![]() House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Greater London Authority Bill |
Greater London Authority Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, Keith Neary, Committee
Clerks
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 9 January 2007(Morning)[Mr. Edward OHara in the Chair]Greater London Authority Bill10.30
am
The
Chairman:
I welcome everyone to the Committee. I remind
Members that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill
and that copies are available in the room. As usual, I remind Members
that adequate notice of amendments should be given. As a general rule,
I and my co-Chairman do not intend to call starred amendments,
including those that might be reached during an afternoon sitting.
Before anyone asks, if Members wish to remove their jackets, they may
do so.
That
(1)
the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on
Tuesday 9th January)
meet
(a) at
4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 9th
January;
(b) at 9.30
a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 11th
January;
(c) at 10.30
a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 16th
January;
(d) at 9.30
a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 18th
January;
(e) at 10.30
a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 23rd
January;
(2) the
proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4;
Schedule 1; Clauses 5 to 52; Schedule 2; Clauses 53 and 54;
new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the
Bill;
(3) the
proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a
conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on Tuesday 23rd
January.
Thank you for
your remarks, Mr. OHara, and it is a pleasure to see
you presiding over us today. I am sure that all members of the
Committee will benefit from the guidance that you and your co-Chairman
will provide as we scrutinise the details of the Bill. May I offer
apologies for the Minister for Housing and Planning, who has been
delayed on urgent Government business but will be with us in due
course? Apologies have been offered to the Opposition
parties.
On 12
December 2006, the House passed a programme motion that provides for
the Committees proceedings to conclude on 23 January, and
on 18 December, the Programming Sub-Committee agreed a
programme resolution for the Greater London Authority Bill Committee.
The resolution provides that the order of consideration follow the
order of clauses in the Bill and that schedules be considered alongside
the clauses that introduce them. I hope that hon. Members find the
arrangements set out in the resolution
satisfactory.
Michael
Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): First, I welcome the Minister
to his place and you, Mr. OHara, to the Chair. It is
a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship. I look forward to your wise guidance and that of your
co-Chairman, the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann
Winterton).
I imagine
that I will rely rather more on your wise guidance than will the
Minister, as this is the first substantial Bill Committee on which I
have served. Due to the vagaries of the operation of my own party, I
find myself serving on the Front Bench. I suspect that in the days to
come I will find myself tripping over schedules, amendments and other
aspects of the legislative process. If your kind, guiding hand,
Mr. OHara, can take me out of the thickets into
which I stray and back to the straight and narrow, I will be immensely
grateful.
On
the time allocated for debate, allow me first to enter a note of
regret. One change suggested by the Leader of the House is that public
Bills coming before the House in this calendar year should be subject
to a new procedure that allows us to take evidence, much though not
entirely in the manner of a Select Committee. Given the nature of the
Bill, and the number of bodies throughout the capital that have an
interest in submitting evidence, we on this side of the
CommitteeI suspect that we are joined by the Liberal
Democratsthink it a pity that the new, enhanced scrutiny
procedure is not in place. However, we understand why the Government
have decided to press ahead without that enhanced procedure. While we
express our regret that it is not in place, we will endeavour to do our
best to work within the time constraints.
Given those
constraintsthe 10 sittings we have in front of uswe
will try our best to move expeditiously through those measures that are
less controversial to allow sufficient time to debate those that cause
greater controversy and division across the Benches. The Government
have had ample opportunity to prepare the legislation and there has
been pre-legislative consultation. Indeed, it is because of that
pre-legislative consultation that the Government argue that there is no
need for us to operate under the new, enhanced Public Bill Committee
procedure.
Given that,
we confidently expect that the Government will not introduce their own
amendments. If they do, and if they acknowledge that their legislation
is flawed and have to hurry into Committee with significant proposals,
we might find the current allocation of time insufficient. With that
caveatthat riderwe are happy to accept the good offices
of the usual
channels.
Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): I, too, welcome
you to the Chair, Mr. OHara, and I am sure that you
will do us proud during our proceedings over the next few weeks. I also
welcome the
Minister.
Like the
hon. Member for Surrey Heath, we regret that it has not been possible
to use the enhanced consideration procedure. However, the 10 sittings
that have been allocated to us should be sufficient if we set
priorities. The hon. Gentleman said that he is new to such proceedings.
He will soon learn that, unfortunately, there is no clear correlation
between the amount of time spent in Committee and the number of
amendments that the Government accept. In fact, the two are completely
unconnected. Adding sittings is no guarantee that a Bill will change
beyond recognition.
The time available should be
sufficient, and I will ensure that we do not get in the way of allowing
time to debate controversial issues by unnecessarily spending time on
matters on which we all
agree.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I am grateful for the constructive comments
made by the spokesmen for both Opposition parties and welcome them to
the Committee. I am sure that we will have a constructive few weeks. I
also welcome my hon. Friends, who are supporting the
Governments
endeavours.
I hear
what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath says about Government amendments.
I cannot say that we will not table proposals, but we will do
everything we can to expedite business and ensure that we can
scrutinise the Bill
fully.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Ordered,
That,
subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received
by the Committee shall be reported to the House for
publication.[Jim
Fitzpatrick.]
The
Chairman:
Copies of the memorandums received so far are
available in the room. I welcome the constructive comments that have
been made, which bode well for the progress of the
Bill.
List of memorandums relating to the Greater London Authority Bill reported to the House for publicationGLA 1
London Assembly
GLA 2
City of London
Corporation
Clause 1Payments
on ceasing to hold office as Mayor or Assembly
member
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The clause will enable the Mayor of London
and the London assembly to establish and administer schemes to allow
the Mayor and assembly members to receive a payment on ceasing to hold
office. A scheme may be set up if the Mayor and assembly, acting
jointly, agree to establish
one.
In 2005, the
Senior Salaries Review Body recommended that a severance scheme be
introduced for the Mayor and assembly members, following a request from
the Greater London authoritys head of paid service to review
the salaries, allowances, pensions and severance payments of the Mayor,
deputy Mayor and assembly members. Allowing such a scheme to be
established will remove an anomaly: although the GLA is allowed to make
pension provision for someone who ceases to be Mayor or an assembly
member, it is not allowed to provide a payment when such a person
ceases to hold office. The change will bring arrangements for the GLA
in line with those for Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh
Assembly.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 1
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2Consultation
or
any of the functional bodies
and
insert
, any of the
functional bodies or such body representative of the London borough
councils.
The
amendment is simple and intended to clarify the consultation procedure
that the Mayor must go through. The Greater London Authority Act 1999
lists bodies to be given priority in consultation. We seek to amend it
to ensure that the consultation procedure takes into account one vital,
currently missing body.
If there is a
theme or leitmotif that we shall attempt to introduce in our scrutiny
of the Bill, it is the importance of ensuring that devolution goes to
the lowest possible level. One of our concerns is that while the Bill
will grant welcome additional powers, which currently lie with central
Government and their agencies, to the accountable office of the Mayor,
it will also take from the boroughs powers that should remain in their
hands without ensuring that they and the assembly have a balancing role
in ensuring that the Mayors functions are discharged
effectively.
In
keeping with that theme, the amendment would add to the list of primary
consultees the constituent body that represents London councils, so
London Councilsformerly the Association of London
Governmentshould have equal consultation status with the
Greater London assembly. It seems appropriate that that body should be
given that status, because so many of the Mayors
responsibilities depend on the boroughs for their effective discharge.
The original conception of the Mayors role was strategic. In
that respect, many of the delivery functions outside the scope of the
functional bodies devolve on to the boroughs. It is only appropriate,
therefore, when it comes to the preparation of the Mayors
strategies, that the Mayor take full account of what London boroughs
think, through the representative body that speaks for them all. I hope
that the Government have no objection to making this small but
constructive amendment, in the spirit of increased and enhanced
scrutiny and the principle of
devolution.
Tom
Brake:
We support the Conservative amendment. Clause 2
strengthens the assemblys role, requiring the Mayor to respond
with reasons to the comments of the assembly and functional bodies on
draft and revised strategies. The amendment proposed by the official
Opposition would require the Mayor to respond similarly to the comments
of London Councils, the representative body of London
government.
The hon.
