Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, it is a pleasure for once today to follow the noble Lord, Lord Graham, rather than the reverse. He is right to say that the proposals in the Bill are not a revolutionary change, but they are a step in the wrong direction. On an earlier amendment I said that a broadly agreed view across London political life is that the fire authority as presently constituted is the best governed of all the functional bodies. At the moment, it is a wholly elected body. The predecessor body, the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, which operated from the abolition of the GLC in 1986 up until the creation of the GLA in 2000, was similarly a wholly elected body, comprised of a representative from each of the London boroughs—for some years I was one of those representatives—plus the City of London. That body, which, by general consensus, has worked well for more than 20 years, is now being changed—not in a revolutionary way, but why? I really do not understand it. I might feel slightly better if the proposed appointments by the Mayor were in addition to the elected members. However, to reduce elected representation in favour of appointed representation is a step in the wrong direction. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has been a genuine democrat all his life, so I do not understand how he can see this proposal as an improvement. It is a move in the wrong direction. He speaks of increasing the Mayor’s influence there. Since the creation of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the Mayor has appointed the chair of the authority. To have two nominees, appointed but not elected, is surely enough influence for the Mayor to have a real and important say in the running of the authority. We can speculate about the nominees’ background, but the Bill does not propose to prescribe the sort of background they have. Any future Mayor can choose whoever they like, to a point. I see no purpose in this. I particularly see it as a retrograde step if it is being done at the expense of the elected and democratic representation on the authority. On Amendment No. 48B, which deletes Clause 26, I was surprised to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, had tabled it—although she did not refer to it—because an amendment in Committee would similarly have prevented the payment of allowances with the Metropolitan Police Authority. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, was honest enough to say at the time that that was a mistake and would not be pursued. I cannot see why, if that was the case then, why this amendment has been tabled now. There is significant additional responsibility, particularly for the chair of the authority—as I say, appointed by the Mayor, which is perhaps sometimes an added burden—as there is for the chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority. They are likely always to be Assembly Members—not necessarily, but very likely. The GLA Act prevents their receiving any remuneration additional to their Assembly salary. That cannot be right. For the significant additional responsibility, there should be some financial remuneration additional to what, for instance, I get as an Assembly Member. In the unlikely event that that amendment is put to the vote tonight, we would therefore certainly not support it.