Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in clause 28, page 29, leave out lines 17 to 44.

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 20, in clause 28, page 30, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 on page 31.

No. 22, in clause 28, page 31, line 31, leave out ‘be in general conformity with’ and insert ‘have regard to’.

No. 21, in clause 28, page 31, leave out lines 41 to 45.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The amendments relate to the provisions on the Mayor’s housing strategy. Inevitably, disentangling housing policy from planning policy is impossible. That is why they are grouped together in the ministerial portfolio. Inevitably, some of the points made in this debate may stray into territory also to be covered by the debate that I anticipate we will be having immediately afterwards. I hope, Mr. O’Hara, that you will forgive me if there is any straying from housing territory into planning.

It is striking that both we and the Liberal Democrats are anxious to remove the extension of the Mayor’s planning powers, because they will be extended at the boroughs’ expense. It is our united view on this side of the Committee that any growth in the Mayor’s powers should not take place at the boroughs’ expense.

The provisions are more complex in that respect and more open to debate, and we acknowledge that. They imply a devolution of power downwards to the Mayor. We accept that that could be a good thing in many respects, but we have certain concerns, which are embodied in the amendments. We hope that they precipitate a useful discussion and some clarification from the Minister. I hope that they also provide an opportunity for my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to raise their concerns about what is envisaged.

Our amendments would ensure that London’s housing policy was as devolutionary as possible and that that power was exercised at the lowest possible level. The amendments serve two functions: they welcome the idea that the Mayor should develop his own housing strategy and liberate him in one regard more than would the Government. The Bill places a series of constraints on the Mayor in the development  of his housing strategy that will allow his hands to be tied by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. One principle that we believe is important in devolution is that policy innovation should be allowed in different areas of the United Kingdom. We also believe that those responsible for shaping strategies or delivering policy should have the opportunity to do so in a way that conforms with the priorities of those they represent.

One of our concerns about housing policy—not just in London, but nationally—is that national targets and criteria, however well-intentioned their conception, have been applied in blanket fashion, causing housing policy that may have been conceived in a part of the United Kingdom for which it is appropriate to be applied in another part for which it is wholly inappropriate. For that reason, we want to allow the Mayor to become more of a pioneer and less of an agent of central Government in developing his strategy. I hope that those Labour Back Benchers who welcome the idea of giving the Mayor more powers, such as the hon. Members for Ealing, North, for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North and for Battersea, will look warmly on the liberating potential of our amendments.

Martin Linton (PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC, Minister of State), Department for Constitutional Affairs; Battersea, Labour)

I hope that we can include the hon. Gentleman in that category. Does he agree with the right hon. Member for Witney, who said:

“We are...committed not only to keeping the Mayoralty, but to enhancing the powers of the office.”?

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for once again reminding us of the words of the leader of the Conservative party. I find paying close attention to my right hon. Friend’s speeches both spiritually improving and intellectually refreshing, and I suggest that, as well as repeating that line, the hon. Gentleman pay closer attention to all the speeches made by the leader of the Conservative party.

We agree that the Mayor’s powers should be enhanced, and we have tabled amendments that would enhance them, but as I pointed out on Second Reading, our definition of enhancing the Mayor’s powers does not involve enhancing them at the boroughs’ expense. We always wish to enhance the Mayor’s powers, wherever appropriate, in a way that leaves power to flow from central Government to the Mayor, although in specific exceptions—I might be straying into the debate on waste—some might advocate a devolution of powers from central Government to the Mayor that we consider inappropriate.

Enhancing the Mayor’s powers does not mean granting every one of the Mayor’s wishes; it just means an overall consolidation of greater powers in the Mayor’s hands, particularly when those powers come from central Government. It does not and should not mean acceding to all the Mayor’s wishes, and it certainly should not mean allowing a power grab at the boroughs’ expense.

Martin Linton (PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC, Minister of State), Department for Constitutional Affairs; Battersea, Labour)

Would the hon. Gentleman consider me overly cynical if I suggested that he is in favour of increasing all the powers that the Government do not propose to increase and reducing all the powers that they do?

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Far be it from me to accuse anyone of cynicism, and I say to the hon. Gentleman that there are a number of areas where we are happy for that to happen—many more clauses have been allowed to stand part than have been subject to our challenge. I hope that there will continue to be a measure of consensus about some of the proposals, but our concerns are sharpest in respect of the intimate areas where housing and planning mesh. I want to outline a case for ensuring that power remains at the lowest possible level.

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman, who represents part of Wandsworth as Labour Member, might occasionally feel frustrated when he sees what Conservative housing policy has done, how successful it has been in respect of individuals moving from renting to ownership and how successfully Wandsworth has reclaimed property through its hidden homes initiative to provide homes for those who were homeless. He may occasionally bristle at Wandsworth’s success and think, “If only a Labour Mayor were implementing those policies and taking the credit, I could feel happier.” I empathise with him as he looks on enviously at Wandsworth’s success, but I am afraid that the success of Wandsworth and other Conservative boroughs only emphasises the thrust of what I am saying.

Martin Linton (PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC, Minister of State), Department for Constitutional Affairs; Battersea, Labour)

In referring to “success”, does the hon. Gentleman mean the three or four years when Wandsworth council’s planning committee asked for no affordable housing whatever from any of the developments along the riverside and left it to the local Member of Parliament to ask the Minister for Housing and Planning to intervene, because that was the only way to get any affordable housing through planning gain? Does he support that? Or is he talking about the council’s current policy, under which it has eventually come round to agreeing that some affordable housing would be desirable?

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I support Wandsworth for being hugely successful and exceeding Government targets for housing completions by reaching 168 per cent. of the figure it was asked to achieve. Having visited some of Wandsworth’s social housing, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I can say how satisfied the tenants were with the quality of service that they received. I am sure he is aware that social housing in Wandsworth is in many, although not all, respects run by the council. It would be interesting for Labour Members to consider that some of the most effective housing still in council hands is in the hands of Conservative councils. Once again, that underlines the point that we are trying to make with our amendments, which is that boroughs that successfully deliver on housing should be given a better chance to do so.

Martin Linton (PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC, Minister of State), Department for Constitutional Affairs; Battersea, Labour)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to talk about Wandsworth’s housing policies in a relevant way. One of my many concerns about its policies is that only 7 per cent. of its completions are affordable housing, which is by far the lowest figure for any London borough.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Wandsworth’s improvement of the social housing stock in its area, through its hidden homes initiative and through investment and renovation, underlines its commitment not just to its existing social tenants, but to other tenants who have been on its housing list and have been housed successfully. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the social mix in Wandsworth is such that it has been uniquely successful in combining the building of mixed communities and support for vulnerable people who may need—through social housing or private rented accommodation—an alternative to the competitive market.

Wandsworth is a success, and at every election its Tory administration has seen its majority increase, whichever way the wind is blowing nationally. The evidence of my own eyes and that of the ballot box suggests that it is delivering in tune with what its voters want, whether they are social tenants or not.

Martin Linton (PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC, Minister of State), Department for Constitutional Affairs; Battersea, Labour)

I do not think that many of the people waiting for a chance to get affordable housing will agree when they see that houses that currently qualify to be described by Wandsworth council as affordable homes are offered at 90 per cent. equity at a cost of between £300,000 and £400,000. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that affordable?

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which refers to one of the Government’s semantic problems in defining “affordable housing”. The Government have chosen to use the term “affordable housing” to refer not just to housing for social rent, but to low-cost home ownership schemes, which has meant that any shared-equity or shared-ownership scheme qualifies as affordable housing. I suspect that we both support more low-cost home ownership schemes, as well as improved and enhanced housing for social rent. However, we must recognise that, in London, the cost of some of those schemes can be prohibitive.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned some schemes in Wandsworth where the cost has been significant. I remind him that low-cost home ownership schemes and affordable homes were allegedly built in Hammersmith and Fulham when the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush was leader of that council that were selling for £750,000. The attempt to make a partisan point against Wandsworth council backfires because Hammersmith and Fulham, like Wandsworth, was caught by the wide semantic net for affordable housing that the Government have created.

