UK Parliament / Open data

Greater London Authority Bill

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Andrews (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 June 2007. It occurred during Debate on bills on Greater London Authority Bill.
My Lords, that will certainly be part of my argument. We rehearsed some of the issues on the budget as a whole in the previous amendment. I was not convinced in Committee that there was a need for any additional statutory safeguards. I am now more convinced than ever that such a change would be counterproductive for the reputation of the Assembly. Basically, I have three quick arguments. First, there is an inconsistency at the heart of this amendment. The central question is why the Assembly should be permitted to amend one part of the GLA consolidated budget—the Assembly component budget— by a simple majority while other component budgets require a two-thirds majority. What is the argument for that? I have heard no convincing case for giving the Assembly preferential treatment or preferential safeguards at the expense of the other component budgets. The usual democratic processes can promote and defend the Assembly’s budget—and the Assembly’s wider interests—within the budget-setting procedure set out in the GLA Act. I am serious about the risk to the Assembly’s reputation. This will be the first time that the Assembly has had its own budget. The effect of the amendments would be to single it out for special treatment and protection but not the budgets for the GLA Group’s front-line services such as transport and policing. Where is the rationale in that and where is regard for the Assembly’s reputation? It is a perverse argument which will not be terribly welcome to Londoners. Just as my noble friend Lady Morgan made clear in our earlier debate on confirmation hearings, establishing special arrangements for the Assembly would send a rather uncomfortable and inappropriate message to Londoners: that neighbourhood policing or the fire service are somehow less important than the administration of the Assembly. I do not think that noble Lords should be comfortable in sending that message. There is an element of realpolitik and a challenge for Assembly Members to take a different approach to their budget-setting role. However, with regard to the Assembly not being able to protect its budget, it seems to me that it should be far easier to achieve a consensus against a Mayor who proposes an excessively low Assembly budget than it would be, say, to reach a consensus on policy issues. The Assembly should be given the chance, as well as the dignity, to try to make the current system work without moving the goalposts as proposed in the amendments. It is a question of confidence and maturity, and it is also a fair and consistent approach. On those grounds, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c182-3 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top