

My Lords, I am sure that the department keeps under review the varied providers of mental healthcare in the community. In respect of 2010, I will seek the information that the noble Baroness requires and write to her. Clearly, tendering procedures are extremely important, and I am sure that they are kept under review.

My Lords, in the north-west as elsewhere, the voluntary and community sector stands ready to provide such services for those with mental health problems and others, but the problem often lies with the commissioning, as my noble friend said. Can the Minister give more details about the training that will be available to commissioners and potential commissioners to ensure that they do not just commission the services that they have always used, but look towards more innovative projects, particularly those that are user-focused, which can be provided by the voluntary and community sector?

My Lords, the word “innovative” is the key. We must ensure that commissioning is truly innovative and that it can provide good, new and invaluable services to people on the ground. One of the important things that the Government have done is to set up the Third Sector and Social Enterprise Delivery Board, one of whose objectives is to create increased opportunities for third sector organisations to inform and influence NHS and local authority commissioning and to participate in the provision of NHS and social care services.

My Lords, the Commission for Social Care Inspection reported in December last year that 35 per cent of carers—people caring for relatives or friends at home—have never received any form of support, either through the benefits system or by means of respite care. What are the Government doing to identify that cohort of carers and to offer them support where needed?

My Lords, the millions of carers in this country certainly deserve our support in every possible way. The Government have striven to improve the support that they give to carers. Of the 7 million carers, one in 10 men and one in five women themselves have mental health problems. We have a duty to help them. One of the most important things that the Government are doing is reviewing the National Carers Strategy. When the Government have completed that review, they will be able to implement more policies to support carers in their invaluable work.

My Lords, I noticed the other day that there is now a unit in the Cabinet Office with a substantial staff working under someone with the title director-general of the Office of the Third Sector. Quite what does that Cabinet Office unit do?

My Lords, I do not have a complete definition of what that directorate does, but clearly one thing that it will be doing is ensuring that there is better partnership working between the third sector, social enterprise, the NHS and social services, so that we have the sort of joined-up working and thinking that so many noble Lords request all the time.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What recent discussions on Darfur they have had with the Government of China; and whether they have raised the possible consequences for the Olympic Games in 2008 which may follow from international concern at their policies relating to Darfur.

My Lords, we regularly discuss Darfur with the Chinese Government, including at the United Nations. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised Sudan with the Chinese Government during her trip there last month, as did the Deputy Prime Minister during his visit to China in April. We have not discussed formally any possible consequences of Chinese policy on Darfur for the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

I have met Chinese Ministers, ambassadors and China’s special Darfur envoy, Liu Guijin, on a number of occasions, most recently yesterday in Paris.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and note without surprise that he passed fairly lightly over the possible effect on the Olympic Games. Is it not well to recognise that the modest shift in Chinese policy that seems to have taken place in recent months to a posture more supportive of the UN has coincided rather remarkably with the increase in NGOs and individual sporting celebrities raising the possible damage to the reputation and so forth of the Olympic Games? There are lessons there.

What action are the Government taking to accelerate the deployment of the hybrid force, which it appears that the president of Sudan has now accepted? What action might they be prepared to take if the president of Sudan yet again drags his feet?

My Lords, there have been several influences on Chinese opinion, including the interest that they have in stability to extract oil. The point has been made to them that forces in civil society—particularly in the world of entertainment as we know from Make Poverty History—can have a very dramatic impact.

During yesterday’s high-level meeting in Paris, we agreed that the heavy support package should be in place in the middle of the autumn—I would judge that October is the most realistic time. It has the possibility of transition into hybrid force status very soon after that. I was very clear at the meeting, as were others, that the proposals for sanctions must remain in place. Too many agreements have been broken, and this one must be made to stick.

My Lords, does this situation not call for military intervention? The Minister will know about the European battle group, which seems to be a sort of embryonic European army. I have been told in evidence that this battle group will never go to battle but that, on the other hand, it might be useful in peacekeeping operations. Surely Darfur is a very good candidate for that.

My Lords, the agreement which has fortunately been struck between the United Nations and the African Union about the nature of the peacekeeping force, to which Sudan has given unreserved acceptance, requires that it should be overwhelmingly African in nature and commanded by an African commander—and, indeed, a Nigerian has been appointed. While I can see a role that we can play to assist in various ways, such as heavy lift and with some of the logistics, if we can meet the aims of the African Union and assist it in its principal objective, Africa should be able to sort out Africa's problems and we will probably all benefit to a far greater extent.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned yesterday’s high-level meeting in Paris. Did the Chinese delegation there make any statement in support of the hybrid force? Does he think that in view of the slight change in China’s attitude we can rely on Beijing in future to help us to sort out any difficulties that may arise with the deployment?

My Lords, the Chinese have supported the concept of the hybrid force for some time and did not vary that position yesterday. I do not believe that as we go into the future they will vary it.

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will feel that this is a very good outcome but of course it will not happen for a little while. Can Her Majesty's Government and the European Union more generally ensure that adequate supplies and protection go to the thousands of refugees encamped in Chad? As he will be aware, a substantial part of the population of Darfur has moved across the border and there are real problems with supplying them with enough food, shelter and all the rest that is required to keep them alive.

My Lords, part of the new energy that President Sarkozy has brought to this has been to open up again the discussion with President Deby in Chad. I believe that the plans for Chad at the moment are for a serious gendarme force rather than a conventional military force, although there may be military elements to it as well. The aim is to ensure that the war is not simply displaced backward and forward across the border, leaving people in the most hapless circumstances whichever side of the border they are on.

My Lords, what proportion of Sudanese Government revenues come from oil purchases by Chinese state agencies and, of that, how much do the Sudanese Government spend on military purposes?

My Lords, the Chinese have around a 42 per cent interest in Sudanese oil, which is pretty substantial. I believe that that, together with minerals, constitutes the basis of the foreign exchange earnings of the Sudanese regime. My belief is that a high proportion of it is spent on armaments. Unfortunately, that makes armaments and their supply among the most obvious candidates for effective sanctions, if they can be achieved.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What were the attributes of the previous European Union draft constitution which led them to agree to a referendum.

My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place yesterday, the Government were in favour of the constitutional treaty and said at the time that they did not believe that it involved a fundamental transfer of power. However, the treaty purported to be a constitution for the whole of Europe, and other countries were holding referenda on that basis.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, which I suppose is the best that he can do given that the Government and a few assorted Euro-philes are now the only people left on the planet who pretend that the new reform treaty will be in any way materially different from the failed constitution. When the Government state that they will not grant a referendum on the new treaty because referenda have not been granted on the previous four treaties, do they understand that a large and growing majority of the British people very much want one, because they now see that they have been steadily deceived by their political class for 32 years and that five wrongs will not make a right? Can the Government confirm that the constitution’s self-amending proposal will remain in the new treaty? If that is so, would not that alone justify a referendum?

My Lords, I know that there is a body of opinion in favour of holding a referendum, but the four past examples are not negligible—they were fundamental examples of how we conduct our relationship with Europe. It was decided that the sovereign Parliament should deal with all the details, which seems an appropriate role for a sovereign Parliament. As to the self-amending elements, the protections that have been built into the new treaty will unquestionably protect us from the changes about which the noble Lord expressed his concern.

My Lords, are not UKIP members and the Conservative neo-cons who are anti-European—there is quite a large number of them, I imagine, in both Houses—always obsessed with the sweep of British history? But does the Minister recollect that we entered the Second World War without a referendum, joined NATO without a referendum, joined the United Nations without a referendum and joined the WTO without a referendum? All of those steps severely limited the use of individual British national power. The Minister is correct to say that although the Prime Minister made a real fool of himself by saying that the 300-page original text did not require a referendum and then saying that it did because the Murdoch press threw a wobbly, it is this sovereign Parliament’s role to decide these matters on a very modest text.

My Lords, it is certainly true that we have not been addicted to referenda. However, there is no constitutional provision for when we do or do not hold one and certain amounts of judgment are required. I have expressed the judgment of the Government—which of course I share, and I am glad that it was described in such friendly terms—that this is not an occasion when it is appropriate. That gives the Parliament of this country the best opportunity to make sure that it is satisfied with the detail.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, it is time to hear from the Conservatives.

My Lords, is the Minister not being, uncharacteristically, a trifle precipitate? What we have now are heads of agreement; the treaty will emerge from the inter-governmental conference which is yet to be held. Would it not be wise for Her Majesty's Government to indicate in advance of those negotiations, and during them, that the question of whether we hold a referendum will depend very much on what emerges from the IGC?

My Lords, I wholly accept that we need to see what emerges from that, and it will be the substance of the debate which we hold. The probabilities are overwhelming that we have not seen the fundamental transfer of power that should have triggered the referendum that was promised. For those reasons I am confident in the answer that I can give.

My Lords—

My Lords—

Cross Benches!

My Lords, apart from the point that the Minister has just made, is it not by now quite plain that what matters are the six or perhaps eight points that really fall to be considered and decided and which the Government have already on two occasions in this House undertaken to underline to explain to people should be looked at on that basis? Is it not also clear that a blanket referendum on some 450 clauses is neither realistic nor practical nor of any utility whatever?

My Lords, I agree with that. However, were the document to be one clause, 400 clauses or 1,000 clauses and represent a fundamental shift in the powers of the United Kingdom to Europe, the promise of a referendum would have had to have been made good. I do not think that we can pick and choose the clauses that are liable to present the greatest contention out of the context of all the rest and potentially have any kind of referendum on that. Let us have the debate in this Parliament. Let us see how our Parliament deals with the detail, as it is best placed to do.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, it is time to hear from the Labour Benches, but I am not choosing.

My Lords, it is absolutely right that everything depends on what happens at the IGC. But why then did the Official Opposition ask yesterday for a referendum?

My Lords, choosing tactics for the Government is hard enough work. Choosing tactics for the Opposition could be easier, but it is not my place.

My Lords, we on this side think that if the IGC comes out with a treaty based on what has been agreed, since that will be in the views of most European leaders at least 90 per cent of the old constitution recycled—one European leader says 99 per cent—the probability is that we will need a referendum. That is what the Government believed before, when the constitution was last on the table, and it is surprising that they have changed their mood now. Has the Minister had any more elucidation from the Liberal Democrat party, whose views I think we have just heard, whether it still favours a referendum or whether it has decided to follow the government lead, even though this is the constitution rehashed?

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats had best answer for themselves in the appropriate forum. There is, however, a misconception about the 90 per cent point which we ought to clear up. We all knew that when all the other treaties were drawn together, the point would be to assimilate them in a single document that covered and clarified all of those documents without changing them. It was therefore inevitable that a high proportion of that was going to be in the proposed treaty. If the figure is 90 per cent, it is 90 per cent. It was the 10 per cent which appeared to confer the rights, roles and responsibilities of a state and the movement of sovereignty that was the contentious part. In fact, if there had been 100 per cent from former treaties, I suspect that there would be no contention in this House at all.

My Lords, could my noble friend explain the fundamental change that President Sarkozy sought to dilute the single market and the competition elements? Does he agree that that is a much more fundamental change to the Treaty of Rome than many of the other issues we are talking about? What was the final outcome?

My Lords, I am aware that President Sarkozy did seek and achieve a change in the original wording. However, as you get into the text of the treaty, it is very clear that the underpinning references to competition are still there: Articles 4, 27, 34, 81 to 89, 96, 98, 105 and 157. All of those are competition requirements, and I believe that competition will prevail.

My Lords, will the Government publish, in plain language, a list of all the changes made to our relationship with what is now the EU since the referendum on remaining in the Common Market was held in 1975?

My Lords, that promises to be a far longer document than the 405—or however many it was—paragraphs. I hope, as we get into this debate, that there will be a genuine sharing of information and genuine explanations of where we are. The public have an absolute right to know about what we are debating and why.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

How their White Paper Care Matters will improve stability in the lives of children cared for by the state.

My Lords, last week’s Care Matters White Paper sets out an ambitious £305 million programme, in addition to what is already being spent by local authorities, for improving the lives of children in care. The programme will improve stability by, for example, training carers in effective parenting, improving social worker recruitment and retention, raising the quality of residential care and protecting children against frequent school moves, particularly before GCSE.

My Lords, I thank the Minister and I warmly welcome the White Paper. At the launch of the White Paper on Thursday, a care leaver said that she valued her five years in a children’s home: she valued her manager, the house mother who was in place from the start of her stay and who remains there; she values the fact that she can return on any Sunday and be welcome for Sunday lunch; and she values the fact that the staff barely changed in her five years there. What does the White Paper do to raise the perceived low status of the care given by staff in this challenging and very needful environment?

My Lords, I very much appreciate the remarks of the noble Earl, in particular the praise that he offers for the outstanding work done by social workers in care homes, to whom we do not pay nearly enough tributes. Although there have been cases of neglect and abuse, they are in a tiny minority, and, as he rightly says, the great majority of work done is of a very high quality.

The Care Matters White Paper proposes a whole series of measures for improving the status of the social work profession, which is, of course, dear to the heart of the noble Earl, as well as the quality of residential placements, including new powers for Ofsted, which we hope to be able to introduce in the next parliamentary Session. Those measures also include a new qualified status for social workers, which will improve the quality of their training and put them much more on a par with teachers in the preparation and training that they undergo. This, too, will improve the quality of support offered, both in children’s homes and in the care system more widely.

My Lords, the White Paper is significant and raises important issues that need thorough debate. While we welcome the initiative of business becoming more involved in the lives of some of our most vulnerable young people, can the Minister explain why the White Paper was launched at an event of business leaders at Canary Wharf before it was announced to Parliament?

My Lords, I believe that there was a full Written Statement announcing the White Paper. I was not aware of the exact order of events, but I do not believe that any discourtesy to the House was meant. I hope that we can discuss the substance of this proposal, which is a step change in the quality of provision for children in care and the professionals who deal with them, supported by £305 million of new investment over and above what local authorities currently spend. I hope that the noble Baroness will welcome that along with this side of the House.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the main educational success indicators is parental engagement with the school? Does he also agree that many children in foster care have special needs? In view of those two factors, what will the Government do to give additional training and support to foster parents, so that they can understand their children’s special needs and work with and support the school in addressing those needs so that the child can make the required progress?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right: the proportion of children with special needs is higher in care than in other settings. That is why we are introducing, as part of the package announced last week, parenting support for foster carers. There will be a substantial programme of support, with accredited national standards and increased access to specialist training and support, including a special needs element. It is also why we are so anxious to improve the stability of placements in school, so that children have the care and attention that they need. That particularly helps children with special needs, so that the assessment of, and provision for, their needs does not have to change every time they change school.

