New Clause
30
Call-in
of decisions
‘After section
59 of the GLA Act 1999
insert—
“59A
Call-in of decisions
(1)
Decisions made by the Mayor (except for planning decisions) may be
called in for scrutiny by the Assembly following written request of 13
members of the Assembly being received by the Chief Executive of the
Greater London Authority for consideration and review within 14 days of
the decision.
(2) The Assembly
shall meet in plenary session within 14 days of the call-in to debate
the decision.”.’.—[Michael
Gove.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Michael
Gove:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: New clause 43— Directions issued by the Mayor to
the London Fire and Emergency Planning
Authority—
‘After
section 404 of the GLA Act 1999
insert—
“404A
Directions issued by the Mayor to the London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority
(1) Before
issuing a direction to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
under or by virtue of this Act, the Mayor shall act in accordance with
the following subsections.
(2)
The Mayor shall send a copy of any proposed direction to the London
Fire and Emergency Planning Authority to the London
Assembly.
(3) The Assembly may
within 21 days of receiving a copy of any proposed direction to the
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority recommend that the
proposed direction should not be issued or should be issued with such
modifications as the Assembly shall
determine.
(4) The Mayor shall
have regard to any recommendation made by the Assembly under subsection
(3) above.
(5) The Mayor shall
within 21 days or receiving a recommendation made by the Assembly under
subsection (3) above prepare a statement which must include an
explanation setting out the reasons why any recommendations made by the
Assembly is not accepted.”.’.
New clause
44—General power for the Assembly to call in
directions—
‘(1) After
section 404 of the GLA Act 1999
insert—
“404A
Directions issued by the
Mayor
(1) Before issuing a
direction under or by virtue of this Act, the Mayor shall act in
accordance with the following
subsections.
(2) The Mayor
shall send a copy of any proposed direction to the
Assembly.
(3) The Assembly may
within 21 days of receiving a copy of any proposed direction recommend
that the proposed direction should not be issued or should be issued
with such modifications as the Assembly shall
determine.
(4) The Mayor shall
have regard to any recommendations made by the Assembly under
subsection (3) above.
(5) The
Mayor shall within 21 days of receiving a recommendation made by the
Assembly under subsection (3) above prepare a statement which must
include an explanation setting out the reasons why any recommendation
made by the Assembly is not
accepted.”
(2) After
section 421(2) of the GLA Act 1999
insert—
“(3) In
any direction given under this Act by the Mayor, the reference to a
‘direction’ shall include the
following—
(a) any
guidance issued by the Mayor under this Act to any body as to the
manner in which that body is to exercise its
functions;
(b) any general
directions issued by the Mayor under this Act to any body as to the
manner in which that body is to exercise its
functions;
(c) any specific
directions issued by the Mayor under this Act to any body as to the
exercise of that body’s
functions.
(4) In this section
and in section 404A any reference to ‘this Act’ includes
any provisions which, by virtue of the Greater London Authority Act
1999 (as amended from time to time), have been or are inserted into any
other Act of Parliament or statutory
instrument.”.’.
Michael
Gove:
Throughout the progress of the Committee, one of the
points that we have emphasised is the requirement for balanced new
powers for the Mayor and new powers of scrutiny for the assembly. The
three new clauses would give the assembly the power to call in mayoral
directions and to subject them to appropriate scrutiny. Over the past
two and a half weeks, the Opposition’s commitment to giving the
Greater London assembly greater powers of scrutiny has been testified
to by the weight of argument put by myself and my hon. Friends. All I
would say is that the Minister is probably familiar, if not wearily
familiar, with the arguments and I look forward to hearing him once
again demolish them when he takes from his civil service brief yet
another series of impeccably framed arguments against scrutiny and in
favour of the unfettered exercise of Executive
power.
Mr.
Pelling:
This is familiar territory for me, having spoken
only a few moments ago. I want to draw particular attention to new
clauses 43 and 44 regarding the power of the assembly to call in
directions and guidance to the London Fire and Emergency Planning
Authority and other GLA functional bodies. Providing the Mayor with the
power to direct LFEPA will give him or her considerable new direct
powers over the authority. He obviously already has such powers in
relation to Transport for London and the London Development
Agency.
