Localism Bill

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Report (3rd Day)

15:09

Clause 184 : Designation of Mayoral development areas

Amendment 96

Moved by

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

96: Clause 184, page 174, line 14, after “Assembly” insert “or those London borough councils whose borough contains any part of the designated area”

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has very kindly added his name to this amendment, tabled in my name. With this group of amendments, we turn to the subject of the mayoral development corporations in London.

Anybody with experience of development corporations, such as the London Docklands Development Corporation and other development corporations outside London, will recognise their hugely important role in urban regeneration in often very run-down areas. One essential characteristic that led to the success of these development corporations, not least the LDDC, was the provision that they had to be planning authorities and therefore had full authority over planning in their areas. In the 1980s this enabled my noble friend Lord Heseltine and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon to trigger what we must all agree has been the most amazing regeneration of what was then the almost derelict area of London docks. My role came later, as Secretary of State for the Environment, and with my late friend Nicholas Ridley, then Secretary of State for Transport, we were responsible for promoting both London City Airport and the Docklands Light Railway. These have transformed the Docklands area and indeed much of east London. Therefore, it is no surprise that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, supported by the Greater London Assembly, has persuaded the Government to include mayoral development corporations in the Bill. This is what Chapter 2 of Part 7 of the Bill is all about. As with all those who are concerned with the development and future of London, I warmly welcome most of this chapter but I have a few points to make.

I note in passing that the origin of this suggestion related to the Olympic legacy, for which these clauses will be of great value, but if it had been confined to the Olympic legacy, that would have made the Bill a hybrid bill. Therefore, the Government very wisely accepted that this proposal for development corporations in London should cover the whole of the area. Of course, they may not be confined to single boroughs, and indeed one of the attractions is that they could well cover an area that extends over more than one borough. The combination of this and the fact that they will be planning authorities in their own right has caused some anxieties on the part of the 33 London boroughs and the City of London. I remind the House that I have declared an interest at each stage that I am a joint president of London Councils.

There are two issues: first, whether the London boroughs should be represented on the mayoral development corporation boards, committees and sub-committees; secondly, what appears to be in the Bill an inadequate consultation of the boroughs on the formation and operation of a mayoral development corporation. I tabled the amendments in this group and I very much welcome the support of the Official Opposition in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.

15:15

My noble friends on the Front Bench have gone quite a long way to meet our concerns, and I will turn to that in a moment. The boroughs have these concerns because they are acutely sensitive to the possibility that there may be a conflict of interest between the ambitions of this, or indeed a future, mayor and the borough councils in which the mayor might propose an MDC. Councils have in most cases developed their local plans, and many will have secured much local support for those plans. If a proposed MDC failed to take proper account of those plans, or indeed cut right across them, this could give rise to serious disagreements. That is why this Bill needs to include measures hopefully to avoid this as far as possible, or to be able to deal with it if it should arise.

I will take the two points in turn. With regard to representation, our Amendment 98, which states that an MDC board should have at least one elected member from each council affected, seems to us to make an unanswerable point. Happily, my noble friend, with her Amendment 97, has met this point very satisfactorily, so when it comes to moving the amendments, I will not need to move Amendment 98. But Amendment 97 does not go quite far enough. A few moments ago I mentioned not only membership of the board, but also of the committees and sub-committees of the board, and as yet there is no provision to ensure borough representation on these. That is what my Amendment 101 is about: first, that there should be at least one elected borough representative on every committee and sub-committee; and, secondly, that if it is concerned with planning functions, it must draw half its membership from the London boroughs concerned. Why cannot this, too, be accepted by Ministers? Borough councils are responsible, elected bodies, which have a very real interest in what goes on in their areas. I would have thought that representation on the committees and sub-committees is an entirely reasonable thing to ask for.

It is so important that there should be wide consultation and a proper follow-up of the consultation. In the Bill, it is stated that when designating an area and when exercising the MDC planning functions, the mayor has to consult a wide range of bodies, including the Greater London Assembly and the London boroughs. That, of course, is very welcome. However, in the event that comments are made by the Greater London Assembly, if the mayor disagrees he has to make a statement explaining why he disagrees with the Assembly. When one looks at the consultation for the boroughs, one sees that there is no such obligation. He does not actually have to make a statement explaining why he differs from the boroughs, and in my view, I cannot see why these should not be given equal weight. I had this amendment down before the recess, and I received a letter from my noble friend Lady Hanham, who suggested that should a borough’s representations to the mayor not have been properly considered, it will have the option of escalating its concerns to the London Assembly.

