Clause 30
Greater London Authority Bill
10:30 am
Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)
Conservative Members have tabled proposals, which are reflected in proposals tabled by the Liberal Democrats, to strike out this part of the Bill. We have done so because we believe it is probably the most important, certainly the most contentious and undoubtedly the least attractive element of the legislation. This part of the Bill fails those three tests because it constitutes the most naked power grab by the Mayor, or a future one, at the expense of the London boroughs.
Throughout the debate, the Opposition have consistently aimed to ensure that legislation that is passed is as devolutionary as possible. Whenever power has been devolved down from the Government to the Mayor, we have welcomed that. We have naturally sought to ensure that there are adequate powers of scrutiny to balance the Mayor’s new powers and that those powers of scrutiny be invested in the assembly or the boroughs as appropriate. However our general direction of travel has been clear—namely, to welcome that devolution of power.
In other areas, we have been anxious to see devolution go further, consistent with the vision outlined by the Secretary of State whenever she has spoken about local government more generally. We have been anxious to see neighbourhoods and boroughs empowered at the appropriate moment. That was the spirit in which we moved our amendments, sadly rejected, to the Mayor’s housing strategy.
Here, we have the clearest example in the legislation of that devolutionary spirit being overturned. We already have a system of planning that gives the boroughs not just the lead role, but a vital function to play in reflecting local public opinion when it comes to shaping the future of our communities. These changes will, in crucial ways, deprive the boroughs of the capacity to discharge their functions and to reflect local opinion. Therefore, it is in a devolutionary spirit that we oppose them. However, it is more than a commitment to the principle of devolution that prompts us to ask for these clauses to be removed and the Government to think again.
We also believe that the clauses fail the crucial efficiency test that should apply to new legislation. The Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked Kate Barker to look at land use planning because there was a widespread consensus that our planning system was dysfunctional: it was too slow, too bureaucratic and in need of reform. Kate Barker’s recommendations, some of which are more attractive than others, all seek to move in one direction—to make the planning system more transparent and speedier, and to serve the interests not just of business, but of those of us who believe in meeting our housing supply problems more effectively. The spirit of Kate Barker’s review, however, is not reflected in these clauses.
Let me turn to the powers in clause 30 that enable the Mayor to direct changes to the local development schemes proposed by the boroughs. Any number of acronyms exist across the UK for the specific plans that boroughs, or the principal planning authorities, put forward to master-plan their area. There used to be UDPs, or unitary development plans, and there are now LDFs, or local development frameworks, in many parts of the country. Those plans are LDSs in London, for the sake of the Bill. Whether they are UDP, LDF or LDS, the principle remains the same, and that principle is KIL—keep it local.