Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, I feel that we are getting this amendment a little out of proportion. Nobody, least of all my noble friend who moved the amendment, has suggested that there is a disaster or that a power struggle is going on in the GLA. It was suggested that this amendment was not in accordance with the intention of the original Act. That may be so, but that is surely why we have an amending Bill before us. After seven years’ experience, the Government are wisely suggesting that some amendments and adjustments need to be made, and we agree. There is no suggestion that the Assembly is trying to usurp the Mayor’s power. We accept—some of us more reluctantly than others—that we have an executive Mayor and that power rests with him. That is as was intended, and many would say that that is as it should be. We are trying to get the system to operate more fairly; our intention is not to give more power to the Assembly but to make it more effective. That is an important difference. It has been suggested that this measure would be a veto. That came as a surprise to me. I reread the amendment and nothing in it suggests a veto; nothing in it would prevent the Mayor from giving the direction that he was minded to give. The amendment says that he must give his reasons for doing so. If he rejects a contrary or amending view from the Assembly, he must say why, but that does not prevent him from rejecting it. We are getting this a little out of proportion. This is an important but relatively small amendment that will make the democratic functioning of the Greater London Authority—which is the Mayor, with his proper functions, and the Assembly, with its proper functions—better, fairer and more transparent. I support this amendment.