Siobhain McDonagh (PPS (Rt Hon John Reid, Secretary of State), Home Office; Mitcham & Morden, Labour)

My constituency of Mitcham and Morden is in the London borough of Merton. We benefit from the fact that property in our area is cheaper—relatively, not absolutely—than in the rest of London, and shared ownership schemes work incredibly well. The problem that I would like the hon. Gentleman to comment on is the fact that my borough, which is a no-overall-control Conservative borough, is taking increasingly oppositional stances towards the introduction of shared ownership schemes, particularly those for new home owners. Is that the right direction to take?

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing such matters to my attention. I shall pay closer attention than hitherto to the new housing policy for which Merton council is responsible.

In response to the hon. Lady, I wish first to set out an overall point of principle. We are arguing that local councils should set housing policies and that they should be accountable to their electorate for those policies through the ballot box. If the new Conservative-led council is pursuing a housing policy that is out of sympathy or keeping with the needs of the community, it will pay a price at the ballot box in much the same way as the Labour party in Hammersmith and Fulham paid such a heavy price last time round.

As for shared ownership schemes, let us consider the Government’s social homebuy scheme. Conservative Councillor Kim Humphreys in Southwark has been one of the most enthusiastic champions of social homebuy. We know from written answers that the Minister has had painfully to acknowledge in the House that the number of homes sold under social homebuy has increased from one in the summer to a massive five. The homes under social homebuy have often been made available as a direct result of the championing of Conservatives, rather than Labour councillors. The Government’s record in respect of low-cost home ownership is “could do better”, while the Conservative record is “wherever possible, champion it”.

We may hear more about such matters in the debate, but with the Conservative takeover in Hammersmith and Fulham, the emphasis on making low-cost home ownership schemes work better will receive significant impetus. I am sure that members of the Committee would want to note it in their diaries that in February Hammersmith and Fulham will reveal more about its plans to help low-cost home ownership schemes take off in that part of west London.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

It will be better if I comment in some detail, because the hon. Gentleman mentioned me in respect of low-cost home ownership under the previous Labour council. I had to ask two colleagues to repeat what he had said because I did not believe it the first time I was told. The Labour administration in Hammersmith and Fulham built a high percentage of affordable rented housing and some shared-ownership housing. That is different from what the current Conservative administration is doing, which is minimising the housing for those in the most severe need and cynically building only shared-ownership housing that it knows is out reach of most people in housing need.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for attempting to justify his record, but for his benefit in particular, and for that of the Committee, I shall repeat what I said. The hon. Member for Battersea said that shared ownership homes in Wandsworth were being marketed at a price that suggested that they were beyond the reach of many of those Londoners whom we would think were the targets for affordable housing. My argument was that Imperial wharf—one of the developments undertaken when Labour ran  Hammersmith and Fulham—had flats that were marketed at an even more exorbitant price, yet they still qualified as affordable housing because they were shared-ownership properties.

The point that I was making is that the definition of affordable housing is semantically elastic, which is a consequence of how the Government defined affordable housing in the first place. [Interruption.] The Minister for Housing and Planning says from a sedentary position that that is up to the council, which only reinforces my point that if the hon. Member for Battersea wishes to criticise Wandsworth—he may or he may not—then in the same light, Hammersmith and Fulham, under Labour, is open to the same criticism. However, at this point, I have no desire to revisit the whole question of Imperial wharf, which has been laboured. I suspect that Hammersmith and Fulham residents took a view on Imperial wharf, and indeed on the housing policy pursued by the Labour authority, at the last borough election.

The boroughs—as we know and has been acknowledged in the debate—play a key role in housing delivery. They have a statutory obligation to meet homelessness requirements and to meet decent homes standards, and for that reason they are the principal engines of delivery in housing. Of course, we have moved from a municipal model of delivering social housing to a more plural one through the changes that we have seen—not just council houses moving into private hands, but stock transfer and the growth in the number of socially rented homes that are managed by registered social landlords and housing associations.

Nevertheless, when it comes, for example, to negotiating with the DCLG for money for arm’s length management organisations, deciding how allocation policies are to work within constraints set down by central Government or meeting the decent homes standards, it is the boroughs that deliver. Strikingly, as I said earlier, it is Conservative boroughs that deliver better.

When it comes to housing completions—this is a point that I made on Second Reading—Conservative boroughs perform consistently better. There are exceptions to the rule, such as Greenwich, for unique reasons. However, the Conservative record in delivering high-quality housing, on time and completed in a way that not just satisfies but exceeds Government targets, is pretty impressive.

One other thing that I would say about Conservative boroughs in London—indeed, about all London boroughs—is that there is a broad consensus on the need for more housing overall and for more affordable housing. There is a legitimate argument, and one that I will return to in greater detail, about how the proportion should be managed. However, there is, as well as a consensus between Front Benchers on the importance of increasing housing supply overall, a broad consensus within London.

Looking at the dynamic way that a Conservative borough such as Barnet is attempting to address housing need, one can see some of the most innovative pioneers considering new methods of financing—for example, investigating how a bond might work. It is Conservative councils that are looking at new ways to get the private sector to collaborate with them to provide that housing.

Our specific concerns about the Government’s amendment relate to how the success of the boroughs, to which I briefly alluded, and their direct responsibility, which everyone acknowledges, could be affected by the Mayor having, in effect, the power of direction over how the London housing pot is spent. We want to know how we can ensure that this or a future Mayor adequately takes account of the diverse needs of all London boroughs and does not pay disproportionate regard to any of his pet projects.

We all know that this Mayor—for example, in how he has sought to target certain councils—has, as it were, a hit list. Referring again to Hammersmith and Fulham, it recently wanted to bring forward a development, which would have increased the housing supply in that area and helped to address the broader housing affordability problems that we face. However, the Mayor directed refusal of that application. Fair enough. We can argue the merits: I think he was wrong, he thinks he was right. What was striking was the way that the Mayor invoked the shade of Shirley Porter. Hammersmith and Fulham was increasing housing supply in its area, which it was elected to do—

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene in a second.

The council was doing something that it was elected to do and that we all recognise as wise, but because the proportion of affordable housing in that development was not exactly right in the Mayor’s terms, he said no, it cannot go ahead. As a result, what happens? The affordability crisis in Hammersmith and Fulham is not addressed and affordable homes, which would have been built, have been delayed. Again, deciding on the merits of the scheme is up to Members here, and indeed the electors of Hammersmith and Fulham.

This Mayor, in the way that he regards housing policy, has shown that his own ideology and taste can influence his thinking. We need to know, when we come to the allocation of money, what safeguards there are to ensure not only that the Mayor will do more than take casual regard of the boroughs, but that he will take specific account of their needs. We need to know what measure of appeal there is. What will happen if the Mayor—for arbitrary, capricious or ideological reasons—decides not to give the boroughs the allocation that they need? How can we be certain that the Mayor will respond to their specific concerns?

There is another point. The provision of new housing in London, including affordable housing, to an extent depends on the planning process. Central Government no longer allocate housing grants to local authorities allowing them to build socially rented homes. Those Morrisonian days, for better or for worse, have gone. What happens now, as most Members will know, is that new housing developments depend on particular developers finding a site, seeking planning permission and then, as part of their obligation, providing a measure of affordable housing.

One question in my mind is, what happens with a go-ahead council—Conservative, Labour or whatever—that is anxious to see development occurring? Barnet is a  case in point. It sees not just successful commercial development, but successful residential development, and, as a proportion of that residential development, wants affordable housing. Therefore, the housing association, which is supposed to manage that affordable housing, will go to the Housing Corporation to ask for money. However, what will happen if the Mayor, in his allocation of the London housing quota, says that north-west London can forget it and that east or south London is his priority? What will happen if the workings of the market, particularly strong leadership from a local borough, lead to an expansion of housing and affordable housing in one part of London, but the Mayor has already allocated the money from the pot elsewhere? Where will the Housing Corporation turn in such circumstances?

Let us say that there is a deserving housing association—again, for example, in Barnet—that is desperate to fulfil the affordable housing requirement there, but it cannot, because of the Mayor’s direction that the cash should go elsewhere. What will happen in those circumstances? Who will exercise Solomon’s judgment?

One other area that I should mention, as we are talking about affordable housing and as we all accept that its provision is vital for London, is the vexed question of the Mayor’s threshold. As we are all aware, the Mayor has produced a particular threshold to ensure that there is greater provision of social housing. The London plan says that all developments of 15 units or more should include affordable housing. That is a lower threshold than prevails in other parts of the country. We can all think of good reasons why that should be so, but there are, curiously, perverse consequences.

