Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, I confess that I do. In Committee, we had a very interesting debate about consultation and the different forms it could take. I particularly remember the noble Lord, Lord Tope, making a distinction between consultation which was a form and consultation which produced a result. I suspect that I shall miss my noble friend Lord Harris today when we enter some of the choppier waters. The issues raised were not about semantics, because there are real distinctions about consulting properly, and they are not resolved by the amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lady Turner that the amendment would put in the Bill something which is unnecessary. It is worth stating at this stage that we would all want to make a distinction between the office of Mayor and the person holding the office. There is a suspicion in our debates on consultation that somehow the Mayor is less likely to take account of consultation processes. As I explained on the previous amendment, the Government are very serious that when public bodies consult widely in the development and implementation of policy, they do so fully and properly. That certainly applies to the GLA, which is not an exception. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that a statutory consultation process would bring any significant benefits. In terms of transparency, the Mayor gives clear advance notice of consultations that he intends to carry out on the GLA website, for example. As far as I am aware, he has never had any difficulty in encouraging Londoners to participate. The point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is important; namely, there are different types of consultation for different situations. Some consultations can be quick, deep, intensive, forensic and investigatory. Others can be more reflective, longer term and take a different form. To prescribe a single form for a process would not serve the investigative process at all. There are real disadvantages in requiring the Mayor to publish a consultation strategy. I would not want to suggest that it would be tokenism, but it certainly would not be a substitute. It just adds another layer of explanation and burden. It would be bureaucratic, it would not generate additional information, it could not guarantee that the consultation would produce a result and it would be costly to prepare. My main argument is that it risks setting in stone some procedures which, by definition, need to remain flexible and responsive. Finally, it should not be up to the Government to impose this—