You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard by Date > Daily Hansard
Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

We do not object to the Mayor having the power to direct the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. It mirrors existing powers for Transport for London and the London Development Agency, and the amendment would not remove those powers. It would also respect the primacy of the Mayor in the event of an unresolved dispute. However, it would represent a significant shift in favour of openness and accountability. It would allow the Assembly to make

2 May 2007 : Column GC79

recommendations to the Mayor either not to issue a direction to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority at all or to do so in ways in which he could review or change it. The Mayor could choose to ignore the Assembly’s suggestions but there would be an opportunity for some degree of scrutiny or consideration of the directions. It is desirable that there should be an opportunity to scrutinise these directions—even if they are limited in number—before they take effect rather than, as the noble Baroness has said, simply retrospectively. The Mayor is frightened of extra scrutiny, as any Mayor in London would be.

I am interested to hear what argument is advanced against this amendment and against those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As the noble Baroness said, many local authorities already have similar powers. The Mayor has used his power to issue directions to Transport for London and the London Development Agency only very sparingly; I think the noble Baroness said that he had done so five times. This power would therefore not be widely used. However, as the directions are not numerous, they presumably have some significance when issued. Given the nature of the cases, there would be some merit in having accountability, at least to the point that the Mayor is likely to have to justify openly why his direction is being made.

Baroness Turner of Camden: In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that it was not a veto. Amendments Nos. 38 and 73 both state:

But subsection (3) in the amendment states:

The amendment also states:

That seems to come very close to being a veto.

Baroness Andrews: As usual, I am very grateful to my noble friend for picking up the most important point of the argument. It shows that this is, once again, a variation on the debate about the balance of power between the Mayor and the Assembly and the threat that it poses to the successful model that we have of a strong executive Mayor with an Assembly holding him to account. It will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness that I cannot accept the amendments.

Amendment No. 38 would require the Mayor to send to the Assembly any direction or guidance that he intends to issue. It would allow the Assembly to recommend to the Mayor within 21 days of receiving the proposed direction that he should not issue it, or should issue it with amendments. That sounds very much like a veto. It also imposes a duty on the Mayor to have regard to the Assembly’s recommendations and, within 21 days of receiving them, to prepare a statement setting out his reasons why any of the recommendations are not accepted.



2 May 2007 : Column GC80

Amendment No. 73 makes a similar provision in respect of any directions issued by the Mayor under the GLA Act to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The Committee will be aware that the GLA Bill includes a provision at Clause 27 to give the Mayor a power of direction over the LFEPA. We shall come to that in due course.

Amendment No. 78 defines a direction given by the Mayor to include any general and specific directions—again, a much wider power—or guidance issued by the Mayor to any body on the exercise of its functions.

These directions may be few but they are among the most important levers available to the Mayor to ensure that priorities and objectives set out in his strategy are implemented. They are the levers of change; that is what makes them so important. It is only right that the Assembly should be able to scrutinise the Mayor’s decision to issue a direction, but the difference between giving a retrospective power with a requirement to explain and the power to withdraw the direction is serious.

5.30 pm

The power to issue directions and guidance is part and parcel of the Mayor’s oversight of the functional bodies for which he is accountable, and it is crucial that the Mayor should be able to act quickly and decisively when necessary to issue directions and guidance to functional bodies about their performance and actions. Requiring the Mayor to wait up to 21 days for the Assembly to make its recommendations on his proposed direction would prevent him issuing urgent, or even timely, directions, and it could risk a hiatus of several weeks before the body receiving a mayoral direction became clear about what that direction included.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours for asking the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for examples. Disappointingly, she was not able to provide an example, but I can provide some of how it would harm the process. The current Mayor has already issued time-critical directions providing legal certainty to functional bodies that they can undertake particular urgent activities—for example, to TfL and the LDA in relation to Olympic preparations. It is possible that a future Mayor would want to act quickly and decisively through the use of directions immediately after being elected in order to implement his manifesto commitments—for example, in relation to public transport fares.

Furthermore, the introduction of a 21-day period for Assembly consideration would affect the Mayor’s ability to use his limited powers of direction over boroughs, which are often time-critical. In particular, the amendments would cut right across the Mayor’s current power to direct a borough to refuse a strategically important planning application—a matter that we are all looking forward to debating next week. As under the existing Mayor of London order 2000, the Mayor has only 14 days to issue a direction of refusal to the borough, so these amendments would effectively make this power of direction unworkable. Similarly, the Mayor has only a limited window of opportunity to issue a direction to boroughs in relation to their waste

2 May 2007 : Column GC81

contracts, so Assembly scrutiny before the direction was issued could slow the process down and make it more difficult for the Mayor to intervene.

Finally, the Assembly already has ample opportunity and means through its existing scrutiny powers to scrutinise, retrospectively, any directions or guidance issued by the Mayor. Indeed, there are well established mechanisms that support that; it is the best form of effective scrutiny. However well intentioned, what the amendments present us with would fundamentally alter the balance of powers in the GLA—a balance that at the moment creates the opportunity for the Mayor to act decisively for the benefit of Londoners. It would fetter that discretion, and that would be to the detriment of London as a whole. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: We are told that these amendments amount to a veto or blocking power because of the strength of the term “have regard to”. Next week, we will talk about the hierarchy of “have regard to”, “be in general conformity with” and “be in strict conformity with”. If those words amount to a veto, does that mean that the Assembly has a veto over the strategy under new Section 42A of the Act, under which the Mayor must consult the Assembly about his proposed strategies and “have regard to” any comments submitted by the Assembly? We debated that as a specific amendment. The Government cannot have one interpretation of “have regard to” under that clause and another under this amendment.

I thought that I had substantially dealt with the issue of the 21-day period before, but the Minister gave us examples, including the period of 21 days for the Olympics. I find it difficult to believe that 21 days at that stage in such a very long programme could be time-critical.

As for directions on planning and waste, I could say, “Quite”. We will say that next week. If one of the amendments were to find favour with the Government, we would be happy to look at the consequential amendments which would be needed to make the process work alongside the other arrangements that the Minister mentioned.

As we are in Grand Committee, I shall clearly not take the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]

Lord Sheikh moved Amendment No. 39:

“Ordinary elections(a) 2nd May 2013, or(b) a later date (not later than 31st July 2013) which the Secretary of State may specify by order.”.”

2 May 2007 : Column GC82

The noble Lord said: The eyes of the world will be on London when the London Olympics take place in 2012. The Mayor, whoever he or she may 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 who are part of a team. Should the incumbent lose after the elections in May 2012, shortly before the Olympics, this could disrupt preparation for the Games and that team would inevitably move on if there were a change in the person holding the mayoral post.

The need to run for re-election would be a damaging distraction for the incumbent from the energies that are needed to make a success of the Games. With the upheaval to the capital in the approach to the Olympics, a mayoral election would be an inconvenience, causing unhelpful disruption to London in addition to expected inconveniences associated with preparing for the Games.

All Greater London Authority members and political parties should be focused on working together to ensure that the London Olympics are the best possible advert for the city and the country. A divisive election campaign only months before the Games would be counter-productive to this objective.

The new clause is entirely outside party politics; the success of the Games will be important for the United Kingdom’s international reputation. With a partisan election, it is inevitable that the Mayor will be distracted with the election taking place just before the Olympics. There is the prospect of a great deal of distraction from the important attention that the Mayor should give the Olympic Games. I beg to move.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: This is a very interesting proposal. I was a member of the GLC when the elections were deferred last time, and I am not sure that it did not create a lot of confusion. If it is a question of altering the date, perhaps it should be earlier rather than later. It is an interesting proposal but it needs to be given a lot more thought.

Lord Harris of Haringey: This is a very interesting proposal. In fact, it is so interesting that I think it was raised—and, at one stage, had a degree of government support—when it was first proposed that London should bid for the Olympics. It was recognised that the potential disruptive effect of a mayoral election a matter of weeks before the Olympics would not be entirely helpful to a successful event.

I am not sure that I support the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, about the coterie of advisers who will surround the Mayor in office at the time and the deleterious effect of some of them disappearing. I do not believe that that would be the critical factor. The critical factor will be that the ODA and LOCOG, which are already in place, will have permanent people acting for them and that will not necessarily be subject to a change of Mayor.

We should envisage what sort of mayoral campaign would take place immediately before the Olympic Games. It would be nice to imagine that there would be the sort of cross-party unity and

2 May 2007 : Column GC83

lovefest that has been suggested, but I suspect that, given the pettiness that sometimes affects party politics, we might find one candidate arguing very strongly that the Olympic Games should have a different flavour or that there should be some major change in direction at a time when there will be a flat-out effort to ensure that everything is ready and that it really is the greatest Olympic Games of all time, as I am confident it will be.

It would be unhelpful to have an election a few weeks before the Games. I can see the attractions of the noble Baroness’s suggestion of bringing it forward or putting it back a year but, whatever change is made, it is important to indicate clearly that the normal cycle of elections would then revert to the one that started in 2000 and continued in 2004 and 2008. This would simply be a blip to recognise a unique event in the life of this city—the Olympic Games—and the fact that a distraction involving an election in that period would not be entirely helpful.

Baroness Andrews: The suggestion clearly has more of a history than I anticipated, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, on raising such an interesting topic. I am not quite as cynical as my noble friend Lord Harris. I welcome the call that the noble Lord has made for all parties to work together over the Olympics. I am sure that we shall see that, because it will clearly be an opportunity to showcase and highlight London, and there will also be the regeneration work, as well as our heritage and cosmopolitan culture. It will be an extremely important event. However, I am afraid that it is not sufficiently exceptional to postpone the 2012 mayoral elections by a year to ensure continuity.