Member for Surrey Heath says that he wants devolution to the lowest
possible level. It could be argued that if he wants to push the matter
further the amendment should call for the obligation to apply in the
case of all London boroughs, because London Councils represents a
collective view rather than that of each borough. Although the
amendment does not go far enough in terms of devolution, it is worthy,
and I shall listen carefully to the Minister to find out whether the
Government accept that it has some
validity.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The Government do not support the amendment.
I accept what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath says in that we are
trying to achieve the correct balance in many areas of the Bill, but we
do not agree that the amendment addresses that aim. In preparing or
revising his statutory strategies, the Mayor is required to consult
within the GLA group, the assembly and the functional bodies before
consulting more
widely.
Clause 2, as
the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington says, sharpens up the
Greater London assemblys role in policy development by placing
an explicit requirement on the Mayor to have regard to the comments of
the assembly and the functional bodies in response to consultation. It
also requires the Mayor to write to the assembly, identifying which
comments he accepts and giving his reasons when he does not accept
assembly
recommendations.
The
amendment would require the Mayor to have regard to the comment of any
body representative of the London boroughs when he consults on drafts
or revisions to his strategies. Section 42 of the 1999 Act already
provides that the Mayor should consult the London boroughs on draft
strategies. The views of the London boroughs, alongside those of other
external stakeholders, provide an important contribution to the
development of the Mayors strategies. I feel sure that the
Mayor carefully considers all those responses during the consultation
process. It is not, therefore, necessary to place an explicit
requirement on the Mayor to have regard to those comments, as the
amendment would
do.
10.45
am
Michael
Gove:
I am disappointed that the Minister feels that he
cannot accept the amendment. All that we seek to do is ensure that the
representative body of London boroughs enjoys the same rights as the
London assembly in the process of consultation. It seems to me that the
existing responsibility that is placed on the Mayor to consult London
boroughs gives them second-class status relative to the London
assembly. The existing responsibility is to consult each London borough
after the priorities are given to the assembly and to the functional
bodies. It is wrong that London boroughs should have that second-class
status. It also seems wrong that the Mayor should have a prior
requirement to consult with the functional bodies, many of which are
composed of his own appointees, before consulting the representative
voice of all Londons local government.
The Minister must be aware that
there is grave disquiet about other parts of the Bill, which will take
power away from boroughs and place it in the hands of the Mayor. The
amendment would be one small step to acknowledge that when strategies
are developed, the coherent unitary voice of Londons boroughs
is heard. The Minister could make a simple concession to show that the
Bill is intended to respect the rights of the boroughs rather than, as
many of us fear, simply to take their powers away whenever the
possibility is
presented.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman is
disappointed, although I suspect that this will not be the only time
during the next few weeks that
he will feel that way. I have said why we do not believe it appropriate
to put an explicit duty on the Mayor. For example, we are improving the
procedures for the assembly to hold the Mayor to account, and the Mayor
has to show greater regard to the assemblys observations on the
strategies by virtue of having to write and explain how he arrives at
his decisions. We believe that the Mayor already takes into account the
observations from London Councils, which I accept entirely is an
important strategic body in local government in London, and that he
already gives due weight to its views. We do not believe that the
amendment is
necessary.
Amendment
negatived.
The
Chairman:
Before I take the point of order, it appears
that that amendment could have been
withdrawn.
Stephen
Pound:
On a point of order, Mr. OHara.
Would you advise the Committee whether GLA members, who clearly have a
financial interest in clauses such as clause 1, are best advised to
excuse themselves while discussion of those matters is taking place or
whether it is sufficient for them to make a declaration? We are always
delighted to see the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but we do
not want him to be caused any
embarrassment.
The
Chairman:
I do not think that that is a matter for me to
determine. If any hon. Members have such concerns, they should consult
the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, not the Chairman of this
Committee.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Further to that
point of order, Mr. OHara. May I thank the hon.
Member for Ealing, North for his welcome; apologise for being late,
thanks to the rail timetable change announced yesterday; and say that I
will certainly take appropriate advice? I would no more want to be in
that position than he would, as I am sure he
knows.
Clause 2
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 10 January 2007 |