New Clause 30
Greater London Authority Bill
12:00 pm
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.