APPENDIX 3: GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY BILL
— GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Letter to the Chairman from the Baroness Andrews
OBE, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Communities
and Local Government
1. Further to my letter of 27 April I am writing
to set out the Government's response to the Delegated Powers and
Regulatory Reform Committee's Seventh Report of Session 2006-07
on the Greater London Authority (GLA) Bill, published on 29 March.
2. The Committee made two recommendations in
respect to Henry VIII powers in the Bill. The first relates to
clause 49 which enables the GLA and its functional bodies to enter
into arrangements for the provision of administrative, professional
or technical services by one to another, by agreement. The clause
includes provision for the Secretary of State by order to extend
or restrict the services or functions to which the section applies.
The order making power is currently subject to the negative resolution
procedure but the Committee considered the affirmative procedure
would be more appropriate given the broad scope of this power.
We agree with this conclusion, and are bringing forward an amendment
to the Bill at Committee stage to make the order making power
subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
3. The second recommendation relates to the scope
of the Secretary of State's order-making powers under clause 50
of the Bill. The Secretary of State will be able to make incidental,
consequential, supplemental or transitional provision or savings
in any order made under the Act, including power under clause
50(2) to amend any enactment (whenever passed or made).
4. The Committee considered that there must be
strong justification for any power to amend future Acts, and the
need for the power had not been demonstrated in this case. It
recommended either the removal of the power or, if clause 50(2)
remains as it is, that orders containing provision under that
clause should be subject to affirmative procedure. We agree that
there is insufficient justification to warrant a power to amend
future Acts and are again bringing forward an amendment to the
Bill at Committee stage to remove it.
5. The Committee also noted that there are places
in the Bill which appear to blur the distinction between (binding)
directions and (non-binding) guidance. It highlighted clause 36
as a case in point. This clause places a duty on London's waste
authorities to act in general conformity with the Mayor's municipal
waste strategy for London, so long as the requirement does not
impose excessive additional costs on an authority. It gives the
Secretary of State a power to issue guidance on what acting in
general conformity means in practice and what should be regarded
as excessive additional costs. London waste authorities are required
to act in accordance with any guidance issued.
6. We believe this is a reasonable requirement.
We intend the guidance to provide a broad definition of general
conformity, building on an existing definition used in planning
guidance, and a general explanation of what is meant by imposing
excessive additional costs. Given the general nature of
the guidance, we think it is reasonable to obligate boroughs to
act in accordance with it.
7. The Committee noted in similar terms the requirement
at clause 39 (new section 361A(2)(c) and 3(b) of the GLA Act).
This clause places a new duty on each of the Mayor and Assembly
to address climate change. It requires the Mayor and Assembly
to comply with guidance and directions issued by the Secretary
of State in respect to the way they each perform their duty. We
agree that, to be clear, it would be more appropriate to require
the Mayor and Assembly to have regard to guidance issued by the
Secretary of State (but to comply with any directions). We are
bringing forward an amendment at Committee stage to make this
change.
8. Finally, the Committee observed that in clause
28, new section 333A(6) enables the Secretary of State to direct
matters to be contained in the London housing strategy. The Committee
is right to note that for most other Mayoral strategies this is
a matter for guidance and, in the case of the London Plan, mandatory
content is dealt with by regulations subject to negative procedure.
But, in the particular case of housing, we believe there is a
strong case in favour of the Secretary of State being able to
direct matters to be contained in the housing strategy.
9. The housing strategy, unlike the Mayor's other
strategies, will have a direct influence on Government funding
for housing in London. London has almost half the national Regional
Housing Pot funding and consequently plays a significant role
in the delivery of national housing priorities.
10. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State
to issue guidance to the Mayor about what the housing strategy
should include. We therefore envisage the Secretary of State using
her power to direct under new section 333A(6) in only exceptional
circumstances - for example in responding to a newly arising need
which needed to be reflected quickly in the strategy. We do not
believe that alternative approaches, such as using regulations
subject to negative procedure, would always enable the Secretary
of State to respond with sufficient speed for some funding decisions.
11. I am copying this letter to members of the
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, all Members
who have participated on the Bill so far and First Parliamentary
Counsel.
2 May 2007
| 
