| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Clause 23 [The general power of the Authority: duty to have regard]:
[Amendment No. 46H not moved.]
Clause 24 [General duties of the Mayor with respect to his strategies]:
[Amendments Nos. 46J and 46K not moved.]
19 Jun 2007 : Column 202
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 47:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the membership of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The Bill would reduce the number of appointed members, leaving the Mayor with two extra places to appoint to. Great exception is being taken to that, by London councils in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, in a previous amendment, pointed out how well the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority works and what an example it is considered to be.
The membership has been as it is since the Greater London Authority was set up. Ministers have made comments about not making too many changes in the Bill. This is one of the most extraordinary measures in it, and there can be very little reason behind it.
A difficulty has arisen with the Mayor’s refusal at 4.30 on Friday afternoon to accept the nominations for the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; the nominations had to be in by Sunday. One is left breathless at the action taken and the way in which it was taken. I underline the reasons why everyone is so concerned about his interference in the membership. The authority’s members at the moment are, by and large, elected councillors. They are borough nominees; everyone has been democratically elected. The councillors represent voters and residents in ethnically and religiously diverse wards. Their membership is being attacked on all fronts by the Mayor. That does not augur well for the Bill’s proposals. We strongly reject what is proposed.
The amendments oppose reducing the membership from 17 to 15; the number of Assembly representatives would be reduced from nine to eight—one out of the Assembly of democratically elected Members—and the number of borough representatives would be reduced from eight to seven. We do not believe that that is appropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support almost everything that the noble Baroness seeks to do in this group of amendments. The exception is her opposition to Clause 26, on allowances. That would involve the chair and vice-chair of the “Fire etc Authority”—the “etc” refers to the mere matter of emergency planning—receiving allowances. Those officers have substantial responsibility and carry out important work. In Grand Committee we raised our concern that similar provisions should be brought into effect with regard to the police authority in different sets of primary or secondary legislation, but we would not like to see that go.
On the major issue of the composition of the fire authority, the noble Baroness is absolutely right, and she referred to comments made by my noble friend. As I said earlier, this is not the place to debate particular actions taken by a particular Mayor, but one must be informed by knowledge of what is possible. Whether or not it is possible is also a matter for debate because, as I said earlier, it appears that the Mayor’s actions are wrong in law. So far as I can see from the statement that he issued this evening, we still
19 Jun 2007 : Column 203
I use this opportunity to put on the record that I do not support how the Mayor has dealt with this matter. Certain of his concerns are not wrong; for example, those about representation and diversity, which are hugely important matters. I extend that not just to gender and ethnicity, or perhaps what is called “visible ethnicity”—belonging to a visible ethnic minority community—but to all the other factors with which we are familiar when dealing with issues of diversity and equality, including age, sexual orientation and religion. However, this is a big issue.
I am falling into the trap that I am warning against—relating what is going on at the moment to the provisions in the Bill—but I have realised perhaps more starkly than I ever thought possible what might happen, and the noble Baroness is absolutely right to ask the House to consider whether this is really the way forward. I do not want to become involved in the question of whether the Mayor’s powers should be limited because of the way that the current officeholder exercises those powers, but it is very hard not to be affected by what is going on at the moment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, let us examine the precise changes proposed in the Bill. There would be no change in the total membership but a rejigging of the constituent parts. As I see it, there is to be a board of 17 members, with eight Assembly Members instead of nine—not a revolutionary change—seven London borough nominees instead of eight, and two people nominated by the Mayor.
The Bill is all about powers. It proposes a shift in powers from one quarter to another to strengthen the powers of the Mayor. The argument that I have heard advanced for that is that the Assembly Members and the representatives of the London councils are elected. That is the democratic base. A wedge has opened up for the Mayor. In the light of his experiences or his predilections, the Mayor is able to nominate two further members. The two nominees could represent other interested parties, such as the business community, minority-ethnic groups or people with relevant fire and resilience expertise.
There are others on the margins who would need to be scrutinised and justified as bringing to the table a special quality, be it gender, ethnicity, business acumen or professional expertise. I see nothing wrong with that. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has sought, very successfully, to divorce those matters from the principle, but I see nothing wrong with that principle.
I certainly want the Bill to go through as it is. I am sure that the genesis of all this has been consultations with the Mayor, the Mayor's office and the Government. The Bill shifts the balance of power and allows the Mayor a toehold into this very important sector. Fire and emergency planning are matters that deeply affect everyone who lives and works in London, and the
19 Jun 2007 : Column 204
I understand the reticence of Members opposite to accord to the Mayor's office and to the Mayor marginally more power than he has had in the past. Time after time, Members opposite see a great deal of harm in shifting power from one quarter to the office of the Mayor. I see no harm in that. I believe that the opposition amendments should be rejected and that the Bill is for the good of the people of London.
Lord Tope: My Lords, it is a pleasure for once today to follow the noble Lord, Lord Graham, rather than the reverse. He is right to say that the proposals in the Bill are not a revolutionary change, but they are a step in the wrong direction. On an earlier amendment I said that a broadly agreed view across London political life is that the fire authority as presently constituted is the best governed of all the functional bodies. At the moment, it is a wholly elected body. The predecessor body, the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, which operated from the abolition of the GLC in 1986 up until the creation of the GLA in 2000, was similarly a wholly elected body, comprised of a representative from each of the London boroughs—for some years I was one of those representatives—plus the City of London. That body, which, by general consensus, has worked well for more than 20 years, is now being changed—not in a revolutionary way, but why? I really do not understand it.
I might feel slightly better if the proposed appointments by the Mayor were in addition to the elected members. However, to reduce elected representation in favour of appointed representation is a step in the wrong direction. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has been a genuine democrat all his life, so I do not understand how he can see this proposal as an improvement. It is a move in the wrong direction. He speaks of increasing the Mayor’s influence there. Since the creation of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the Mayor has appointed the chair of the authority. To have two nominees, appointed but not elected, is surely enough influence for the Mayor to have a real and important say in the running of the authority. We can speculate about the nominees’ background, but the Bill does not propose to prescribe the sort of background they have. Any future Mayor can choose whoever they like, to a point. I see no purpose in this. I particularly see it as a retrograde step if it is being done at the expense of the elected and democratic representation on the authority.
10.30 pm
On Amendment No. 48B, which deletes Clause 26, I was surprised to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, had tabled it—although she did not refer to it—because an amendment in Committee would similarly have prevented the payment of allowances with the Metropolitan Police Authority. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, was honest enough to say at the time that that was a mistake and would not be pursued. I cannot see why, if that was the case then, this amendment has been tabled now. There is significant additional responsibility, particularly for the chair of the
19 Jun 2007 : Column 205
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would the noble Lord not concede, through a dispassionate overview of the qualities brought to a body which is democratically elected but could be devoid of some of the special qualities I mentioned—representation of business, ethnic minorities, gender balance and all the rest of it—that if the opportunity can be taken in the Bill to provide someone with the power to make that adjustment, it is surely a good thing? There is no question of diluting the combined political strength of either the London councils or the Assembly Members. On the margin, the move is well thought- out and I certainly support it.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am not sure whether that was a rhetorical question or one that I now feel moved to answer. I do not want to encourage the dialogue here, but why is that particularly and peculiarly the case for the fire authority and not, for instance, the police authority? Why would we not extend this to every council in the land? Because it is against the democratic principles on which we run our public bodies. We elect people to run them. We do not appoint them because of any particular experience or accident of birth, and so on. It is a retrograde step.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, it might be easier for the Minister and time-saving if I said that I do not intend to move Amendment No. 48B.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether this was the way forward. Absolutely; I see this as the way forward. The purpose of Clause 25 is to give the Mayor wider powers in the appointment of LFEPA members.
For all the reasons that my noble friend has already highlighted, the changes will ensure that the Mayor is provided with a degree of mayoral influence which reflects his budgetary responsibilities. The Mayor is accountable for the budget of LFEPA. However, despite that responsibility, his influence over the authority’s elected members is currently limited to approving the appointment of London Assembly Members and councillors to LFEPA. Enabling him to appoint two members to the board through his own nomination will—alongside the Clause 27 provision to which I will refer in a moment—provide more effective recognition of these responsibilities and benefit the communities that LFEPA serves.
19 Jun 2007 : Column 206
Amendment No. 47, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, proposes that the provision for the Mayor to appoint two members by his own nomination be left out. I cannot accept that amendment, nor can I accept Amendment No. 48, which the noble Baroness said she will not move. There is a growing realisation that the composition of the LFEPA board does not truly represent the diverse communities which make up the extraordinary city of London. A public body such as LFEPA needs to represent groups such as women and black, Asian and ethnic minority Londoners. As noble Lords will be aware, at the end of last week the Mayor refused to approve the nominations of five London Assembly Members and four councillors on the grounds that the board would not be sufficiently representative of those groups. I do not propose to comment on the merits of the Mayor’s actions as his decisions on whether to appoint those nominees are a matter between him, LFEPA, the Assembly and the London boroughs. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, summarised that approach by saying that this is not the place to debate particular actions of particular mayors.
However, I am happy to clarify the provisions under which he made that decision. Under Schedule 28 to the GLA Act 1999, the Mayor appoints nine Members of the Greater London Assembly and eight members of London boroughs councils nominated by the boroughs. Subject to the requirement to ensure political balance, the appointment is within the Mayor’s statutory discretion. The current position is that he has appointed eight Assembly and borough members to LFEPA in accordance with paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 28. The quorum is five, of which at least one must be an Assembly representative and one a borough representative. As a result, LFEPA remains in operation. Appointments have been made to the board, the quorum is achieved and therefore LFEPA exists.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this takes me back to the days when we regularly went on late. We all had an eye on the clock because we all wanted to get just beyond 10.40 pm, so I do not feel guilty for intervening. It might assist the process.
I said earlier that this current porridge of a situation has been described to me as “QCs’ paradise”. That might appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has an appropriately cynical view of the way that the legal profession goes about these things, seeking a variety of views and extending the debate on them. It sounds as if the Government’s legal advice is entirely contrary to that which has been received in other quarters.
As I understand it, the requisite numbers under Schedule 28 have to be appointed, and the Mayor has declined to make those appointments. It confuses the appointment of Assembly Members, from a limited pool, with the appointment of borough representatives who are nominees of the borough councils, which is a wider pool. I ask noble Lords’ forgiveness for reading from a piece of modern technology, but it has enabled me to receive this statement. It says that it is for that reason that the Mayor has asked two groups to come up with a revised list of nominations. That sounds to
19 Jun 2007 : Column 207
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, it is important to reiterate the point that I made a moment ago, which is that I do not propose to comment on the merits of the Mayor's actions. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has electronic equipment operating in her favour. My quill and parchment here conflict with her interpretation. I have been advised that we do not have a statement that takes us any further concerning the information to which she refers. As I said, it is not appropriate for me to go any further on that.
Let us return to the matter of this debate. Allowing the Mayor to nominate two members of the board will have the effect of enabling a wider stakeholder membership of the authority, in terms of both community representation and relevant experience. It is envisaged that the two mayoral nominations might represent other interested parties, such as the business community or people with relevant fire and resilience experience, as well as people from ethnic minorities or other under-represented groups, all of whom can usefully inform the risk-management planning process, which every fire and rescue authority uses to determine its strategic spending.
When the Government formally consulted on GLA powers in November 2005, the proposals to broaden representation on the LFEPA board in such a way were received supportively, including by bodies such as the Fire Brigades Union, other trade unions, volunteer groups and groups representing black and ethnic minorities. So this is not completely out of the blue.
As I mentioned earlier, by tabling Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, noble Lords seek to deprive the Mayor of the ability to make nominations to the LFEPA board. Their amendments would reduce the membership from 17 to 15. There are no sensible grounds for simply reducing the authority's membership in that way. I think that we can all agree that 17 members has proved to be the right number for LFEPA to create a strong and effective leadership board.
We discussed Clause 26 in Grand Committee. The question of expenses has already been widely discussed. We think that that clause is very important. I have already referred to the fact that, although the Mayor is responsible for setting LFEPA’s budget, he has little say in the strategic leadership provided by the body. The new provisions under Clause 27 will enable the Mayor, where necessary, to direct the body on both operational and non-operational matters. That will give the Mayor more influence over delivery, with a
19 Jun 2007 : Column 208
At the same time, there are clearly defined parameters within which the Mayor can make any directions. There is a requirement that the Mayor's direction should be consistent with the fire and rescue national framework or fire safety enforcement guidance published in accordance with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. I am sure that noble Lords will be reassured by that.
In summary, Clause 27 will give the Mayor the same due recognition of his accountability as fire and rescue budget holder as is given to budget holders across the country with similar responsibilities, and within the same parameters. I therefore urge the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, although I remain totally unconvinced by it. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? This authority has worked, and does work, extremely well in the current circumstances. It has always been made up broadly of elected members. No explanation of any real merit is given to justify why these two appointed positions should now go to the Mayor, and the problem that arose on Friday over the elected members’ appointments, which should have gone through without any controversy on the part of the Mayor, is, I am afraid, a lesson in what happens once one starts to tinker with what is there.
I hear what the Minister says. I shall look at the matter again and we will see how things progress in the current rather unhappy situation. For today, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 48A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 48B not moved.]
Clause 27 [Directions etc by the Mayor]:
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at 10.46 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |