My Amendment No. 73 is in this group. It is very similar to those moved by the noble Baroness but it refers to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Our amendment continues the arguments that have been used by the noble Baroness and I do not need to go into them in much detail. However, it again underlines the debate that we are having about increasing the Assembly's ability to scrutinise the Mayor's powers and introducing greater transparency into the decision-making process.
We do not object to the Mayor having the power to direct the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. It mirrors existing powers for Transport for London and the London Development Agency, and the amendment would not remove those powers. It would also respect the primacy of the Mayor in the event of an unresolved dispute. However, it would represent a significant shift in favour of openness and accountability. It would allow the Assembly to make recommendations to the Mayor either not to issue a direction to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority at all or to do so in ways in which he could review or change it. The Mayor could choose to ignore the Assembly’s suggestions but there would be an opportunity for some degree of scrutiny or consideration of the directions. It is desirable that there should be an opportunity to scrutinise these directions—even if they are limited in number—before they take effect rather than, as the noble Baroness has said, simply retrospectively. The Mayor is frightened of extra scrutiny, as any Mayor in London would be.
I am interested to hear what argument is advanced against this amendment and against those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As the noble Baroness said, many local authorities already have similar powers. The Mayor has used his power to issue directions to Transport for London and the London Development Agency only very sparingly; I think the noble Baroness said that he had done so five times. This power would therefore not be widely used. However, as the directions are not numerous, they presumably have some significance when issued. Given the nature of the cases, there would be some merit in having accountability, at least to the point that the Mayor is likely to have to justify openly why his direction is being made.
Greater London Authority Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hanham
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 2 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Greater London Authority Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
691 c78-9GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:48:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_394147
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_394147
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_394147