My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for introducing this debate on an important point. It is an important point, but I will try to resist as far as I can responding to comments on the inspector's report and the detail of the Secretary of State's response to it.

It is important because it raises a point of principle: how far Parliament should respond, if at all, to a decision which in this case is not a decision of the Executive but a quasi-judicial decision. Although there is much in what the previous two speakers have said with which I agree, that is why I would ask the Minister to resist revisiting—I suppose that means revising or rescinding—the decision.

Criteria are published by the Government for the Secretary of State to "recover jurisdiction", as it is called, and there are criteria for calling in decisions. Those are less precisely defined. The Library found for me a statement of government policy in answer to a Parliamentary Question. It was that the Secretary of State would,

"not interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so."

I stress the word "necessary". What is necessary is clearly a matter of judgment.

I share in a great deal of what has been said, but in my view it is important that these decisions are taken at the right level. They are taken in a quasi-judicial manner, though by political bodies. The issue has been raised of whether there should be a separate independent body to look at planning applications. We have that to an extent, of course, in the planning inspectorate.

What we have now is an extra tier of government—a regional tier. Though I am no particular supporter of the current Mayor of London, I shall say a word or two about the importance of having a planning framework for decisions in London. I question whether it was right for Mr Livingstone to spend £96,000 on the appeal. When I, through the mechanism of a formal Question to the Mayor, asked about the cost of his attending MIPIM, the developers' conference in Cannes, the answer that I got back was that it was all right because the London Development Agency paid for it. That did not seem to be an answer.

As politicians, we all strive for accountability and transparency, and so it is right to spell out the criteria on which decisions should be based. That is what we find—maybe not perfectly and maybe we disagree with all or parts of it—in the London plan which, with the Lambeth UDP, is now part of the development plan. I share the regret that Lambeth's view of the design of the tower did not prevail. Its comments in the decision on the design were firmly rooted in the London plan. It quoted policies in the plan and in its own deposited draft unitary development plan and it commented on the proposed tower not being of sufficiently high quality and the world-class, iconic—there is that word again—standard of architecture required in the location, in view of its inevitable prominence. That is rooted in adopted, progressing, or emerging—as the planners always say—documents. In the case of the London plan, it went through the long and sometimes tedious public inquiry.

We may individually disagree with parts, but it is fair to say that in dealing with tall buildings the London plan included the issue of clusters. Much of what is being complained about is already in the planning framework, and it is often a matter of interpretation. The London Assembly, which I currently chair, would love to control the Mayor, as the invitation was issued earlier, but the legislation setting us up does not allow us to do that. The Mayor is currently consulting on the London view management framework.

I am well aware that the noble Lords who have spoken, and perhaps also other noble Lords, will regard me as a philistine. I am not commenting on the particular design of the building, but it is very much a matter of taste. I am well aware of the views of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, on the London Eye. I differ from him there. I have come to accept that there is often no single correct view on those matters. It is essential to articulate the reasons for the view—forgive the pun—based on agreed criteria.

I do not know on what technical basis the Government could revisit the decision, but I urge the Minister to decline the invitation, not just because of the merits but because the Secretary of State's decision was taken in a quasi-judicial manner. Although he is assisted in unscrambling some of the difficult issues of affordable housing, which we were left with, the matter is best left back with the local planning authority where it belongs. It looks like the outcome is the one that we all anticipate.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, said that Parliament should have a particular role regarding height. I agree that the height of buildings, the impact on views in London, and the impact on important areas of London are hugely important issues, but why only height? Many aspects of planning are hugely important, and one of those aspects is affordable housing. I am sorry that I have already taken slightly longer than I intended, but I will use this occasion to raise one related point, regarding the importance of so-called affordable, or social housing.

I understand that in a recent case a judge determined that the value of market housing is diminished by its proximity to social housing. I have not given the Minister notice of this point, but I hope that the Government will consider it seriously. Clearly, much depends on the detail of that case. It would be unfortunate to find ourselves as a society going down the road to accepting that there is something undesirable about social housing.

I cheer myself up by recalling that in the ward that I used to represent there was a wall between an area of private housing—blocks of flats quite tall for the area— and what at the time was a council estate. The private owners had insisted on the wall being erected at the time the council housing was built. They then decided it would be quite nice to have it down. It was the occupiers of the council housing who said they did not want to be in with "that lot", and that they would retain their own independence.