My Lords, I am grateful for the care with which my noble friend has replied to the amendments, but I have to say that I am concerned at what he said towards the end of his remarks about the London boroughs having to put their views to Assembly members who, in turn, will put them to the mayor. That is not a proper or, indeed, a dignified treatment of independent elected authorities which have made substantial comments on the mayor’s plans. I really am quite disappointed about that.
I understand the point made by my noble friend on the question of representation, and in particular on the question of numbers. What we are asking for is that they should at least have representation on committees and sub-committees, but all my noble friend has been able to say so far is that it would give maximum flexibility if this were not in the Bill because there is nothing to prevent the mayor making sure that there are such representatives. However, it does not oblige him to do so; the Bill merely says that this can be done. So I have to say that I am a bit disappointed.
I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to look at this again between now and Third Reading. I have to tell him that the boroughs feel strongly about the issue, and I am grateful to my noble friends Lord True and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill for what they said on the issue. The boroughs are concerned because while at the moment no other mayoral development corporations are planned beyond the Olympic Park Legacy Corporation, there will be, so we need to guard against the possibility of there being a serious conflict of interest, and the Bill ought to provide a proper machinery for dealing with that. I hope that I have convinced the House that this is the not the case at the moment.
Obviously I am not going to divide the House, but it does seem to me that I am entitled to ask my noble friend to have another look at this between now and Third Reading, which we shall not have for some weeks yet so there is plenty of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 96 withdrawn.
Schedule 21 : Mayoral development corporations
Amendment 97
Schedule 21 : Mayoral development corporations
Amendment 97
Moved by
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Jenkin of Roding
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 September 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c510-1 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:20:53 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_768556
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_768556
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_768556