In a recent issue of Inside Housing—8 December 2006—some survey work by London Development Research shows a spike in the number of applications for housing development with fewer than 15 units, then a rapid falling off thereafter. Developers are clearly attempting to get round the Mayor’s affordable housing obligation. Why? They recognise that sometimes that affordable housing obligation can make uneconomic a development that might in other circumstances have been economic.

My contention is that the precise balance that should be struck to ensure the maximum number of new homes, both affordable and market, depends on the circumstances in each borough. The Government almost half acknowledge that. By acknowledging that there should be a separate threshold in London, distinct from the rest of the United Kingdom, they recognise that the London housing market is different. Why do we not recognise, as is obvious, that the sub-regional market in north-west London is very different from that in east London? The requirements for affordable housing thresholds and percentages might well need to be different in both those areas and could be better managed by the local authorities, which are already working successfully in sub-regional partnerships.

I should mention one other aspect of the affordable housing threshold. As we all know, the Mayor insists, or requests, in the London plan that all new housing developments be 50 per cent. affordable housing. That seems admirable, but we all know that a recent development—the Olympic park—will not have that threshold applied to it.

On building housing for Olympic athletes, the Mayor has said that the developers can only afford 30 per cent. affordable housing. The developer said that it could not go ahead in a cost-effective way unless it accepted that threshold. The Mayor said that that was right and, having looked at the figures, accepted that it was so. Why, if he can accept that in respect of the Olympic area, cannot he accept the same freedom for other boroughs to negotiate in their own way on each development that they encounter? The Mayor acknowledges that the Olympics is a special case, so why cannot we acknowledge that each London borough is best equipped to engage in such negotiations itself?

We seek a more devolutionary housing policy that recognises Londoners’ specific, diverse housing needs. Although the Conservative party is, broadly, unhappy with power being exercised regionally, London is an exception in so many ways that it is appropriate that the Mayor has the power to set a strategy. Such a strategy could encourage best practice and champion, for example, the creation of innovative new schemes like community land trusts, specify areas where boroughs should work harder to meet their obligations and offer encouragements and inducements to those that work most effectively. However, the Mayor should not confuse his strategic function with that of delivery. The boroughs and associated bodies—primarily RSLs—are responsible for delivering. The responsibility for delivering money is key. The Mayor should not be primarily responsible for allocation of money: the boroughs should do it, by working together and negotiating with the Government through the Secretary of State.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

This is quite difficult for me, because I support some of the amendments in the group and not others. Clearly, amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are about devolution—in other words, stopping the Secretary of State’s interference—which I support. However, amendments Nos. 19 and 22 are different. The official Opposition spokesman stated that it was important that the Mayor had a power to set a strategy. The effect of amendment No. 22 would be that, although he may have such a power, in practice every local authority could disregard the strategy. Is the hon. Gentleman happy with a strategy that could never be delivered? Is that his definition of a strategy?

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the scenario he is complaining about—responsibility for a strategy without power—is similar to one that he recently supported in this Committee: being responsible for health inequalities without being responsible for NHS London?

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

In relation to the NHS issue there would have been a greater degree of control over the NHS if the Mayor had been granted the powers to consult that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden was advancing in her amendment. However, we are talking about a housing strategy and we accept the principle that London needs a strategic government. As part of that process, London will need a housing strategy that can deliver. If amendment No. 22 were agreed, there would be no guarantee that that strategy for housing in London could be delivered.

There comes a point when the official Opposition need to cease the constant repetition of the mantra that we need more homes, if they are not willing and able to say how they will be delivered. If amendment No. 22 were accepted, there would certainly be no prospect that they would be delivered.

The Government could have gone for something stronger in terms of strict conformity, but it is our view that general conformity will leave the boroughs room for flexibility without losing the importance that we acknowledge of achieving London-wide housing figures. I shall give a couple of examples of when that has been the case in respect of the London plan, for example, which has a requirement for general conformity. There was a dispute in Southwark over land classified as urban or suburban, which would have meant different housing densities under the plan. I understand that Southwark fought its case. The Government’s planning inspector ruled in its favour, but also acknowledged that its proposal was within general conformity.

I refer now to Islington. The matter has not been resolved. It concerns annual housing targets. It looked as though an outcome in Islington’s favour would be secured, but the issue is still ongoing. It illustrates the point that there is scope for local authorities to argue within general conformity that their proposals are sound. There have been examples of when the Mayor’s attempts to overrule local authority plans have been rejected by the planning inspector. That is not to say that the Government’s proposals should not be questioned.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has posed several such questions, but it is worth repeating them for the record. What mechanisms will exist to ensure that the Mayor’s spending recommendations provide adequately for boroughs’ statutory responsibilities? What is the appeal mechanism? What safeguards will ensure that the Mayor does not direct boroughs how to use the money that is made available to them? We have that argument almost daily with central Government when talking about their relationship with local government. We do not want that repeated and the Mayor directing local authorities about how they should spend resources.

What safeguards are in place to ensure that, when the Mayor drafts the London housing strategy, he considers the statutory duties, national targets and local issues to which boroughs are obliged to respond? Finally, will the Government make it clear whether they consider that the statutory duties of the boroughs to their local communities will be sacrosanct and that they cannot—and will not—be overridden by the Mayor and anything he puts forward for the London housing strategy?

If we come to a vote, I will have a dilemma to resolve quickly about whether my desire to see the Secretary of State interfere less is stronger than my desire for London to enact a housing strategy that can actually deliver the number of affordable housing units that London, in particular, needs.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office; Ealing North, Labour)

I rise to support the Government’s proposal and to oppose the amendments. I do not do so out of any partisan ideology, but I have considered  the Government’s proposals carefully, have read the responses from various agencies and have listened with great interest to the points made by Opposition Members. I will confine myself more to the statements made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath than those of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. I shall do so not out of disrespect for the latter, but I cannot help but think that, as the hon. Member for Croydon, Central intervenes on the hon. Gentleman, a certain frisson might arise from the current edition of The House Magazine, in which the hon. Member for Croydon, Central describes himself as visiting “Mrs Thoroughgood’s banana stall” in Croydon—we dream of banana stalls in Ealing—and then wrote about attending a public meeting at which he was mistaken for the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. In fact, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central was called “Mr. Tom”. Having been confused with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), an hon. Lady—one of us blessed tonsorially and the other cursed—I understand how such things can be confusing.

However, to turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, we have heard an enormous, almost inordinate, amount about the internal mechanisms of the London boroughs of Wandsworth and of Hammersmith and Fulham. In many ways the hon. Gentleman made the Government’s case, because if one thing has flowed through every aspect of our discussions, as wide and massive as Old Father Thames, it is the link between executive and strategic functions. It was brought out in the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I was born in the London borough of Hammersmith and brought up in the borough of Fulham. I am not sure which political party was in control during my boyhood, but as I lived in Margaret Bonfield house, next to Chuter Ede house and round the corner from Hartley Shawcross house, over the road from Harold Wilson house on an estate that was, and still is, called the Clem Attlee estate, it is entirely possible that there was a Labour administration.

The points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath illustrate the subtlety of the approach of my ministerial colleagues, although I do not wish to insult them by accusing them of subtlety. London is a city like no other—a city of mosaics in which individual communities live side-by-side with other communities of a totally different economic or demographic type. There must be a balance between the understandable desire for local influence over housing, if not quite autonomy, and the London-wide strategic overview. One thing that has not yet been mentioned is the Bill’s proposal that the Mayor consult not only within the area covered by the Greater London authority but in the surrounding areas. That shows a recognition that housing cannot be approached in isolation. We can look even beyond that: any outer London Member—there are a few of us in the room—knows that often when we talk about housing issues people from Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire or Buckinghamshire ask for their input to be heard. The Bill allows for that.

Above all, housing cannot be a hermetically sealed issue, considered entirely locally. There must be a  balance. I speak as one who was proud to wear not the civic chain, as we did not have one, but the civic title of chair of housing management in the London borough of Ealing, where I attempted to bring back standardised paint on front doors and standards for garden cleansing. I was known as the Stalin of W7, but I always denied that.

