Clause
25
Membership
3
pm
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to take clauses
26 and 27 stand
part.
Michael
Gove:
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.
Tom
Brake:
I support the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
The information that I have received about LFEPA suggests that it
functions well and has a local government-inspired culture of openness
which, according to my contact, contrasts with that of TFL and the LDA.
I am told that its budget is one of the most robust, because its local
authority input provides a more active degree of scrutiny than might
otherwise have
applied.
The
information that I have received suggests, as the hon. Gentleman said,
that this measure may be about trying to ensure that the ethnic
minority representation on LFEPA is correct. There may be other, more
effective, ways of achieving the degree of balance that the Minister is
rightly seeking than simply switching places from local authorities and
assembly members to the Mayor. The method being used to achieve that
balance is not appropriate. I shall listen carefully to what the
Minister says, but he will have to work hard to convince me that
I—and the official Opposition—should support these
clauses
today.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The clause, which amends paragraph 1 of
schedule 28 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999, changes the
composition of LFEPA and gives it wider powers in the appointment of
the authority members. It enables the Mayor to appoint the 17-member
board as follows: eight assembly members, currently nine, seven London
borough nominees, currently eight, and two further new members
appointed by the Mayor on his own nomination who are intended to
represent stakeholders who are other than elected politicians. The hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned the prospect of someone
from the black minority ethnic community being nominated, which is an
option that would be open to the Mayor.
The clause
also makes consequential amendments to ensure that the Mayor’s
appointment of eight assembly members continues to reflect the
political balance of the prevailing parties in the assembly. It makes
consequential amendments requiring the Mayor to fill any occurring
vacancy of mayoral representatives on the authority as soon as
reasonably
possible.
Clause 26
removes the constraints imposed on a chair or vice-chair of LFEPA who
is also an assembly member in respect of receiving allowances for
carrying out those roles. This change reflects the initial
responsibilities of being chair or vice-chair of the authority. The
Government believe that assembly members should not be prohibited from
receiving an allowance in respect of those offices.
Clause 27
inserts new sections 328A and 328B to the 1999 Act. The clause provides
power for the Mayor, under new section 328A, to issue directions and
guidance to the authority. In issuing any directions and guidance, the
Mayor must have regard to the fire and rescue national framework and
other fire safety enforcement guidance. That will give the Mayor more
influence over delivery while ensuring that the arrangements for LFEPA
remain broadly compatible with those for fire and rescue authorities
elsewhere.
Tom
Brake:
If, for instance, clause 27 was passed, giving the
Mayor the power of direction, why does the hon. Gentleman believe that
it would be necessary for the Mayor to appoint his own people to
LFEPA?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
It is our view that the LFEPA board should
have its membership widened to include those other than local authority
representatives. We partly discussed that earlier in respect of the TFL
board—whether there should be outside people on it and it should
be exclusively local authority or assembly representation.
We believe that it would add to
the experience and ability of the LFEPA board to continue with the
undoubted success that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey
Heath in respect of discharging its duties and which the hon. Member
for Bromley and Chislehurst knows better than any of us, having been a
senior figure and leader of the authority over many years and well
respected within the fire community for the role that he has played. We
believe that bringing in other than local authority representatives
would assist the board in its ability to discharge its duties. As I was
saying, this will give the Mayor more influence over delivery while
ensuring that the arrangements for LFEPA remain broadly compatible with
those for fire and rescue authorities
elsewhere.
Clause
27 includes a power for the Secretary of State in the new section 328B
of the 1999 Act to direct the Mayor to revise or revoke the guidance or
directions given to LFEPA that he considers inconsistent with the fire
and rescue national framework or fire safety enforcement guidance. The
purpose of that reserve power is to ensure that if the guidance or
direction issued by the Mayor to LFEPA is inconsistent with that issued
by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State can direct the Mayor
to remove their inconsistency. That will ultimately ensure that the
guidance or directions issued by the Mayor do not conflict with policy
requirements
and guidance at a national level. That should remove any difficulty in
following through decisions that will derive from risk assessment and
will enable the Mayor to direct the authority either on operational or
management matters, such as moving towards shared services with other
functional bodies, such as the Metropolitan Police Authority in
particular. Finally,
the hon. Member for Surrey Heath promoted me above my rank. I was not
general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union but a senior lay official
in London, which was several ranks
below.
3.15
pm
Michael
Gove:
Many of us feel that the Fire Brigades Union would
have been in even better hands had the Minister been general secretary,
because his judgment in so many matters is exemplary. However, on this
occasion, it has let him
down.
I
am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the burden of our arguments,
but we might table an amendment, perhaps on Report, specifically to see
whether call-in powers might be appropriate. I give notice that, due to
the Minister’s insistence that the clause stand part intact and
unamended, we shall vote against
it.
The
Chairman:
For the sake of clarity, I remind the Committee
that, as we have grouped the stand part debates for clauses 25, 26 and
27, the other two clauses will be moved formally once I have put the
question on clause 25 stand part. If anyone wants to make further
comment on part 5, they should do so
now.
Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
6.
Division
No.
9
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 25 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause 26
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
27
Directions
etc by the
Mayor
Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
6.
Division
No.
10
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 27 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
|
