Greater London Authority Bill

Again, I am pleased to return to this matter, which was debated at greater length than any other in Committee and, of course, picked up in another place. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) has said, the Minister and other Government Members have suggested that this budgetary arrangement has served Londoners well. However, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the fact is that the Mayor's precept of the council tax has increased by 100 per cent. in four years, and most Londoners would say that that does not serve them very well. For that reason, we proposed a measure in Committee that would have increased transparency and allowed separate billing for the Mayor's precept, so that when people received their council tax bills and complained about the fact that their local councils had put up their council tax by 4 or 5 per cent, or by something above the rate of inflation, they would also receive a bill setting out the Mayor's precept. They would then be able to see that the Mayor had very generously put up his precept by 25 per cent. or by something of a much larger nature than the local authorities had done. I am afraid that, of course, the Government were not in favour of transparency in billing. Therefore, many people remain in the dark about how generous the Mayor has been with their council tax. We have reached very strange times when the Minister feels the need to invoke Lord Heseltine's view as a justification for supporting this budgetary arrangement. It is in fashion for the Government to adopt things, but they are going to the extent of adopting Lord Heseltine's view in defence of their proposal. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has said, no one outside the House or the Mayor's office will understand a budgetary arrangement whereby a budget can be passed when 16 assembly members vote against it and nine support it. No one would see reason in that sort of arrangement. That is why, if the official Opposition choose to press the motion to a vote today, we will certainly join them. The budget and the Mayor's ability to push his budget through with minimal support goes to the crux of what is wrong with the present arrangements. The Minister said that requiring a majority to support the budget risks conflict and impasse. I do not agree at all. What it risks is the Mayor having to sit down and agree with a majority of assembly members in the different parties that they will support his budget. That arrangement seems to work quite well in local authorities throughout the country, where Conservative and Liberal Democrat administrations, Liberal Democrat and Labour administrations or, quite possibly, Conservative and Labour administrations work together and reach arrangement on budgetary issues and policies. We should not be afraid of that, but it seems as though the idea that the Mayor of London should have to achieve a consensus with assembly members is so appalling and alarming to the Government that they cannot possibly entertain it. We think that this is a matter of huge importance. It is probably the most important issue that we need to address to try to make the whole process more democratic, more accountable and more open. We sincerely hope that the motion will be pressed to a vote and that we can command a majority of support against the Government, so that we in the House adopt what was sensibly proposed in the other place to ensure that the budget must be passed by a majority.