Greater London Authority Bill

The arguments in favour of the amendment seem to rest on the basis that the current Mayor of London is not a subtle person. The fact that he correctly pointed out that the Assembly had not amended his budget somehow proves the case argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. But both speakers have glossed over the fact that this is a fundamental recasting of the relationship between the Mayor and the Assembly and of the nature of the Greater London Authority. No doubt all sorts of models could be devised for the structure of Greater London governance. I sat in numerous meetings with some of the people in this Room in the mid-1990s, when we discussed different governance models. However, the Greater London Authority Act set up a particular structure. To change one part of it without recasting the rest is a dangerous way of proceeding. If it is really the belief that you need to have a different governance model, then let us review every aspect of it rather than simply changing one element at a time or, as will happen during the Bill’s progress, making a series of piecemeal changes which change some elements of the structure but not all of it. There are very strong arguments for saying that the existing model, which says that the Mayor of London is a strong figure, is right for our capital city. Given that the Mayor of London has limited powers compared with mayors of similar cities overseas, it is important that he can exercise them fairly decisively and clearly. There also seems to be confusion between the role of scrutiny and the role of decision, which surprises me because both noble Lords who have spoken so far are highly experienced in precisely that distinction. My experience, although admittedly I was on the London Assembly for only four years, is that its scrutiny of a number of aspects of the budget was extremely detailed and effective. It highlighted issues that needed attention, and they were, by and large, attended to. However, that is a different process from one of decision. To say that the Assembly by a simple majority is to determine the budget is to transfer the bulk of the Mayor of London’s power to the Assembly. Will the Committee consider the implications of the proposal? You would have a Mayor, directly elected by the people of London, clearly visible and expected to carry out certain functions, who could not, without the support of the majority of the Assembly for those actions, guarantee that he would be able to take at least some of them forward. That would be less of a problem and have fewer consequences if there were a different system for electing the Assembly or if the Assembly was of a different type. As far as I can see, nothing in the amendments suggests that the Assembly election system should be changed. Indeed, I should be very surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggest a move away from a system of proportional representation for the Assembly. Yet only if there were a parallel system of election could you really argue that this was an appropriate way in which to determine the functions. My objections to this amendment are, first, that the change should not be made without a fundamental review of how the entire GLA structure operates, and, secondly and perhaps more importantly, that London deserves strong leadership and governance, neither of which it will get through this proposal.