Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Ann Winterton (Congleton, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 43—Directions issued by the Mayor to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority—

‘After section 404 of the GLA Act 1999 insert—

“404A Directions issued by the Mayor to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

(1) Before issuing a direction to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority under or by virtue of this Act, the Mayor shall act in accordance with the following subsections.

(2) The Mayor shall send a copy of any proposed direction to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority to the London Assembly.

(3) The Assembly may within 21 days of receiving a copy of any proposed direction to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority recommend that the proposed direction should not be issued or should be issued with such modifications as the Assembly shall determine.

(4) The Mayor shall have regard to any recommendation made by the Assembly under subsection (3) above.

(5) The Mayor shall within 21 days or receiving a recommendation made by the Assembly under subsection (3) above prepare a statement which must include an explanation setting out the reasons why any recommendations made by the Assembly is not accepted.”.’.

New clause 44—General power for the Assembly to call in directions—

‘(1) After section 404 of the GLA Act 1999 insert—

“404A Directions issued by the Mayor

(1) Before issuing a direction under or by virtue of this Act, the Mayor shall act in accordance with the following subsections.

(2) The Mayor shall send a copy of any proposed direction to the Assembly.

(3) The Assembly may within 21 days of receiving a copy of any proposed direction recommend that the proposed direction should not be issued or should be issued with such modifications as the Assembly shall determine.

(4) The Mayor shall have regard to any recommendations made by the Assembly under subsection (3) above.

(5) The Mayor shall within 21 days of receiving a recommendation made by the Assembly under subsection (3) above prepare a statement which must include an explanation setting out the reasons why any recommendation made by the Assembly is not accepted.”

(2) After section 421(2) of the GLA Act 1999 insert—

“(3) In any direction given under this Act by the Mayor, the reference to a ‘direction’ shall include the following—

(a) any guidance issued by the Mayor under this Act to any body as to the manner in which that body is to exercise its functions;

(b) any general directions issued by the Mayor under this Act to any body as to the manner in which that body is to exercise its functions;

(c) any specific directions issued by the Mayor under this Act to any body as to the exercise of that body’s functions.

(4) In this section and in section 404A any reference to ‘this Act’ includes any provisions which, by virtue of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended from time to time), have been or are inserted into any other Act of Parliament or statutory instrument.”.’.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Throughout the progress of the Committee, one of the points that we have emphasised is the requirement for balanced new powers for the Mayor and new powers of scrutiny for the assembly. The three new clauses would give the assembly the power to call in mayoral directions and to subject them to appropriate scrutiny. Over the past two and a half weeks, the Opposition’s commitment to giving the Greater London assembly greater powers of scrutiny has been testified to by the weight of argument put by myself and my hon. Friends. All I would say is that the Minister is probably familiar, if not wearily familiar, with the arguments and I look forward to hearing him once again demolish them when he takes from his civil service brief yet another series of impeccably framed arguments against scrutiny and in favour of the unfettered exercise of Executive power.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

This is familiar territory for me, having spoken only a few moments ago. I want to draw particular attention to new clauses 43 and 44 regarding the power of the assembly to call in directions and guidance to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and other GLA functional bodies. Providing the Mayor with the power to direct LFEPA will give him or her considerable new direct powers over the authority. He obviously already has such powers in relation to Transport for London and the London Development Agency.

I know that colleagues on the Greater London assembly do not oppose that power in principle, but they wish to ensure that there is an appropriate degree of transparency and accountability. The Mayor might use the power of direction to compel a functional body to take a particular course of action against its own will. In those cases, there should be a mechanism for reviewing the direction before it takes effect.

Local authorities throughout the country already have the power, including those with directly elected mayors. In those circumstances, the executive is required to publish a forward plan of its forthcoming decisions and the council has the power to call in any of those decisions. The new clauses therefore do not represent an innovation; they would merely extend the powers available to local councils, in relation to their executives, to the role of the London assembly in its relation to the Mayor.

In local authorities, the power to call in decisions has not led to undue delays in the decision-making process. It has simply introduced a degree of transparency and accountability. That is perhaps even more important in respect of the current Mayor than it might be in local authorities. The new clauses would not take power away from the executive. The assembly would not be empowered to block any mayoral decision. Instead, it could ask questions within a reasonable time scale of 21 days and make recommendations to the Mayor either to revise the direction or not to issue it all. The final decision would, however, rightly rest with the Mayor.

Unlike local authorities, which have the power to call in all executive decisions, the power would relate only to directions to functional bodies, not to all mayoral decisions. Very few directions have been issued to the London Development Agency or to TFL by the current Mayor. An average of five directions were issued in each year from 2000 to 2005. The power is used generally in exceptional circumstances. Accountability is perhaps most important when exceptional steps are being taken by an executive. It is in those circumstances when Londoners would expect the London assembly to undertake a role of scrutiny and expose the decisions to public debate.

There are two separate proposals, one relating to LFEPA and one relating to all functional bodies, and that deserves some explanation. The boards of Transport for London and the London Development Agency are appointed by the Mayor without reference to political balance. The board of LFEPA is mainly made up of politicians in proportion to their representation on London councils and the London assembly.

In the cases of TFL and LDA, there is therefore less risk of a fundamental disagreement between the Mayor and his appointees. Since the Mayor is the only party with a democratic mandate, his will is likely to prevail in any consternation with TFL or the LDA. As for LFEPA, it is entirely possible that there could be political disagreements between the Mayor, with his direct mandate, and LFEPA, with its indirect democratic mandate. The power of direction would be used to resolve such disagreements. I am sure that the assembly would not argue against the Mayor being empowered to so direct LFEPA to do certain things. However, in the case of LFEPA, when there is more potential for directions to be controversial politically and unwelcome, it is particularly important that the Mayor’s directions are subject to proper transparency  and debate before they take effect. Thus, the opportunity is given to the Committee to give consideration to the special circumstances of LFEPA. Before I conclude, I shall give way.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I sensed that the hon. Gentleman was about to conclude. I had hoped to intervene on the speech of the official Opposition spokesman, but his contribution was so succinct that I am intervening on the speech of the hon. Gentleman instead. I wish to bring him briefly to new clause 30. I am sympathetic to the group of new clauses, but it was not clear to me under that new clause precisely what additional powers would result from its introduction that do not already exist under section 59 of the 1999 Act. That allows the assembly to keep under review the Mayor’s exercise of statutory functions and it can produce reports and investigate matters of any actions taken by the Mayor. Will the hon. Member for Croydon, Central clarify what additional powers would result from new clause 30?

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to develop my argument in respect of new clause 30.

The London assembly does indeed have the powers of scrutiny to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but there is a formality to the process of call-in. It would be more likely to prompt the current incumbent to provide a more detailed response to call-in procedure than saying, “I got elected, therefore I decide what to do.” It would not be possible to sustain that approach through a formal call-in process. With those comments, I conclude my remarks.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I shall be brief, Lady Winterton. I apologise for not having welcomed you back to the Chair when I spoke earlier.

I wish to reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central. It has been a theme throughout our party that we do not oppose giving more power to the Mayor but seek to balance the power for the assembly to call in. When the matter was considered by the London assembly, support for this proposition and the principle of call-in powers was agreed only with the abstention of the euphemistically named “One London” group—the ex-UK Independent party, ex-Veritas group. In other words, every serious group of politicians, of all shades of opinion, supported the call-in powers. I hope that the Government will take that point on board.

If the Minister is about to spring into action, perhaps he will tell us why, if it was good enough for the executive-strong mayor of Lewisham, it is not good enough for the Mayor of London to have to deal with the call-in power on this basis?

Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Poplar & Canning Town, Labour)

The new clauses return the Committee to our debates on part 1 of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said. Those debates centred on the respective roles of the Mayor and the assembly. It was made clear then that it is our belief that the current model for the Greater London authority works well, with a strong Mayor as the  executive arm of the authority and the assembly holding him to account on behalf of Londoners. Our view is unchanged, but the new clauses would fundamentally alter the balance of power between the Mayor and assembly, and we cannot accept them.

I shall summarise each of the new clauses in turn. New clause 30 would allow the assembly to call in for scrutiny a decision made by the Mayor, except planning decisions, if at least 13 assembly members make such a request in writing to the chief executive within 14 days of the decision. The assembly must then meet within 12 days of the call-in to debate the decision. Such a provision would serve little purpose. The assembly may already scrutinise the decisions and actions of the Mayor, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out. Indeed, the assembly has a statutory duty to keep under review the Mayor's exercise of his statutory functions. New clause 30 would merely serve to formalise an existing process, and I see little merit in seeking to pigeon-hole assembly scrutiny of the Mayor into a rigid, time-bound process.

New clause 43 would require the Mayor to send to the assembly any direction that he intends to issue to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Hon. Members will recall that clause 27 gives the Mayor a power of direction over LFEPA. The Assembly may recommend to the Mayor within 21 days of receiving the proposed direction that he should not issue it, or should issue it with amendments. The new clause also imposes a duty on the Mayor to have regard to the assembly's recommendations and, within 21 days of receiving them, prepare a statement giving reasons why any of the recommendations made by the assembly are not accepted. New clause 44 would make a similar provision in respect of any directions or guidance issued by the Mayor under the 1999 Act.

The new clauses would gravely hinder the Mayor, leaving him unable to act quickly and decisively when exercising his powers of direction. The Mayor would need to wait up to three weeks for the assembly to make its recommendation on his proposed direction, and he would not be able to issue directions in a timely manner.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent the assembly scrutinising retrospectively any directions issued by the Mayor. However, part and parcel of our model for London governance is that the Mayor, as the executive, should be free to act in a strong and decisive way, and that the Assembly should hold him accountable for his actions. Extending the assembly's power of scrutiny to decisions that he intends to make would change fundamentally the balance of power within the GLA—a balance that is proven to work for the benefit of Londoners.

I therefore urge the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw the motion.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

In one sense, the Minister did not disappoint me. Once again, with admirable clarity, he outlined the Government’s position. We have rehearsed the arguments before. We are naturally disappointed that the Minister will not accept what we believe is the logic of our argument. It is clear from earlier debates that when the Mayor needs to issue directions, not least to LFEPA, at moments of crisis, a responsible  assembly would not seek to inhibit him—for example, if he was dealing with the aftermath of events such as 7/7. I accept that the Minister has the big battalions behind him, so I shall not push the point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.