---

Greater London Authority Bill

We are told that these amendments amount to a veto or blocking power because of the strength of the term ““have regard to””. Next week, we will talk about the hierarchy of ““have regard to””, ““be in general conformity with”” and ““be in strict conformity with””. If those words amount to a veto, does that mean that the Assembly has a veto over the strategy under new Section 42A of the Act, under which the Mayor must consult the Assembly about his proposed strategies and ““have regard to”” any comments submitted by the Assembly? We debated that as a specific amendment. The Government cannot have one interpretation of ““have regard to”” under that clause and another under this amendment. I thought that I had substantially dealt with the issue of the 21-day period before, but the Minister gave us examples, including the period of 21 days for the Olympics. I find it difficult to believe that 21 days at that stage in such a very long programme could be time-critical. As for directions on planning and waste, I could say, ““Quite””. We will say that next week. If one of the amendments were to find favour with the Government, we would be happy to look at the consequential amendments which would be needed to make the process work alongside the other arrangements that the Minister mentioned. As we are in Grand Committee, I shall clearly not take the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]