Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jacqui Lait (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 27 February 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Greater London Authority Bill.


Greater London Authority Bill

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving exactly the same answer that I would have given. It is the conjunction of the first-past-the-post mindset, whereby three quarters of the assembly must vote against the budget, and the d’Hondt system that has led us to this crazy situation. The London assembly has even fewer budgetary powers than the European Parliament has—and it did not have many. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for tabling the new clause. Year after year, sensible Conservative proposals for the Mayor’s budget have been overturned with an arrogance that most council tax payers are just beginning to come to terms with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said so succinctly, that is easy to see with the Westminster council tax budget. It is less simple for those of us in the outer suburbs and other boroughs—excluding Wandsworth, perhaps—to see the enormous hike that the Mayor imposes on us year after year. The Conservative group on the assembly and some of the other parties have from time to time proposed much more sensible budgets that would have obtained more and wider support for the institutions of the Mayor and the assembly, but they have been turned down. I am beginning to wonder what the impact will be on the precept and the council tax payer of the Mayor’s proposed aggrandisement of London through the creation of six ““gateways”” into London, quite apart from the impact on those poor boroughs that will have to give planning permission for those monstrosities. I would have thought that the Mayor’s greatest monument is the congestion charge. His producing such a proposal shows that his behaviour is becoming infinitely more erratic. For the first time, we might actually get a majority against one of his proposals, which would enable us to turn down his budget. Given that we cannot get a change to the election system into the Bill, the Committee tried, and we are now trying, to obtain much more rational control of the Mayor’s spending. We support the new clause, and I hope that we can ensure that the Government have to think again after we vote on it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
457 c838-9 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Access Costs City of London Council tax Housing Finance Environment Greater London Greater London Authority Infrastructure Functions Landfill Incinerators Local government Planning permission Powers Public appointments Planning Members Railways Recycling Property development Mayor of London Training Transport Waste disposal Waste Underground railways Transport for London London Assembly London Waste Regulation Authority River Thames Pedicabs
Legislation
Greater London Authority Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk