Greater London Authority Bill

Perhaps it comes from cynicism born of experience, but I do not see the realpolitik in the same way as the Minister does. She says that it would reflect on the political parties; I part company from her there. Legislation should set up the structure which restricts elected politicians from doing, or allows them to do, whatever is intended. One should not rely on people showing the common sense that we, in 2007, think they should show in five years’ time, when provision can be achieved in legislation. The noble Baroness talked about reputation. Given that there would be a ceiling—I am not challenging the ceiling on the Assembly’s budget—I part company with her there as well. I do not approach this in some Cassandra-like fashion, looking for a problem; instead, I seek to think through the ““what ifs?”” and find the protection. There is a difference from the functional bodies which are part of the Mayor’s arm. I am glad that the Minister thinks it is not necessary to have a clause dealing with the allocation of resources—that is within the spirit of the amendment. Clause 34 provides: "““The Authority acting by the Mayor, by the Assembly, or by both jointly, may do anything””," to facilitate its functions. That was where I had a problem. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Sitting suspended for a Division in the House from 5.03 to 5.16 pm.] [Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.] Clause 13 agreed to. Clause 14 [Substitute calculations]: [Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 not moved.] Clause 14 agreed to. Clause 15 agreed to. [Amendment No. 35 not moved.] Clause 16 agreed to.