Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 41: 41: Before Clause 18, insert the following new Clause— ““Membership of Transport for London (1) Schedule 10 to the GLA Act 1999 (Transport for London) is amended as follows. (2) For paragraph 2 substitute— ““2 (1) Transport for London shall consist of 15 members of whom— (a) eight (““the Assembly representatives””) shall be the Assembly members appointed by the Mayor; and (b) the remainder (““the borough representatives””) shall be members of the London borough councils appointed by the Mayor on the nomination of the London borough councils acting jointly. (2) The Mayor shall exercise his power to appoint members under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above so as to ensure that, so far as practicable, the members for whose appointment he is responsible reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of the Assembly. (3) The London borough councils shall exercise their power to nominate members under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above so as to ensure that, so far as practicable, the members for whose nomination they are responsible reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of those councils taken as a whole. (4) It shall be the duty of the London borough councils to nominate the first members under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above in sufficient time before the reconstitution day so that the appointment of those members takes effect on that day. (5) The Secretary of State may by order vary any of the numbers for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (1) above, but the number of the Assembly representatives must exceed by one the number of the borough representatives. (6) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (5) above, the Secretary of State shall consult— (a) the Mayor; (b) the Assembly; (c) Transport for London; and (d) every London borough council.””.”” The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to the Question whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill, but I shall not move Amendment No. 41A, which was intended only as a probing amendment. Amendment No. 41 relates to appointments to the board of Transport for London. To an extent, we welcome some of what the Government have sought to achieve in Clause 18. By removing the prohibition on holders of political office sitting on the board of Transport for London, the Bill will allow borough councillors on to the board. Given that councillors possess an extensive knowledge of, and play an important role in, local issues, we believe that this is an entirely sensible relaxation of the rules. However, this will remain a permissive power only, and we should like to see a specific provision included in Clause 18 that the Mayor must appoint borough representatives to the board of Transport for London, and that he must do so through London councils. It is essential that the boroughs play a part in the decision-making of TfL. Of course, our preferred approach is to remove Clause 18 and replace it with the wording of Amendment No. 41. There must be a genuine balance of political representation on the board, and we want to give London councils the right to appoint seven of the 15 board members. The proposed composition directly follows the model of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Our concern is that the 1999 Act gave the Mayor almost unbridled power to appoint the individuals he wants—a position not addressed by Cause 18. The inevitable upshot of this model is that the board is simply a tool of the Mayor. There is nothing to prevent the Mayor filling the TfL board with colleagues who share his political views, as indeed is currently the case. It would be naive to imagine that this practice would not oftenbe continued under future mayors of any political party. Transport issues are unquestionably one of the authority's most important functions, as we said earlier. They affect almost all Londoners on a regular basis, and it is extraordinary that there is no accountability. There can be no real scrutiny of the Mayor's appointments, nor is there any democratic mandate behind them. There is no effective mechanism for the Assembly—or any other body—to remove tenure from any board members. Essentially and invariably, TfL simply acts at the whim of the Mayor. There are clear advantages to the composition proposed in Amendment No. 41. I have already touched briefly on politics. The LFEPA model would give the board a greater ideological range, while also giving it at least a degree of political independence that is never likely to exist under the current system. A similar, and perhaps equally important, argument revolves around the geographical spread of the board members. By making up the board from representatives from both the boroughs and the Assembly, TfL will naturally have representation from all over the capital. That is important to provide exactly the sort of strategic viewpoint that the Mayor claims to love. But it would also mean that there was always a representative who had genuine and detailed knowledge of the local considerations. A broad geographical spread will allow TfL to make informed decisions on matters such as extensions of tube lines, the congestion charging zone, or buses, in a way that it cannot at the moment—nor, indeed, barely pretends to. The LFEPA model has functioned well without complaint or controversy. We believe that it would be entirely appropriate to employ the same model for TfL. That move would be greatly welcomed bythe London boroughs, and it would improve the body's accountability and decision-making. I beg to move.