| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
However, it is right and proper that that scrutiny should be retrospective. Given the way in which the model works, it would be inappropriate for the Assembly to have a formative power—the power to deliberate and make recommendations to the Mayor in advance of the issuing of a mayoral direction to a functional body. That is basic; such a power would blur the line between executive responsibility and scrutiny. As I said, the power to issue directions is very much part of the Mayor’s oversight of his functional bodies and their performance. He must be able to act firmly and decisively.
I made the analogy with NDPBs. Ministers do not normally consult Parliament on such directions and guidance before they are issued, but clearly Parliament, if it wants, can scrutinise any direction or guidance after it is issued. No doubt, if it is controversial, there will be parliamentary scrutiny after it is issued. Why should the Mayor be different?
Even the shorter period of 14 days still cramps the Mayor’s ability to issue urgent directions, which may be necessary in rapidly changing circumstances. Although many of the Mayor’s directions to functional bodies may not have been time critical to date, there could be time-critical directions in future.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, the amendment spreads out to the London boroughs. It would affect not just directions to functional bodies but the specific and limited powers of direction that the Mayor has over London boroughs in relation to transport, planning and waste, which are often time critical.
As we discussed in Committee, that is especially important in relation to planning and strategically important planning applications. The amendment would make that power of direction unworkable because, under the Mayor of London Order 2000, the Mayor has only 14 days to issue a direction of refusal to the borough. The amendments would drive a coach and horses through that.
To reiterate my main point, although I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said, I believe that extending the Assembly’s power of scrutiny to decisions that the Mayor intends to make is a retrograde step. It would fundamentally alter the balance of powers within the GLA. It would prevent the Mayor from acting in a strong and decisive way on behalf of Londoners. It would fetter his mayoral discretion to act quickly in response to unforeseen circumstances. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, again it is suggested that the amendment was tabled because of the current incumbent of the office. This may come as news to my noble friend, but I would still seek this power of direction if he were Mayor. Mind you, I think that he is going to say that he never will be. I expect that he would seek the same power if I were Mayor, although I never will be.
I wish that some of the more thoughtful members of the Labour group on the Assembly were here, because I think that they would argue exactly the same thing—not to take us back to the GLC or to
19 Jun 2007 : Column 189
- “has power to do anything which it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes. The principal purposes are ... economic development and wealth creation ... the promotion of social development ... the promotion of the improvement of the environment”.
We will come on to climate change later. This has the potential to be very wide indeed. The amendment is thinking ahead. It is not about uproar over anything that has happened; it is trying to anticipate where there might be difficulties.
On the question of something being so urgent that it cannot wait for 14 days, I am grateful to noble Lords, because I now have an idea for an amendment at Third Reading that is along these lines but would require a monitoring officer to be able to certify that the matter was so urgent that the Assembly should not be able to call it in in advance. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 28:
(a) eight (“the Assembly representatives”) shall be the Assembly members appointed by the Mayor; and(b) the remainder (“the borough representatives”) shall be members of the London borough councils appointed by the Mayor on the nomination of the London borough councils acting jointly.(2) The Mayor shall exercise his power to appoint members under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above so as to ensure that, so far as practicable, the members for whose appointment he is responsible reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of the Assembly.
(3) The London borough councils shall exercise their power to nominate members under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above so as to ensure that, so far as practicable, the members for whose nomination they are responsible reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of those councils taken as a whole.
(4) It shall be the duty of the London borough councils to nominate the first members under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above in sufficient time before the reconstitution day so that the appointment of those members takes effect on that day.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order vary any of the numbers for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (1) above,
19 Jun 2007 : Column 190
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would put membership of Transport for London on a very similar footing to the current arrangements for the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, and would supplement the welcome changes made in Committee to the 1999 Act, which relaxed the rules and enabled borough councillors to sit on the board. The amendment would ensure that borough councillors could sit on the Transport for London board, but that there would always be one less of them than the number of Assembly Members. It would ensure that the fair and balanced representation of the political parties—something that the current Mayor sometimes has a lot to learn about, despite what various noble Lords have said today—was integral to the structure of the Transport for London board.
Noble Lords will recall that the amendment was tabled in Committee. I hope they will also recall the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, who said quite rightly that,
- “the blanket bar on political representation carries its own costs”.—[Official Report, 2/5/07; col. GC 92.]
