New Clause 2
Greater London Authority Bill
4:00 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.

Ann Winterton (Congleton, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 34—Consultation strategy—

‘After section 42A of the GLA Act 1999 insert—

“42B Consultation strategy

The Mayor shall produce and publish a consultation strategy containing information about the procedures in respect of all matters upon which he is required to consult under this Act including—

(a) procedure for consultation,

(b) persons or bodies to be consulted,

(c) arrangements for publicity,

(d) arrangements for provision of copies of any strategy and amendments thereto,

(e) arrangements for conducting public participation in respect of new strategies or amendment thereto,

(f) arrangements to permit reasonable timetable for consultation,

(g) arrangements in respect of responses to consultation including provision of written statements.”.’.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

In the interests of enabling the Minister to catch a plane later this afternoon, I will make only a brief contribution given that the debate on this new clause would sound similar to the debate that we have just had on new clause 1. New clause 2 is also about ensuring that the Mayor carries out the maximum consultation. It would require him to notify the assembly of every consultation, publish the responses and identify those he had accepted and those he had not accepted, before proceeding with implementation of whatever proposal he was putting to the electorate or the local population.

New clause 2 requires no further elaboration other than to say that it is again about strengthening consultation, making the process more open and transparent and making sure that the Mayor’s views and the views of those he is consulting are on the record so that a more informed and more consensual decision is taken at the end of the day.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I may be at risk of testing both your patience, Lady Winterton, which I know is almost infinite, and that of the Committee by pointing out that I am about to echo the hon. Gentleman’s echo of his previous comments. Essentially the debate on consultation has been at its most acute when it comes to the Mayor’s exercise of powers over the congestion charge and, in particular, its westward extension. New clause 34 would provide an alternative, not competing but complementary method of defining the Mayor’s consultation powers alongside new clause 2. We have sought to lay out a way in which the Mayor can choose and it is at the Mayor’s discretion how he defines the manner in which he will consult Londoners and appropriate bodies.

One of the reason for tabling the new clause and hoping that the Minister might accept it today is that rather than the Mayor having to develop an ad hoc series of consultations at different points, we have provided him with a means of laying down the method by which he will conduct all the consultations that will govern his policy. It is an important principle that those who exercise executive power in the United Kingdom prefer, wherever possible, to be bound by the rule of law. I mentioned earlier that one of the things that we seek to do is to ensure that when the Mayor does exercise his powers, he does so in such a way that all those who are affected by them have as much confidence as possible that he is exercising them appropriately.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the new clause were adopted and the Mayor followed that procedure it would provide him with a great deal of protection because he could point to an agreed process? He could demonstrate that he had followed it and had been very open in the way that he addressed the consultation.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is the second point that I was about to make, and an important one too. There will be times when the Mayor will be of a different party or come from a different tradition from the Government in power in Westminster. It will inevitably strengthen the Mayor’s hand if, as well as a democratic mandate, he has the capacity to show that he has followed a rigorous consultation procedurethat has been laid down to cover all consultations, not just the particular policy that he is putting forward, and that that consultation procedure has yielded support for what he seeks to do.

We are giving the Mayor another weapon to defend or advance the interests of Londoners against a Government who might be determined to thwart them. Far from constraining the Mayor’s hand, what we are doing—as all enlightened legislators should—is fashioning an appropriate way in which to provide him with an opportunity to meet Londoner’s needs and to challenge the Government to accept his role as London’s champion.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Poplar and Canning Town, Labour)

I am sorry, but I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman once again. Let me begin by repeating the fact that the Government strongly believe in the importance of all public bodies engaging in consultation with the stakeholders on the development and implementation of strategies and policies. Consultation is an invaluable part of policy development, often leading in the end to better strategies and policies. That is why the GLA Act already requires the Mayor to consult the assembly, London boroughs and others on, among other things, the preparation of his statutory strategies under section 42 and on the use of the GLA’s general powers under section 32.

As we discussed, clause 2 requires the Mayor to have explicit regard to any comments from the assembly  and the functional bodies at an early stage in the preparation of his strategies, but we do not support the new clauses. New clause 2 would require the Mayor to notify the assembly of consultation under section 32 of the 1999 Act on the use of the authority’s general power before that consultation begins. It also requires him to publish a written statement before implementing any proposal identifying which responses to consultation he accepts and giving reasons when he does not.

I am sure that the Mayor carefully considers all responses to consultation before deciding whether to implement a proposal, so I cannot see any compelling reason to accept the new clause. The Mayor is not required to produce a written statement discussing all the responses to other key statutory consultations, such as those on draft strategies and the annual draft consolidated budgets. Indeed, if he were, it would add significantly to the GLA’s bureaucratic burden.

New clause 34 would require the Mayor to prepare a strategy setting out his procedures for consultation. Again, however, I am unconvinced of the need to prescribe such an approach in primary legislation. Such a requirement would be bureaucratically burdensome and potentially costly to prepare. It is not clear that the resultant strategy would be of significant value.

Furthermore, given that everyone wants less statutory prescription on how local authorities should conduct their affairs, I see no compelling reason why we should require the Mayor to prepare a further formal strategy on how he will consult. It should be for him to decide whether or not it would be sensible to prepare such a strategy, not for Parliament to impose it. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Given the result of the previous Division on a similar subject, I can confidently predict that the outcome on the new clause will be the same. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.