---

Greater London Authority Bill

I respond to that with pleasure. My right honourable friend Nick Raynsford is an admirable man. He is right to say that the architecture of the original GLA Bill was designed to create a strategic authority. One of the biggest strategic challenges facing London at the moment is what to do about its waste. The fact that London’s waste is rising faster than that in many other parts of the country and that our performance on disposal is the worst in the country comprise major strategic challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, became excited and appalled at the idea that the Mayor of London might be engaged in all sorts of contract negotiations, which brought back memories of the Greater London Council. I am no fan of the old days of the Greater London Council and I am certainly not suggesting that we should go back to them, but my noble friend’s amendment is concerned with creating an additional functional body. That is the same as a functional body which currently delivers transport. The major element of the work of Transport for London comprises negotiating contracts with bus companies. Those contracts may be long term and complicated. In the past they were not well handled but now they are much better handled. Except in the subject of the contracts, what is proposed is no different from the situation where the Mayor has responsibility for an agency which delivers transport for London. As I say, waste disposal is one of the greatest strategic challenges facing London at present, which is why I support my noble friend’s amendment.