I agree with the Minister, and I encourage the Government to have the courage to stand by that principle. Clause 18 goes some way to showing that the Government trust elected representatives of all boroughs as much as they trust the Mayor. The appointment of Transport for London members should not rest entirely with the Mayor. The Transport for London board and other boards should function democratically, not mayorally. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I support the amendment. Before the Government had even announced their intention to review the powers of the GLA, the London Assembly and the Association of London Government, which is now London Councils, jointly set up a commission on London governance. I was one of the members of that commission. We examined a wide range of issues that related not only to the GLA but to London governance, and included the functional bodies and Transport for London. The commission comprised all five parties represented on the London Assembly and the three parties on the ALG. It did not specifically include the City of London. It was the unanimous view of the five parties on the Assembly and the three parties on the ALG that, in terms of its governance structure, the fire authority worked best. In terms of governance, Transport for London, by a wide margin, worked least well—in fact, it was bad. That unanimous view was shared by the Labour Party, the boroughs, the Assembly and all of us.
9.30 pm
Long before the Bill was published, we came to the view that the governance of Transport for London
19 Jun 2007 : Column 191
Therefore, based on the experience of a fire authority—on which we may say more later—that has worked well in its governance arrangements for seven years, it was the accepted view across the Assembly, the London boroughs and all parties, that, if we are going to change, this model should be adopted to make it more open, more transparent, more democratic and more accountable. It gives me great pleasure to support this amendment in the rather faint hope that the Government may see the light and use the opportunity of this amending Bill to improve on what they did in the original Act.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I think that noble Lords will agree that many—if not all—aspects of this Bill, in spite of today’s amendments, will improve on what we have achieved so far. I do not think that I will be able to give the reassurance for which the noble Lord is looking. I will continue to resist these amendments. I appreciate that noble Lords welcomed the proposed removal of the prohibition on holders of political office sitting on the TfL board. I also recognise the noble Lord’s point that it is the permissive nature of the proposal, rather than a binding requirement on the Mayor, that causes concern.
However, it is important that the Mayor is able to nominate the candidates best able to represent the interests of those living and travelling in London. Clause 18 would allow the Mayor to appoint Members of either House; the European Parliament; the devolved Administrations; crucially, Assembly Members, which I think chimes with what is being said; and councillors from the London boroughs. I am pleased that in our previous debates, noble Lords have recognised the great advantages of being able to draw on such talent and experience.
I recognise the wish of noble Lords to bring such talent to the TfL board, but this amendment tips the balance too far in requiring the board to be made up wholly of elected Assembly Members and councillors from the London boroughs. I appreciate the arguments that are being made, but in this Bill we are building on the 1999 Act and talking about change. This amendment removes the discretion of the Mayor to appoint the best candidates to the TfL board and severely limits his ability to ensure that board members have relevant experience in transport;
19 Jun 2007 : Column 192
In Committee, Members said that TfL must be strategic and local, drawing local people into the decision-making process. Again, I support the broad thrust of that argument and I have sympathy for the view that the work of TfL could be improved by increasing the number of local representatives from boroughs, which Clause 18 seeks to do. I do not believe that you balance the local and the strategic by constituting the TfL board wholly of Assembly Members and borough councils. There is a real danger that TfL could be drawn into vested local interests and lose its wider strategic focus. Such a position would not be in the interests of Londoners, those travelling in or across London or Transport for London.
Amendment No. 28 would also remove the Mayor from the TfL board, where he has significant powers over TfL. The Mayor’s effective chairmanship, I believe, has served London well. It is wholly appropriate that he is able to chair the board or can appoint the chair, should he wish, to provide political and strategic direction to the body.
I recognise that in tabling this new clause, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, are mostly concerned by a lack of democratic accountability, as they perceive it. But as a functional body of Greater London, as has already been expressed, TfL will continue to be held accountable by the Mayor and closely scrutinised by the Assembly, which is made up of 25 elected members. The Assembly is the appropriate safeguard on the manner in which the Mayor exercises his powers, including his powers of appointment. We should be prepared to let that scrutiny regime continue.
So, on that basis, I shall continue to resist the amendment. The proposal for removing the ban on elected representatives is a good one and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that answer. Obviously, we are not terribly happy with it because she has not accepted our amendment. This is one of the more important amendments and we should keep thinking about it. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, made an important point: he said that TfL is considered the worst body in London and the Fire Authority one of the best. As we all know, transport in London is one of the biggest problems. The Minister said that she thought the Mayor had done a good job, but that is not necessarily reflected by public opinion when you talk to people in London.
I am disappointed in the Minister’s response. We shall reflect on this one—it needs further consideration—and we shall probably bring it back at Third Reading. I hope the Government will reflect on it because we might have to take it further at the next stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment today.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
19 Jun 2007 : Column 193
Clause 21 [The Health Adviser and the Deputy Health Advisers]:
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 29:
“( ) In section 61 of the GLA Act 1999 (power to require attendance at Assembly meetings), after subsection (2)(a) insert—
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for eventually—it was not her fault that it was eventually, it was mine—giving me the opportunity of discussing with officials the role of the health adviser. It is not that I did not appreciate enormously those discussions, particularly with the deputy director, but that I still am not convinced that the amendments we moved in Committee are not valid and should not be pursued. That is why we are here today. It is not that I have not listened—I listened extremely carefully to what was said—but my understanding is that the adviser and the deputy adviser are the regional director and regional deputy director and, the Minister having said so on the previous occasion, that they are civil servants.
I have two worries: I do not think they are still in a position to be called by the Assembly to undertake proper scrutiny; nor, having discussed it with them closely, do I understand particularly why the regional director and deputy director have to be the health advisers. There are plenty of people in the country involved in health and health advice who could fulfil this role. The Mayor might receive as good independent advice from someone that he employed rather than being reliant upon government advisers being his adviser.
The Bill does not require the health adviser to attend the Assembly in any formal matter. Manna indeed. At the last stage, the Minister said that essentially all the provisions in the amendments already exist: the health adviser attends Assembly meetings and advises the Greater London Authority. The Minister also noted that the Bill would formalise what is currently an informal arrangement. Indeed, that is what the amendments are set to do. If that is the situation, there should be no problem with the health adviser’s role being formalised. If the role is currently informal, there is no formal precedent that the health adviser should be a civil servant, so I am afraid the argument falls down.
The Minister also mentioned that there is already a memorandum of understanding that enables the health adviser, if a civil servant, to communicate with the Mayor and the Assembly. I do not see why that sensible arrangement could not be incorporated into the formal arrangement for health advice that the Government advance in the Bill.
I would like to think the Minister would recognise the benefits and improvements that the amendments would bring, and will be able to accept them. The health adviser’s role, whether it is a regional adviser or one appointed from outside, is very important. The Mayor already has a statutory role within health, but the adviser should be subject to Assembly scrutiny.
19 Jun 2007 : Column 194
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my intervention will be simple and short. The Minister wrote to me and other noble Lords following Committee. In dealing with whether the Assembly could summon the health adviser, she wrote that,
It would be helpful if the Minister were able to repeat that sentence from the Dispatch Box, as it would then be on record for the world. I can pass her a copy of her letter if she does not have it to hand.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I am pleased that we were able to meet, and I am sorry that the noble Baroness is still not convinced. I hope that by responding to this short debate I might be able to help.
I am happy to do as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggests and put on the record the comments I made in my letter. However, the most senior public health appointment in London is the regional director of public health. I believe strongly that this is the right person to advise the Mayor on health issues. Because of their professional position, the experience they have had in order to get to that point and the work they do, they occupy the best position in terms of public health within London, and they are therefore the best person to advise the Mayor. I feel that quite strongly.
Amendment No. 30 would to replace the provisions of the Bill relating to the appointment of the regional director as health adviser with the requirement that she should be an employee of the Authority. I strongly resist that, because if they were an employee of the Authority, by definition they would not be the most senior public health professional in London. Someone else would be doing that.
9.45 pm
Also to be resisted is Amendment No. 32, which would loosen the requirement that the regional director is to be the health adviser. In appointing the regional director of public health as health adviser to the Mayor and the Assembly, the Bill simply formalises current arrangements which many agree have worked very successfully on an informal basis. It is because they have worked well on an informal basis that we are formalising them so that they can be perpetuated. Experience tells us that that is the right thing to do.
The regional director is one of the most senior public health professionals in the country, with specialist training and experience. As current informal health adviser, the regional director ensures that the Mayor has access to expert professional advice, which
19 Jun 2007 : Column 195
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |