| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Woodward: We are all grateful for the work that the Minister and his officials carried out in the summer with a view to removing the ambiguity in the clause. However, has the ambiguity been finally removed? Some further clarification is necessary.
The amendment would clarify the mayor's powers with regard to the contractual nature of local authority waste management. However, it still poses more questions. The mayor's specific powers remain unclear and the amendment does not clarify whether the mayor would be obliged to have regard to the cost, practicality and environmental benefit of the waste management in question. What regard to cost would the mayor be obliged to have, and how specifically would those costs be audited and monitored?
Mr. Brake:
I support the amendments, but wish to express a few words of caution.
It is entirely appropriate that a local authority should not be forced to terminate an existing contract. Equally, it is right that a local authority should inform the mayor of the impending expiry of any contract. That is desirable, because there will be opportunities for economies of scale at a London level, for Londonwide recycling projects and for waste-minimisation initiatives.
Mr. Brooke:
I reinforce the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). Obviously, I do not have the Hansard record of how the Minister opened his speech, but my recollection is that he said that there might have been some ambiguity. As I remember it, that ambiguity unquestionably existed when we first considered the Bill, and I recall asking some probing questions. As the text of my probing questions is not of the same importance as those I asked in an earlier exchange with the Minister for Housing and Planning, I shall not bore the House with the date or the column reference in the Official Report.
Because there unquestionably was ambiguity at the beginning, I join my hon. Friend in thanking the Minister and his officials for the work that has been done in the summer, but I want to make certain that any last ambiguity has been squeezed out before we leave the matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I think that the Minister requires leave.
Mr. Hill:
I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) for raising an important issue.
On the issue of cost, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the explanatory note, which clearly states that there are further specific provisions to deal with contracts caught under public procurement regulations. When authorities are seeking offers in relation to the proposed contract under the public procurement procedures, they must generally issue two notices, the first containing general information--for example, as to the nature and extent of services to be provided--and the second advertising the authority's invitation to seek offers. The first is usually general in nature, and the second more specific.
Once the second notice is published, the authority cannot substantially alter the terms without having to go through the procedure again. The amendment ensures that the mayor cannot issue a direction once the second notice has been sent to the Official Journal of the European Communities in order that public procurement procedures are not frustrated.
The mayor must have regard to the best practical environmental option, as set out in the Secretary of State's guidance, to which the mayor must have recourse. The
mayor must consult the authority before issuing directions, and take into account a number of considerations in dealing with those matters, of which cost will be one. For the better information of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I undertake to write to him on the matter.
In response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), may I say that I am aware of the high standards achieved by his borough on waste minimisation. The mayor must in no way impinge upon those excellent standards. Indeed, we would expect such an example of best practice to be widely disseminated throughout the new Authority area.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 458 to 466 agreed to.
Mr. Hill:
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 468 to 471.
Mr. Hill:
This group of amendments corrects an anomaly in the Bill relating to the mayor's powers to direct London local authorities in respect of Community air quality obligations and international agreements.
As hon. Members are aware, clause 294 devolves to the mayor the powers of direction under section 85 of the Environment Act 1995. Those powers relate to the local air quality management functions of London local authorities. For example, the mayor could direct a London authority to carry out a review and assessment of air quality in its area, or to prepare an action plan if it appears that air quality standards are unlikely to be met. However, section 85(5) of the 1995 Act includes the power to direct London local authorities "for the implementation of" Community air quality obligations and international agreements. That power can be used in an essentially legislative manner to transpose such obligations.
It has never been intended that the mayor should have the legislative function of transposition. After all, the mayor is not a law-making body. Rather, he should police Community obligations once they have been transposed by the Secretary of State, as well as policing the operation of the local air quality management system in London.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 468 to 471 agreed to.
Mr. Hill:
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 473 to 479.
Mr. Hill:
The amendments clarify what is expected from the mayor's strategy so as better to reflect the intentions of the White Paper. We have defined what the strategy may consist of, removed the separate reference to the spatial development strategy and ensured that the Environment Agency is consulted when the mayor prepares or revises his strategy. We have provided that the mayor's strategy may contain information about the impact of noise on those living and working in London.
In response to Opposition amendments, "ambient noise" now includes transport rather than transport services and the mayor may include other descriptions of noise that he considers to be appropriate. There is provision for including in the strategy noise caused by aircraft and traffic and noise from a fixed industrial source. The White Paper commitment was that the mayor would not deal with neighbour noise and we have ensured that local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive will continue to deal with matters using powers under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
There are two additional provisions. We have placed a duty on any person providing air navigation services to consult the mayor, where it is reasonably practicable to do so, when the provision of those services would have a significant adverse effect on the level or distribution of noise in Greater London or any part of Greater London.
The duty is limited to air navigation services only so far as they amount to the lateral or vertical alteration or addition of routes used regularly by civil aircraft before landing at, or after departing from, any aerodrome; or substantial alterations to the procedures used for managing the arrival of civil aircraft at aerodromes. It does not apply in relation to tactical decisions necessary in day-to-day air traffic control. The mayor will also be added to the list of organisations to be consulted by aerodromes designated under section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
Mr. Woodward:
I have a simple question about amendment No. 478 for the Minister. As so many other hon. Members wish to speak, doubtless his officials will be given the chance to scramble some answer to him. Under the amendment, the mayor will have the right to be consulted on new flights and flight paths and be allowed to give his opinion. Opinions are all well and good, as we in the House know, but the crucial question is, what force will his opinion have on the air navigation services?
Lords amendment: No. 467, in page 156, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("The") in line 10 and insert--
("(3) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted--
"(4A)")
Lords amendment: No. 472, in page 157, line 13, leave out ("contain") and insert ("consist of").
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |