New Clause 1
Greater London Authority Bill
3:30 pm
Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause brings us back to transport and, more specifically, congestion charging. The purpose of the new clause, which I am pleased to say is supported by both Opposition parties, is to ensure that, if an extension to the congestion charging zone takes place without an inquiry, the authority must publish consultation responses, the analysis of those responses and any reasons why representations that have been received have been disregarded.
The new clause is straightforward. It is about openness, transparency and providing additional checks and balances. Although it would not stop the Mayor proceeding with such an extension, it would make clear the reasons why he had rejected certain representations. It would also make clearer the opposition to his proposals, as in the case of the most recent extension, and provide much more public awareness of it. The Mayor has been frank in revealing some of the facts behind the extension and the support that was received—or, indeed, not received. He is on record as saying that only a quarter of the public responses to the consultation supported the proposal. He also referred to what he described to as
“a representative London wide survey”,
but even that found that opposition outweighed support, with 41 per cent. supporting his proposals and 43 per cent. objecting to them.
Requiring the Mayor to make publicly available the analysis, the responses and the reasons why such a high level of opposition was set aside would act as another significant check and balance, which really is required when we are talking about giving the Mayor additional powers. It is therefore entirely appropriate to introduce additional checks and balances to ensure that his powers are exercised sensibly.
It is also worth pointing out that the proposed extension is unlikely to address one particular concern, which flies in the face of an earlier debate on the climate change strategy. Our view is that the extension, the 90 per cent. discount for residents in the area of the extension and saying that they must pay for a week and nothing less will encourage people to drive into central London more than they would otherwise do. One consequence of the proposal would be to work against what the Mayor is trying to do on the climate change strategy.
The purpose of the new clause is simple, straightforward and clear. It would make publicly available much more information about consultation and the Mayor’s reasons for rejecting an overwhelming response against his proposals.