Clause 28
Greater London Authority Bill
4:15 pm
Greg Hands (Hammersmith and 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.