APPENDIX: GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY (LIMITATION
OF SALARIES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2008 (SI 2008/724)
Further information from the Government Office
for London
1. As the Explanatory Memorandum made clear,
CLG Ministers proposed an increase in the level of salary abatement
for any Mayor or Assembly member who is a MP or MEP, as part of
the outcome of the GLA review in July 2006. This proposal was
one of a series of minor changes to the GLA's constitutional framework,
most of which were taken forward by the GLA Bill introduced in
the 2006/7 session (for instance, the granting of a permissive
power under section 1 of the enabling the subsequent Act to establish
a severance scheme for the Mayor and Assembly members).
2. Although this was not stated in the GLA review
policy statement, Ministers also wanted the change in salary abatement
only to apply to any Mayor or Assembly member elected after May
2008. This was to ensure that two current Assembly members who
are also MPs would not have their salary abated further during
the course of their Assembly term of office.
3. It was therefore decided that the necessary
salary abatement order should only be made after Royal Assent
of the GLA Bill, in case there was considerable Parliament interest
in the minor constitutional changes affecting the GLA. The salary
abatement proposal itself was discussed at the Commons Committee
Stage of the Bill on 23 January 2007 (under New Clause 20) where
there was political consensus. The Lords did not discuss it.
4. Royal Assent of the GLA Bill was also expected
at the time to be in July 2007, allowing the order to made by
the end of 2007 (including holding a proper 12 week long consultation).
However, Royal Assent was pushed back until October due to ping-pong,
delaying the consultation until November and leading to the order
being made in March.
5. Accordingly, the only way we could have made
the order earlier would have been to truncate the 12-week consultation
period (which we did not want to do). Furthermore, the fact that
the public consultation included a near final draft of the order
gave more than adequate notice to people likely to be affected
by it, of the likely effect of the order, which would not have
been furthered by the order actually being made. And as the Parliamentary
debate and consultation indicated, the order itself has a strong
degree of support.
March 2008
| 
