Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, it is important to reiterate the point that I made a moment ago, which is that I do not propose to comment on the merits of the Mayor's actions. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has electronic equipment operating in her favour. My quill and parchment here conflict with her interpretation. I have been advised that we do not have a statement that takes us any further concerning the information to which she refers. As I said, it is not appropriate for me to go any further on that. Let us return to the matter of this debate. Allowing the Mayor to nominate two members of the board will have the effect of enabling a wider stakeholder membership of the authority, in terms of both community representation and relevant experience. It is envisaged that the two mayoral nominations might represent other interested parties, such as the business community or people with relevant fire and resilience experience, as well as people from ethnic minorities or other under-represented groups, all of whom can usefully inform the risk-management planning process, which every fire and rescue authority uses to determine its strategic spending. When the Government formally consulted on GLA powers in November 2005, the proposals to broaden representation on the LFEPA board in such a way were received supportively, including by bodies such as the Fire Brigades Union, other trade unions, volunteer groups and groups representing black and ethnic minorities. So this is not completely out of the blue. As I mentioned earlier, by tabling Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, noble Lords seek to deprive the Mayor of the ability to make nominations to the LFEPA board. Their amendments would reduce the membership from 17 to 15. There are no sensible grounds for simply reducing the authority's membership in that way. I think that we can all agree that 17 members has proved to be the right number for LFEPA to create a strong and effective leadership board. We discussed Clause 26 in Grand Committee. The question of expenses has already been widely discussed. We think that that clause is very important. I have already referred to the fact that, although the Mayor is responsible for setting LFEPA’s budget, he has little say in the strategic leadership provided by the body. The new provisions under Clause 27 will enable the Mayor, where necessary, to direct the body on both operational and non-operational matters. That will give the Mayor more influence over delivery, with a view to achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness, thus reflecting his mandate as an elected citywide Mayor. An example that comes to mind of the type of direction that he might—I say ““might””, not ““will””—make is ensuring greater diversity and equality in the workforce, perhaps by directing more resources to recruitment from certain sectors of the community. He might direct to ensure that community safety resources are properly targeted at those sections of society that are most vulnerable, or perhaps even ensure that fire and rescue initiatives have due regard to the wider GLA environment agenda—I say that because I know that my noble friend Lord Rooker is sitting behind me, ready to deliver a 25-minute speech in a moment. At the same time, there are clearly defined parameters within which the Mayor can make any directions. There is a requirement that the Mayor's direction should be consistent with the fire and rescue national framework or fire safety enforcement guidance published in accordance with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. I am sure that noble Lords will be reassured by that. In summary, Clause 27 will give the Mayor the same due recognition of his accountability as fire and rescue budget holder as is given to budget holders across the country with similar responsibilities, and within the same parameters. I therefore urge the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, to withdraw her amendment.