There is a new power, as your Lordships will know from our debates on the Education and Inspections Act last year, for local authorities to direct admissions to schools in respect of children in care. Children in care are now the first oversubscription criterion for all maintained schools. We intend to introduce in forthcoming legislation new support to ensure that children in care who are in years 10 or 11 of school—that is, of course, the run-up to GCSE—can be moved from that school only in the most exceptional circumstances. Those measures will particularly help children in care with special needs.

My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, does the Minister agree that there is evidence that this group of children with special educational needs are less likely to have their special education provision questioned when necessary than is the case for those with parents who are willing to go to the tribunal? One hopes that this will sort out that problem, too.

My Lords, I agree that parents going to the tribunal is a difficult and important issue. I did not catch the first part of the noble Baroness’s question, but I will write to her.

My Lords, what importance does my noble friend attach to teaching life skills to children in care?

My Lords, the teaching of life skills is important to children in all settings. That is why we have, as my noble friend will know, given a significant boost to PSHE in schools, which concentrates particularly on the sorts of life skills that I know are uppermost in my noble friend’s mind.

My Lords, I welcome the package that the Minister described, which is additional to local authority provision. What will he do to liaise with local authorities where many social care services dealing with children are facing cuts? I was in Norfolk last week talking to the Courts Service with the local authorities and found that the one part of the workforce that was unable to play its part was the local authority simply because it was facing cuts in services. As the Minister knows, that has a severe effect on morale. What co-operation will there be with local authorities so that the package has most impact?

My Lords, there is close co-operation between central government and local authorities on social care issues. In respect of cuts, if the noble Baroness writes to me with the particular case in point, I will take it up. There has been a significant increase in spending in this area. For example, the number of social workers in employment was up from 38,700 in 1997 to 45,100 in 2003, which is the last year for which we have figures. If there are cuts, I would be surprised if they were in real-terms spending, given what has happened to budgets. I would be glad to look at the particular instances that the noble Baroness chooses to bring to my attention.

My Lords—

My Lords—

I am sorry, my Lords, but time is up for questions.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 28 [The London housing strategy]:

moved Amendment No. 50:

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing her Amendment No. 50 and speaking to my Amendments Nos. 51 and 53.

Her assurance that the local housing authorities in London are part of the consultation is on the record, which satisfies that issue. That now seems very clear and should be capable of acceptance by those who were concerned about it. I take that as an acceptance that they will always be consulted on any matters relating to housing.

On Amendment No. 53, the Minister set me a challenge, as she did previously, to say which responsibilities of the local housing authority are not functions within the scope of the London housing strategy and therefore should be excluded. We believe that preventing homelessness and reducing repeat homelessness fall outside the scope. Boroughs already have a strategy target set by the Government, which they need to address in meeting their targets on homelessness. They are already working hard to meet them; for example, the 2010 temporary accommodation target. The London housing strategy does not, and should not, take away a borough’s statutory housing role to meet these targets. It would only add a superfluous layer that would affect the borough’s ability to deliver on its targets.

My Lords, I can just about hang the following question on to the amendment on the scope of the housing strategy. Will the Minister clarify the relationship between the housing strategy and the London Plan, if there is one? If there is any conflict, which takes precedence? I might get one of those planner’s answers, such as “It depends”, or using words such as “emerging”, “depending on the date”, “depending on which is most up to date” and so on. “Emerging” seems an extremely useful term.

My Lords, I welcome the amendment. I am intrigued at the lacuna that has been exposed in the strategy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, knows, I am quite close to London Councils but it has not seen fit to advise me of this particular aspect. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says, because the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has pointed, quite rightly, to the enormous range of additional duties which not only fall upon councils but are carried out by councils. They have to be carried out by someone, and they should be a part of a strategy. If there is a reason why they should be excluded, I would be grateful if the Minister will tell us.

We are moving to an aspect of the Bill which is absolutely crucial to the people of London: who has responsibility not only to carry out their borough responsibilities but for the overall strategy? As I understand it from these papers, clarity on who does what is vital. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is right to say that there could be difficulties if that is not laid down. If any area causes friction, it should be removed. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

My Lords, this has been a very interesting short debate. I almost wish we had time for more. Those four examples fit very well within the definition of the housing strategy. I applaud the noble Baroness’s ingenuity, but those kind of functions fall within new Section 333D(3)(b), which refers to,

“any other statement of the local housing authority’s policies or proposals relating to housing”.

Although they are the key tasks of the borough, they fit very much within the range of tasks that any housing strategy has to address: preventing homelessness, allocation policies, empowering residents, improving management and so on—matters that are absolutely fundamental to delivering good housing. More than that, we are not just talking about the London Plan or the housing strategy; the London boroughs have to work within a national framework as well. Those are some of the key elements of our national framework policies. I am not moved in my opposition to the amendment of the noble Baroness because what is sought is contained within the definition to which I referred.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the London Plan is the equivalent of the regional plan. The regional plan, in the hierarchy of plan-making, takes precedence over the housing strategy. I hope that that clarifies the position.

After that very nice, short debate, I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 52:

moved Amendment No. 54:

My Lords, we support this amendment, as we did in Grand Committee. We have received a copy of the letter from the Secretary of State to the Mayor. To summarise it, this issue is in the “too difficult” tray. The letter expresses sympathy with some points but refers to problems such as the regulation regime and geographical difficulties. I do not think that the matter can be left in that too difficult tray; there are issues of water management that must be faced. To leave them to paragraphs and sections in other pieces of policy is not a satisfactory way of dealing with this.

I guess that we are too late in the process of this Bill to deal with it but I urge the Government to think seriously about a subject on which public thinking is moving very fast. As the noble Lord acknowledged—by leaving space between the lines rather than by actually saying it—there is a great deal of public dissatisfaction with how our water is managed. These issues need to be pulled together. In the case of London having a level of regional government, that is where they should be dealt with.

My Lords, Amendment No. 54 extends greatly the Mayor’s responsibilities into the area of water regulation. It will give the Mayor a duty to produce and keep under review a water and sewerage strategy for London that will include proposals and policies for ensuring that the water and sewerage infrastructure is able to cope with the actual and planned developments.

Water companies have for some time produced long-term water resources management plans on a voluntary basis, and from April this year, that became a statutory requirement. The Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007 set out certain steps a water company must follow with respect to publication of and consultation on a draft water resources management plan, and the publication of its final plan. The first set of draft plans are expected to be consulted on in the spring and summer of 2008, and we sincerely hope that the Mayor will respond to the consultation on the draft plans for companies that serve London.

The water resources management plan details what further information the water resources management plans should include and the timetable for their submission and publication. The Environment Agency has prepared detailed guidance for water companies on the content of water resources management plans and timings for the completion of each stage of the process. After the final water resources management plan is published, it will be reviewed annually by the water company. If there is a relevant material change in circumstances, such as significant new developments, then the water company must submit a revised plan. The Secretary of State can also direct a water company to submit a revised plan if required, after consulting the Environment Agency.

In addition, to comply with the EC urban waste water treatment directive, sewerage companies have to plan what is needed by way of sewage treatment in order to serve an increasing population. The Environment Agency advised Ministers as recently as September last year that large-scale water transfers for south-east England are not currently necessary before 2025. This is despite assumptions as to projected increases in population in the south-east of just over 2.2 million people by 2030. Development issues relating to water and sewerage infrastructure are already very much under consideration by regulators and the companies themselves.

As I said in Grand Committee, the regulation of water is far more complex than it is for all the other utilities. The noble Baroness said that we should ensure that someone is responsible for making sure that what needs to be done is done, and that that should be the Mayor, but it must recognised that London-specific proposals would have implications for services, infrastructure and customer bills over a much wider area than the administrative area of Greater London for which the Mayor is responsible. For example, it is much more appropriate and fairer for all the customers of the four companies that include parts of London within their supply areas that decisions on future water supply are taken on the basis of statutory water resource management plans that have been the subject of wide consultation.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I have some sympathy with the view that this must go wider than London. I assert that water is, by definition, going to go wider than London, because the catchments for water—the reservoirs and hills where the water accumulates—are not going to be in London at all. If the Mayor is going to prepare even a non-statutory strategy, that would be helpful. Somebody beyond the water companies needs to have an overview of the provision, the amount required in the future and the outlet for sewage, which will also increase on the edges of London because of the developments.

I do not think that I am going to move the Minister on this one. I get the feeling that we are literally coming to the end of the road. As I say, however, I would welcome the Mayor producing a strategy so that Londoners can be consulted on it, in addition to the water companies which are not always greeted with the greatest joy and felicity by their customers. Perhaps an independent view would not be a bad idea. We have aired this to the limit of today’s efforts, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 55:

moved Amendment No. 56:

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 56, 56A and 57A subsequently.

My Lords, I am moving Amendment No. 56 and assuming that the group will stay the same. I am not the chair, but the noble Baroness will have the chance. There is nobody in charge here; you can do what you like. I am afraid that is one of the problems.

In Committee, I undertook to consider together with stakeholders the best way to implement the Government’s previous commitment to what was described as a London waste and recycling forum and fund. Following discussions with key stakeholders, we decided to put the body managing the fund on a statutory footing. Amendment No. 56 inserts a new clause in the Bill to achieve that. This approach will provide focus and stability, and we will ensure that the fund is deployed in the way that is best for London. In addition, this approach has advantages over a voluntary arrangement in that it provides legal certainty for the basis on which the fund is paid and administered, gives clarity and provides for greater accountability to Parliament. We also concluded that given the emphasis that the body will put on getting things done in London, a more appropriate name for it would be the London Waste and Recycling Board.

The board’s objectives will be to promote more sustainable waste management: less waste, more reuse, more recycling and waste management that respects the waste hierarchy and maximises natural resource efficiency. To achieve these objectives, it will be able to spend money, including giving grants, and will provide advice on other relevant matters to the London boroughs, the Mayor and others.

The London Waste and Recycling Board will not be a waste authority, but will be a body to help achieve a step-change in London through the administration of the fund and the continued development of a shared understanding of the issues and their solutions. Subject to the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government have already committed £19 million in 2008-09 and we hope that the Mayor will contribute a further £6 million, as announced last July. The Government propose that the board will act in accordance with the Mayor’s municipal waste management strategy and in general conformity with the London spatial development strategy. In that way it recognises that the vision and the strategy for London’s waste are the Mayor’s and that action will have to take place in accordance with them.

The board will have the power to assist the boroughs in the performance of any of their waste functions. There is widespread agreement from London stakeholders that there is a need to stimulate more investment in infrastructure in London to enable it to manage its waste more sustainably. The board would be able to use the fund for this purpose. In addition, if the board agreed that there was a benefit in, for example, running pilot schemes, an awareness-raising campaign or research into barriers to current delivery or future waste provisions, it would also be able to use the fund for those purposes.

In order to carry out its functions, the board would be able to employ staff or consultants and commission research. The Government envisage that if part of the fund is used to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure, there is likely to be a need for a small dedicated support unit to assist, but the board will determine the nature and size of any such unit. The running costs of the board will be provided for by the London Waste and Recycling Fund and any additional contributions from members. It is clear that the board as a whole will develop an understanding of the wider needs, opportunities and risks in the delivery of more sustainable waste management in London. It will therefore be well placed to provide advice to the boroughs, the joint waste disposal authorities and the Mayor on waste matters, such as new technologies, the implications of landfill allowance trading schemes and planning issues.

The details of the constitution and administration of the board are being discussed and considered and will be set out in an order after the Bill receives Royal Assent. We hope that the Mayor will take a strong leadership role in the board by chairing it or nominating the chair from the committee membership. We believe that a board of 11 members, including the chair, would be the best size as it would be small enough to function but large enough to represent a range of interests. We believe that the best mix would be four members provided by the Greater London Authority, four members nominated by London councils and three members from business and other sectors jointly nominated by the GLA and the London councils.

The Government and many London stakeholders want to move forward. We therefore intend to lay an order setting out the details of the membership, constitution and administration of the body as soon as is practicable after the Greater London Authority Bill receives Royal Assent. The Government have discussed the issues raised in Grand Committee with London Councils and the GLA, and we have returned with this proposal. I genuinely believe that it addresses the concerns expressed in Grand Committee by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. Although the noble Baroness will obviously speak to her amendments, I hope that she will not press them to a vote.

The board will be a regional statutory body that will be set up to help to ensure that the boroughs deliver the Mayor’s municipal waste strategy collectively. It will also help the boroughs to deliver their own national and local obligations. We think that the links between the actions of the board and the regional strategy should be stronger than they are with the boroughs in exercising some of their waste functions. We therefore hope that Amendment No. 56A will not be pressed to a vote. We will discuss the membership and chairmanship of the board with stakeholders as soon as possible. The Government consider it appropriate that the Mayor should have the role at this time, as I have explained.

We need to get on with developing the infrastructure to equip London for a more sustainable future, and we believe that bringing together the boroughs, the Mayor and business in relation to the London waste and recycling fund is the best approach for the capital city. We also believe that there is a need for the continued development of a common understanding of the real issues facing London and the need for action on that basis. On both counts, the board will be able to make a significant contribution to the future of London’s sustainable waste management.

Finally, and briefly, on Amendment No. 57, the House has already debated whether it is appropriate to extend the offices to which confirmation hearings should apply, so I will not repeat the Government’s position. However, I make it clear that Clause 4 already contains an order-making power to allow the Secretary of State to extend the offices, subject to confirmation hearings. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. I beg to move.

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 56, Amendment No. 56A:

My Lords, the “general conformity” point would make a significant change. As years go by, that will be seen to provide the Mayor, not necessarily wrongly, with a very strong position. On Amendment No. 56 and the provision of financial assistance which the board will be able to make, dealing with waste is a very capital-intensive process. It is very welcome that the board will be able to provide financial assistance, including for providing waste facilities, research and so on.

