Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

The clause reflects clause 2, which we debated earlier in our proceedings. It strengthens the role of the assembly when the Mayor prepares or revises his spatial development strategy, the London plan, and mirrors the strengthened assembly role in the Mayor’s other statutory strategies set out in clause 2, which the Committee agreed last Tuesday should stand part of the Bill.

The provisions for consultation on the London plan are set out separately from the Mayor’s other strategies under section 335 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The clause amends that section to require the Mayor to have regard to the comments of the assembly and the functional bodies in response to consultation on the drafts of, or the revisions to, his London plan.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

Will the Minister advise the Committee of the importance of the words “must have regard”? How is that a change from the current position in relation to the assembly’s role?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, and as we debated in earlier proceedings, the Mayor has an obligation to consult, but it is also important that the Mayor should have an obligation to have regard to the views of the assembly. That will strengthen the position of the assembly relative to the position under the 1999 Act. The clause is a helpful step in respect of the role of the assembly. The Mayor must also respond in writing to the chair of the assembly and explain which of the assembly’s comments he accepts for implementation in the plan and which he rejects. That will provide clarity and transparency in the relationship between the assembly and the Mayor in their debate on the London plan. The provision will put the London plan on the same footing as the Mayor’s other strategies.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

I am appraised of the fact that we are not to spend too much time discussing particular individuals, but, under the current regime at city hall, surely the main response to us from the Mayor would be that he was elected and that he can decide what to do. Would that really significantly improve the powers of the assembly?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

The Bill makes it clear that the Mayor must respond in writing to chair of the assembly, explaining which of the assembly’s comments he accepts and which he rejects. Obviously, personal battles between the hon. Gentleman and the Mayor are not a matter for the Committee.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

Can the Minister help with my question? Under the budgetary procedures for the assembly, the Mayor is obliged to respond to those matters on which he disagrees with the assembly’s proposed amendments. On first reading—as it is sometimes called for shorthand purposes—the assembly can amend the Mayor’s budget. He must respond in writing when he drafts his final budget and say why he disagrees with the assembly’s amendments. In practice, we receive about five lines on paper—just about enough to comply with the Wednesbury reasonableness test—to say that he disagrees with the assembly’s amendments because they are not consistent with his policy and what he believes to be the objectives that he was elected to carry out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central said.

I do not understand how such a provision will produce any other result from the Mayor. He will stick just within what is required by his lawyers to keep him within the law. If there were no hold over him in respect of the assembly having the ability to amend the strategies, all that will happen is a banal throwing back of them in his face. I accept that the provision is well intended, but I cannot help but feel that it has the whiff of a compromise that has been cobbled together by the Labour party so that the assembly is bought off with a minor right to have regard taken of its comments because the Mayor would not take the logical step of giving the assembly real teeth with which to amend the strategies. It is regrettable, therefore, that in this case, as with the previous clause that we referred to, the Government have ducked the chance of seizing an opportunity.

Tony Travers, the academic referred to on a number of occasions, has talked about the logic of developing a legislative role for the assembly in the sense that if it could amend strategies, that would require the Mayor not just to come back with a bland response, but to deal with the assembly. That would be a healthy thing. For these purposes, as we have said in debate on previous amendments, that could be achieved by some qualified majority, which is more than the simple majority that Conservative Members would prefer. However, we could live with that for the sake of compromise.

However, I still do not understand from the Minister how this measure will achieve much for the assembly in practice. It may require the Mayor to go through a formulaic process, and I suppose there is a point that that is more transparent than simply saying no without  stating any reason. I go with the Government as far as that, but the point made by me and by others is that the way the Mayor operates—it could be any Mayor of any political party, because the nature of the post means that it is likely to attract big personalities, who sometimes have big egos—means that there is every risk that, under the current regime, any Mayor might give the assembly pretty short shrift in giving any reasons to it. Would it not be much better to give the assembly the ability to amend strategies? The Mayor would then have to take the assembly’s comments seriously.

In a nutshell, having regard is a very worthy concept, but to have regard and then make a rather basic gesture in response is not much of a power for the assembly to have. That is what practice tells us we are likely to get from the Mayor, unless this measure is significantly strengthened.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

I shall respond briefly. Hon. Members have raised a series of concerns, and it is unusual to hear politicians criticised for the brevity of their responses. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst might find it inappropriate for the Committee to legislate, within either primary or secondary legislation, for lengthy responses that must be of 10 pages or more.

The spirit of the legislation is clear. The Mayor will need to explain adequately why he does not accept the recommendations put forward by the assembly. It would be rather too much to expect us to legislate for either the assembly or the Mayor to show different forms of politeness towards each other.