Lord Harris of Haringey: If I recall, the date of elections in London—admittedly, they were parliamentary elections—was changed because of foot and mouth disease, which I do not think most Londoners would regard as a major event. I appreciate that it was regarded as a major event in the countryside but, for most Londoners, it was probably something that passed them by. How can my noble friend suggest that the Olympic Games is a minor issue?

Baroness Andrews: My noble friend is deeply unfair. I certainly did not say that the Olympic Games was a minor issue. It was the only example that I could think of, although there was also the foot and mouth outbreak. However, we can all put forward our own candidates; for example, 2012 is the Handel tercentenary and that would be a very good reason for postponing the elections but, again, it is hardly a sufficient argument for interfering in such an important part of the democratic process. It would undermine a fundamental constitutional principle in the original GLA Act that the Mayor’s political legitimacy is derived from direct regular elections held every four years. We had the beginnings of a discussion about that yesterday. While a potential change of Mayor in May 2012 might be a complicating factor, we cannot consider it as a major risk to the games.



2 May 2007 : Column GC84

In all seriousness, the proposal would also set a dubious precedent. The foot and mouth example followed from a genuine national emergency and there was no argument for different parts of the country voting on different days. On the basis of that argument, a case could be made for saying that other major sporting events should also trigger such a change, but that simply would not make sense.

There is one other argument. There would be increasing concerns about the political legitimacy of the Mayor—whoever is elected in 2008—towards the end of his five-year term in 2013, especially if he took forward new policies in areas not directly related to the Olympics. There would be a disjunction that would cause some confusion in the political environment and it might even lead to a loss of confidence in the Mayor. So, with regret, I must tell the noble Lord that we cannot accept his amendment and I hope that he finds it possible to withdraw it.

5.45 pm

Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord does so, perhaps between this stage and the next, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, will remind us what was done in that last year of the GLC. I think that there were some extravagant gestures then. The more I listen to the debate, the more worried I become, or possibly the more amused—I am not sure which. Elections have been moved for different reasons—the foot and mouth disease outbreak was one. They have been moved to occur on the same day as other elections, which happened with the Euro elections. Somewhere in my head there is another example, which I cannot quite grasp.

This will be an exceptional event; we shall never get the Olympic Games again—at least not for a very long time. The last time was 1948. We should be able to plan, and not leave it until the last minute. An awful lot of people of the few who have thought about this—the political chattering classes—expect that the Government will decide quite close to the event that they will have to postpone the election. That would be a bad thing. It is far better to be straight about it and plan for it now.

Lord Harris of Haringey: I apologise again to the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, for intervening again before he responds. My noble friend’s suggestion that there will be a strange period in the fifth year when legitimacy will drain away is altered by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, has had the sense to bring the issue forward in advance of the elections in 2008, so that the people of London will know the terms on which they are electing a Mayor at that time. I expect that the people of London could easily judge that they had been asked to elect someone for a five-year term as opposed to a four-year term—or indeed, for three years, if an alternative was proposed.

The situation regarding the changing date for the GLC was slightly different; that was in the run-up to abolition, when the behaviour of politicians is slightly different from their behaviour just before an election that has been scheduled but is simply deferred.



2 May 2007 : Column GC85

Lord Sheikh: I certainly believe that the Olympic Games event is an exceptional case. If we were to hold an election in 2013, it would be just a one-off, and we could revert back to the four-year period. Having heard the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 40:

(a) as to the form and content of petitions (including provision for petitions in electronic form);(b) as to the minimum number of electors entitled to vote for the Mayor under this Act who must support any petition presented to the Mayor during any period specified in the regulations;(c) for or in connection with requiring an officer of the GLA to publish the number of electors who must support any petition presented to the authority;(d) as to the way in which electors are to support a petition (including provision enabling electors to support petitions by telephone or by electronic means);(e) as to the action which may, or may not or must be taken by the Authority in connection with any petition;(f) as to the manner in which a petition is to be presented;(g) as to the verification of any petition;(h) as to the date on which, or the time by which, the Mayor must vacate office;(i) for or in connection with enabling the Secretary of State, in the event of any failure by the Authority to take any action permitted or required by virtue of the regulations, to take that action.

The noble Baroness said: The amendment would introduce a new clause to provide for the vacation of the office of Mayor following a petition. Earlier, we moved an amendment to limit the number of terms for the Mayor, but we are now moving on a bit. It is not an alternative to, but another of the ways of trying to ensure that the mayoral system in London has all the checks and balances that should be there.

Our rationale for limiting the time in office in the earlier amendment was founded on the lack of accountability that the Mayor faces in the four intervening years between each election, coupled with the powers that the Bill gives to this office.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page