UK Parliament / Open data

Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 3: "““3: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—""““Consultation (No. 2)""(1) Section 32 of the GLA Act 1999 (consultation) is amended as follows.""(2) After subsection (1) insert—"""(1A) The Mayor shall notify the Chair of the Assembly of every consultation to be undertaken under subsection (1) before its commencement."""(3) After subsection (4) insert"""(4A) The Authority shall, after undertaking any consultation under subsection (1) and before implementing any proposal, publish a statement identifying which of the responses to its consultation are accepted in whole or in part for implementation and setting out the reasons why any responses so submitted are not accepted or not accepted in full."."" The noble Baroness said: The amendment is on the same subject of consultation. Before I speak to it, perhaps I may express very considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I too was going to mention the website, which, in the 21st century, is the way that most people not only look up information, but are expected to do so. I do not always find that entirely helpful because I rather like the printed page rather than having to spend a long time following the trail through a website. I shall also say to the noble Lord as an expression of my sympathy that if there is anything that my noble friend or I can do to assist with his particular problem, such as by tabling a question for the Mayor at Mayor's question time, then—as Assembly Members would say to any Londoner—we would be happy to do so. Amendment No. 3, which is grouped with Amendment No. 71, provides for notification to be given to the Chair of the Assembly of any consultation to be undertaken before it starts and, most important, for the publication of a statement setting out the response to the responses to the consultation. The first point is so that the Assembly can keep track of matters. I concede that in the case of formal, major consultations there has not so far been a problem. With a future, theoretical Mayor, who we have to keep in mind in these discussions, there could be a problem. The amendment would assist the Assembly in planning its business so that no consultation is sprung on it. Subsection (3) is to provide for feedback. Increasingly, I realise how important it is that there is an organised method of a consultor recording how and why a decision was taken and what the response is to consultees. That cannot always be done on an individual basis, but it is important for public authorities to set out extremely clearly and accessibly, taking that point, why they take a decision. This is proposed as a new clause after Clause 2. It is not intended to diminish consultation undertaken under the new provisions, which are very specific about the Assembly's role, or to suggest that Section 42 of the 1999 Act is in any way diminished. Taking the points that have just been made on the previous amendment, if I thought that Clause 2 in any way diminished Section 42, I would be very concerned indeed. No doubt in a moment the noble Baroness will speak to her Amendment No. 71, which requires that mayoral strategies be subject to the Assembly's approval. While again I have sympathy with the notion, from this side we have pretty much accepted that this Bill does not fundamentally change the structure of the GLA and the executive/scrutiny split. For the Assembly to be able to veto strategies—there have been occasions when I have wished that we could—it would probably need a more thorough revision of the 1999 Act. Over the years, it has been suggested, particularly by academics, that the Assembly might be given the opportunity to veto mayoral strategies on the basis of a two-thirds majority and that that would be in practice rather more useful than the two-thirds majority that is required to block the budget. Many members of the public think that the Assembly has the power to block the Mayor, but that is not the case. My main concern about Amendment No. 71 is that, whatever we end up with, the lines of accountability and the responsibility for decisions should not be blurred. I wish the noble Baroness luck with her amendment. I beg to move.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

691 c16-8GC 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top