Greater London Authority Bill

moved AmendmentNo. 120A: 120A: After Clause 49, insert the following new Clause— ““Assembly’s power to amend the Mayor’s strategies After section 42A of the GLA Act 1999 (as inserted by section 2(2)) insert— ““42B Assembly’s power to amend the Mayor’s strategies (1) Having consulted the Assembly in preparing or revising any strategy to which this section applies the Mayor shall submit a final draft version of the strategy or the revised strategy to the Assembly. (2) The final draft version of the strategy or the revised strategy must be considered at a public meeting of the Assembly. (3) After considering the final draft version of the strategy or the revised strategy, the Assembly must approve it with or without amendment. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the only amendments which are to be made are those agreed to by at least two-thirds of the Assembly members voting. (5) If no amendments are made on consideration of the final draft version of the strategy or the revised strategy or if the Assembly fails to consider the final draft version of the strategy or the revised strategy within 21 days of the Mayor having submitted it to the Assembly, the final draft version shall be deemed to be approved without amendment.””.”” The noble Lord said: I say at the outset that as I drafted the amendment it is no doubt deeply technically flawed and not a perfect rendition of what is required to achieve my objectives. The objective of the amendment is a fairly modest increase in the powers of the Assembly; a slight rebalancing of the relationship between the Mayor and the Assembly which I think would be enormously beneficial to the quality and nature of the Assembly’s work. I am very conscious that during the time I spent on the Assembly, much of the discussion on the mayoral strategies was fairly ritualistic and formulaic. In the final analysis, the Assembly could do nothing to make changes in those strategies. There was a two-stage process that required consideration by the Assembly, but at the end of the day they were very much the Mayor’s strategies. I believe, as I have already argued in Committee, that we should have a strong mayor model and that the Mayor, because that individual is directly elected across London by all Londoners, should be able to ensure that the general direction of his policies is carried forward. The other principle underpinning the Greater London Authority Act is that the Mayor should strive to build consensus, to work with the different political parties represented on the Assembly and with the different interests and stakeholders across London, to try to achieve the best in the interests of the capital city. This amendment says that when the Mayor finally puts forward his proposed or revised strategies to the Assembly, the Assembly may under very limited circumstances propose an amendment to them. To do so, the Assembly would have to achieve a two-thirds majority, which is the same test as is required for a change to the budget. So it is not a massive rebalancing of the powers of the Mayor and the Assembly. As we know, as regards the budget that is quite a high threshold and has yet to be achieved by the Assembly. A consensus would be required between a number of different political parties on the Assembly to achieve a two-thirds majority to make an amendment to a particular element of one of the Mayor’s strategies. The Mayor no doubt is concerned that this might diminish his power to put forward his strategies and to deliver his policies in line with the mandate he has received from the people of London. I would say to the Mayor that under circumstances where it is possible for the Assembly to muster a two-thirds majority and for the Assembly to demonstrate a consensus between a number of political parties to achieve such a two-thirds majority, then the Mayor has fallen a long way short of the consensus that would normally be required for bringing forward the strategies and policies that he seeks to do. The purpose of the amendment is a fairly modest rebalancing of the powers between the Assembly and the Mayor. I do not believe that it would inhibit the Mayor in achieving his or her objectives or that it would seriously undermine the principle of a strong mayor because there would have to be a consensus among several political parties on the Assembly for an amendment to be achieved. The other benefit is that—and I was certainly conscious of this in my four years on the London Assembly—many Assembly debates and discussions were particularly pointless, trivial and maybe over-influenced by petty party political point scoring. I am sure that with my departure things have improved. However, this would provide a purpose to many of the Assembly’s activities. It would mean that in the detailed consideration of the strategies, which many Assembly Members spend a great deal of time engaged on, it would ultimately be possible to bring forward amendments; there would be a great deal of interest in the power among the people of London; and there would be a focus and perhaps more of a sense of purpose and responsibility from Assembly Members if they were able to exercise this power under the fairly limited circumstances which I have outlined in the amendment. That is the purpose of the amendment. I apologise to the Committee for any infelicities in drafting, but I hope that we can have some discussion on the principles behind it. I beg to move.