Greater London Authority Bill

This has been another very interesting debate. To reiterate, Clause 2 strengthens further the requirements on the Mayor to respond to consultation on his strategies. In future, he will be subject to an explicit duty to have regard to any comments from the Assembly and the functional bodies in response to consultation. He must also respond in writing to the Assembly to any recommendation that it makes, explaining his reasons. We believe very strongly—I sense that the Committee does, too—that this change will sharpen up the Assembly's contribution to policy development, and sharpen and deepen its influence. It will, for example, be much more transparent where the Mayor agrees with the Assembly's view and where, and why, he does not. The Assembly itself has said: "““This will strengthen the Assembly's role in the development of the Mayor's strategies, by introducing a greater degree of transparency into the process by which the Mayor considers the Assembly's comments and makes decisions on the contents of his strategies””." These are sensible, incremental changes. I was very grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained the importance of the distinction in the mayoral role model between the scrutiny function of the Assembly and the executive arm—the Mayor—and why the Mayor should have the final say over the content of his strategies. Do Amendments Nos. 3 and 71 improve the processes? I reluctantly conclude that they do not. I shall discuss Amendment No. 71 first. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that it would not only blur the clear lines of responsibility that were laid down in the Act and that work well, but overturn the settlement between the Assembly and the Mayor. We believe very strongly that preparation and the revision of strategies is clearly an executive function in the GLA model, and is rightly the responsibility of the Mayor. The Assembly's primary and legitimate role should be to scrutinise content and implementation, while also being able to recommend to the Mayor how they might be improved. That is why we have strengthened the Assembly's powers in this regard; namely, to expect answers when its recommendations have not been accepted. Amendment No. 71 would completely overturn the requirement on the Assembly to approve mayoral strategies. The Mayor would have to seek Assembly approval. The very least that the amendment would do would be to add confusion and uncertainty about the Mayor's policies about what would survive and what would be in the interests of London. It would be much more difficult for an elected Mayor to implement his manifesto commitments, which Londoners have elected him to deliver. I am therefore afraid that we resist the amendment. We also resist Amendment No. 3, which would require the Mayor to notify the Chair of the Assembly of any consultation that he intends to undertake on the use of the authority's general power. It would also require the Mayor to publish a statement about the responses to consultation before implementing any proposals. I understood the noble Baroness to say that there was no problem with the large, formal consultations and that she was more concerned about the smaller, more informal ones. That, however, is exactly where the problem lies. The amendment would create a cumbersome, bureaucratic and costly procedure that would not improve the authority's efficiency. The Mayor is already required to consult bodies or persons whom he considers appropriate before exercising the GLA's general power. Quite rightly, however, this is not necessarily a formal process. It might be a meeting with interested parties or a series of phone calls. We have entered into very difficult definitions here. Requiring the Mayor to notify the Assembly each time he does so and, even more onerously, requiring him to produce a written statement setting out each response that he accepts and each response that he does not is impractical and unworkable. The noble Baroness raised the question of what is good practice in this field and what is an exceptional request. This goes well beyond accepted good practice, because when the Secretary of State responds to a consultation, he is required to publish a summary of responses to each formal consultation. I understand that that is also the standard practice of the Mayor. To require him to publish a statement on all responses to all types of consultation on his general power is excessive. Sensible changes are made by Clause 2 in making the whole process stronger. It delivers what the Assembly and the Mayor want; it bolsters the Assembly's contribution. I do not think that the amendments add anything, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.