The new clause states:

“The Board does not have the power to borrow money”.

I am not sure whether the £19 million and the £6 million to be made available to the board refer to the budget for the next year or to the starting budget and then seeing how it goes. I spoke at the last stage about the enormous importance of a change in culture and of convincing people that the waste authority should be responsible in how it deals with waste. I hope that the board will be able to play a part in that. It means not just good arrangements locally to collect waste for recycling, but also how the waste is dealt with; that is, using waste to make new materials and making products out of those new materials. All that will require more than the sorts of money being talked about.

As time goes on, if the parties—I hope that they will—make an effort to make the new board work, there will be a change. I would be interested to know why there is that restriction. We might be told that it will be a matter for individual authorities to make major investments. However, the new clause says that the board can provide financial assistance towards providing facilities,

“in connection with the collection, treatment or disposal of waste”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised an important point about the chair. Generally, it is best for a board to appoint its own chair, but in this world one becomes rather used to the chair being designated as a particular office holder. For the board to work productively, it is important that its members are in agreement on the chair and who best can take them along together.

I accept that Amendment No. 57 is not necessary because of the possibility of extension under Clause 4, but I felt that it was important to draw attention again to the particular position of the Mayor in being able to make appointments and that those appointments should be subject to public scrutiny and understanding.

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on having listened carefully in Committee and on obviously having consulted. The wording of this run of amendments does not just come from the minds of the Minister or civil servants. It must be the product of consultation and of trying to obtain the best possible form of words to carry out what is seen not only by Londoners but also by the whole country as the need to be more strategic in planning and in using our facilities and money to provide a good strategy for waste. It is really a question of not just settling for half, but of being politically realistic about the alternatives. I share the Government’s stance, which is also shared by London Councils, that there are some limits; if this strategy had not been produced, I can see that there would have been mayhem or worse in the relationships between London Councils and the Government. The Minister and the Government have actually produced the means of getting the best possible arrangements here.

Clearly, there is a move that the Bill, and the powers of the Mayor, ought to be different. We will perhaps hear about that in later amendments, but we must be politically realistic. I have trawled for reactions in a number of quarters, and in the light of my knowledge of those it is quite clear that the time is not ripe for a major step beyond that envisaged in these clauses. So although the words “congratulate” and “Government” rarely drop from the lips of many Members of this House, they certainly drop from mine, and I give the Minister my thanks.

My Lords, I briefly join in the general welcome for this proposal and I have declared previously that, in another life, I am an executive councillor on a London borough council. This proposal is in the best interests of all concerned. I hope, indeed, that once this matter is finally settled and the Bill becomes enacted that the Mayor will then stop referring to this proposal as an unambitious talking-shop, and that he will engage with it as enthusiastically as the Minister has rightly hoped.

I want to address briefly the question of who chairs the board. The Minister has expressed the hope that the Mayor of London will do so. If he wishes to do so, London Councils has said that that is entirely acceptable to it, as I am sure it would be to all. However, the Mayor already chairs Transport for London and will shortly, if he so wishes, have the power to chair the Metropolitan Police Authority. Those in themselves are two massive commitments in time and responsibility. It may well be that the Mayor determines that he cannot make the time or the priority to chair the board in person; we should not at all regard that as a lack of interest or commitment but rather, I suggest, as a realistic appraisal of how he spends his time. In that event, whoever chairs the board—if it is not to be the Mayor—needs to be acceptable to the members of the board, and to those who appoint them. Therefore, in the event that the Mayor is not chairing it, it will be of some significance that agreement is reached between London Councils and the Mayor of London as to who that chair should be. That chair, nominated in that way, will thus be much more influential and acceptable to the board, to London Councils and to the London boroughs as a whole.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on coming forward with this proposal. We have not had much debate about this idea to create a statutory board in earlier stages; it is a good idea. But I still worry that, underneath the board, there will be all the boroughs and the waste disposal authorities; this creates yet another layer. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about waste disposal being a capital-intensive process, and she would agree that there are clear benefits in scale. Yet I still worry about the incentives on the boroughs. Some of their current performance leaves a lot to be desired, and they will see this as a way of receiving money from the board, allocated from the Government, to try to improve what they do at the moment—or, more likely, to cut their own contributions while hoping that the money comes from either the Government or the board. In other words, they would see it as a subsidy to do less themselves and get more money.

This proposal is a lot better than doing nothing, which is what we were faced with before. However, I hope that somebody—maybe the Mayor, using his persuasive powers, or his successor—will finally persuade everybody that it is in their interests for London to deal with the processing and disposal of its waste as one body. I am quite convinced that that is the way to achieve more recycling and better benefits. This is a halfway stage, which is better than nothing, so I support it.

My Lords, we discussed the question of a single waste disposal authority in Grand Committee. The upshot was that it had become clear that there was not much possibility of persuading the Government to accept the recommendations which had been originally made by the Mayor. He believed that there was no substitute for a single waste disposal authority, and that remained his position until relatively recently. However, there is a general acceptance that this will not be possible for the time being. For that reason, I put my name to an amendment which will be debated later to deal with what could be described as a follow-up, should there not be the right outcome regarding these proposals.

My Lords, I am most grateful for the response to the amendment. All credit goes to my ministerial colleagues and officials in the Department for Communities and Local Government. I am just the bringer of good news—that does not normally fall to me, so I am very pleased.

Two central points have been raised. The majority of waste funding will continue to go to London’s waste authorities. As I said in my opening speech, the amount of funding will be decided as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The boroughs and joint waste disposal authorities are already able to borrow money, so we do not think it is necessary for the board to have that power. The fund will enable extra strategic spend on top of the money that goes to the authorities.

I accept that I am a complete outsider regarding London’s politics and governance, but I understand that the issue of the chair is highly sensitive. It is our wish that the Mayor should take the chair. The second best option, which is in line with that, is that the board should be given strong strategic directional leadership by the Mayor, or by the chair, if he is not to be appointed to that position. We will discuss this further with the stakeholders. We believe that the chair should be appointed from the membership of the board and that it should have 11 members—four, four, three. It is better if the chair is appointed from the membership of the board by agreement, and details will be set out in the order. We are working on this and will discuss it further with the stakeholders. We want an amicable solution.

I have stated our preferences that the chair should be the Mayor or that the Mayor should give strong strategic leadership. Whoever is appointed chair from the board’s membership must carry the board with him or her anyway. This is a matter on which agreement can be reached but further discussions are taking place on it.

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 56A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 56, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 57A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 56, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 56 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 58:

My Lords, I add my support to this amendment. I welcome government Amendment No. 56 as a step forward, but there are powerful reasons why we need to take this a step further; my noble friend Lord Warner has just asked when rather than whether, which is the key.

I make my brief contribution on the basis of the rapidly advancing technology, which demands a London-wide solution. I recently agreed to facilitate a meeting with the Mayor’s office, on a purely pro bono publico basis, on behalf of a large multinational company at the leading edge of technology, with successful schemes in every continent of the world. It struck me that we were falling behind in some respects. As I listened to the dialogue, it became apparent that, while we talk about the political sensitivities of the Mayor, the GLA and the boroughs’ relationships, looking at it from the point of view of a technology-driven solution one cannot simply begin with some of the language that we find in Amendment No. 56. The amendment says that,

“the Board may provide advice on such matters as it thinks fit to any of the following—

(a) the Mayor;

(b) any London borough council;

(c) the Common Council;

(d) such other persons as the Board thinks fit”.

Taking the point made by my noble friend Lord Graham, I think that we are in danger of generalising about all sorts of relationships—or, in energy terms, each stage in the fuel cycle. Clearly, no one is going to say that it is not Camden’s job to have a regular collection outside my London flat. There is a category problem in how we are discussing this. Equally, if we are going to move rapidly in the next 10 years to technology solutions with 100 per cent of waste possibilities being dealt with for the whole London area, that does not remove the fact that Camden must be somehow involved. Of course it must be. Executive decisions need to be made and contracts signed—they can involve not millions, but billions of pounds—to deal with a total energy cycle and waste solution for the whole London area.

We must make provision for that in the Bill. One can obviously introduce another Bill, but Bills on this subject, as the Minister will perhaps confirm, come along not every five minutes, but every five years. We know how elaborate the discussions are that have to take place. I am sure that the Minister cannot respond in detail to my point now, but will he put around a note about the challenge posed by rapidly advancing world technology and say whether a timescale is not attached to the structural context in which we are speaking?

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment. As I said earlier, I originally supported the idea of there being an authority, an SWDA, in accordance with the Mayor’s briefing. That was not acceptable to everybody and it needed consensus, which it has not yet received. The amendment before us is a compromise, as my noble friend Lord Warner said. It would expand the range of situations where the Secretary of State could exercise powers to establish a single waste disposal authority for London if local authorities do not significantly improve their performance. We know from the briefing with which we have been supplied that some local authorities do not have a very good record in this respect. The amendment would give an opportunity for the Secretary of State to intervene and for a London authority to be established. The amendment is a compromise and I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will accept it in that spirit. The Mayor has already said that he will continue to monitor and highlight waste disposal and ensure that Londoners are aware of the impact of government policies in this regard. The amendment is a reasonable compromise and, in the circumstances, I hope that it will be acceptable.

My Lords, I hate to be the first to voice caution on the amendment. While it is enormously ingenious in shifting the decision on whether such an authority should be introduced to a subsequent occasion, that will presumably be done without further discussion. The matter could be brought back on an order, without anybody having to look at it again in the context of the time when it was decided that it would need to be implemented. Knowing as I do the difficulty involved in getting any order amended, I would be extremely concerned about leaving in the Bill provision for a power of this magnitude to be used in the future.

We were not in favour of the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and we are not in favour of this one. If the noble Lord, Lord Warner, were to press it—I think that he will not, because he has spoken about returning to it at Third Reading—we would not support him in the Lobbies.

Pretty good arrangements already exist in most parts of London. There is co-operation between London boroughs. Large contracts are already in place for the disposal of refuse. The plea behind the amendment relates to landfill and an increase in recycling rates. It is up to the boroughs, which are the bodies nearest to the residents, to make sure that recycling rates are improved, although I am bound to point out that London is a very difficult city as far as waste collection, particularly separating waste, is concerned, in that where there are large blocks of flats, large mansion blocks and large council estates it is often difficult to get the co-operation that one will get from people who are in houses and who will co-operate automatically.

There are different problems in different parts of London. The local authorities need to be responsible for that. Large contracts are already being let by co-ordinating councils as waste authorities. Those have to be taken into account. If the situation were ever to arise again where it was thought necessary for consideration to be given to the Mayor having these powers, that should be in primary legislation at a later date. It should be debated and consulted on in far greater depth than we have had the opportunity to do in this Bill so far. I am not in favour of the amendment.

My Lords, it is always interesting in debates such as this, where the enormous difference in views goes along the political spectrum, to imagine how noble Lords would feel if—as I am sure will not happen—one day we had a Tory Government and maybe most boroughs controlled by the Liberal Democrats and Labour. I wonder whether some noble Lords’ views on this would be any different in those circumstances.

The amendment is a kind of compromise longstop if the board that we discussed on the previous amendment fails to achieve its objective. It is a good longstop, because it would take several years before we got around to introducing primary legislation to bring in a clause such as this one and, in the interim, the waste disposal process could have gone seriously wrong. I do not accept that London is any different from any other major conurbation, except that it is broken up into boroughs. There are big blocks of flats in many parts of this country. There is still a need to persuade people to sort out their rubbish and do the things that we talked about before. It would be extremely useful to have this clause, or an amended version of it, in the Bill as an adjunct to the board that we discussed earlier.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made the point that I have made throughout our discussions on the Bill when I have been accused of personalising points: he said that it is often good to consider how one might feel if political persuasions were different and there were different politicians in particular roles. I have a two-part question for the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Why is the amendment necessary, given that Section 10 of the 1985 Act gives the Secretary of State an order-making power? I apologise to noble Lords that this is inevitably slightly technical, but is it because Section 10 refers to councils and the Greater London Authority is not for this purpose a council? I do not know the answer to that. It may be that the section, even if the authority falls within it, does not go as far as the noble Lord would like in enabling the Secretary of State to put a new body under the aegis of the Mayor of London. But given that section, is the amendment necessary?

My second question is more rhetorical. If the amendment is not necessary, the question answers itself, but if it is necessary, is it really appropriate for such a contentious matter—I echo the noble Baroness—to be dealt with by an order? We know that it is contentious—we have lived through all that—and we know that there would be almost nothing that the parties involved could do to change the order. I say “almost nothing” because I am well aware that we will be discussing an order about planning later, where the Government have moved considerably from their original position. I do not want to be so churlish as to suggest that this never happens. However, is the amendment necessary? If so, is this really the appropriate way of dealing with such a contentious matter?

My Lords, I have declared my interest as an executive member of a London borough council—it is the London Borough of Sutton. I mention it particularly because Sutton has, since records began, been in the top two or three London borough councils for recycling rates. In Grand Committee the Minister was good enough to inform the Committee that Sutton now enjoys beacon status for its waste management. I say all this not to boast—although I am always happy to boast about Sutton—but to demonstrate that there has always been a strong commitment to increasing recycling rates in my borough. It is therefore perhaps an even bigger embarrassment to us that too many London boroughs do not share our enthusiasm. It is in no sense a party political issue. There are councils of all political leaderships that are good; there are others, frankly, that are not good.

Over the last decade or so it has been demonstrated that this is an issue of political priorities. For whatever reason, some councils have chosen to make recycling a high priority; some have, for often very understandable reasons, decided that they have other priorities, which take precedence for the investment of finances and energy. But that is changing across London, as we recognised in Grand Committee. It may not be changing solely because of political enthusiasm. The financial incentives—or, more accurately, financial penalties—that all local authorities face are perhaps persuasive for those that have been less enthusiastic in their commitment to recycling. Nevertheless, it is changing. Since 2001, recycling rates in London as a whole have more than doubled. Between 2005 and 2006 there was a 15 per cent increase in recycling rates. For some of us it is never enough, and never fast enough, but it is a significant movement. To use modern parlance, it is a direction of travel—and fairly rapid travel—that we should all welcome.