Mr. Hands rose—

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office; Ealing North, Labour)

I happily give way to the man who represents the borough of my birth.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

It is a pleasure both to represent the borough of the hon. Gentleman’s birth and upbringing and to support the same football team. He seems to hold strongly the conviction that housing should be a matter for the Mayor on a strategic, London-wide basis. Looking through the debates on the GLA Bill, I can find no record of his having expressed that view in 1999 or 2000. What has happened in the intervening six or seven years?

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office; Ealing North, Labour)

I do not study my words with quite as much assiduity as does the hon. Gentleman. However, I seem to recall in November 1997 making a speech—

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

Your maiden speech.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office; Ealing North, Labour)

Indeed, my maiden speech. The first and last decent speech I ever made on the Floor of the House, many would say. I spoke on the Greater London Authority Bill and for my sins I was then put on the Committee of it. I made precisely that point, referring to the glittering kaleidoscope of agencies delivering services across London, which I said

“does not delight the eye, but benumbs the brain”.—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 609.]

I seem to remember waxing lyrical about the traffic signals control unit, which means something to those of us who were involved in local government in the ’70s and ’80s, but happily not nowadays.

Like most people, I have considered the evolution of the London mayoralty. We are used to Mayors in London—we have even had a couple of Lord Mayors—but we are still not used to the idea of a strategic Mayor combined with an executive assembly. We have watched the mayoralty evolve. We are here today because of the evolution of the role of Mayor and the need, in many matters, to change it where circumstances have changed. Clause 28(3) exempts the Mayor from requirements established in section 41(9) of the 1999 Act, in which targets were set within the London housing strategy—the suggestion is that they are not less demanding than targets and objectives set nationally. That change has come about because of a recognition of the sub-regional housing supply situation, and the need to ensure some level of national conformity and—to risk re-introducing the debate on floors and ceilings—to set a floor.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that probably the most significant change since that time is that during debate on the 1999 Act, the Labour party  controlled 18 of the 32 London boroughs—more than half—and now controls only eight of them? That explains fully the political reasons why the Government are seeking to transfer those powers from the boroughs to the Mayor.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office; Ealing North, Labour)

This party cares for the people, not their political allegiance. This party speaks for all London and all Londoners. We care not where they cast their vote or what colour rosette they happen to wear when it comes to considering matters of moment for the whole city. We would never, ever be so politically partisan as to cast legislation in line with some party political prejudice. The Labour party is bigger than that. We look at this capital city, this great city—a city greater even than Lichfield—in terms of the needs of all its citizens. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously implying for a moment that we would ever consider partisan political advantage, he does us ill and he knows little of this party.

Returning—

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

Order. I am heartened by the word “returning”.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office; Ealing North, Labour)

The late and much lamented right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, Eric Forth, once spoke for three and a quarter hours on the placement of a comma. Every time the Speaker looked as though he might rise to ask him to desist, he pointed to the Order Paper and said “and returning”. Like most of us, I heard much from him.

My point is that we have here a classic example of the dichotomy between the Mayor’s executive and strategic functions. Whereas the hon. Member for Surrey Heath seems to want to have his cake and eat it in allowing local autonomy within a benign strategic city-wide framework, that is simply not possible in reality. I shall mention a couple of things that he did not talk about. Housing is not just about housing. It is about climate change, energy conservation, transportation, employment and life chances. Housing is, in fact, about everything. If we are talking about housing in any city, and in this city above all, we must bear in mind all those other factors.

As we all know, housing is the single most important determinant of a person’s happiness or sadness in life. If we are ill, we go home until we feel better. If we lose our job, we go home and write applications for a new one. If we lose our home, we have lost everything and we are on the street. There are 101 reasons why that home can be unsatisfactory—the condition of the property, the journey to work, the amount of pollution, the noise or vibration or any other issue.

For that reason, I am utterly convinced that the Government are trying to keep as much local autonomy as possible so that local authorities can determine planning applications to their hearts’ content. They can set their unitary development plans, work within them and raise individual cases, but they cannot do so in isolation, not just from the rest of London but from adjoining boroughs and even, as we have seen, from boroughs abutting the GLA area. It is simply impossible to deal with the problem in that way.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made such a persuasive intellectual case that I found myself swept away by the majesty and power of his words.

Martin Linton (PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC, Minister of State), Department for Constitutional Affairs; Battersea, Labour)

I was not.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office; Ealing North, Labour)

My hon. Friend has known him longer than I have. I was greatly impressed and was casting around in my mind for any way in which that fortunate juxtaposition could be arrived at whereby we could have both city-wide strategic direction and complete local autonomy. I cannot see how that can be done, but I can see how we could get as close to it as possible, and that is through the Bill, which represents the best possible balance, allowing those two powers to coexist.

Finally—your favourite word, Mr. O’Hara—

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

I am further encouraged.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office; Ealing North, Labour)

Finally, the Housing Corporation was mentioned earlier. The London Housing Federation and the Housing Corporation are vital bodies. The Housing Corporation supports the proposals, despite what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath implied. Before I was elected, when I had an honest job, I worked for Paddington Churches housing association. I was constantly frustrated by the inability to deal with housing beyond the purely parochial, because housing throughout London affects people. People in London move across the city. We are a mobile city and we must recognise that city-wide mobility. We have on these green pages possibly not legislative perfection—we do not achieve that very often in this place—but a blueprint for a better city, in which we manage to achieve that balance that we all seek, for all Londoners. On that basis, I oppose the amendment and support the position of the Government.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

I welcome you to your position, Mr. O’Hara. I, too, am enjoying serving under your chairmanship of the Committee. It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, North, not least because he invariably manages to mention my constituency many times. Indeed, it is possibly the most mentioned constituency in this debate so far.

Looking at the Labour Benches, I was a little intrigued by the membership of the Committee in the first place. I found a somewhat unlikely source of guidance for how it came about earlier this week, when I was forwarded the Christmas message from the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, which explains how Labour members of the Committee get appointed. In the hon. Gentleman’s Christmas message—curiously, written at midnight on a Saturday just before Christmas—he said:

“Secretly, I would prefer to speak on matters about which I know nothing at all but are a bit more fun (like Statistics or Estate Agents—yes, there are Bills on both subjects, and it’s my idea of fun, not yours). As is customary, the whips took my speaking on the Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill as evidence of enthusiasm and have put me on the Standing Committee for the Bill, which meets in January. This means many hours trawling through every clause of the Bill line by line with the purported intention of testing and improving it.”

I shall return to the matter of improving it shortly. He goes on:

“I’m rather looking forward to it”—

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

Order. This is very entertaining, but in the interests of sparing both the patience of the Chairman and the Committee, and the embarrassment of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, the hon. Gentleman should move on to his substantive point.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

Thank you for your guidance, Mr. O’Hara. The hon. Gentleman’s message ends by saying that his previously empty head is now filled with opinions on every conceivable subject, and the Bill certainly seems to be one of them.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the promotional talk from my regular newsletter to my constituents. If anyone wishes, they can go to my website, www.andyslaughter.com, and sign up for that service as well.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If I were him, I would check out the person whose e-mail address is snuggleskunk@gmail.com. He will probably find that they are not one of his supporters.

My point is this: I checked out the voting record of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush. It is incredible and one of the strongest in the House. He appears in something like 95 per cent. of Divisions. Every single time he has voted in accordance with the Government. He has never rebelled. I thought back to the Second Reading of this Bill: the hon. Gentleman said that all the people who spoke in that debate seemed to have been appointed to this Committee. I looked around for people like the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and was left wondering why they were not put on the Committee at the same time.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Poplar & Canning Town, Labour)

May I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that the nomination to Standing Committees is in the hands of the Committee of Selection? I hope he is not impugning its integrity because it has the power.

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

Order. It is certainly not the business of this Committee nor of the Chair.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. I just find it a remarkable coincidence. It is tough to find loyalists in the London Labour party these days. Remarkably, they are all on this Committee.

Turning to the main provisions before us, the provisions we seek to delete or amend are significant. They will fundamentally alter the balance in London between the Mayor and the boroughs. We were told two things about the original GLA Act and the Bill  before us today. We were assured that the Mayor of London has a strategic role in the management of London and secondly that the measures proposed in 1999 and again today would be devolutionary with powers coming from central Government and given to the Mayor. On both those grounds these proposals for housing powers fail the Government’s very own objectives.

