Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, let us examine the precise changes proposed in the Bill. There would be no change in the total membership but a rejigging of the constituent parts. As I see it, there is to be a board of 17 members, with eight Assembly Members instead of nine—not a revolutionary change—seven London borough nominees instead of eight, and two people nominated by the Mayor. The Bill is all about powers. It proposes a shift in powers from one quarter to another to strengthen the powers of the Mayor. The argument that I have heard advanced for that is that the Assembly Members and the representatives of the London councils are elected. That is the democratic base. A wedge has opened up for the Mayor. In the light of his experiences or his predilections, the Mayor is able to nominate two further members. The two nominees could represent other interested parties, such as the business community, minority-ethnic groups or people with relevant fire and resilience expertise. There are others on the margins who would need to be scrutinised and justified as bringing to the table a special quality, be it gender, ethnicity, business acumen or professional expertise. I see nothing wrong with that. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has sought, very successfully, to divorce those matters from the principle, but I see nothing wrong with that principle. I certainly want the Bill to go through as it is. I am sure that the genesis of all this has been consultations with the Mayor, the Mayor's office and the Government. The Bill shifts the balance of power and allows the Mayor a toehold into this very important sector. Fire and emergency planning are matters that deeply affect everyone who lives and works in London, and the Mayor is ostensibly there to represent the power base of those who live and work in London. I understand the reticence of Members opposite to accord to the Mayor's office and to the Mayor marginally more power than he has had in the past. Time after time, Members opposite see a great deal of harm in shifting power from one quarter to the office of the Mayor. I see no harm in that. I believe that the opposition amendments should be rejected and that the Bill as presently worded is for the good of the people of London.