New
Clause
20
Abatement
of salary for any councillor with executive
responsibilities
‘After
section 25(1)(c) of the GLA Act 1999
insert—
“(d) as a
member of a local authority in receipt of an allowance for executive
responsibilities.”.’.—[Mr.
Pelling.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Pelling:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship once again, Lady Winterton. I am
cognisant that there are still further clauses for consideration, so I
shall attempt to be brief in speaking on clauses for the rest of the
day.
A good deal of
attention was given to abatement of GLA members’ salaries when
the Greater London Authority Act 1999 was considered. The then Minister
for London, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich
(Mr. Raynsford), when pressed by the hon. Member for North
Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), gave good guidance on the
issue of
MPs drawing full pay, either as members of the London assembly or indeed
as Mayor, for two public posts. He
said: “It is
proper that people should not be paid from the public purse for
performing two functions without an abatement of their
salaries.”—[Official Report, 4 November 1999; Vol.
323, c. 568.]
I must declare an interest in
the matter as a member of the London assembly. Currently, assembly
members who are Members of Parliament receive two thirds of the normal
salary—they are abated by a third. Indeed, the finance officer
of the GLA, the excellent Anne McMeel, was in my office the day after
the general election to advise me of the good news that the abatement
would take place. She gave the information with great enthusiasm. At
least there was some saving for the London
authority.
What has
changed since the 1999 Act is that, quite properly, we have seen a
significant increase in allowances for members of local authorities.
That is most justified by the work that they do. Allowances for
executive council members are now realistic in reflecting the amount of
work done under the stronger executive model pursued by the Government.
Thus by changes under the Local Authorities (Members’
Allowances)(England) Regulations 2001, following the guidance from
Professor Malcolm Grant in his brief, “Making allowances: the
remuneration of councillors in London”, and in work currently
being done by Rodney Brooke CBE, significant allowances are now being
paid to councillors. In London, under the current recommendation, the
basic rate is £10,000: in some councils the rate is above that
and in others it is below. However, payments for executive members can
be anything from £32,000 to £51,000 per year. An
executive member of a local authority who also sits as a London
assembly member could receive some £100,000 a year from the
public purse. It might be worth considering whether, in the changed
circumstances since the 1999 Act, the abatement should also apply to
senior executive members—not ordinary back-bench-level
councillors or people chairing the licensing committee—who
should be providing such a saving to the public
purse.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the
amendment, as it provides an opportunity for me to highlight one of the
Government’s proposed minor changes from the GLA review, which
we intend to take forward through an order following the passage of the
Bill.
We propose to
abate the salary of the Mayor or an assembly member who is also a
Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament by two
thirds of salary, rather than one third. That proposal reflects one of
the key recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body’s
last report, in 2005, on the remuneration of the Mayor and assembly
members. The SSRB’s reasoning for the level of abatement to
increase to two thirds of salary, which the Government accept, was that
membership of the assembly should generally be considered to be a
full-time role and that it is unlikely that the Mayor and assembly
members will hold dual mandates beyond a short period. It would also
bring the GLA in line with the salary abatement arrangements for the
Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
We are aware, of course, that
the hon. Members for Croydon, Central and for Bromley and Chislehurst
are also assembly members and are accordingly subject to this order. I
reassure them that the Government do not intend to bring a revised
order into force until after the next mayoral and assembly elections in
2008.
Mr.
Pelling:
That is most
gracious.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
We will also consult widely before making the
order.
I am afraid
that the Government cannot accept the amendment. As the hon. Gentleman
said, the amendment would add local councillors who receive any
allowance for executive responsibilities to the list of memberships
explicitly referred to in section 25 of the 1999 Act which could be
subject to the order by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State
already has the power to include councillors who are in receipt of an
allowance for undertaking executive responsibilities, under section
25(1)(c), which allows the Secretary of State to specify the membership
of other public bodies beyond the UK/European Parliaments to be covered
in the order. Accordingly, the amendment is not strictly necessary and
only highlights the fact that this category of political representative
may be affected by an order under section
25.
Furthermore, the
Government have no plans to extend our proposed revised order on the
abatement of salaries to cover councillors who are in receipt of an
allowance for undertaking executive responsibilities. Such an extension
would raise a number of complicated issues, such as the treatment of
councillors who undertake executive functions on a part-time basis,
which would need to be considered carefully, as I am sure the hon.
Gentleman would
accept.
Tom
Brake:
Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for
Croydon, Central mentioned a councillor with executive responsibilities
on a salary of £51,000? That is the exception, not the
rule.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is
accurate. To reinforce the point that he has raised, the Senior
Salaries Review Body has also not considered the issue to date. It
seems sensible, from our point of view, for the SSRB—as an
independent body with considerable expertise in deciding such
matters—to consider the issue in any future reviews of the Mayor
and assembly members’ remuneration before Ministers consider any
legislative changes. If in future the board decides that such a
legislative change is justified, I am sure that Ministers would want to
consider the issue again. With that explanation, I request that the
hon. Member for Croydon, Central consider withdrawing the
motion.
