Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 68: 68: Clause 23, page 25, line 43, at end insert— ““(5) After section 31(3) of the GLA Act 1999 (limits of general power) insert— ““(3A) The Authority shall not by virtue of section 30(1) above incur expenditure in promoting activities or relationships which are primarily the responsibility of Her Majesty’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Department for International Development although this does not prevent the Authority incurring expenditure in co-operating with or facilitating good relations with other major capital cities.””.”” The noble Baroness said: This deals with a problem that we believe has occurred with the current Mayor, and although the Committee has not normally discussed the current office-holder, the issue would in principle affect any Mayor. The amendment would restrict the authority’s powers to incur expenditure on foreign affairs. We question how appropriate it is for the Mayor to conduct his own foreign policy, and aim to restrict his ability to do so. In his seven years in office, the current Mayor has been on more visits to Latin America than to some of the boroughs in the city, which he is supposed to represent in its entirety. He likes to visit Cuba and Venezuela, at great and uninvited expense to the taxpayer. Quite apart from the huge cost, there is little obvious benefit to be gained by Londoners from the Mayor fraternising with Latin American countries. Why should taxpayers have to fork out for the Mayor to travel to Venezuela to visit a president who, we understand, did not particularly want to see him? It is hard to see from where the Mayor believes he gets the mandate for these expeditions. They did not form part of the basis on which he was elected; nor is there any satisfactory way to scrutinise decisions to travel. Although he may make deals when he is there, they are not always appropriate for London. Whatever the difficulties with the incumbent Mayor, there is also a risk that a precedent could be set for future Mayors. It is not part of the Mayor’s role to do this; in fact, it must stand hard on the feet of the Lord Mayor of the City of London. We believe that the Mayor of London’s expenditure should be confined to doing the job for which he was elected. He would be better dealing with London alone rather than dashing around the world. I beg to move.