Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 2: "““2: Clause 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert—"""(2A) After section 42A of the GLA Act 1999 insert—"""42B Consultation strategy""The Mayor shall produce and publish a consultation strategy containing information about the procedures in respect of all matters upon which he is required to consult under this Act, including (a) procedure for consultation,""(b) persons or bodies to be consulted,""(c) arrangements for publicity,""(d) arrangements for provision of copies of any strategy and amendments thereto,""(e) arrangements for conducting public participation in respect of new strategies or amendment thereto,""(f) arrangements to permit reasonable timetable for consultation,""(g) arrangements in respect of responses to consultation including provision of written statements."."" The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 2 would establish a document outlining the procedures that the Mayor should follow in all future consultations. It is no secret that there has been widespread dissatisfaction about recent consultations. His favourite form of consultation—I am talking about this Mayor—appears to be to talk to the bathroom mirror. That was most colourfully demonstrated by the polling for the extension of the congestion charge. In that regard, I declare an interest as a member of the council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, to which the charge was extended. I leave that on record for the rest of our proceedings. Although a staggering proportion of local residents objected to the expansion of the congestion charge, the Mayor paid not the slightest heed. It is unacceptable to us that the Mayor can gain political capital by announcing that there will be formal consultation but subsequently turning an apparently completely deaf ear to the views expressed. The accusation that the Mayor pays lip-service to the idea of consultation but that the outcome has no bearing on his final decision is hard to shake off. It must be in the Mayor's interest that such accusations can be refuted. It is essential for the office of Mayor that the public can have confidence in the process behind decision-making; and it must be in the public interest that Londoners have the opportunity to voice their opinions and know that they will be listened to and not patronised. It is against that background we propose that a consultation strategy should be produced. Various other strategies are coming up in the Bill, so this would just add one more. The strategy would set down clearly and indisputably the procedure for any future consultation. It would specify the individuals or bodies that ought to be consulted; the transparency of such consultation; as well as the time frames, publicity and the right to participation. Those are all vital considerations that the Mayor should not be allowed to sidestep. The Government's position cannot seriously be to endorse rushed or poorly publicised consultations or ones with no realistic opportunity for participation, or to encourage a situation where a clearly relevant body is unnecessarily omitted. We are not imposing restrictions; it would be the Mayor himself who would produce the strategy. That would have the advantage not only of ensuring that each consultation was procedurally correct and, importantly, consistent but, as the strategy would have to be published, the process of consultation as envisaged by the Mayor would be openly understood at all stages and open to challenge. Published participation is an important part of any political process, especially with a Mayor who carries out policies that are not terribly popular. It is only right that it should be properly structured. I beg to move.