Mr.
Pelling:
I think the Minister’s suggestion that it
might be of interest to the Senior Salaries Review Body is appropriate.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause
21
Postponement
of poll from 2012 to
2013
‘(1) Section 3 of the
GLA Act 1999 is amended as
follows.
(2) After subsection
(2) insert—
“(2A)
The poll due on 3rd May 2012 shall be held on 2nd May 2013 or such
later date in 2013 as the Secretary of State may by order
provide.”.’.—[Mr.
Pelling.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Pelling:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
I am
particularly keen to look at the matter of call-in, which would give
the London assembly an opportunity to enjoy many of the powers that
local authorities—[Interruption.] That is, I will be
looking forward to doing so once I have addressed the matter of the
poll date—I just wanted to emphasise how much I was looking
forward to doing
so.
The
eyes of the world will be on London when the London Olympics take place
in 2012. The Mayor—whoever he or she might be after the 2008
elections—is likely to follow a pattern, already established and
typical in any mayoral system, of having a number of advisers around
him or her who are part of a team that will inevitably move on if there
is a change in the person holding the mayoral post after the election
in May 2012.
Mr.
Pelling:
I should like to progress my argument and will
then take guidance from the hon. Gentleman. To continue, we would have
a great deal of change and discontinuity at an important time in the
run-up to the Olympics in the late summer. I am very grateful for the
strong support for this clause from London First. It also says that the
eyes of the world will be on London as the Olympic and Paralympic games
are staged in August
2012.
Martin
Linton:
Does this new clause mean that the Conservatives
have given up hope of finding a credible candidate not only for the
mayoral election of 2008 but also for the election in
2012?
Mr.
Pelling:
The clause is entirely without party politics; it
is all about improving the prospects for London in undertaking the
games. I have no desire to be partisan on this clause.
The success
of the games will be important for the UK’s international
reputation. Within a partisan election, it is inevitable that the Mayor
will be distracted by the election taking place just a few months
before the Olympics take place. There is the prospect of a great deal
of distraction from the important attention that we should ask the
Mayor to give to the Olympic
games.
I know that it
is important always to be cautious about changing the rhythm of the
electoral cycle, but if we set the term of office for the assembly and
the Mayor well in advance and know that the elections in 2008 are for a
five-year term, we will take partisan politics, as exemplified by the
intervention by the hon. Member for Battersea, out of the Olympics, as
they are too important for London and the United Kingdom to be sullied
by a party political campaign.
12
noon
Tom
Brake:
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman to see
whether he had an overwhelming case for lengthening the standard cycle
for the mayoral and GLA elections, because it is a bad principle to
vary that cycle. Although the Olympics are a very significant event,
many other very significant events could occur which might lead the
hon. Gentleman to deploy arguments in favour of a postponement for
another reason at some time in the future.
The hon. Gentleman did not
present an overwhelming case and we should therefore stick to the
principle that if an agreed cycle for elections has been established it
should be maintained. He may find that he has been doing the
Government’s job, as they may well seek to make this change
themselves in the future. The hon. Gentleman might feel that it is more
appropriate to let the Government take the risk associated with the
decision rather than acting as an outrider for them.
The hon.
Gentleman made some interesting points but the case is not so
overwhelming that we should be willing to postpone the elections until
2013. If he presses the new clause to a Division, I will not support
it.
Yvette
Cooper:
The Government are also opposing the new clause
for similar reasons to those given by the hon. Member for Carshalton
and Wallington. I recognise the spirit in which the proposal was tabled
and acknowledge that there are serious issues to be considered to
ensure that the Olympics are a success. However, we should give serious
regard to the fact that the four-year electoral cycle was set as part
of previous legislation and be careful about what precedents would be
set.
The hon.
Gentleman did not make an overwhelming case for considering the
Olympics as exceptional circumstances that justify changing from the
ordinary electoral cycle for the GLA and the Mayor. The Olympics do not
depend on any one individual; many organisations are involved,
including the Olympic authorities and the GLA, and they will need to
work together to ensure that the Olympics in 2012 are a
success.
Mr.
Pelling:
In the interests of expediting the business, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
24
Appointment
of Commissioner of Police for the
Metropolis
‘(1) The Police
Act 1996 (c.16) is amended as
follows.
(2) For section 9B(5)
substitute—
“(5)
Before recommending to Her Majesty that she appoint a person as the
Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the Secretary of State shall
have regard to—
(a) any
recommendations made to him by the Mayor of London,
and
(b) any representations
made to him by the London
Assembly.”.’.—[Mr.
Pelling.]
Brought up, and read the
First
time.
Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second
time:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
9.
[
Division
No.
22
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly negatived.
| 