I have to say, with great respect, that is just not good enough. Of course, for the most part, the boroughs have a very good relationship with the Greater London Assembly. But I do not think that it is appropriate that borough concerns, which have been the subject of consultation, should be addressed only if taken through the representatives of the regional government. The boroughs have a legitimate and distinct voice, and this should not be crowded out. Amendment 96 relates to MDC designation; it would ensure that following any comments by a London borough council on a proposed designation, if it contains any part of the proposed MDC and if the mayor did not accept, he would have to publish a statement of his reasons for non-acceptance. Amendment 103, which relates to the MDC planning functions, would also ensure that if the mayor did not accept the borough’s view, he would have to publish a statement for non-acceptance. As he has to do that for the assembly, why should he not do so for the boroughs? My amendments simply put the boroughs on an equal footing to the London Assembly.

We believe that these amendments are wholly reasonable, should be uncontroversial and are entirely in keeping with the legitimate role that the London boroughs have in representing and shaping their communities. These are very reasonable amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has indicated, we are pleased to put our name to these amendments. We thank the Government for responding to at least one of the amendments, which means that the noble Lord will not have to introduce that one. The issues, as the noble Lord has explained, seem to be extremely straightforward and clear-cut. The consultation simply seeks for London boroughs parity with what happens to the London Assembly and for them not to have to go through the indirect route for the reasons that the noble Lord has explained and to make sure that there is fair representation. The Government have recognised that there should be representation for the boroughs on MDC boards. It seems a natural and reasonable extension to that that there should be representation on committees and sub-committees. Having said that, I fully support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, as regards the mayoral development areas, reference is made to consultation with a number of bodies, including the Greater London Authority or local councils. But consultation is different in the minds of different people. In local government, we have seen many consultations, the results of which have been ignored. It worries one that a London borough may be only one part of the decision-making process and may only be consulted.

In particular, the government amendment refers to local borough councils having a “relevant” interest if the mayoral development area in any way impinges on the area of that local borough. The boundaries of London boroughs do not fit neatly into developments. For example, the Brent Cross development, which was built more than 30 years ago, is expanding, with which I agree. It is right on the borders of the boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Brent and Harrow. It seems to me that when this situation arises in the future, “relevant” local authorities should be those that have an interest and are affected by the proposed mayoral development areas, and not only those where the mayoral development area would be situated within that local borough. I invite the Minister to consider whether the word “relevant” is correct in this case and whether adjoining local boroughs should also be in some way incorporated in this Bill.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment as a requisite safeguard for the flexibility of the London boroughs; that is, flexibility being within their remit and for their discharge.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I declare an interest as leader of a London borough. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the moves that have been made to address some of the legitimate concerns put forward at the previous stage. Having said that, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding eloquently put the case for further consideration of some of the minor details—some of which are not so minor—in clarifying how this will work. Rightly or wrongly, there is suspicion among leaders of London boroughs about the risk of the mayor imposing policies on areas of London. Further safeguards and assurances would be desirable in that respect.

The other brief point I wish to make is that, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, recourse to the London Assembly, with all great respect to that body, is not a fully local response. In the Bill we already have to contend with the fact that regional government is continuing in London and that the local element of the Bill is somewhat deficient in London. Geographically elected members of the London Assembly represent quite large areas—less local than London boroughs—and are less urgently concerned through wards with local affairs. The London Assembly Members who are elected under proportional systems do not have that kind of local connection.

I hope that my noble friend, in considering the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will tell us that he will be able to consider further the noble Lord’s points before the next stage.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses concerns raised about borough councils’ representation on an MDC’s board and committees. I am grateful for all noble Lord’s contributions. We have thought carefully about this and have tabled government amendments.

