Greater London Authority Bill

I can reassure my noble friend that I am not disposed to accept the amendment. Perhaps I can add a few points to the very helpful exchange that we have had. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his authoritative analysis of why it is important for the Mayor to have the capacity to promote London abroad. There has been a useful debate on the distinctions between the Mayor of London and the Lord Mayor of the City of London. London is one of the most important financial, commercial and economic centres. It is a truly international city. Across the globe today, there is an enormous emphasis on urbanisation in the growth of cities, but there is also impoverishment and a growth of inequalities in cities. The Mayor of London has a particular interest in and a contribution to make to that. As the issue begins to dominate our international understanding and our global politics, it is extremely important that the Mayor is able to travel abroad, not just to promote London internationally but also to help to contribute to and to learn from the extremely difficult issues of urbanisation, climate change and so on. He needs that capacity. Since 2000, only 3 per cent of his time has been spent on foreign trips, which is not very much. I shall certainly not comment on any particular trip. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, made the point that he is accountable to the London Assembly for his actions and his expenditure. I know that the Assembly scrutinises those. Ultimately, he is accountable to Londoners through the ballot box. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked from where the Mayor’s mandate comes. The original White Paper on London governance in 1998 clearly envisaged that the Mayor would promote London at home and overseas, attracting inward investment and major sporting and cultural events. One of the three key principles of the GLA is promoting economic development and wealth creation in the Greater London area. That is a very strong mandate. Indeed, Section 400 of the GLA Act explicitly allows the GLA to provide advice and assistance on local government activities to bodies outside the UK in a similar way as it is allowed in regard to local authorities under the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993. The proposed new clause would not allow the Mayor to take his rightful role on the world stage or to develop closer links with the national leaders of the emerging world economies. The example of India is extremely well taken. The amendment would probably not even allow the Mayor to develop strong links with other world cities, such as New York or Barcelona, that are not capital cities but are major global players. Another point regarding the economy is that one in six jobs in London—some 700,000—either results from foreign direct investment or depends on tourism. The GLA has estimated that some 200,000 jobs in the capital depend on newly emerging market economies, such as those of India, China and Russia. The Olympic Games have been mentioned already this afternoon, but these proposals might suggest that the leader of the world’s premier city—an Olympic city—would be breaking the law if he decided to visit the leader of another country. We would be in trouble internationally and would make ourselves a laughing stock. The amendment draws attention to the role of the FCO, but if responsibility for promoting London were not given to the Mayor it would not be clear who would have that role. These are strong arguments. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.