Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, objection is being taken to our interpretation of the word ““veto””. At the moment, the Mayor has a power to issue a direction. Under the amendment, he would not have that power until certain things had happened. That is a veto. You may run away from the meaning of the words, but that is what it is. I was here in 1998 and 1999 when these debates took place. The issue boils down to this: Parliament took the view that we needed to have in the office of the Mayor a man or woman with powers that were not dreamt of before. The people who are saying many of the things that we are hearing have been much closer to the action than I have been—they have the scars to prove it—so I hesitate to be too critical. But if the concept of having a strong Mayor is accepted, and if the Mayor has an urgent need that, if met, could avoid a catastrophe or disaster, to suggest that he must wait 14 days—and 14 days after that, so possibly 28 days—before he can act is a bit too much. This is a question of trust; we must consider a situation in which something so outrageous happened that not only parliamentary colleagues but people all over London would petition that this power should not be operated. Although I live in Loughton, within the bailiwick of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield—and it is a very nice place, too—I know London and its politics and politicians. I cannot believe that there is such uproar at misuse of power that there is a need to curb it in this way. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was on the verge of giving us an interesting illustration of directions that had been issued, but a number of colleagues shook their heads and said, ““Oh no, please don’t””. When she replies, I would like her to say, given her experience, knowledge and foresight, which directions she takes grave exception to and which it would not be possible to proceed with later. This is a straightforward battle between the Assembly and the Mayor about who shall carry the weight. When the Bill was conceived—not easily—the balance came down that ultimately, and absolutely in the eyes of the electorate, the Mayor carries the weight. I see no objection to that, unless we are given incontrovertible evidence that there has been a misuse of power. I can understand the movers of this amendment being sensitive and wanting a situation where the Mayor is powerless until the Assembly has the opportunity to tell him how he should proceed. I read the words carefully: the Mayor has only to issue his reasons for the application of the direction, not necessarily not to proceed with it. I am concerned because we know what has happened in London with terrorists in the past few years. We know the mood and we know that terrible accidents can happen. We know what can happen in respect of a great many other things that would be impacted. I hate to think that this amendment would stymie the Mayor so that he could not take the actions that he wanted to take. It is a good try, but I hope that it does not succeed.