Amendment 97 would ensure that a borough council, including for this purpose the Common Council of the City of London, whose area forms part of an MDC, will have an automatic seat on the board by requiring that the mayor must exercise his power to appoint members to the MDC so as to secure that the members of an MDC include at least one elected member of each relevant council. Such appointments will still be subject to the same safeguards as other appointments. Amendment 99 would allow the mayor to remove a borough council member from an MDC’s board if that member ceases to be a borough member and the mayor wishes to appoint another member of that borough in the original member’s place. Amendment 102 is a consequential amendment to rules about the validity of proceedings and simply ensures that the absence of at least one elected member of each affected borough council will not affect the validity of an MDC’s proceedings.

Amendment 100 removes the stipulation that the majority of members of a committee or sub-committee of an MDC must be members of the MDC. These are significant concessions. My noble friends have suggested in Amendment 98 that one-sixth of the members must be from the boroughs, but that is not necessary. For example, with the proposed Olympic Park Legacy Corporation the four borough members would be likely to constitute rather more than one-sixth of the board. On that basis I ask my noble friends to withdraw their amendment. The House may recall the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, tabled for Committee, which was not debated. That sought to provide that an MDC’s committees and sub-committees should not, as is currently the case, require a majority of MDC members. I am delighted to say that we have brought forward Amendment 100, which secures the aims of the noble Baroness.

Amendment 101, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also relates to membership of committees and sub-committees but seeks to prescribe membership. It states that there should be at least one elected borough representative on both committees and sub-committees from those boroughs whose areas are affected by a designated mayoral development area, and, where those committees are concerned with planning, that at least half of the membership should comprise representatives from affected boroughs. I hope the House will agree that the existing provisions regarding committees and sub-committees, bolstered by Amendment 100, will give an MDC maximum flexibility over the make-up of its committees and sub-committees. I hope that deals with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. For example, an MDC will be able to appoint one or more relevant borough council members to its planning committee and, should it wish to do so, have a majority of non-MDC members on that committee.

I turn now to Amendments 96 and 103 which address a borough’s comments on, first, the proposed designation of a mayoral development area and, secondly, designation of an MPC as the local planning authority. It is clearly right that an affected borough council must be consulted on both these issues, just as it is right to offer the opportunity to the London Assembly, relevant Members of the other place and other statutory consultees as the Bill provides. It is also the case that the mayor will be obliged to consult affected borough councils and other statutory consultees were he to propose that an MDC should offer business rate discounts. The Bill provides that, should comments be made by the London Assembly and the mayor not accept those comments, he is obliged to publish a statement giving reasons for that non-acceptance. Amendments 96 and 103 would extend that requirement to comments of the borough councils. However, there is no need to do this. As I have said, an affected borough council must be consulted by the mayor, so it could make its views known to him by that route. But a borough council could also make representations to its London Assembly constituency member who, in turn, could feed those views to the Assembly as a whole, as a result of which the Assembly could, if it wished, relay those representations and any of its own to the mayor. I suggest that this is a sufficient level of scrutiny.

I would ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and accept Amendments 97, 99, 100 and 102 in their place.

15:31

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I am grateful for the care with which my noble friend has replied to the amendments, but I have to say that I am concerned at what he said towards the end of his remarks about the London boroughs having to put their views to Assembly members who, in turn, will put them to the mayor. That is not a proper or, indeed, a dignified treatment of independent elected authorities which have made substantial comments on the mayor’s plans. I really am quite disappointed about that.

I understand the point made by my noble friend on the question of representation, and in particular on the question of numbers. What we are asking for is that they should at least have representation on committees and sub-committees, but all my noble friend has been able to say so far is that it would give maximum flexibility if this were not in the Bill because there is nothing to prevent the mayor making sure that there are such representatives. However, it does not oblige him to do so; the Bill merely says that this can be done. So I have to say that I am a bit disappointed.

I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to look at this again between now and Third Reading. I have to tell him that the boroughs feel strongly about the issue, and I am grateful to my noble friends Lord True and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill for what they said on the issue. The boroughs are concerned because while at the moment no other mayoral development corporations are planned beyond the Olympic Park Legacy Corporation, there will be, so we need to guard against the possibility of there being a serious conflict of interest, and the Bill ought to provide a proper machinery for dealing with that. I hope that I have convinced the House that this is the not the case at the moment.

