Greater London Authority Bill

This is a perfectly innocuous, if pointless amendment. However it is not assisted by the extraordinary terms in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has moved it. First, any sensible public body should have a consultation strategy, which would contain the elements set out in the amendment. From that point of view, the amendment is innocuous. I suggest that it is probably pointless because any sensible public body would have such a strategy. I should not be at all surprised—although I cannot for the moment recall—if the Mayor has adopted a consultation strategy at some time, probably several. However, I find the arguments with which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, moved the amendment spurious. What she described is good practice, but her argument was that she did not like the outcome of the consultation on the extension of the congestion charge zone. I have no particular interest in this, but personally I think that the Mayor was misguided in his decision to extend the congestion charge. I think that there should have been a separate charge just for the residents for Kensington and Chelsea, because otherwise they are being subsidised to drive through other parts of London. I never saw the point of that, as some of them are extremely wealthy. To suggest, however, that the mere presence of a consultation strategy will mean that a Mayor—any Mayor—is going to agree with the views expressed is clearly wrong. The purpose of consultation is to extend to the public, or to those being consulted, an opportunity to comment. It is incumbent on the person consulting to listen and consider those views. Ultimately, though, it is the responsibility of—in this case—the Mayor to make a judgment in the light of the views that have been expressed and of the view of the public interest that that person takes. That may sometimes mean going against the heavily expressed views from a particular area, because there is seen to be a wider benefit. A consultation strategy will not ensure that that does not happen; indeed, it should not do so. The whole purpose of electing people to hold office in public life is for them to exercise their judgment and subsequently to be held accountable for that judgment. Of course they should consult and of course they should listen and take note, but that does not mean that, because a majority of views expressed go against a particular policy, that policy should automatically be reversed.