Clause 25
Greater London Authority Bill
3:00 pm
Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I rise to oppose the changes suggested in the clauses. It is important to recognise that of all the functional bodies, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, LFEPA, attracts the least controversy. One reason is that it is one of the most effective—I note that in a previous career, the Minister was the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union. I suspect that LFEPA attracts so little controversy because of the high regard in which firefighters are held throughout the country, but also because of its effective method of working. The suggested changes would alter that method of working in a way that we believe might open the door to less efficient prosecution of its duties.
There are three particular areas of suggested change about which we have concerns. The first is the membership of LFEPA. It was originally proposed that the accountable element of LFEPA’s membership should be diluted. At the moment, LFEPA has a balance of borough and assembly representatives who work successfully together. As the Conservatives have pointed out during debate on previous clauses, the model of consensual work that characterises LFEPA’s operation was acknowledged by both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
The original plan was to remove two borough and two assembly members. Happily, that has been diluted, and we will now lose one of each, but it still seems wrong to deprive LFEPA of the benefits of its current constitution, because that precise mix ensures, more or less, that every area of London has someone to speak for it, whether an assembly member or a borough representative. There is a risk that certain geographical areas might fall off the end if the change is made. More broadly, if it is made, we will lose the rationale that governs the inclusive nature of LFEPA’s operation. The two individuals lost will be replaced by individuals appointed by the Mayor.
The rationale for mayoral appointments seems questionable. The point has been made that the two new members should be appointed partly to meet diversity criteria and partly to ensure a better relationship with business, so that business takes more account of the need for fire safety, resilience and emergency planning. In the first case, diversity should rightly be a matter for political parties. All political parties are now addressing the issue, and London is an area in which they have all been successful to a greater or lesser extent in addressing diversity within their own ranks. Therefore, having representatives who are assembly or borough members can meet the diversity criteria more effectively than simple patronage from the Mayor.
Secondly, the idea that we need to appoint someone so that business meets its obligations more effectively seems a complete misunderstanding of how LFEPA should operate. Appointing someone to the board from business, however enlightened, will not necessarily mean that other businesses or institutions operating in the commercial arena will take any more heed of what LFEPA says. It seems to us that it is for LFEPA itself—its members and those who work with it—to make the case for improved planning to deal with fire risk, improve resilience and manage emergency planning. LFEPA already does a good job, but if there is a feeling in the GLA or elsewhere that it needs to raise its game in those respects, the current composition should address that. Attempting to amend the current composition will not address that concern more effectively.
We are particularly concerned about what is proposed in respect of the power of mayoral direction to LFEPA. Because of the consensual way in which LFEPA works, the use of mayoral direction powers suggests that it has been incapable of resolving a problem and that the Mayor comes in to cut the Gordian knot. In such circumstances, there is an implied threat to LFEPA’s accountability. More than that, however, individuals in LFEPA who might wish to operate to an agenda dictated by the Mayor could act as a fifth column, disrupting the currently effective consensual working of LFEPA and hoping that the Mayor’s powers of direction might subsequently be exercised to favour a minority over the existing consensus. It would not be appropriate for the Mayor’s powers to be exercised in such circumstances. That is why we have tabled an amendment, which may be taken as a new clause later, that would give the assembly the power to call in certain mayoral directions. We accept that in rare circumstances a power of mayoral direction might be appropriate.
We acknowledge that mayoral direction has been used, for example, with the London Development Agency or Transport for London in preparing for the Olympics, to instil a sense of common purpose for a project that the majority of Londoners considered vital. We can envisage circumstances—if, for example, there were a terrorist atrocity again—where a power of mayoral direction might be appropriate for LFEPA. After 9/11 in America, the strong mayor model, exemplified by Mayor Giuliani in New York, was effective in dealing with problems consequent on that horrific attack.
We can all conceive of circumstances where a strong Mayor here may need to use a power of mayoral direction with LFEPA to deal with emergencies. In such circumstances, a responsible GLA will not exercise its call-in power, because it would recognise the importance of letting the Mayor and LFEPA get on with the job. However, giving the assembly that call-in power would ensure that the Mayor would exercise it responsibly. Unless the Minister says that it is appropriate to grant the assembly that call-in power, we are chary about extending to the Mayor, willy-nilly, this power of direction.
Our reasons for expressing concerns about the clauses relate to the current composition of LFEPA, the weak reasons being given for the change of membership and our concerns about the potential misuse or inadequate scrutiny of the Mayor’s power of direction in specific circumstances. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those concerns.