Obviously I am not going to divide the House, but it does seem to me that I am entitled to ask my noble friend to have another look at this between now and Third Reading, which we shall not have for some weeks yet so there is plenty of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 96 withdrawn.

Schedule 21 : Mayoral development corporations

Amendment 97

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

97: Schedule 21, page 399, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) The Mayor must, subject to sub-paragraph (3), exercise the Mayor’s power under sub-paragraph (1) so as to secure that the members of an MDC include at least one elected member of each relevant London council.
(1B) For the purposes of this Schedule—
(a) “London council” means a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London, and(b) a London council is “relevant” in relation to an MDC if any part of the MDC’s area is within the council’s area.”

Amendment 97 agreed.

Amendment 98 not moved.

Amendments 99 and 100

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

99: Schedule 21, page 399, line 39, after “Act),” insert—
“(ca) the member has since being appointed ceased to be an elected member of a relevant London council and the Mayor wishes to appoint an elected member of that council to be a member of the MDC in the member’s place,”

100: Schedule 21, page 401, line 2, leave out from “MDC” to end of line 3

Amendments 99 and 100 agreed.

Amendment 101 not moved.

Amendment 102

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

102: Schedule 21, page 401, line 27, after “it,” insert—
“(ba) its members not including at least one elected member of each relevant London council,”

Amendment 102 agreed.

Clause 189 : Functions in relation to Town and Country Planning

Amendment 103 not moved.

Schedule 22 : Mayoral development corporations: consequential and other amendments

Amendment 104

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

104: Schedule 22, page 402, line 22, at end insert—
“Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (c. 39)1A In section 1(4) of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services Act) 1970 (supply of goods and services by local authorities: interpretation) in the definition of “local authority” after “(joint waste authorities)” insert “, a Mayoral development corporation”.”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I shall begin by speaking to government Amendment 107, which is also in the group.

The government amendment seeks to enable the greatest sharing of back-office services across the GLA group. The mayor has an ambitious shared services programme for the GLA group utilising existing powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which enables the GLA and its functional bodies to share administrative, professional and technical services with each other.

We are conscious that there are several legislative gaps in the existing legislation, with a number of bodies in the GLA’s ambit not covered, potentially restricting further opportunities for savings and efficiencies. That is why, following discussions with the mayor, we introduce the new amendment as part of the London reform package to extend the powers to three further statutory entities; namely, the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, the London Transport Users’ Committee and the London Pensions Fund Authority.

The amendment also gives the Secretary of State the power to add other persons or bodies performing public functions in London, other than wholly national bodies, to the list of entities covered by Section 401A, following consultation with the relevant person or body. This will allow the inclusion of unique bodies such as the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority or the Museum of London, if there is an appetite in London for their inclusion. We will be discussing further the extent of any order with the GLA, the boroughs and other relevant partners over the autumn.

Finally, Amendment 104 amends Schedule 22 to classify a mayoral development corporation as a local authority for the purposes of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. This will allow a mayoral development corporation to share administrative services and supply goods to local authorities on the same basis as other functional bodies, again in support of the mayor’s shared service agenda. I therefore beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, this is a very interesting pair of amendments. Proposed new paragraph (d) in Amendment 107 is about the London Transport Users’ Committee, which the Minister will be aware that Amendment 108 seeks to merge more closely into the GLA. If Amendment 108 is not carried—and I will certainly oppose it if I can be in the Chamber at the time—who decides whether these administrative sharing arrangements take place? If the London Transport Users’ Committee remains as it is, who decides whether it should merge its administration? Can they resist a request to share or is it a matter of negotiation?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, it seems to me that the concept of sharing back-office and administrative services is entirely reasonable and I can see the benefits that might flow from that. My noble friend raises an interesting question as to how it works and whether there is a discussion or an imposition when new bodies are brought in. I suppose I am a little surprised that there are not the general powers already available for the sharing of these functions but I support the thrust of this.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I assure the noble Lord that we would not be tabling amendments if the power were already in existence—no, it does not exist, which is perhaps surprising to noble Lords, but I hope that with the consent of the House it will in future. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his question and I reassure him that any decision on these fronts has to be mutually agreed. This is really designed to be of advantage to both parties and for the people of London.

Amendment 104 agreed.