The role proposed here for the Mayor of London is far more than a strategic role, but will involve the Mayor and his office and officers in very localised matters. I will provide some illustrations in due course. These powers come almost entirely from the boroughs and boroughs will no longer have much say in their local housing strategies and will apparently be at the mercy of the Mayor in seeing their funding determined. For example, under new section 333A(3)(c) the Major will recommend to the Secretary of State

“how much of the money allocated by him during the relevant period for housing in Greater London should be granted to each local housing authority in Greater London.”

Subsection (4)(b) refers to

“recommendations as to the number, type and location of houses which should be provided by means of grant.”

It is tempting to believe that those who were drawing up this Bill genuinely had in mind that there would be a strategic role for the Mayor. I can understand there being a strategic role for the Mayor. All Opposition Members can. It might be in terms of determining the overall needs of the private rented sector, home ownership, how much should be given to social rented across London and so on. I supposed that that was the Government’s intention. But the reality in the Bill is fundamentally different. The reality is that the Mayor already tries to get involved in the smallest schemes such as the Allied Carpets site in Hammersmith and Fulham. It is directly on the boundary between my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

Can we be clear? It may be on the boundary, but it is in my constituency and I spoke about it at some length on Second Reading. Indeed, I was very pleased when we had a victory. I took part in the photocall. It is just a pity that when the Conservative council printed the photograph they cut me out of it.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

I was trying to use that local example to demonstrate a wider point. It seems that the hon. Gentleman still cannot move on from his days as leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council. I have been advising him for some time that it is time to move on. I believe that even his own colleagues have been telling him that. If he really wants to go back to Hammersmith and Fulham council he would have great difficulty because his old seat is now held by the Conservatives with a 427 majority.

I mentioned the Allied Carpets site not because it is in Hammersmith and Fulham, but because the scheme was turned down by the Conservative council and was refused on appeal, but Mayor Livingstone then recommended it for approval. He said:

“This was an excellent scheme by Allied and Morrison, with a ground floor car showroom and a part 4 storey, part 10 storey building with 50 residential units (50 per cent. affordable) that delivered many London Plan policies.”

That sounds interesting, but the scheme had only 50 units and the Mayor was giving a view about the percentage content of a tiny development of 50 units. We were told that we would be talking about the Mayor’s strategic powers, but a car showroom in Hammersmith and Fulham with 50 units is hardly strategic.

The charter that the provision gives to the Mayor or his successors to meddle in the 32 boroughs of London is immense, and we have seen how the Mayor meddles. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath mentioned another site that I shall use as an example. I am not fixated about my local area, but the scheme at the Prestolite site is a good example. The Mayor, using his existing powers, rejected the scheme in a press release issued on Boxing day. If the Mayor wanted to co-operate with London borough councils, would he issue a press release on Boxing day and prevent the council from having a right of reply, despite the fact that 65 per cent. of the scheme consisted of affordable housing? His own officers recommended it and said that

“on balance, the application will deliver substantial numbers of affordable homes, significantly above the overall strategic targets for boroughs”

in London. The Mayor is supposedly in favour of more affordable housing, but his reason for rejecting a scheme consisting of 65 per cent. affordable housing was:

“Hammersmith’s actions have the stench of Shirley Porter’s regime at Westminster Council in the 1980s.”

We have many new, young councillors in Hammersmith and Fulham, many of whom are under 35. I am above the median age of the current councillors. Most of them had never heard of Dame Shirley Porter.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

They should learn about her in schools.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

Unfortunately, the schools in Hammersmith and Fulham were Labour-controlled for the past 20 years and it was difficult to learn much in them.

At the following group meeting, the councillors were passing round a book condemning Dame Shirley Porter to find out who she was, which shows how far out of touch the Mayor of London is with London housing.

Subsection (4)(b) states that the recommendations may include

“the number, type and location of houses which should be provided by means of grant.”

That sounds like an incredible charter for meddling in every small development. I suspect that the Mayor will be able to influence the number and type of homes, their location and pretty much everything, not in developments of 50 homes, but in much smaller ones. In addition, he will need staff to assist him. There will not be one individual poring over a set of planning applications; there will be yet further growth in the size of the bureaucracy supporting the Mayor and the GLA. I fear that the Ministers behind that will be responsible for causing a nightmare for London.

The power grab from the boroughs on housing is a purely political move for two reasons. First, the Mayor asked for the powers as a payback for his support for the Labour party during its last difficult three or four years. Secondly, at the time of the 1999 Act, Labour controlled 18 of the 32 boroughs and the Labour boroughs did not like the idea of the present Mayor, or any other Mayor, taking their powers. It is purely because of the change in the political complexion of London that the Government have decided to rerun the borough council election results from this year. That is no way to run a democracy and it does not inspire trust in the Mayor and the boroughs.

Furthermore, I foresee a number of legal rows between London councils—the individual boroughs—and the Mayor about all the various developments in which he will start meddling. The worst thing about those legal rows is that the people will have to foot the bill, because both sides will in effect be funded by the long-suffering London council tax payer. The London council tax payer pays both for the boroughs and for the Mayor and the Greater London authority. I foresee many rows not only with Conservative councils but with Liberal Democrat councils and probably even Labour councils. Probably the only exception would be any council controlled by the Respect party, which seems to be just about the only party that is closely aligned with the Mayor’s foreign policy views these days. One disadvantage of the GLA structure is that the funding of the Mayor is not very transparent. I believe that council tax payers will suffer.

I want to end with some thoughts about whether the proposals are devolutionary. That is the other plank of the proposals: first, they should be strategic, and secondly devolutionary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath mentioned, most if not all of the powers are coming up from the boroughs. The London boroughs—I served as a councillor for eight years on a borough in London—not only are much closer to their residents but have a stronger electoral mandate than the Mayor. Councillors are elected on higher turnouts and are not elected with second preference votes.

In turn, the Mayor’s strategy also has to agree with national housing strategies, according to the Bill. Amendment No. 20 would change that. It would remove the need for the Mayor’s strategy to agree with national policy and end the Government’s attempted nationalisation of London’s housing policy. The proposals are not just about moving powers away from the boroughs up to the Mayor but about moving them up further, to the Secretary of State. That is a bizarre result, given that the Bill has been lauded on the other side of the Committee as devolutionary.

To quote again from the Bill, local housing strategies will need to be “in general conformity” with the Mayor’s strategy, which must in turn not be “inconsistent” with current national policies relating to housing. How much individual choice will be left for boroughs in London at all? The position of housing policy is being transformed: it is being moved from democratically elected local councillors all the way up the chain of command to the Secretary of State. In a Bill said to reinforce the Mayor’s strategic powers, powers are given on an incredibly localised basis, on the location, funding and tenure balance of small  individual housing schemes. We have seen in Hammersmith and Fulham that he wants to intervene even on schemes of 50 units. He is already trying that, even before he gets the powers. He even gets involved in the percentage balance of a development of 50 units. That is not strategic.

I support the amendments and urge us to return to the principles that we should have devolution in London and that the powers of the Mayor should remain strategic. The new housing powers achieve neither, and I believe that the Government will come to regret that in future years if the proposals become law.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

I am afraid I thought that some of the hon. Gentleman’s comments were a little inappropriate. If anyone is obsessed with Hammersmith and Fulham council, it appears to be him rather than me. My only interest is that it is a truly dreadful council. My advice to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is not to act as a frontman for it in his contributions, first because it is about as far away from the position that he tries to express on the Conservative Front Bench as it is possible to get, and secondly because the information that he is being given is simply incorrect. However, before I correct those points, let me explain that most of what I am going to say I shall go over only in outline, because much of it is more appropriate to the debate on the planning provisions of the Bill than it is to the housing provisions. Perhaps I shall make a longer contribution when we reach that point.

A number of things have been said that cannot be allowed to rest and need to be corrected. Before I go on to the housing matters, I must say that I take exception to the comment by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham about the education service in Hammersmith and Fulham. The front page of the education supplement with today’s edition of The Guardian has a picture of Phoenix high school in my constituency, which is the most improved secondary school in the country under the visionary leadership of William Atkinson and because of contributions over 10 years from a Labour Government and a Labour council investing in what was a failing school. The comments that the hon. Gentleman makes are exactly the same comments that he and his colleagues made when that school was failing. They were running it down, running off to the Tory press to deprecate it and trying to get it closed by default. Despite that, Phoenix high school is a fantastic success story—the most improved school in England.

To my horror, I find that now that those people are in control of Hammersmith and Fulham council they are doing the same to Hurlingham and Chelsea school—the only other mixed-community school in the borough—except now they have the power to close it. That is a truly disgraceful record and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham made such a flippant comment about the standard of education in the borough, which overall is excellent. In fact, many of his constituents go to those schools.

On housing matters, I said that I thought that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath had been misled. I do not want to go over the details, except to say that some of the developments that he talked about exemplify  what is going wrong in many boroughs—Hammersmith and Fulham is an extreme example. I am surprised that he is associating the Conservative Front Bench with that. If nothing else, the situation provides a good reason for a strategic direction in housing powers in London because the problems are simply not being addressed. Indeed, they are being worsened by the attitudes, principally but not exclusively of Conservative councils—the disgraceful housing authority in the London borough of Islington is controlled by the Liberal Democrats.

In brief, when the Labour party was in control of Hammersmith and Fulham council, 70 per cent. of all housing units being constructed were affordable homes. The split was roughly: 50 per cent. shared ownership and 50 per cent. social rented housing. That met and in fact exceeded the Mayor’s 50 per cent. target for affordable housing, although the target for social rented housing was 70 per cent. and for shared ownership, 30 per cent. The second part of the target appeared not to have been met, but in fact it was, given that the overall percentage of affordable housing was 70 per cent. We were building as many rented houses as we could and more shared ownership ones than was required. So that lays one ghost to rest—the Labour party has no prejudice or bias against shared ownership housing. Indeed, many of the policies of the Government and the Minister for Housing and Planning, such as the social homebuy scheme, have promoted low-cost home ownership.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the Committee exactly how many homes have been sold under the social homebuy scheme?

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

I just said that it was an admirable policy. If the hon. Gentleman wants that justification, he should go to the Front Bench rather than me. I shall come on to his comments in a moment. He might want to intervene then rather than continue the rather sterile debate that I often see him have with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning.

I have highlighted the position under the Labour administration, which had the best housing record in London. It still was not achieving the target of ensuring that 70 per cent. of affordable homes were social rented, although it pushed closer to it every year. However, land values in that borough are very high—some of the highest property prices in London and the country. I take no credit for it, but that was a good record. The policy and practice of the Conservative administration has been to drive down that percentage of affordable homes as close as possible to the Mayor’s 50 per cent.

More significantly, the administration is reversing the percentages of social rented and shared ownership housing. It wants 70 per cent. of all social housing built to be shared ownership. It does that cynically. The generally accepted Housing Corporation and housing association equation is that shared ownership housing costs about two thirds of its market value. Those homes with about a 45 or 50 per cent. discount will retail for between £200,000 and £400,000. The administration knows, therefore, that given land values in Hammersmith and Fulham, most of those properties will not be available to those with housing  needs. They are not even available to those whose income is two or three times the average. They represent an important intermediate market but do not address the primary area of housing need, which is why I think that the Mayor’s 70:30 housing formula is the right one. Given the cost of private sector ownership and rental in Hammersmith and Fulham, or any part of north-west London, no one can say that there is not a housing shortage. The figures speak for themselves. Most boroughs in west London have 10,000 or more people on the waiting list and 2,000 or more families in temporary accommodation. Every one of those families is costing the taxpayer a fortune—usually—through housing benefit costs, or they are paying those costs themselves.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are committed to halving the number of individuals living in temporary accommodation. Will he remind us of the number of people living in temporary accommodation when the Government came to power?

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

I remind the hon. Gentleman ofthis: the Government’s initiatives on temporary accommodation, particularly on ending the use of bed and breakfast accommodation, have changed fundamentally the conditions in which people live. I remind him also that because of the prosperous economy, particularly in west London, house prices and rental values have gone up so much that the squeeze on people who cannot afford to rent or buy in the private sector is such that in recent years there has been an increase in the number of people in temporary accommodation. The Government have now pledged to address the problem.

Why does the hon. Gentleman support Conservative councils that are going out of their way to thwart the Housing Corporation, the Government office for London and the Mayor’s attempts to achieve those targets and extract people from temporary accommodation?

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

As the hon. Gentleman’s response implicitly acknowledged, the number of people in temporary accommodation then was half the number now, so the Government’s target for solving the temporary accommodation problem will return us only to the position that they inherited when they came to power. As he knows, it is a problem not only London-wide, but throughout the UK and in the east of England in particular.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

I understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want to answer my question. I am sure that he does not want to take advice from me, but I advise him again to dissociate himself from events in Hammersmith and Fulham. “Porterite” is exactly the right word, because Porterite means unacceptable political influence in planning and housing processes. It also means incompetent interference, because unless one is incompetent one does not get found out.

The hon. Gentleman may want to find out more about the Prestolite scheme before he discusses it again in Committee. It was inherited from a Labour council  and it included 75 per cent. affordable housing. The new Conservative council made two demands of it: first, that it decreased the percentage of affordable housing from 75 per cent. to 64 per cent.; and secondly, that it swapped the allocations of rented and shared ownership housing, so that instead of the scheme consisting of predominantly rented housing, it consisted of predominantly shared ownership housing for the reasons that I have given. It was cynical political interference, and I hope that he does not approve of it.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Imperial Wharf. Not a day goes by when I do not receive an e-mail or a telephone call from a housing association operating in Hammersmith and Fulham, telling me that it has had unreasonable demands placed on it. I shall provide one more example: a 100 per cent. affordable-housing-designated site, Bagleys Lane in the Imperial Wharf area, which included 121 units of affordable housing. The first demand was for one-third market housing on the site; the second demand was for only 15 per cent. social rented housing on the site.

Given what the hon. Gentleman has said about housing need, particularly in London, I do not understand how he can defend a Conservative council that believes it is right to designate 15 per cent. affordable housing on a site that was designated for 100 per cent. affordable housing. He should put those questions to his hon. Friends rather putting questions to me.

I have more sympathy with the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham on the Allied Carpets site issue, save that it was an observation in a report which the Mayor did not pursue. He did not attend the public inquiry, because it was an inappropriate development, I am pleased to say, not because of the housing split on the site. The project was for a tall tower in a residential area, but it was rejected, which shows the robustness of the planning process. The example is a red herring in this context.

It is essential that in terms of housing policy in London, we build the homes that people need. The Conservative boroughs have not merely failed to deliver on that, and they have not merely derogated responsibility; they have actively and callously gone out of their way to make it clear to people in housing need that they are not welcome in Conservative boroughs. I am surprised to find that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to support that policy, as he indicated on Second Reading, rather than that advocated by the Mayor.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

I have been inspired by some comments made by hon. Members and I want to respond to them. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham does well to mention the significant change in the party political balance across London. I am sure that the Government would not want to be accused of returning to a cynical approach of trying to abolish the role of one layer of government to take revenge for political success at the ballot box, as previous Administrations of another colour have perhaps been able to do in the past.

I was grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing, North for mentioning Mrs. Thoroughgood. I am sure that she will be pleased to see her name in Hansard. My predecessor made the great mistake of criticising the quality of the bananas in Surrey Street market, which was probably why he ended up losing.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office; Ealing North, Labour)

Slipping on banana skins.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

Indeed, it is amazing what one does during elections. However, I want to be serious in this debate, because there is a housing crisis in London and it is important that the legislation is effective and meets the needs of the 62,000 people who are homeless and the 360,000 people in overcrowded accommodation in London.

It is important for us to debate the efficacy of setting centrally driven targets for housing, whether nationally or regionally. The current system, particularly in London, has created a distortion in the supply of one and two-bedroom flats, when what is really needed is the provision of family housing, particularly houses with gardens. I do not believe that being opposed to back-garden development is an appropriate policy in Greater London. Such is the stress on housing in London that that is one place from which housing has to come.

Behind people’s concerns in this debate is a lack of confidence in the ability of local authorities to deliver on municipal and social housing. That is not my experience with my local authority in Croydon. I pay credit particularly to Councillor Dudley Mead, who led on housing before 1994 and who leads on it now. I am pleased that funds have come from the Government via the GLA for new council housing in Croydon. That is important, when my constituents face extreme overcrowding and are advised that their prospects for new social housing will see them re-housed in nine to 10 years.

