Greater London Authority Bill

My noble friend has clearly provoked a significant debate. Given the degree of agreement between us up to this point, I am disappointed but not surprised at his originality in finding an opportunity to insert what he describes as a modest rebalancing. I take issue with whether it is indeed a modest rebalancing; it is more serious than that. At first sight, it seems harmless. It is not. It appears merely to apply the Assembly’s existing role in setting the GLA budget to the process of preparing and revising mayoral strategies—whether in housing, health, climate change, or whatever. Under the amendment, the Assembly would approve a mayoral strategy with or without amendment in the same way that it must currently approve the Mayor’s final draft GLA budget. It could make amendments only by a two-thirds majority. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has spoken eloquently about why that should be so. The sentiment behind the amendment is therefore clear: what works for the GLA budget should work for the Mayor’s strategy. What could be simpler and what harm could this do? It could do quite a bit of harm. It would fundamentally alter the balance of power between the Mayor and Assembly. The noble Lord is right. I listened with great pleasure as he defended the strong mayoral model. He was very robust and eloquent in his defence, but his proposal would seriously undermine the balance. It would give the Assembly the power to amend any aspect of a mayoral strategy by a two-thirds majority, making it much more difficult for the Mayor to implement the manifesto commitments that he or she is elected to deliver, whether that is congestion charging, free public transport for young Londoners or the housing strategy on which we have spent so much time talking in Committee. It may lead to a Mayor disowning all or part of the strategic framework for London. Given what Members of the Committee have said about this adding to the scrutiny functions of the Assembly, it is very important to be clear that it would lead to a genuine confusion in the demarcation of responsibilities between the strategic responsibility and the scrutiny function. At the moment, it could mean that the Assembly would set the strategic agenda for the capital, yet be expected to scrutinise the content and implementation of those strategies as well. There is a genuine issue about what the Assembly is there to do and how effectively it can do it. The parallel with the amendment and—