Clause 13
Greater London Authority Bill
6:15 pm
Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)
Indeed there is no inconsistency in the Government’s philosophy, but it would be a mistake to think that their philosophy is to defend that which is tried and tested. Their philosophy is perfectly clear: more powers for the Mayor? Yes, under certain circumstances. More powers for the assembly? Certainly not—those impertinent figures should know their place. That seems to be a misunderstanding of the original spirit of the 1999 Act and of what Londoners expect from both wings of the GLA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made an important point when he used the examples of the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and, in particular, New York. The Minister’s response was not convincing. He displayed an authoritative grasp of how New York’s assembly works, but the more he explained how it works, the more he vindicated the position of my hon. Friend.
The Minister pointed out that representatives in the New York City assembly operate on a territorial basis. When they seek to amend the budget, they do so because they wish to preserve their constituents’ interests, or to get more pork for them from the municipal barrel. Their operation is entirely constituency oriented. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the GLA operates in the interests of London overall, so when it seeks to amend the budget, it is not in a spirit of partisanship and members are not saying, “My constituency must come first and Deil take the hindmost for all the rest.” It operates in a constructive spirit, so why should a system that functions well in New York, albeit with a group of individuals who may put their constituencies first, not apply in our own capital city when we have so constituted the assembly that it puts the interests of all Londoners first?
In discussing how all Londoners are put first, I should say that the intervention of the hon. Member for Battersea, who mentioned safer neighbourhoods, was singularly inappropriate. By introducing our line-item veto, we seek to create the opportunity for members of the assembly specifically to protect, or indeed enhance, items of the budget without allowing the Mayor to say that their opposition to the budget overall is opposition to each individual part.
We in this Committee are engaged in the exercise of saying that we object to certain parts of the Bill but agree with others. Anyone who takes an interest can draw a distinction between the fact that, for example, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are concerned about planning powers, and the fact that they take a slightly different position on one or two other issues. People can draw appropriate and legitimate inferences from that process. The absence of a line-item veto would make it possible for the Mayor to draw a blanket over opposition to particular items in the budget and say that members of the assembly oppose item A when it is item B or C to which they object.
I particularly want to invite the Minister and his colleagues to think again about amendment No. 33. The Minister devoted some time to explaining why he felt that the assembly collectively could safeguard its interests under the current provisions. I underline the point that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Croydon, Central: at moment, the Mayor, acting in concert with one political group, or one political group and a small and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham pointed out—potentially fringe party, can alter the budget in such a way as to penalise the assembly.
The point of the amendment is to allow the assembly to safeguard its budgetary allocation. I accept that some people on the Government Benches may believe it appropriate for the Mayor to set his own budget without the enhanced scrutiny powers that we ask for being given to the assembly. I understand that, although I disagree with it. However, I cannot understand why the Government refuse to allow the assembly, in relation to its own budget, to protect by a simple majority the money that it needs for its scrutiny functions from a potential raid mounted by the Mayor and a political party with which he or she might be working in concert.
I issue a plea to Government Members: although they might not see merit in all our amendments—I would like to say something about new clause 19 in due course, if the opportunity arises—I hope that in respect of amendment No. 33 they might see the merit of what we are proposing.