A few minutes ago we all gave a general welcome to the establishment of the board, which we have just accepted. I am therefore rather disappointed that in the next group of amendments, we are to discuss one that assumes that the board will fail before it has even come into existence. I am much more optimistic. When we legislate in this House, I often think not what it will do for the worst authorities—because it is always relatively easy to improve the worst—but what will it do to improve the situation for the best authorities. I have believed that to impose a single waste authority against the authorities’ wishes was not the best move. This is now said to be a compromise. I would say, rather, that it recognises reality: we are not going to get a single waste authority. This is second best. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has asked whether it is necessary, or whether the 1985 Act does indeed give the Secretary of State the power if ever needed. We await an answer to that; we may not get one today.

I believe, quite strongly, that the best and most effective way of producing the dramatic increase in recycling needed in London is for the boroughs to work with each other and in co-operation with the Mayor of London. Peer pressure has been very effective in local government. I said earlier that I hoped the Mayor would change his rather niggardly attitude towards the proposed board, and embrace it with the enthusiasm that many of us share. I am sure that if the London boroughs work together, with the Mayor and through the board that will be established, this fallback position—which is how best to describe it—will not be necessary. Should it become necessary, we can address that in the years to come. In the short and medium term, significant progress is now at last being made in London. We should build positively on that and not impose what has already been described as a threat—it is an entirely unnecessary threat—on the boroughs.

My Lords, I am grateful for that debate, which has not exactly repeated what was said in Grand Committee. I shall respond briefly. The amendment relating to the board was agreed to but with this amendment we are in a different scenario. I have come with a cut-down speech; it will not take long to deliver but it is important to put it on the record because there is still another stage to go.

As noble Lords have said, this amendment is a variation on that which we discussed in Committee. Its ultimate aim is to create a single waste disposal authority—I stress that; no one is promoting a single waste disposal and collection authority.

The amendment would place an ongoing duty on the Secretary of State to continually review whether existing structures are satisfactory in London. Where they ceased to be so, the Secretary of State would be able to use his existing powers to create a single waste disposal authority for London that would be controlled by the Mayor.

When the Government undertook their review of waste governance structures in London, they commissioned research to assess a number of key criteria, such as achievement of the landfill directive targets against short, medium and long-term scenarios. The options that fared worst in the analysis—it is important to get this right, particularly in view of the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Warner—were those that did not integrate collection and disposal functions across the capital. This is one of the key reasons why the Government are opposed to a single waste disposal authority for London. There is no best-fit solution.

The KPMG findings concluded that a London-wide option could be a good solution if it combined collection and disposal. Options that do not contain collection and disposal, such as the Mayor’s proposal, fared worse in the KPMG analysis. That is the point: a single waste disposal authority that was not a disposal and collection authority came out as the worst option. That is one of the reasons why the Government are opposed to a single waste disposal authority for London. Evidence suggests that the economies of scale and improved performance are more likely to be achieved where waste collection and disposal services are integrated. That also reflects the fact that we have moved over the past 20 years—we recognise that waste is a valuable resource that can be recycled or composted or from which we can recover substantial amounts of energy.

This approach requires a greater synergy between collection and disposal arrangements. The Mayor’s proposal for a single waste disposal authority for London goes against this, separating the waste disposal arrangements into a body run by the Mayor, but leaving the collection services with the boroughs. Delaying the creation of such an authority will not alter this and could result in an even worse outcome for London than creating one now.

We are at a critical stage in delivering this step change in the way in which we manage waste in the UK. I pay tribute to what has been achieved in recycling in recent years. In the list that I have, about two-thirds of London boroughs are not meeting their household recycling targets; some are exceeding them and some are meeting them. On that list, Sutton is number two, so well done there. London faces a tough challenge; there is no question about that. We are not complacent about the progress that must be made. In a separate amendment, which we have already approved, the creation of the new London Waste and Recycling Board is designed to accelerate the progress towards sustainable waste management.

Many London boroughs—the majority of them—need to raise their game significantly, particularly on recycling. The problem is that introducing the threat of creating a single waste disposal authority that is governed by the Mayor at some point in the future is not an effective way of facilitating their progress—if anything, it could jeopardise that.

London needs structural stability if it is to attract the necessary investment to further develop its waste management capacity. The boroughs, the waste management industry, their various financial partners and potential investors need security and to know that the business cases and contracts they put in place today, and in the future, are not going to require renegotiating with a new body some years later. Certainly being under the threat of continuous review is not a good way to get the investment going. That is the threat that lies behind the amendment. It is a compromise but not really a compromise at all.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he comment, either now or in writing, on the fact that the rapid advance of technology may require very large contracts which are far bigger than any one borough? If that is so, the question is whether boroughs would be able easily to co-operate or whether some kind of integration policy on investment would be required to give confidence to those who provide technology solutions that they can deal with someone in a way that is not too fragmented. This is coming at us very rapidly indeed.

Why is the Minister so confident that, three or four years from now, the analysis which has been made will remain the same? The very interesting remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, could have been made at any time in the past 10 or 20 years. What has changed above all is the technology and the economics of advanced technology. That changes the context in which we are arguing. I therefore ask my noble friend to say, in a few words, that he accepts that this could make some difference.

My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says, but I do not accept that it necessarily has to be London-wide. It is undoubtedly technology driven, but cultural and climate change issues are also involved, and we are running out of landfill sites. There is gold in waste and a fortune to be made there. “Waste” is the wrong word; it is a resource. If local authorities and their financial partners develop the right infrastructures they can earn a great deal of money, create new assets and income streams, and at the same time not mess up the environment. It is a win-win situation all round. Changes in technology will encourage local authorities to work together and nothing that I have said today will prevent that.

As I said to my noble friend, either the relevant Minister or I will be quite happy in future to reinforce the fact that the benefits of a single waste disposal authority—the economies of scale in procurement and technology,—can be achieved by other means within the existing governance structures. We can embrace the technological changes through the existing structures of joint working on waste. It does not matter whether that entails creating energy out of waste or developing anaerobic digestion techniques, on which joint efforts are under way in experimental plants around the country, although we are way behind our continental partners on this. Nothing in the existing structures will stop London local authorities from making use of those technologies.

I am wholly supportive of my noble friend’s point. If that explanation is not sufficient, I am quite happy to facilitate one in a letter.

My Lords, my noble friend has argued for economies of scale and prays in aid other cities in Europe and around the world. He does not seem to accept that the same could apply to London rather than breaking it up among 26 different boroughs. With all the new technologies, and if it is working so well elsewhere, why is it not happening here? He said that two-thirds of the boroughs are not meeting their targets. I do not see why a Greater London waste authority should not do the collecting as well. It may be subcontracted to the boroughs, but the authority would be responsible for it. Will my noble friend respond to that?

My Lords, the argument which has been going on for months is not about that but about a waste disposal authority—not a waste disposal and single collection authority. That is not what we are debating. That is not the offer put to us. It was not an offer of options. We are debating the proposal put forward by the Mayor for a single waste disposal authority. We are opposed to that proposal for the reasons that I have tried to explain.

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. The Minister will be pleased to note that I do not intend to trade quotations from the KPMG report. I am pleased that the amendment has extracted from Defra a few better arguments than it managed to put forward at previous stages of the debate. I congratulate my noble friend on extracting those arguments from officials in the department but ask him to consider one central point. Although I agree that you can sometimes make almost any system work to some extent, I question whether this system will efficiently deliver a waste disposal-driven set of solutions within the timescales we seek and achieve the best financial and cost-effective solutions. It is difficult to believe that a system which has at its heart a collection and recycling-driven agenda run by a collection of people with primarily those responsibilities is less likely to produce a solution than a system where there is a central authority, the main function of which is the effective and efficient disposal of waste and which has that kind of executive authority. We must agree to disagree, but I ask him to think a little further about that with his officials.

On the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about whether the existing powers are sufficient, the legal advice that we have been given is that our amendment is needed to achieve our objective. Although noble Lords may not agree with our objective, the amendment was tabled not for rhetorical purposes but to achieve the objective which my noble friends and I are trying to achieve. I shall consider the points made and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38 [The general power of the Authority: duty to have regard]:

moved Amendment No. 59:

My Lords, like my noble friend, I welcome the Government’s move on this. I have a couple of questions on the relationship between London, the UK and the Mayor’s role. First, given that on some matters London is ahead of the rest of the UK, which may remain the case in the future, will reliance be placed on the Mayor to do more in London to increase the national average, as it were, and to improve the national picture overall? Does this give the Mayor greater responsibilities? Secondly, will the changes—I think that the answer is no, but let us get it on the record—give the Mayor any powers with regard to the rest of the UK, either the surrounding regions or the UK as a whole? It would be helpful to cover those two points, although I support my noble friend; I remember that, when we were first sitting together on these Benches, we looked at each other and said, “These issues don’t remain within an administrative boundary”.

My Lords, I hope that I can respond quickly to this positive short debate. I thank noble Lords for raising these points initially in Committee. As we have just heard, the Government support Amendments Nos. 59 and 62, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Miller, which is why my noble friend Lady Andrews has added her name to them.

The provisions in Clauses 38 and 39 require the Mayor when considering whether or how to exercise the GLA’s general power, and in preparing and revising his strategies, to have regard to climate change and the consequences of climate change. It is sensible that in exercising these functions the Mayor has regard to the global, broader picture of climate change and is not restricted to how far it relates to Greater London.

Although we discussed the importance of the points made, we cannot accept Amendments Nos. 60 and 63. Amendment No. 60 would require the GLA to exercise its general power in a way best calculated to contribute to the mitigation of or adaptation to climate change generally or globally. Similarly, Amendment No. 63 would require the Mayor to include policies and proposals in his strategies that contributed to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change globally.

The amendments would cast the scope of this duty too widely. We believe that it would be more reasonable for the Mayor to exercise these functions that are limited to Greater London in a way that contributed to climate change mitigation and adaptation nationally—as relates to the United Kingdom—which is what government Amendments Nos. 61 and 64 aim to achieve. As I said, the Government support the principle behind the noble Baroness’s amendments, but we hope that she will feel able not to press them but to support the Government’s approach through Amendments Nos. 61 and 64.

On the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it is tempting to be facetious about the position of London in the UK: it is a city in the middle. To be clear about the Mayor’s role in terms of his strategy and general power, we have tried to set that out in the next group of amendments. I do not believe that this Bill is about creating additional powers for the Mayor that will impact on the rest of the UK. We are talking about the role that the Mayor can play through his functions and powers in London and the contribution that he can make to achieving wider goals in a national climate change strategy. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s point.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers, which address all my points. I shall also be moving Amendment No. 62, and I am happy with the Minister’s explanations on the others.

My Lords, I was hoping that the Government’s amendments would meet the noble Baroness’s concerns. I will move government Amendments Nos. 61 and 64.

My Lords, I am sorry. Amendment No. 59 has the Government’s name to it, so I presumed that the Government were content with it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 61:

moved Amendment No. 62:

moved Amendment No. 64:

moved Amendment No. 65:

My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 71 to 73 are grouped with the Government’s amendments, which I thank the Minister for tabling, as they deal with most of our concerns about the matter. Although I cannot quite fathom what sort of advice has led them to call greenhouse gases “greenhouse substances”, no doubt there is a reason.

My Lords, I have seen that somewhere. It is to do with being consistent with the 1999 Act.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. Obviously the aim is the same, but the terminology varies. The Minister asked why we had specified methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs and sulphur hexafluoride. They are the greenhouse gases listed in Annexe A of the Kyoto Protocol. We did not simply pluck them from the air; we were trying to tie in the provision with some of the international conventions, and so on. However, I recognise that we are, in effect, dealing with the Bill before we have a national policy with which to be consistent. As I mentioned earlier, the Select Committee on the draft Climate Change Bill is discussing these very issues this afternoon and deciding just what to include. I am sure that the debate on whether to include carbon dioxide alone or greenhouse gases in general will be particularly lively. It is very important to recognise that the whole climate change mitigation effort must include other gases beyond carbon dioxide. However, I accept that the Government’s amendments substantially recognise that advance, and although I would have preferred the simpler phrase “low carbon”, I understand the Minister’s explanation of why they prefer their amendment, and I am quite happy to accept it.

My Lords, I have a question about the term “significant”, which the Government have chosen. I wondered whether it was chosen to allow for developing scientific knowledge about which greenhouse gases, or substances, will have a “significant” effect, although the amendment does not appear to deal with that. The Minister introduced the amendment by saying that this was one of the Mayor’s priorities, but I was not clear whether that went to the term “significant” or just to proposed new subsection (3)(b), which cites,

“substances … which the Mayor considers it appropriate to deal with in the strategy”.

As for the Mayor’s approach to priorities in these matters, does that refer to prioritising the list of substances or to priority in dealing with the substance as opposed to a completely different strategy? I am not sure what priorities we are comparing here. My original note just asks for the Government’s confirmation that the Mayor must act reasonably. I realise that the question I have just asked goes a good deal further.

My Lords, the point we are trying to make here is that we see carbon dioxide as the key greenhouse gas which we want the Mayor’s climate change strategy to tackle. We recognise the importance of other greenhouse gases and want to give the Mayor the flexibility to address them. We want him to report on progress, addressing not just carbon dioxide but also other greenhouse gases. As I do not want to give a confusing or misleading answer, I will look at the noble Baroness’s questions and write to her with fuller detail before Third Reading.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 67:

moved Amendment No. 70:

moved Amendments Nos. 74 to 77:

moved Amendment No. 78A:

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 79 and 80. Amendment No. 79 deals with an issue that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding raised on Second Reading and pursued in Grand Committee. I am speaking to it in his unavoidable absence today. I declare an interest as a former Member of Parliament for 24 years for the City of London, an interest which will likewise apply to Amendment No. 80 in this group and subsequently to Amendment No. 91, which stands alone, on both of which I shall also be substituting for my noble friend.

On Amendment No. 79, we now have the benefit of the new draft of the Mayor of London order. That was circulated last week, after my noble friend had tabled his amendment. He was very pleased—a sentiment shared by the City of London and by me—that the draft order provides for a revised height and size threshold in the City of 150 metres and 100,000 square metres of floor space. Subject only to the confirmation of what I believe to be the case from the draft order that these revised thresholds will apply to the Mayor’s power to take over applications as planning authority, as well as his power to direct refusal, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment. In doing so, I record my thanks to the noble Baroness for responding so positively.

Amendment No. 80 seeks to exclude planning applications for relatively modest developments down to 2,500 square metres from the definition of “potential strategic importance” unless they depart from the City’s development plan or are prejudicial to the plan’s implementation. The objective is to avoid a situation where applications which could in no way be regarded as strategic on account of their size become subject to reference to the Mayor as the result of an inconsequential departure from the City’s development plan. To appreciate the reason for the amendment, perhaps I may detain noble Lords for a moment with the relevant text of the latest version of the draft order. Category 3E of the schedule to the draft order provides that a development becomes referable to the Mayor where it,

“does not accord with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated and . . . comprises or includes the provision of more than 2,500 square metres of floorspace”.

In responding to the amendment tabled in somewhat different terms by my noble friend Lord Jenkin in Committee, but addressing the same problem, the Minister said that category 3E would not apply to the Mayor’s power to take over planning applications but would apply to his power to direct refusal of planning applications. The latest draft of the order reflects that position. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, also referred in Committee—on 8 May, at column 174 of Hansard—to the fact that the Mayor’s power to direct refusal had existed without apparent difficulty since the original Mayor of London order was made in 2000.

It is true that the Mayor has until now adopted a relaxed attitude to his involvement in smaller applications in the City, but the fact that there may have been an element of Nelson's eye so far is not a good yardstick for the future. Attitudes could change—indeed, Mayors could. If strictly applied, many relatively minor applications would be subjected to unnecessary notification to the Mayor. That would simply make the whole process needlessly bureaucratic.

In addition, as a result of changes made by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,

“the development plan for the area”,

is now taken to mean the unitary development plan plus the Mayor’s spatial development strategy known as the London Plan. The practical consequence is that there are now far more policies to take into account—around 400 in the City—and a much greater chance, therefore, that any given planning application will not comply with the letter of all of them. I am relying on happenstance. In other words, going forward, far more applications will become susceptible to mayoral involvement than was the case when the original mayoral order was made in 2000, even if Nelson’s eye continues to be applied.

As for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, to which I am speaking, I hope that the Minister feels the criteria to be appropriate. Instead of the trigger for mayoral involvement being departure from one or more of the provisions in the development plan, the amendment requires the departure to be significant—contrary to the plan itself or prejudicial to its implementation. That will raise the barrier in order to capture only the more strategic applications, which is what, as the Minister has made clear in all our debates, the Government intend.

My Lords, it is not possible to speak to the amendments without referring to the draft order, which has been circulated. I thank the Minister. It is quite clear that a considerable amount of time, energy and effort has gone into revising the order. I would be grateful if she could answer some questions that are more on the order than the Bill, but it is important to get some points clear at this stage.

At the start of consideration of the original draft order, I asked whether the Mayor had to act reasonably in considering whether an application was of potential strategic importance. The new version of the order is much more objective and it removes much of the concern about what might have been a subjective assessment of the criteria. In a letter to me, the Minister, in referring to Article 8 of the draft order, said that there must be “sound planning reasons” for issuing a direction. I assume that the Mayor has to be reasonable in Wednesbury terms in considering whether there are those reasons. It would be helpful if she would put on record what that term means and, in so doing, perhaps she can answer how the reasons would differ in particular from significant implementation of the London Plan, given that, as I understand it, the London Plan will form the context for the Mayor's decision.

Secondly, can she explain what is meant by “significant” in,

“significant effects that go wider than a single borough”?

Privately, the Minister gave me some examples which I have used when talking to others and it would be right to get those examples on record.

There has been understandable concern that the Mayor might trample on the boroughs and take over decisions that are properly for the boroughs to take. There is a practical as well as a statutory constraint. That is, as the noble Baroness said, that the Mayor’s powers cannot be delegated—and we will come to the procedures under the next group of amendments. That is significant.

The policy issue is the hierarchy of policies and plans. We have the London Plan—the local plan—with government policy overriding everything. I use the term “plan” although I know that it is not the correct one. We also have the issue of housing targets, which I believe are a matter of agreement between the boroughs and the Mayor. Will the Minister confirm the status of housing targets and how they come about?

Reference was previously made during the passage of the Bill to the enormous importance of housing, or the lack of it, particularly affordable housing. We on these Benches support the measures to address that. One particular problem is not just in numbers but in the size of affordable units provided as a result of the policies that require certain percentages to be affordable. There is a lack of units of adequate size, of three and particularly four bedrooms. Can the Minister comment on that and how it might be addressed through what is proposed? There is also the issue of density, which is not a matter for agreement in the same way as targets. There is a range of densities that an application can fall into to be acceptable. Can the Minister comment on density as it relates to these provisions?

I said that the Mayor should not be able to trample on the boroughs; nor should he be able to impose any sort of homogeneity across London. The noble Baroness referred to Westminster as being of a particular character, and the character of the different boroughs is important. It is refreshing to think about Westminster rather than the City, but I had not thought of the whole of the borough of Westminster being so very different from the rest of London. The West End has a particular character, but there are other areas of London which are of a different character from the West End but not so very different from other parts of London. With apologies to those who are working very hard in Westminster, I would not support a particular position for that borough.

On the lead amendment in this group, 150 units does not seem that small a development; it is pretty substantial. A development of 500 units, which the noble Baroness advocates in her amendment as a threshold, is a very large development indeed. I have had no professional advice on this, but a 500-unit development might be, for example, one of the major commercial sites along the river, where very big blocks of flats have been developed.

Having said all that and generally being supportive of what the Government propose, I must say that leaving the term “potential strategic importance” in an order that might change in future is not a position that I am happy with. However, the draft order that we have now reassures me a great deal—or it did before I left my office to come here this afternoon. I think that it is right to air this. I have been seeking to get information from London Councils, having understood indirectly that that body was content with the position. From the e-mail that I received, it seems that there has been no formal discussion with London Councils—there has been informal officer discussion. We are therefore having this debate in the absence of a view from that organisation. The officer who responded to my inquiries said that he understood that the Mayor had approached Labour borough leaders to get their agreement, but that London Councils had not been approached by the Mayor or by Ministers about whether this package was likely to be acceptable to boroughs. A letter which London Councils’ lead members wrote to the Minister, Yvette Cooper, on 23 April about the Mayor’s new planning powers remains unanswered. I would have given the noble Baroness warning of that, but it is no doubt somewhere in her papers. I received it just before I left my office.

My Lords, I, too, welcome the publication and circulation of the draft order, because it enables us to focus clearly on the Government’s intentions in this matter. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, sets the threshold at an extremely high level, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just indicated. We have to address why some of the proposals have been made in the first place. They have been made because of an acute shortage of affordable housing in London and across the south-east. That is bad for the British economy: it is bad for London; it is bad for Londoners; but, above all, it is bad for the British economy. It must be remedied.

The London Plan has set a target for 50 per cent of new housing to be affordable, but, in practice, during the past few years, only one-third of housing output in London has been affordable, which is well short of that 50 per cent target. In some boroughs, the number of social rented homes completed has been in single figures. For example, I understand that in 2005-06 only six rented homes were completed in Havering and nine in Wandsworth. I understand that the figure in Westminster—an amendment in this grouping relates specifically to Westminster—was only 21 per cent during the period 2003-04 to 2005-06. So there is a need to raise performance across London in terms of the amount of social and affordable housing provided. That is why the modest threshold of 150 homes contained in the order is the very least that the Government can do to support the objective agreed in the London Plan.

I have received a briefing from the Labour members of London Councils and presume that everybody had the same opportunity to comment on the draft order when it was promulgated. They estimate that the vast majority of planning decisions, more than 99 per cent, will remain with the boroughs. They consider that a strong set of safeguards is already built into the proposals as contained in the draft Mayor of London order, ensuring that the new powers can be used only in a small number of cases that are of strategic importance for the city. My understanding is that we are in practice talking about perhaps 40 additional applications during the course of the year. That hardly seems to be an onerous burden, but it is extremely important in sending a clear signal that affordable housing in London is a critical national issue and that we support the Mayor of London’s objective of achieving a much greater supply. For those reasons, I must regrettably oppose the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.

My Lords, I shall speak about two issues on thresholds, one relating to housing and the other to Westminster thresholds. I should mention before continuing that I am chief executive of London First, which is a business membership organisation.

I think that we are all struggling to find the appropriate strategic point of intervention on various issues. There appears to be common agreement that we are seeking to find a point at which the Mayor should strategically intervene. I support the Mayor’s intervention on strategic issues to do with housing supply.

I shall speak in a little more detail about the 500-units threshold. I am concerned about the Mayor becoming overloaded with planning cases. Interventions should be the minimum necessary to secure the strategic objectives. I would like further clarification on the additional 40 applications for between 500 and 150 housing units. A large number of different suggestions are being bandied about. Some clarity from the Minister at a later date on the difference between 500 and 150 housing units would be welcome.

The housing shortage in general is a major strategic issue at all levels. New construction is not keeping pace with increasing population and numbers of households. Since 1989, the population has grown by more than 750,000, but the number of new homes completed has averaged fewer than 15,000 a year, so it is not surprising that there is a housing shortage. The population is forecast to grow by 1 million during the next 20 years, with between 550,000 and 720,000 new households. New construction is now at a level of 27,500 homes per year and the Mayor’s target is 30,500 a year. There is therefore a clear need to sustain a higher level of construction.

The main mechanism for securing more housing is the London Plan, with boroughs conforming to it. The level of housing needed cannot be achieved by the Mayor intervening in individual planning applications. Intervention should be exceptional and only in the most important cases. The threshold of 500 units is about right. If the Government wish to reduce the threshold, 200 should be the minimum, which is consistent with the planning White Paper.

I oppose the proposal that individual boroughs’ performance on affordable housing should be taken into account when determining whether the Mayor should intervene. It is not a practicable or workable test; there are no current targets at borough level; and it is wrong in principle. The London Plan allocates 35 per cent of housing for social housing and 15 per cent to key workers. I could argue that that is the wrong way round. At the bottom of the pecking order, we leave the private-sector key workers—bus drivers, cleaners, PAs, shop workers, bank clerks and catering staff. I think that we can all agree that housing supply is the critical issue. Furthermore, boroughs have different needs: some already have a lot of social housing and may need more private housing to balance the mix. Boroughs are best placed to make that judgment.

Also, housebuilding is lumpy; different sites need different solutions and come on-stream at different times. The performance of individual boroughs varies from year to year. Targets for affordable housing should therefore be pan-London and not applied to each borough site by site.

I support the Mayor’s power of intervention on strategic sites, but not too many and not to decide how much affordable housing there should be on each site. Developing housing in London is difficult enough already; many major house builders will not operate in London. We must not make it even more difficult. After all, 50 per cent affordable housing of nothing is nothing.

I do not support the amendment to bring thresholds up for Westminster city. Westminster is a unique location not only in London but in the whole of the UK as the hub of a global city. It is also a place where people live, but we need to get those two constituents in balance. While I acknowledge the needs of the residents, we also have to take account of the role that London plays in the UK economy, especially for finance and business services, and the fact that Westminster now, alongside the square mile and Canary Wharf, lies at the heart of that. It is increasingly home to new-style financial institutions and international HQs. Their office requirements may not be on the scale of Canary Wharf residents, but they are none the less strategic.

Westminster is undoubtedly a constrained area with strategic views and conservation areas, so scope for development is limited. Where there are opportunities for major new development, it is important to make the most of them. Failure of the planning system to respond to the market and to demand and inappropriate policies such as requiring office developments to contain housing and affordable housing on already constrained sites are leading to hikes in rents and making London the most expensive office location in the world. Westminster rents are now around double those in the City. Most recently, Savills’s research showed that they cost £120 a square foot in the West End and £65 a square foot in the City. The shortage and cost of West End offices risks London losing its attractiveness as a centre for international business. There is also an urgent need to address the issues around Oxford Street that were highlighted in the West End commission report.

The capital and the country need London’s economic success to continue, and we need to ensure that the city’s infrastructure as a whole can accommodate it. The Mayor has to have a role in determining how and where the necessary development should happen. The thresholds outlined in the draft order are at the right level to allow him to do that.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment No. 78A and the threshold of 500 homes for the level of the Mayor’s intervention. Not for the first time, your Lordships will hear a slightly different perspective from the Cross Benches on a similar subject. I declare an interest, since I have not spoken before in this debate, as president of the Local Government Association, which means that I am greatly in favour of localism, devolution, decentralisation and deregulation and therefore in favour of individual London boroughs having as much power as it is sensible for them to exercise. I also speak as someone who has been involved with housing over very many years. I currently chair one of the large housing associations, Hanover Housing Association. From the housing perspective, there are comments that I must make about the threshold of 500 homes at which the Mayor would be able to intervene in planning cases.

The case has already been well put that housing supply is crucial to the London economy, and that is true. Affordable housing within that supply is also an issue of the greatest importance. We lack homes that people on lower incomes can afford, which is bad not just for key workers but for the city as a whole. It leads to homelessness at the bottom end of the scale and it leads to severe overcrowding. The shortage of decent homes also increasingly means that social cohesion—neighbourhoods of people getting along together—is being undermined. People from black and minority ethnic communities, when they cannot get the home that they need, say that there must be discrimination against them. The indigenous local population, when they cannot find homes, say that it must be that the immigrants are getting all the homes. Neither of them is right; it is simply that there are not enough affordable homes to go round. This is setting community against community and family against family in those neighbourhoods. We must up our game and improve the quantity of affordable homes that are coming through the pipeline.

My Lords, why are we here? What is the raison d’être of this Bill? If everything was hunky-dory, why has there been a need in the revision after seven years of life to examine the balance of powers between the Mayor and the authorities? Quite simply, it is because there was a general dissatisfaction with the manner in which the legislation was being followed through. I bow to all those with superior knowledge to mine of the current situation, both in the GLA and in business. I was pleased to hear the point of view of London First. We are now examining the crux of the switch in the balance of power, strategic and otherwise, between the Mayor and the authorities.

I recall vividly the speech made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in which he used the illustration of his experience, as a Westminster ratepayer, of a development in Westminster. He illustrated for me more vividly than any others the reality of the situation. He said that, although the planning permission required the developer to develop affordable housing as a certain percentage of the total, when that percentage was complied with, it occupied only 10 per cent of the land. Of course, I ought to have known about that in general, but I was shocked and angry that such devices were being used by developers—I am not talking about collaboration with councils or planning committees. It is clear that no matter what we do to try to improve the position on affordable housing, numerous powerful, avaricious and greedy forces will take advantage.

Anyone like me who has been in a surgery with their constituents will know not only the size and the weight of the surgery in housing but the awfulness of the conditions that people are in. It is clear that the Minister and her colleagues recognise that, in order to get the Bill through and to take into account the various situations, compromises have to be made. However, I do not think that the compromise brought before the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is acceptable in this instance.

I am well aware that whatever we do will never be sufficient. My noble friend emphasised that there is a desperate need to provide more affordable housing. This was re-emphasised around the House. The situation is not going to get any better unless there is a powerful drive spearheaded by the Government and fronted by the Mayor, the GLA and every local authority. There are many good reasons why, left to their own devices, authorities will reorganise their priorities and do a good job for their ratepayers, but that will not solve the problem for those who want affordable housing. Of course compromises need to be made, but I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will recognise that there should be no compromise on what is proposed in giving the Mayor extra powers over housing.

We have seen evidence during the passage of this Bill of the disparity between what authorities feel is adequate. Yet we know that when people are deprived of good housing, they not only have an inadequate lifestyle, but bring up children in poorer circumstances, where they are less able to benefit from education or get better jobs. So the whole cycle goes on. It starts with adequate housing. When we talk about affordable housing now, we talk about costs of rent and purchase that are way beyond anything that we contemplated five years ago. The sooner the Minister is able to put flesh on the bones of this particular nexus, the happier I will be.

My Lords, we have had a powerful debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the Government’s intention in these clauses. I am glad that by providing the Mayor of London order we were able to have an informed debate. I was also pleased that we could have informal conversations to explain, because these issues are quite technical and difficult.

Amendments Nos. 78A, 78B, 79 and 80 go to the heart of the Government’s purpose in providing additional planning powers for the Mayor. In order for those powers to be effective and relevant, it is crucial that the Mayor sees those planning applications that could be of importance to London and that he is restricted to intervening only in those that prove to be of genuine importance. It is the debate about that balance, which the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, referred to, that occupied so much of our time in Committee.

We published the revised draft Mayor of London order, which proposes, at category 1A of the schedule, a 150-unit threshold for applications involving housing. That has been the burden of much of the debate. Amendment No. 78A would ensure that the Mayor saw applications that included housing only if they were for the development of more than 500 units. We have to resist that amendment. Many of the reasons have already been set out, but I want to explain briefly why we have changed our approach to housing development. I need first to make absolutely clear how the Mayor of London already identifies applications of genuine strategic importance that may warrant intervention.

Throughout our debates, I have tried to make it clear that defining whether an application is of strategic importance is a two-stage process. That process is mostly unchanged from that which operates now. The thresholds set out in the schedule to the draft Mayor of London order identify applications as being of potential strategic importance by virtue of, for example, their size, their height and their location. Developers make their planning applications to the boroughs, as they always have done. Boroughs assess the applications against the thresholds. If they consider that the application meets the thresholds, they refer it to the Mayor for consultation. The Mayor feeds his views on the application back to the borough, which then takes them into account alongside other considerations. Then, as is currently the case, the borough takes the application through the planning committee, makes a draft decision and refers it back to the Mayor. It is at this point that the Mayor applies the second stage, the policy test, to determine whether the application is of such genuine strategic importance that he should decide it.

The process is essentially the same now, and developers in London boroughs are well used to it. The major change lies in the content of the policy test, which we have developed to ensure safeguards for the local planning authorities—the borough—to balance the necessary new powers of the Mayor. Throughout the debate, here and in the other place, we have developed our thinking in response to the presentations and arguments made to us. We originally proposed a one-part test, which simply required the Mayor to demonstrate that a development would have significant effects on the implementation of the London Plan. To explain that to noble Lords who have asked about it, that will rule out cases where the application is only in minor conflict with an individual London Plan policy and where that conflict has no tangible effect on the wider intentions of the London Plan.

In response to representations in the House, we added a second part to the test, which requires the Mayor to show that there are sound planning reasons for his intervention. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me to define that. To intervene, the Mayor will also have to demonstrate that the initial decision on the application reached by the borough is flawed in planning terms, taking into account the policies in the development plan applied to the circumstances at the site. One example might cover a proposed development that appeared to be failing to provide adequate affordable housing for a site of that size, in that location, based on the policies of the development plan.

To help to focus the Mayor’s power even more firmly on the limited number of key non-housing or waste planning applications out of those referred to him, there is a third test—the test of significance—which will require him to demonstrate that the physical effects of the development extend beyond the boundary of the borough that it is in. Those changes are set out in Article 8 of the draft order. This is important because we intend this to test more than whether a proposed development is visible across a boundary. Examples of the type of impact that we would consider to fall within the test would be a significant effect on the capacity of cross-border transport networks to carry additional passengers, or a significant diversion of trade, such as from a town centre in one borough to a huge retail development in another. Case by case, that is what we will be looking at.

No one should be in any doubt—certainly, the Mayor is not—that these are tough tests to meet. They should provide reassurance to boroughs that the vast majority of decisions will remain with them. The geographic test applies only to non-housing and waste applications.

We have looked again at housing and, for important reasons, made further changes to the order, to reduce the threshold for the size of housing developments that the Mayor will see from 500 units to 150. Let me be very clear about why we have made this distinction. My noble friend Lord Harris, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and other noble Lords have spoken about the crucial need for housing in London and the critical challenges faced by London in providing more housing—particularly affordable housing—and in managing waste.

Between 2006 and 2016, household numbers in London are expected to increase by nearly 400,000—that is 40,000 per year. That is an enormous challenge. The need to raise our performance across London to meet that challenge is precisely our reason for introducing this change. It is not something that can be done on a borough basis; it should not even be a cross-borough issue. It is a key shared task for boroughs, the Mayor and, indeed, central government. As noble Lords have said, this goes very much to the heart of our capacity, as a Government, to deliver affordable homes.

To reply to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the housing targets, set out and negotiated between the boroughs, are partly determined by the London Plan, but each borough has a set of circumstances that, as it works through its response in terms of what it can provide by way of affordable housing, is a realistic navigation between what is needed and what it can aspire to and provide.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, that the figure of 150 homes is not new. It is an extension of the existing 150-unit threshold, which relates only to schemes that do not accord with the development plan; that threshold was previously in Part 3 of the development order. We have already proposed changes to the thresholds on waste.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very comprehensive reply and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate.

I remain completely unconvinced as to why the threshold should be reduced from 500 to 150 units. It seems to me that it would not be unusual for many boroughs to handle applications for 150 housing units in not very large sites, particularly under the pressure for housing at present. I simply do not understand why the Mayor should be involved in that when there are already agreements on affordable housing. The original threshold was 500. It is our belief that that is where it should remain. I therefore beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 81:

My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering my questions before I have raised them. It is very helpful to know what line she is likely to take. On reflection, I shall not move Amendments Nos. 87A to 87E. I want to comment on the Minister's Amendments Nos. 81, 85, 86 and 87, which now put into the Bill the process by which the Mayor will have to consider applications and the representations that will be made to him—that is, applications that he does not refuse. I accept that that is not a very easy aspect to add to it. I am grateful to the Minister for having put in those new clauses. On the whole, they are satisfactory. Therefore, I am pleased to leave that matter alone.

My Lords, we very much welcome those provisions. Having to undertake the hearings in public and to be present throughout them is something to which I referred briefly on the previous group of amendments. Any Mayor—I do not refer to the present office holder particularly—who felt that it would be appropriate to take over many applications would find that that was all he did. It should be possible for a delegation to go perhaps to the deputy Mayor for some of those functions, although that is not a matter for discussion now. We will see how they go but that could place a very large burden on the Mayor.

I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I ask her for confirmation of something that she has already mentioned. I was scrabbling around among my papers to find a copy of the draft order for the Hansard reporters, who sent me a note saying that they had looked online but could not find it. I suppose that is understandable at this stage.

The Mayor becomes the planning authority. Local planning authorities—the development control committee—will have a published agenda which normally includes an officer recommendation to approve or to reject an application about conditions, reserved matters and so on. As I understand it, the same procedure will apply with the Mayor, so it will not just be a matter of turning up to a hearing, but it will be known in advance—I think five days in advance—what the recommendation to the Mayor is. That is very similar to the way in which a local committee operates. It occurs to me that that may probably take over the chamber at city hall on a fairly permanent basis but that is a small price to pay.

The Minister referred to Amendment No. 87CA as having the potential to create a monstrous process. I think that is right and it is something that local planning authorities have struggled with for some time. Most of them—I am a little shocked that it is not all of them—hear oral representations from both sides these days. When I chaired the committee in Richmond in 1983, I introduced that. I cannot believe that that was nearly 25 years ago. It is not, and does not have to be, a monstrous process. The local authority would need to get objectors together to sort out how they are represented and how many can speak. There is a point of principle here. I have worked on the assumption that if the Mayor takes over an application, it is because he disagrees with the borough’s draft decision. That is why I have framed it in this way. It could have been wider. For there to be confidence in the process, it is important that objectors as well as the applicant, whose position will be enshrined in statute, have the opportunity, through a representative if necessary, to turn up and explain their objections. One should not be too anecdotal, but my experience has been that, although it adds to the time, going through that process also adds immeasurably to the understanding of the outcome.

My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me to confirm a matter in relation to the process, which I can certainly do. On what she has just said, we feel that new Section 2E with its provision for the Mayor to set out who he will see and who he will hear oral representations from, surely did work well in Richmond. The GLA works on a rather larger scale, but we will have put protections in which I hope will be sufficient.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 82:

moved Amendment No. 83:

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 83, Amendment No. 83A:

My Lords, I hope that I addressed that point, if not as eloquently as the noble Baroness. I realise that I should have given her the opportunity to address her amendments before commenting on them. If I may, I shall read in Hansard what she has said, and we can probably expand on these issues in a letter. As I said, they are technical issues in that they deal with the conditions attached to listed building consents. The same conditions are not attached to conservation areas or hazardous substances applications and there is a difference in how they are treated. The matter can be dealt with satisfactorily if I may write to the noble Baroness.

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 83A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 83, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 83B to 83H, as amendments to Amendment No. 83, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 83 agreed to.

moved Amendments Nos. 84 to 86:

moved Amendment No. 87:

moved Amendment No. 88:

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important matter. I was not sure whether she was teasing me or feeling there was no hope of support from these Benches when she referred to differential parking charges.

My Lords, I did not mention the borough.

My Lords, the noble Baroness did not mention it, but I am very proud of my home borough’s introduction of differential parking charges, and I stress differential. But we are not here to discuss that—or perhaps we are, because we are discussing how one balances all these considerations.

I have some questions for the noble Baroness and one for the Minister, which is how PPS 3 deals with this issue. It acknowledges the issue, but I am not sure what the strength of that is. First, however, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, what is meant by “special regard”. I am not sure where that comes in the hierarchy of “having regard”, “being in conformity with”, or whatever. I suppose that it is a little more than “having regard”. It was the terminology used in the Private Member’s Bill to which she referred, but I am not sure what it means. Perhaps it is a matter of common sense.

Is it necessary for primary legislation to deal with this issue? It is certainly appropriate for us to debate it as a mechanism to raise the matter, but should not the London Plan be the vehicle for it? It would then be in place and everything else would fall into place afterwards. If the London Plan is not tough enough on this, I should think that it is open to the boroughs to create their own policies on it. The noble Baroness may say that that would not be adequate if the London Plan went in a different direction, but there is a certain amount here about which we need to understand the framework. However, I congratulate the noble Baroness on raising an issue that is clearly important to the physical and mental well-being of Londoners. It is hugely important to have green spaces.

My Lords, I entirely agree with the sentiment expressed by both noble Baronesses. Gardens are extremely important. The Government certainly think so, as does the Mayor for the reasons which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just set out. There is nothing between us on that.

The context, as we heard earlier, is the pressure for new housing in London. We all agree that it is important to ensure that development is in the right place, and that includes preventing inappropriate development in residential areas and on gardens where it is not sustainable and other sites are available. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was coming to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to place a specific duty on the Mayor to have special regard to the desirability of preserving gardens and urban green space because local authorities have all the powers they need—they have had them for many years—to stop or prevent infill development on gardens.

There has been an argument both in this House and the other place about whether gardens have become more vulnerable because of the emphasis on brownfield sites. We have certainly put an emphasis on the use of brownfield land, and I do not apologise for that. However, the issue is not whether land is classified as brownfield or greenfield but whether land is suitable for development, how sites are managed for development and what is appropriate in the local context. Existing national policy guidance already gives local authorities flexibility to shape development in their areas. For many years, they have been able—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated—to set out particular policies in their development plan to manage infill development and protect gardens if appropriate. Many local authorities have done so. Those can then be applied to individual planning applications taking account of the specific circumstances. I say to London Boroughs that there is nothing to stop any London borough from doing that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about PPS 3. This is a good opportunity to say that not only have we not weakened the position of gardens in terms of development, but we have strengthened the protection afforded to gardens and open space in planning policy statement 3, which we published last year. We have done so by giving local authorities more flexibility to shape new development according to the needs of their area, allowing them to make the decisions on where new housing should be located and making it clear that local authorities can put strong emphasis on protecting urban green spaces, parks and play areas. They can specify targets for different kinds of brownfield land, enabling them to distinguish between residential sites and other kinds of brownfield land. We have given them greater powers to restrict garden development if they have alternative viable land available and if the level of development they are achieving within residential areas is much higher than their plan requires. As long as they are delivering the level of new homes that the area needs, they will have more flexibility on how and where those homes should be built.

That is all being placed in a context where far stronger emphasis is put on the quality of residential design and layout, which are absolutely vital to mental and physical well-being, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made clear. PPS 3 makes it clear that design which is inappropriate in that context or which fails to take account of the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions should not be accepted.

The boroughs already have the powers that they need to protect gardens. They also have additional powers and tools afforded through national policy. That will guide the Mayor’s decisions when he uses his power to determine and when he acts as local planning authority, in the same way as the borough would. It is not necessary and contrary to good planning to put in place a blanket statutory requirement such as the amendment would impose. It is an emotive subject but, in the light of what I said, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will feel that she can withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments. The trouble is that while the policies and PPS 3 may be available, the Royal Horticultural Society and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds think that they have to run campaigns to protect gardens. Somewhere along the line messages are not getting through or local authorities are not paying “special attention” to what is going on. That is apparent particularly on the outskirts of London where people are taking the opportunity to put in buildings here and there, completely destroying garden areas.

I hear what the Minister says about boroughs being able to control all this, but that is clearly not happening. Gardens are seen as brownfield sites and are being destroyed at a regrettable rate. We need to be sure that we can stop that and that far more attention is paid to those garden areas, even if they are sometimes not very well maintained.

The Minister is not going to give way today. I shall think about this before Third Reading. For today, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 88A:

My Lords, this amendment would remove the Mayor’s ability to enforce the provisions of obligations attached to the planning permissions which he grants. He would have to rely on the borough to do so in each case. It would also prevent the Mayor receiving any of the sums due under a planning obligation. Although I cannot accept the amendment because removing the Mayor’s ability to enforce the terms of planning obligations would open the door to a worse situation where the provisions of any planning obligation attached to a planning permission granted by the Mayor might be at risk of being unenforced, I hope to be able to reassure the noble Baroness in due course. The result could be development that harmed the local environment or the capital’s wider planning interests contrary to the intention of the planning permission. This would be in the interests of neither the Mayor nor the boroughs.

During the Bill’s passage we have discussed planning obligations and mayoral involvement, and there has been some confusion. It may therefore be worth while briefly reiterating some of the key points on planning obligations. Planning obligations are private agreements negotiated usually between local planning authorities and developers or offered unilaterally by developers for the benefit of the local planning authority. In previous debates there seemed to be real concern that the Mayor could somehow run away with the money from planning obligations. However, strict parameters govern when planning obligations are appropriate, and they are set out in Circular 05/05. We are not changing that. For example, the circular states that planning obligations are to be sought only when they meet all the policy tests. An obligation has to be,

“relevant to planning; necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the proposed development; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and reasonable in all other respects”.

Those are tough tests to fulfil. The purpose of an obligation is to mitigate harm that might arise from a planning proposal and to make it acceptable in planning terms; for example, a proposal that otherwise could be refused planning permission might provide open space to mitigate for the loss of such space.

The amendment would leave all enforcement actions to the borough. In most cases that will be the best and most effective way forward and, significantly, it will be the route that we expect to be followed. The problem is that it may not be the route in all cases, such as where the borough’s enforcement team is overstretched or in the unlikely event of a lack of co-operation between the two parties. We have had to provide a fall-back for such cases. The clause as drafted does not substitute the Mayor for the borough for those applications decided by the Mayor, but it provides the Mayor with enforcement powers that parallel those of the borough. We do not envisage the Mayor employing large numbers of enforcement officers, and we are not providing funds for that. This is simply a sensible safeguard to ensure that development takes place in the terms for which permission was granted.

I shall deal with the substance of subsection (4) of the amendment, which removes the Mayor’s ability to receive funds due under a planning obligation, when we come to Amendment No. 89. I shall not rehearse those arguments here. We are convinced that, for entirely practical reasons, it is necessary for the Mayor to do so. I must therefore resist the amendment.

My Lords, I am not at all surprised by the Minister’s response. Planning obligations should without exception be dealt with and enforced by local authorities. I think the Minister is saying that there are going to be exceptions where the Mayor will step in. In my experience, a planning obligation is very seldom undertaken on the basis that the application might be refused. But an obligation might be undertaken on the basis of a requirement in an accepted application which further ameliorates the application and might bring benefit from the development. That is a local issue which only the local authority ought to be able to determine. We are talking about developments that the Mayor will decide. I have been advised by the Minister that those developments will be so small and limited that the Mayor will hardly have the chance to blow the whistle on any of them. If they are going to be that limited in number, it seems that it would still be much better for the local authority to deal with them.

I have made the point for today and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33 [Amendments of section 106 of TCPA]:

moved Amendment No. 89:

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness’s amendment, which is very much along the lines of my earlier amendment. It is very important that we clarify entirely and precisely the Mayor’s role in planning applications. Both the noble Baroness and I are saying that he should be taken out of the equation completely. We should ensure that the boroughs deal with the negotiations, the planning obligations and the receipt of the money and that the Mayor should not be involved—nor, indeed, should he be involved in keeping any of the proceeds, which should go to the boroughs.

My Lords, these issues are quite technical. I will do my best to clarify them, but I may revert to writing to the noble Baroness if she feels that I have not addressed the point. In fact, I have a note that says, “Promise to write”. I will certainly do that. Amendment No. 90 would amend Clause 34, which amends Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on applications to modify or discharge planning obligations. The amendment would require the Mayor to have due regard to the views of the borough, which would have decided the application if the Mayor had not taken it over, before he decides not to agree to modify or discharge an obligation.

I understand the intention behind the amendment. It is clearly important that the Mayor should take account of the views of the local authority in considering whether to modify or discharge an obligation that he has been responsible for agreeing. That is why we set out in Clause 34(4) proposed new Section 106A(12), which requires the Mayor to consult the local planning authority before he exercises any function under Section 106A. Our wording requires the Mayor to consult the borough before he decides whether to agree to modify or discharge an obligation, as in either case he is exercising a function under Section 106A. That addresses the point made by the noble Baroness about the negative power. Therefore, our wording achieves the position that she has sought in her amendment. I hope that that reassures her and that she will not press the amendment further.

Amendment No. 89 would amend Clause 33 to require the Mayor to pass all sums due under a planning obligation to the borough that would have been the local planning authority if the Mayor had not taken over the decision whether to accept a planning application. This would not be of much benefit, but it would certainly bring confusion and delay. Given that the purpose of planning obligations is to mitigate the harm caused by planning proposals, the logic is obviously that the responsibility for negotiating them with developers should lie with whoever is responsible for determining the planning application, whether that is the borough or the Mayor. Without that responsibility, the decision-maker could not be sure that a proposal was acceptable in planning terms such that planning permission could be granted. The obligation would therefore depend on individual circumstances. As we know, the mitigation could be that money, land, an urban open space or improvements to the strategic road network should be provided. The amount and timing of the funding for the mitigation will be clearly set out in the terms of the planning obligation.

It is the responsibility of the local planning authority, whether that is the Mayor or the borough, to distribute any sums due under an obligation in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Therefore, if the obligation requires a financial contribution towards the provision of an open space, to be provided by the borough, clearly the borough must receive the funds and carry out the work, irrespective of whether the money initially went to the Mayor as the local planning authority. Consequently, if the obligation requires funds to be made available to carry out improvements to the strategic road network under the control of TfL, the relevant funds would be passed to TfL, as that is the body that carries out the works. Nothing is to be gained by requiring the Mayor to pass all sums due under a planning obligation to the borough, irrespective of whom the sums are due to under the terms of the planning obligation. The amendment would simply add delay while money is moved from the Mayor to the borough before being passed to another party.

I suspect that the noble Baroness was actually asking a slightly different and slightly more detailed question, so, with her leave, I will read what she said about her amendment and will certainly write to her with further detail and clarification if I can.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that she will also cover the point about commuted payments.

My Lords, I will certainly have to write to the noble Baroness about those.

My Lords, given that commuted payments are important, I may well retable the amendment so that the letter can be read into the record at the next stage of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 89A and 89B not moved.]

Clause 34 [Planning obligations: further provision]:

[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]

Clause 45 [The Board’s expenditure: transfer of powers and other provisions]:

moved Amendment No. 91:

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, for moving his noble friend’s amendment and making this short debate possible. As we have heard, the amendment was tabled in Committee. While the Government will continue to resist the amendment, it provides us with a further opportunity to allay some of the concerns about the scrutiny arrangements to which he refers.

As I stated in Committee, when the GLA Bill comes into force, the museum will be subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly under the powers set out in Section 61 of the GLA Act 1999. As the noble Lord said, the Assembly will have the power to summon the governors or staff of the Museum of London to attend proceedings and to give evidence, or to produce documents in their possession or control, relating to the GLA’s sponsorship of the museum. The Assembly’s use of these powers naturally will centre, as the noble Lord rightly said, on scrutinising the Mayor’s exercise of his functions in relation to the museum. It will also be able to look at the way in which the museum uses the funds that it receives from the GLA and at the museum’s overall financial state, including the levels of funding that it receives from other sources, such as the City of London Corporation, and the use that it makes of those funds.

As we have heard, there has been some concern that the powers of scrutiny that the Assembly will have in respect of the museum might tip the balance too far towards the GLA to the detriment of the City of London Corporation’s role. We do not believe that this will be the case. The powers that the GLA and the Assembly will gain as a result of this Bill will not lessen the role that the corporation plays in the life of the Museum of London. The corporation was a founder of the museum, owns the premises in which the museum operates, co-funds the museum and appoints half the membership of its board of governors. The corporation’s powers and responsibilities in relation to the museum are enshrined in statute in the Museum of London Acts of 1965 and 1986. This Bill does not change that fact.

The importance of the corporation’s role has not been diminished by the museum’s present status as a non-departmental public body sponsored by central government. There is no reason for us to believe that it will be diminished when the GLA takes over the Government’s role in respect of the museum. I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate the point that we expect the City of London Corporation and the GLA to work together effectively as co-sponsors of the museum and that the corporation will continue to play as full and active a role in the future as it does at present. However, as I made clear in Committee, there is no need to change the corporation’s powers of scrutiny to do this. I can agree that the corporation has the powers that it needs in order to scrutinise jointly with the Assembly.

As I stated in Committee, the corporation is, and always has been, able to agree with the museum, as a condition of its financial support, how it will scrutinise its operations. Such an agreement would not require any change to this Bill or to any other existing legislation. There is nothing to prevent the corporation and the Assembly from reaching an agreement whereby they could scrutinise the museum jointly should they wish to do so. Whether they choose to take that route or not, we would positively encourage the corporation and the Assembly to work together as partners in establishing a robust scrutiny regime for the museum.

Finally, I reiterate a point that I made in Committee. There is a clear distinction between the Museum of London and the City of London Corporation. The Assembly’s legitimate, rightful scrutiny of the museum, which I described earlier, should not extend to detailed scrutiny of the corporation. The Assembly’s powers to summon apply to the corporation only in respect of any specific contractual relationships between it and the GLA or any grant given by the GLA directly to the corporation.

I hope that I have been able to provide reassurance to the noble Lord and to his noble friend Lord Jenkin when he has time to reflect on what has been put into the record today. With that in mind, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will be able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I fear that I will disappoint her in the hope that she expressed in her final sentence. There is a paradox between the Government emphasising in Committee and today how strongly they wish to resist amendments moved in this context and their desire to see the City and the GLA reach an amicable agreement.

The Minister says that the Bill does not alter the powers of scrutiny of the Corporation of London in terms of the museum. In my speech, I sought to indicate that there will be no powers relating to scrutiny on the statute book if the Government persist in repealing the one clause in the Museum of London Act 1965, to which the Minister made reference; since that is to be repealed by the Bill, there will be no provision in statute for the corporation to insist on scrutiny of the museum’s officers and board of governors. The Minister said that the situation has not been altered, but I believe—and she will be able to read what I said—that by that repeal it has been. If the Greater London Authority is to have unique powers and sanctions, the museum will always look over its shoulder to the GLA rather than to the City of London Corporation. To borrow from Dr Johnson, to whom another excellent museum within the City of London is dedicated, the prospect of three months’ imprisonment can concentrate a man’s mind wonderfully.

There is, of course, nothing to prevent the two bodies from reaching an amicable conclusion. However, the London Assembly will have greater powers of persuasion, because of how the Act is constructed—I refer to Section 61. If it does not wish to develop a system of joint scrutiny, there is no way in which the City of London Corporation can persuade it to do so, as the balance of advantage in powers of scrutiny is different.

I will make a constructive suggestion, if I may, as I obviously wish to resolve this matter, although we will not do so tonight. The London Assembly has the power, which it has used, to set up a panel on, for instance, the governance of London. It has been able to invite people to come and give evidence to it; that has worked extremely well. Some people on that panel were not part of the Assembly itself but independent contributors from outside. If that sort of example can be followed, from which the condition about three months’ imprisonment is removed, the City of London Corporation would be contributing to such a panel as an equal, rather than as, frankly, an unequal. Of course, all of us would wish that some agreement might be reached but, as I said in my peroration, unless we have confidence that such an agreement will be reached between the Assembly and the City of London Corporation—when we are deciding something that will be set in stone for ever—we are in a state of disadvantage.

Finally, although I totally understand what the Minister said about the intended object of this exercise not being to let the London Assembly pursue the corporation or its officers, the wording—as currently structured—is that officers of the corporation will be capable of being summoned in the context of the Bill. For that reason, I regret that I do not want to withdraw this amendment save to provide an opportunity for reflection. At the moment, I do not believe that there is a meeting of minds between us; therefore, we will have to return to it at a later stage. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 93 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 57 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:

moved Amendment No. 94:

We have been here before, my Lords; it is still the same issue. While I appreciate the nuance, the noble Baroness is saying “Let the next election take place, and if the Mayor is re-elected for a second time, then that should in fact be the end of his attempts”. Well, we had the argument before, which is that rather than by legislative device, as this is, we would remove the opportunity for the people of London to elect their Mayor. They would not have the opportunity to do that. So, if the Liberal Democrat Benches are suggesting that there ought to be limits on the extent of powers, where do we start and finish?

We may certainly consider something along the lines of “No party shall be elected as the Government more than twice”. In recent years, and in the memory of most people here, that would have seriously affected the will of the people to elect a Conservative Government in the 1980s and 1990s. It would certainly have affected the ability of the people of this country to elect Labour, or to re-elect and re-elect it again. I honestly am puzzled about why this device should be taken.

When I spoke on this matter last week, I mentioned that the Conservatives did not hesitate when they were bothered by the activity of the GLC in the early 1980s. By diktat, they simply passed into their manifesto an amendment that extinguished the GLC at the drop of a hat. That was wrong, because the people of London had no opportunity; it took more than 10 years and a change of government to Labour to realise that London needed a government. So, I do not fall out on the issue, which is one of principle, and I appreciate that the noble Baroness said that this will allow the Mayor, if the people of London wish it, to be elected a third time. But if they want to do that for the fourth time—and he has a record upon which to stand, and the support in London—I see no reason why he ought not to be re-elected, provided he is a candidate. This amendment should be resisted.

My Lords, an amendment was passed in this House last week. This amendment would clarify the position on what we believed we were passing; it would make it more rational for the other place in discussing this further. There need to be parameters in which the principle is discussed. All we have been discussing so far is the principle of whether the Mayor should have a limited term. I am happy to support the noble Baroness but hope that it will not be necessary to press the amendment to a Division.

My Lords, when this was discussed in Committee, I thought that the arguments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hanham, were comprehensively destroyed. I gather that in my absence last week, your Lordships passed an amendment. We are now being asked to tidy up that amendment because those who tabled it did not get it right the first time. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is shaking his head; I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is helping out the Conservative group in tidying up the mess that the previous amendment made.

If the amendment’s intention is to make something a little more palatable for the other place, it should be resisted. Term limits do not make sense in the British political system. We are actually saying that we will limit and restrict the ability of Londoners to choose whom they want to be their Mayor. We are singling out this one office, of all other elected offices in this country, and saying that term limits should apply to it. In trying to make things more palatable for the other place, the amendment seems to be an attempt simply to gild what is already an extremely unpalatable pill.

My Lords, it is salutary for my noble friend to realise that when he misses a stage in our proceedings, all sorts of things go wrong. I hope that he will be faithful and stick with the Bill until the end. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness. We heard another eloquent speech from my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, who was forensic in setting out the arguments on the amendment debated last week and the one before us today.

We resist the amendment. The principle is clear; it is fundamental. Londoners should be free to decide who should be their Mayor. There should be no limit on the number of terms of office a Mayor can serve. That principle was supported by the Conservative spokesman in the other place and reiterated in an Early Day Motion. The Government stand by their principles.

Last week, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats joined forces to disqualify anyone who has been Mayor twice from standing again for that office. We were told that if he held office for more than two terms, he might become disparaging of and disconnected from the electorate. We were assured that term limits were about the position, not the person. I warned your Lordships, more in sorrow than in anger, that no matter what the avowed intention of those who tabled the amendment—and I pay tribute to their integrity—it would be seen as nothing more than a back-door way of stopping Ken Livingstone from standing again for a third term and of denying Londoners the right to choose for themselves who should be their Mayor. So it turned out. Noble Lords did not listen to my warnings; they have only to read the Evening Standard of 21 June to see that argument displayed in full colour.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, anticipated, the Government will certainly come back to this issue when the Bill returns to the other place. As my noble friend Lord Harris said, Amendment No. 94 is an attempt to redeem the situation but without conceding that to interfere in the democratic process is wrong in principle. This amendment, like its flawed predecessor, would allow the Secretary of State to commence provisions on the two-term limit at different times in the case of the current Mayor and other persons and graciously allow the current Mayor to stand for a third term in next year’s mayoral elections. It offers explicit acceptance of the principle of term limits and is therefore wholly unacceptable on this side of the Chamber.

There are no convincing arguments in favour of term limits in British politics. It represents a break with our democratic tradition sufficient for the honourable Member for Surrey Heath, Michael Gove, to say:

“I hope I have made it clear that we do not believe in term limits in principle or for the Mayor of London”.—[Official Report, Commons Greater London Authority Bill Public Bill Committee, 18/1/07; col. 331.]

I could not agree more. The amendment is wholly unacceptable to the Government and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

My Lords, I really tried not to rehearse the arguments that we had last week. My noble friend Lord Tope and I referred to the predecessor to this amendment. I thought that I had made it clear at the start of this debate that this is not an afterthought; it is drafted in the same terms as Amendment No. 93, which was withdrawn. It is simply changed with regard to the reference to the section. The amendment which my noble friend and I tabled, which was debated with that of the noble Baroness, was termed slightly differently. The only difference is the italicised words in brackets.

This is not a matter of palatability or redemption. It is a matter of completeness—the completeness of the argument which my noble friend and I made last week. It is not necessary or desirable for me to respond to the points of principle on the original amendment. I see this as consequential to an amendment which this House has agreed. To end tonight with a flourish, even if it will lead my colleagues into the jaws of defeat, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

This is in essence a Bill about the efficient use of property. It is widely recognised that we live in a time of extreme demand on property, be that commercial or residential, where land is scarce and prices are at a premium, and where the balance between development and the protection of our much valued green space is an increasingly delicate one to strike.

A decade of low interest rates and sustained economic growth has created record levels of demand for land and property, creating high prices that place a burden on the competitiveness of the UK. The efficient use of property is therefore a matter of prime importance. Yet, at the same time, the rating system offers tax reliefs of 50 per cent for empty commercial buildings, and 100 per cent for empty industrial buildings, to lie idle at a cost of £1.3 billion per annum. It cannot be right for owners to continue to be subsidised to keep property empty at the expense of taxpayers elsewhere, at a time when UK office rents are among the highest in the world—routinely 30 per cent higher than our competitors in the EU—and where Manchester, for example, is one of the costliest locations in the world.

That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget Report of 21 March the Government's intention to reform empty property relief, as part of a package of measures to encourage more efficient use of land and property.

The Government's decision to reform follows the recommendations of two independent experts, Kate Barker and Sir Michael Lyons, who in their recent reviews advised that the rating of empty commercial property should reflect today’s social and economic realities. In her review of land use planning, Kate Barker recommended that the Government make better use of fiscal incentives—in particular by reforming empty property relief—to encourage more efficient use of urban land. Sir Michael Lyons examined the case for reform as part of his consideration of how local government should be funded. Having consulted widely with industry, local authorities, planners and regeneration bodies, he too recommended the reform of empty property relief, to help to ensure that developed land is put to its most efficient use, given the impact that economic change and rapid housing growth have had on the value of land and property.

The Government agree that the time is right for reform, which is why we have this Bill. It might be helpful to the House if I spent a few moments clarifying its main components. It is a short but none the less important Bill that seeks to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988 by increasing the empty property rate from 50 per cent to 100 per cent of the basic occupied business rate, to incentivise owners to reuse, re-let or redevelop their properties. This is to encourage owners to bring their vacant shops, offices and factories back into use and thereby enhance the supply of property and help to reduce rents.

The Bill provides a new zero rate for empty properties owned by charities or community amateur sports clubs, as announced by the Chancellor, as an economic boost to the voluntary and community sector. It provides a new power to reduce the empty property rate from the new level of 100 per cent of the basic occupied rate back to a minimum of 50 per cent of the occupied rate, which will ensure that the Government have the flexibility to adapt the unoccupied rate to reflect the prevailing market conditions. It also introduces a new power to make provision to tackle rate avoidance tactics by disregarding changes to the state of property in circumstances that we shall define by regulations. If, for example, an owner removed a roof from a property, for rating purposes it could be valued as if the roof had not been removed.

Properties will continue to enjoy a three-month rate-free period on becoming empty, or six months for industrial properties. Three months is the period already established in legislation and we do not propose to change it. Barker demonstrated in her report that there is no inherently greater risk of different types of property falling empty, so it is right that there should be convergence in the tax treatment of all forms of property. We are therefore bringing the treatment of industrial property towards that for office and retail property, allowing it a six-month period with no rates. Exemptions from empty property rates are set out in secondary legislation and, although our intention is largely to maintain the details of the current regime wherever we can, and it makes sense to do so, we will consult on any proposed changes to that legislation over the summer, including how the new power to tackle rate avoidance will work.

We recognise that the vast majority of property owners do not deliberately vandalise their properties in an attempt to avoid rates. However, stakeholders have informed us that this may be a temptation to a small minority of owners, which may prove even more alluring given the increased liability for rates proposed by this Bill. This is why the Bill provides a new power to make regulations to deal with any benefits that might flow from such deliberate acts of vandalism.

I believe that noble Lords will see that this legislation is good for business. It will invigorate commercial life by creating better access to commercial property at more reasonable rents and increase our business competitiveness. Indeed, the Federation of Small Businesses pressed the Government to reduce the business rate relief on empty commercial property, precisely to ensure the better use of commercial premises. We believe that by enhancing the supply of properties on the market, these reforms are good news for small businesses. It is important, however, that the measures in this Bill are seen as one component of, and in the context of, a wider package of measures which the Government are introducing to support business and property owners. We have, for example, introduced measures to assist owners in our most economically fragile environments to bring empty property back into use.

The business premises renovation allowance introduced on 11 April this year—a full year ahead of the changes we are proposing through this Bill—is a new 100 per cent capital allowance for the renovation of empty commercial property in our assisted areas. We expect it to better target the needs of these areas to provide quality commercial property that is fit for the 21st century business user, which is one reason why we have already published a forecast yield from reforming empty property rates. Alongside this we have published a consultation on reforms to land remediation relief, proposing that we extend the relief to long-term derelict land to improve economic incentives to bring derelict land back into use. We are also considering the tax treatment of lump-sum payments made by businesses when surrendering onerous leases to see whether current policy results in the retention of premises that would otherwise be released to the market.

I remind the House that local authorities already have discretion to provide hardship relief from empty property rates to respond to the realities of the commercial world by assisting owners facing particular difficulties in re-letting their property. That provision will not change.

The House will see that we are seeking to kick-start and revitalise commercial life across the country, in rural and urban locations, areas of decline and areas of growth. Sir Peter Hall, Professor of Regeneration and Planning at University College, London, has given strong support for these reforms, saying that they will make owners more willing to let units for less than top whack—meaning greater variety in our shopping centres and streets, livening up Clone Town Britain. Sir Peter goes on to say that the effect on empty factories and warehouses could be more dramatic. Owners will be more likely to sell to developers. And, given the weak or non-existent demand for industrial buildings, that will see demolition to make way for residential development, answering the call for a big increase in housing starts—on brownfield, urban sites too. The House will be aware of the progress that we need to make on making land available for housing.

I draw the House’s attention to the support of John Gummer, who is experienced in these matters as a former Secretary of State responsible for business tax, and who last week said in another place that,

“we have been too lax in the past. Given our serious housing problems, we need to ensure that all the buildings we have are properly used, because the alternative is to build yet more in unsuitable places”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/07; col. 908.]

The benefits of this Bill have far-reaching and important consequences for business and our communities. It signals a step change in the use of valuable property. At a time when the scarcity of land and buildings is a well recognised problem, here is a Bill that incentivises us to maximise our existing assets and to harness those assets for the benefit of our economy and wider society. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the mechanics of the Bill and explaining how the Government have concluded that it has merit. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with him on that. However, before going further I should declare an interest as chairman of a property development company with interests in commercial property. Nevertheless, I trust that noble Lords will accept that what I shall say about this Bill is based not on self-interest but on experience gained over a number of years.

The Lyons report, which has been prayed in aid by the Minister, never argued for the introduction of this measure in isolation. Indeed Sir Michael explicitly said that any change should occur in 2010 and only after extensive consultation. If this Bill is enacted it will come into effect next year, which allows an unreasonably short time for action to be taken by responsible landlords. The main thrust of the argument in the Lyons report for introducing this legislation is to influence commercial rents and capital values. The Lyons report says that,

“the effect across the economy would probably be a fall in future rents that would benefit property occupiers. This might be accompanied by a fall in capital values, which would have no impact on current owner occupiers (assuming that they wanted to continue using the same or more property in the future) and a positive benefit for future purchasers”.

Noble Lords should note the use of the words “probably” and “might”. However, I fear that this is an incorrect summation of what would happen and actually illogical.

In most cases empty buildings are unoccupied not because the rents asked by the landlord are too high—quoting rents are governed by market conditions—but because there is no demand for the type of space in question. Unless market conditions are very strong, such as in London offices at the moment, landlords do not hold out for higher rents, but look to get the building producing income at the market level of rent.

As for Sir Michael Lyons’s dismissive regard for the fall in capital values, I beseech your Lordships to spare a thought for the many millions of people in this country who have at least some exposure to property as an investment class in their pension funds. I am sure that the Government do not wish to strike another blow against pensions, but that is what they will surely do if this Bill is passed.

How many property owners have long-term strategies for leaving buildings empty when they could find tenants or change the use? In my experience, buildings are left empty only due to market conditions or planning policy restricting a change of use.

It is surprising, to say the least, that this Government, who support the twin ideals of sustainability and regeneration, are pressing ahead with this Bill. I regret having to say it, but there is a real risk that it will prompt the decommissioning of very useable buildings.

Apparently, the Federation of Small Businesses supported the measure, which seems to have given the Government the green light to proceed. No mention is made of the fact, however, that the British Property Federation, the British Retail Consortium and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are all deeply concerned about the effects of this legislation.

I fear that this £1 billion tax grab, for that is what it really is, will slow regeneration, as landlords become less willing to take risks on unestablished locations. I can only hope that the secondary legislation that will follow in the wake of the Bill will address the concerns that I and many others have.

My Lords, the Government give two principal justifications for this measure: first, it will improve, they say, the competitiveness of UK business by leading to a reduction in rates; secondly, it will lead to greater efficiency in the use of land and the existing property stock and, among other things, to speedier redevelopment of already developed land, in line with Kate Barker’s recommendations. A further justification, which is not used by the Government, is that it raises quite a lot of money—almost £1 billion. My comments will deal with these points of substance and then move on to procedure.

The only consequence of the Bill of which the Government can be certain is the increase in revenue—in the short term at least, that will certainly happen—but the extent to which the other professed benefits of the Bill will be realised is much more problematic if it is implemented as proposed.

Let us take the first potential benefit, that businesses will become more competitive because rates will fall. Clearly, the Bill will give property owners an added incentive to let their buildings as quickly as possible, so deals might be done on better terms for the tenant to get them into occupancy more quickly. However, when I worked for a major property developer in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was always considerable pressure to let property at the earliest possible moment, not just from the developer but also from its agents, who were desperate to see the property let so that they could get their fees. I have seen no evidence, and have no reason to believe, that these motiva