Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 36: 36: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause— ““Directions by the Mayor (1) Section 421 of the GLA Act 1999 (directions) is amended as follows. (2) After subsection (2) insert— ““(3) In any direction given under this Act by the Mayor, the reference to a ““direction”” shall include the following— (a) any guidance issued by the Mayor under this Act to any body as to the manner in which that body is to exercise its functions; (b) any general directions issued by the Mayor under this Act to any body as to the manner in which that body is to exercise its functions; and (c) any specific directions issued by the Mayor under this Act to any body as to the exercise of that body’s functions. (4) In this section and in section 404A above, any reference to ““this Act”” includes any provisions which, by virtue of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended from time to time), have been or are inserted into any other Act of Parliament or statutory instrument.””.”” The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 38. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has Amendment No. 73 in this group as well. The Mayor already has powers to issue directions to the London Development Agency and Transport for London; these are to be extended to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, to which the noble Baroness’s amendment refers. My amendment relates to directions to all the functional bodies. The principal amendment is AmendmentNo. 38, which would enable the Assembly to call in directions. The amendment is not tantamount to a veto. It is proposed that, when the Mayor issues a direction, the Assembly should have an opportunity to require the Mayor to take account of any recommendations made by it within a period of three weeks and to justify why he does not—in other words, it creates a pause. This is not new in local government—indeed, quite the contrary. In local authorities, the executive have to publish forward plans and there is a right to call in odd decisions, but neither applies in the case of the Greater London Authority. The amendments are about openness and about the Mayor justifying his proposals and that is what scrutiny should be about. The point of difference between my noble friends and me and perhaps the Minister—but certainly between Assembly members and the Mayor—is whether scrutiny should always be in arrears or whether it can take place in advance of an action. I do not believe that scrutiny should be confined to occurring after an event. The Assembly could not block the Mayor but would simply ask him to explain himself. The Minister said that the 21-day period in Amendment No. 38 would gravely hinder the Mayor, leaving him unable to act quickly and decisively. But it is hard to think of a direction that might come out of the blue and mean that the 21-day period would be of such importance. For a direction to be issued, one would expect the functional body—the fire authority or the development agency—to have considered the issue, because it would be odd if the Mayor issued a direction without knowing that there was a conflict with the functional body. Therefore, it should not be the dramatic cliff-hanger that the Minister suggested. I understand that, so far, there has been an average of about five directions a year. Given that the whole constitution is about checks and balances, this would be a check not in the sense of a stop but of a pause. The Assembly considered this amendment as a proposal and agreed it nem con.