New Clause 15
Greater London Authority Bill
11:30 am
Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham, Conservative)
I join other Members in welcoming you back to the Chair, Lady Winterton. You will be delighted to hear that I am not going to speak at length and nor am I going to discuss items of foreign policy because I think that is slightly missing the point about this amendment. This amendment is in a tradition of regulations governing local authorities on things like ultra vires. It is about what local authorities, in this case the GLA, or the Mayor of London can or cannot spend. The key part, in my view, of this proposed new clause are the two words “incur expenditure”. I do not think that anybody is disputing the fact that the present Mayor or future Mayor or, indeed, anybody here may or may not have views on the big foreign policy issues of the day. The key question, in my view, is whether he or she should be allowed to incur expenditure in promoting those views. I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush’s criticism of those at the assembly who sought to initiate a debate about human rights in Cuba, when real the point was whether the Mayor should incur expenditure in promoting a particular view about Cuba. This is really a debate about what local authorities should be able to spend money on.
We are talking about considerable sums. The conference last Saturday, “A World Civilisation or a Clash of Civilisations?” to which my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath referred, was held at lavish expense at the QEII conference centre; the entire centre was booked out to discuss foreign policy. An elite panel of speakers from around the world came to the conference, which included sessions on democracy in the middle east. I am a huge believer in promoting democracy in that region, but I have never used council tax payers’ money to do so, which is the key point behind the proposed new clause.
Many council tax payers in London are feeling the effects of rising council tax, although my own council, Hammersmith and Fulham, has just achieved a 3 per cent. cut. Residents are appalled that, at the same time as their hard-working, newly elected council has achieved that reduction, the Mayor has hiked his take in the GLA precept by more than 5 per cent. Part of that rise is undoubtedly due to huge extravagance on the part of the Mayor in running events such as that at the QEII conference centre.
I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats do not support the proposed new clause, as it would protect council tax payers’ money. It is in the ultra vires tradition, in which I assume they believe. It would give protection against local authorities spending council tax payers’ money on things that were well beyond their remit. I therefore support the proposed new clause.