Greater London Authority Bill

I support my noble friend Lady Hanham, particularly with regard to Amendments No. 1 and 2. I thank my noble friend for the thorough and interesting opening to this part of the debate, and I await with interest the Minister's response to the question she has raised. I do not think that, so far, the consultation process has been fair. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the authority publishes consultation responses, the analysis of those responses and any reasons why representations that have been received have been disregarded. The new amendments are straightforward. They are about openness, transparency, and providing additional checks and balances. Although this would not stop the Mayor proceeding with his strategies, such as the congestion charge extension, it would make clear the reasons why he had rejected second representations. It would also make clearer the opposition to his proposals, as in the case of the most recent congestion charge extension, and would provide much more public awareness of it. Requiring the Mayor to make publicly available the analysis, the responses and the reasons why he should act is another significant check and balance, which is required when we are talking about giving the Mayor additional powers. It would therefore be entirely appropriate to introduce additional checks and balances to ensure that his powers are exercised sensibly. As I said, the amendment is simple, straightforward and clear. It would make publicly available much more information about consultation and the Mayor's reasons for accepting or rejecting responses to his proposals. Surely the Minister agrees that it is completely illogical that the Mayor and the Greater London Authority will be able to do things differently from any other local authority in England.