There are significant votes in providing extra social and council housing in Greater London, but it is people locally who will be strongest in responding to that need and demand. It is more than likely that the initiative taken by a local authority will be blunted by the need to visit city hall and argue its case for one allocation or another. It would be much better if this issue were driven upwards, rather than downwards. That is the problem with the philosophy and approach behind all the amendments. Our approach has been about taking power downwards from the Government and the Government office for London and for giving the GLA responsibilities for the NHS in London and the learning and skills councils in London. Housing being built in localities in response to local pressures is best delivered by local authorities themselves.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

I shall respond to the points made on the amendments this afternoon. I found the amendments confusing and contradictory in their nature. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 and a bit of amendment No. 19 would reduce the influence of the Secretary of State in relation to the Mayor. Amendment No. 22 would reduce the influence of the Mayor in relation to the boroughs. However, amendment No. 19 would substantially reduce the influence of the Mayor in relation to the Secretary of State and the Housing Corporation. The overall impact of the amendments is not devolutionary, as the Opposition have suggested, but centralising; they would hand power and decision making back to the Secretary of State.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Amendment No. 66 makes explicit the devolutionary intent. I apologise to the Chair and to the Committee for the tardy way in which the amendment was tabled, which means that it is not being debated at the moment. If, however, the Minister’s intention is to ensure that the whole spread of the Bill is as devolutionary as possible, then we would be delighted if she accepted that on Report.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

I apologise to the Committee for not reading the hon. Gentleman’s mind and realising that there was another amendment somewhere that would square the circle. Nevertheless, his arguments were not devolutionary. They were all about returning power to the Secretary of State and to the Housing Corporation. Regardless of what other amendments he wants to table, there are fundamental contradictions in the position of the Opposition.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

Yes, I will, but I would then like to make some progress before giving way further.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she explain why she thinks that the original Bill enshrines the principle of devolution? The local housing strategies, the boroughs, have to be “in general conformity” with the Mayor’s strategy, which, in turn, must

“not be inconsistent with current national policies relating to housing”.

It is therefore impossible to escape the impression that she is effectively dictating policy that goes all the way down to the boroughs.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we currently have national housing policies—set out in statute or in guidance—which boroughs need to follow, just like local councils across the country. They have immense free rein in other areas of housing policy.

There is an existing structure in housing policy and in the role of the regional housing boards, which were set up by the Government so that recommendations were made at the regional level rather than simply by civil servants in Whitehall. We thought that an important devolutionary measure. However, we now think it important to democratise that regional voice in London and to give that voice to the Mayor. We think it important to recognise the important strategic issues that reflect the nature of the housing market as a whole, rather than simply local areas and the bricks and mortar that are put up.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

I think that the Minister has already answered my point about how this is different to the status quo. She may correct me if I am wrong, but she is effectively arguing that this enhances the power of the Mayor, but at the expense of herself.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

In many ways the Bill does exactly that. The effect of the Opposition amendments, particularly amendment No. 19, would be to reverse that and simply put a lot of the spending decisions back in the hands of the Secretary of State.

We have to recognise the way that decisions are taken at the moment. The Housing Corporation receives bids for affordable housing. We also have to make decisions about how resources allocated for housing in London are to be carved up between boroughs, perhaps to address problems of the supply of decent homes, of overcrowding or of empty or temporary accommodation. Those are the different ways in which the Government support investment in housing in different areas across London.

Decisions are currently made either by the Secretary of State directly or by the Housing Corporation on the Secretary of State’s behalf. Currently, decisions are made subject to the Secretary of State receiving recommendations from the regional housing board. The boards are composed on the direction of the Secretary of the State, not by decision of the Mayor, and consist of a small number of people whose role is to make recommendations to the Secretary of State. We think that those recommendations about the spending priorities across the city as a whole would be far better coming from the democratically elected Mayor who represents the city as a whole. He should be making recommendations about strategic priorities for London as a whole.

Frankly, if recommendations are not made about money and the strategy does not have an impact on resources, it will not have half the impact on the city as a whole. Over two years, £1.5 billion will go into new affordable housing for London through the Housing Corporation. That is almost half the budget for affordable housing for the country as a whole. That is a lot of investment going into the capital, and we think that it is right that the democratically elected Mayor of London should have a say and make recommendations about the priorities for that investment. If we simply remove the Mayor’s spending recommendations from the process, we will be back to where we started, with the decisions being made by the Secretary of State and the Housing Corporation instead. It is about having a devolutionary effect.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

My hon. Friend may not have plumbed the depths of the Opposition, who do not actually want the investment. I mentioned some schemes earlier: on the Prestolite scheme, £30 million of public funding was withdrawn because of the Conservative council’s decision, and on the Bagley’s lane scheme, £6 million was withdrawn. The Opposition do not want investment in housing, in the same way as they did they want the decent homes money for houses in Fulham.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

My hon. Friend may be right, but the Opposition’s amendments may reflect disagreement about particular housing policy issues between individual Conservative London boroughs and the Mayor rather than a rational argument about structure.

There is a second contradiction in the Opposition Members’ approach. Amendment No. 20 is about removing the role of the Secretary of State with regard to the London housing strategy. However, Opposition Members have asked for decision making to go back to the Secretary of State and for safeguards to prevent the  Mayor from being capricious and from favouring one London borough over another. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has asked for safeguards to ensure that the resources and spending allocations reflect the statutory obligations of London boroughs, which is important.

It is also important that the way in which the resources are allocated reflects the obligations set out under national policy. We have retained a role for the Secretary of State in order to ensure that the London housing strategy conforms to national housing policy, which includes those statutory obligations. A list of safeguards has been included, and we have limited the Secretary of State’s role in these clauses. That constraint is in place to ensure that the London boroughs are not asked to do something by the Secretary of State and the statutory framework, when the framework for delivering resources through the Mayor and the Housing Corporation does not reflect those obligations.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The Minister is labouring under a misapprehension, and is therefore tilting at an Aunt Sally. In our remarks, my hon. Friends and I did not want the powers, particularly the powers of allocation of funding, to remain with the Secretary of State. As amendment No. 66 makes clear—it is on the amendment paper, although it has not been selected—we wanted such decisions to be made by London boroughs acting corporately. As the Minister will know, that was an entirely satisfactory way of operating before the advent of regional government.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman should consider carefully whether he is asking for London boroughs to decide how resources are distributed between London boroughs. Which London borough should have how much and how should those resources be allocated? It is inevitable that each London borough will argue for resources for its area, which it should be able to do. However, it is also important that the largest London borough does not have the strongest voice and that particular coalitions of London boroughs are not able unfairly to affect resources for another London borough. Ultimately, it is important that a strategic view is taken of the capital as a whole, which is why we have an elected Mayor for the whole of the capital.

The implication of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks is that he would prefer not to have a Mayor at all, and if that applies to housing resources it presumably applies to many other areas, too. The hon. Gentleman considers that decisions should simply be taken as a result of discussions between London boroughs; in fact, strategic decisions must be taken and, in the absence of a Mayor, many of them would have to be taken by the Secretary of State.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

I understand the Minister’s argument, but I ask her to provide some reassurance. She says that decisions on funding would be made by the Mayor, but other aspects of local authority funding are determined by formulae and through transparent processes. There appears to be no protection here from a Mayor who makes decisions randomly and perhaps in a fit of pique.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

To clarify the situation, we have made it clear that the clause is about the Mayor’s spending recommendations and recommendations to the Housing Corporation as to how it should exercise its functions. The Housing Corporation will still have to take decisions about individual bids and take account of the fact that, for example, there could be a situation in which, although a particular priority had been set, in practice there were not sufficient good-value-for-money bids put forward within a 12-month period to make it possible to deliver on that priority. The Housing Corporation would have to take that into account and accordingly make adjustments within a year or two years to ensure that its overall programme is to deliver the priorities set and is not compromised because of value-for-money considerations.

The clause also includes a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to how they should make allocations to the Housing Corporation as opposed to directly to local councils. Not all the money allocated for London as a whole goes on new affordable housing, because some of it goes on other issues such as decent homes. The Mayor should be making recommendations as to what that balance should be.

Martin Linton (PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC, Minister of State), Department for Constitutional Affairs; Battersea, Labour)

Far from tilting at an Aunt Sally or setting up a windmill, may I ask my hon. Friend whether she is convinced, because I am certainly not, that all Conservative boroughs would want affordable housing, if they had a completely free hand? I remind her that for several years Wandsworth asked for 0 per cent., which was only changed when it came to realise that if it failed to ask for affordable housing, it would be forced to do so by the Secretary of State. Eventually, Wandsworth was dragged kicking and screaming to ask for 25 per cent. affordable housing, and now it grudgingly provides 33 per cent. when 50 per cent. is demanded.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

My hon. Friend is right. There may be wider underlying fundamental disagreements about policy, which are often the real issues that divide us in politics, and we should not necessarily hide them behind structures.

There may be real disagreements and hostility from Conservative boroughs to levels of affordable housing. At a national level, I know that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has echoed my concerns that 200,000 new homes a year should be built. However, he also knows that many London boroughs are anxious about the overall level of house building and have rather different views on new affordable housing. The hon. Gentleman was enthusiastic in his endorsement of Wandsworth council, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush, I caution him on simply accepting a briefing from an individual council and endorsing it so enthusiastically. The figures that I have from the GLA suggest that in Wandsworth in 2004-05 only 20 per cent. of new homes were affordable housing, and figures from the Housing Corporation suggest that only nine new social rented homes were built in the whole of Wandsworth in 2005-06. I accept that there are limitations on any set of figures and that the figures will count different types of housing in different ways. Nevertheless, I seriously caution the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in being so enthusiastic in his support for Wandsworth.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

Equally, the Minister should be careful about whom she chooses in this debate, because I think that the Mayor of London has got things fundamentally wrong. If one looks at the Prestolite site in Hammersmith and Fulham, which has been much discussed today, the Mayor of London rejected 65 per cent. of the content of the scheme—bear in mind that it seems that the rejected scheme will not be built. There will be no affordable homes at all as it currently stands. The Mayor’s own office said:

“On balance, the application will deliver substantial numbers of affordable homes, significantly above the overall strategic targets for boroughs.”

Why is the Minister endorsing that approach?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman’s example, which has been much raised, is perhaps more relevant to the planning powers that we will discuss next week. I think that he knows that Ministers are restricted in the way in which they can comment on individual planning cases, which, for example, may go through the system of appeal.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

The solution to the negotiations between the Mayor and the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is quite simple. If Hammersmith and Fulham council agrees to a reasonable tenure split of housing on the site, the scheme can be built tomorrow. It would be being built had, as I think that I have made clear, it not been for unacceptable political intervention not by the Mayor, but by the leader of the council in Hammersmith and Fulham.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

My hon. Friend has made important points, subject to the caveat that I cannot comment in detail on individual cases that may still be live within the planning system. At the heart of this is the anxiety among Conservative Members about the Mayor taking a view at all on the overall level of social and affordable housing—and housing in general—needed across the city. Instead, their proposal is that this should be decided, as they put it in amendment No.66, which I have now seen, by negotiation between London boroughs and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has a clear role in their amendment and would have to take a strategic view in the absence of the Mayor being able to do so.

We need to recognise that decisions about housing, particularly major decisions about the level of overall affordable or social housing in one borough, have implications for the city as a whole. The way in which the London housing market works reflects the London labour market and the fact that millions of people travel every day from one borough to another from where they live to where they work. Millions of people will move around during the course of their lives to live in one borough and then another and perhaps to move in and out of London altogether.

There are issues that affect London and the London housing market as a whole, and there are issues around the way in which the London housing market works that affect the national housing market and the national economy. That is why it is important to retain a role for the Secretary of State, because if the Mayor  and the London boroughs between them decided, for example, substantially to reduce new housing built in London and new affordable housing in London, it would have a substantial effect on the London economy and the housing market of neighbouring regions.

The way in which the housing market is linked between one region and another is important and has national repercussions. It would be irresponsible of the Secretary of State not to have some role in recognising the implications that go beyond the city, whether it be for the London economy, the wider national economy or the wider housing market. Similarly, decisions in one borough can impact on decisions in another. We know, for example, that if all the Conservative boroughs decided tomorrow to halve the level of new affordable housing in their boroughs, it would have a substantial impact on not only residents of those boroughs but those who are on low incomes or who cannot afford to buy their own homes in neighbouring boroughs.

That is why this is an important matter for the Mayor to take a view on and why a London housing strategy is important. I say to Opposition Members that the sum of affordable housing proposed by the individual London boroughs does not reach the level of housing needed in London as a whole—

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

No, this is my final point. If one simply takes the sum of the affordable housing proposed by the individual London boroughs, one would not reach the level of affordable housing needed by the city as a whole. That is why it is important for someone to take that overall strategic view, not simply to look at the individual boroughs. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. That strategic view should be taken by the Mayor rather than by the Secretary of State.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Having once again set up an Aunt Sally, the Minister is now drawing a chimera with the illusion that Conservative councils are somehow standing in the way of housing developments. The facts tell a different story. In central London, the two boroughs with the best performance in delivering housing—they are both increasing their delivery and exceeding their targets—are Wandsworth and Westminster. The best-performing borough in north London is Barnet. The worst-performing authorities are Lambeth and Waltham Forest, which are both Labour-controlled.

In my comments I try to refrain from making partisan points. It is a pity that the Minister has not, but as she has put her head in that noose, I am afraid that it is tightening around her neck rather uncomfortably.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman should be slightly cautious in quoting housing supply responses by London boroughs, as he will know from the 2005-06 figures that the worst-performing borough was Kensington and Chelsea. He should be rather more cautious about quoting figures on attitudes to housing and affordable housing.

The hon. Gentleman and I probably share a common support for additional new housing throughout the country. We disagree in that I think that it is also right to support the mechanisms to deliver those additional homes, whereas he would rather simply proclaim his support for them without being quite so enthusiastic about explaining how and where they should be delivered or what should happen if they are not. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is right. I forgot; the hon. Member for Surrey Heath did say that he thought that all the homes should instead be built on farmland. However, he was contradicted just a few weeks later by his right hon. Friend the Member for Witney—who I agree has not had quite enough mentions in this Committee—who said that he was strongly against “the metropolitans”, by which I presume he means the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who wanted farmers to grow only crops of concrete. Although it was in fact a nice turn of phrase that I would normally have attributed to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, given his enthusiasm for speechwriting and oratory—I always presumed that he would contribute to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Witney—I thought that it was pushing his internal contradictions too far to come up with a phrase criticising himself.

To be fair, the hon. Gentleman has occasionally suggested locations for homes, but he has not been realistic about the mechanisms by which we can ensure that they are delivered in practice, given the restrictions inevitably and rightly placed through the planning system that prevent the market from simply delivering all the homes that we need.

Martin Linton (PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC, Minister of State), Department for Constitutional Affairs; Battersea, Labour)

Do I take it from what the Minister said that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath volunteered his constituency as the site of a new town?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

He did not. However, I noticed that in the same article he attacked the Dartford warblers and nightjars that are, to be fair to him, restraining and preventing development in his constituency.

Opposition Members have moved a series of amendments that do not even achieve their own purposes. The Government do not agree with them. We think them to be counter-productive. These are sensible measures to give a stronger strategic voice to the Mayor rather than the Secretary of State on housing issues affecting the capital. Clearly, this is simply about strategic housing issues rather than local housing questions, which must be matters for the borough. We think that the framework and the balance are right, so I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am sorry that the Minister feels it necessary to reject the amendments, which were intended to fulfil the overall spirit of the Bill as a devolutionary document. When it was introduced by the Secretary of State, that was her stated intention. I am sorry that the Minister feels incapable of accepting them, but given the hour, it is perhaps appropriate that as she has expressed her opinion, we should have an opportunity to cast our votes.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr. O’Hara. Will you clarify whether we are voting on amendment No. 19?

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

We are voting on Opposition amendment No. 19.

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

I understand that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath wishes to press amendment No. 20 to a Division.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Given our failure on amendment No. 19, we appreciate that amendment No. 22, by implication, has fallen. However, we should like to press amendment No. 20 to a Division.