I know that colleagues on the
Greater London assembly do not oppose that power in principle, but they
wish to ensure that there is an appropriate degree of transparency and
accountability. The Mayor might use the power of direction to compel a
functional body to take a particular course of action against its own
will. In those cases, there should be a mechanism for reviewing the
direction before it takes
effect.
Local
authorities throughout the country already have the power, including
those with directly elected mayors. In those circumstances, the
executive is required to publish a forward plan of its forthcoming
decisions and the council has the power to call in any of those
decisions. The new clauses therefore do not represent an innovation;
they would merely extend the powers available to local councils, in
relation to their executives, to the role of the London assembly in its
relation to the
Mayor.
In
local authorities, the power to call in decisions has not led to undue
delays in the decision-making process. It has simply introduced a
degree of transparency and accountability. That is perhaps even more
important in respect of the current Mayor than it might be in local
authorities. The new clauses would not take power away from the
executive. The assembly would not be empowered to block any mayoral
decision. Instead, it could ask questions within a reasonable time
scale of 21 days and make recommendations to the Mayor either to revise
the direction or not to issue it all. The final decision would,
however, rightly rest with the
Mayor.
Unlike
local authorities, which have the power to call in all executive
decisions, the power would relate only to directions to functional
bodies, not to all mayoral decisions. Very few directions have been
issued to the London Development Agency or to TFL by the current Mayor.
An average of five directions were issued in each year from 2000 to
2005. The power is used generally in exceptional circumstances.
Accountability is perhaps most important when exceptional steps are
being taken by an executive. It is in those circumstances when
Londoners would expect the London assembly to undertake a role of
scrutiny and expose the decisions to public
debate.
There
are two separate proposals, one relating to LFEPA and one relating to
all functional bodies, and that deserves some explanation. The boards
of Transport for London and the London Development Agency are appointed
by the Mayor without reference to political balance. The board of LFEPA
is mainly made up of politicians in proportion to their representation
on London councils and the London
assembly.
In the cases
of TFL and LDA, there is therefore less risk of a fundamental
disagreement between the Mayor and his appointees. Since the Mayor is
the only party with a democratic mandate, his will is likely to prevail
in any consternation with TFL or the LDA. As for LFEPA, it is entirely
possible that there could be political disagreements between the Mayor,
with his direct mandate, and LFEPA, with its indirect democratic
mandate. The power of direction would be used to resolve such
disagreements. I am sure that the assembly would not argue against the
Mayor being empowered to so direct LFEPA to do certain things. However,
in the case of LFEPA, when there is more potential for directions to be
controversial politically and unwelcome, it is particularly important
that the Mayor’s directions are subject to proper transparency
and debate before they take effect. Thus, the opportunity is given to
the Committee to give consideration to the special circumstances of
LFEPA. Before I conclude, I shall give way.
Tom
Brake:
I sensed that the hon. Gentleman was about
to conclude. I had hoped to intervene on the speech of the official
Opposition spokesman, but his contribution was so succinct that I am
intervening on the speech of the hon. Gentleman instead. I wish to
bring him briefly to new clause 30. I am sympathetic to the group of
new clauses, but it was not clear to me under that new clause precisely
what additional powers would result from its introduction that
do not already exist under section 59 of the 1999 Act. That allows the
assembly to keep under review the Mayor’s exercise of statutory
functions and it can produce reports and investigate matters of any
actions taken by the Mayor. Will the hon. Member for Croydon, Central
clarify what additional powers would result from new clause
30?
Mr.
Pelling:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing
me to develop my argument in respect of new clause
30.
The London
assembly does indeed have the powers of scrutiny to which the hon.
Gentleman referred, but there is a formality to the process of call-in.
It would be more likely to prompt the current incumbent to provide a
more detailed response to call-in procedure than saying, “I got
elected, therefore I decide what to do.” It would not be
possible to sustain that approach through a formal call-in process.
With those comments, I conclude my
remarks.
12.15
pm
Robert
Neill:
I shall be brief, Lady Winterton. I apologise for
not having welcomed you back to the Chair when I spoke
earlier.
I wish to
reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon,
Central. It has been a theme throughout our party that we do not oppose
giving more power to the Mayor but seek to balance the power for the
assembly to call in. When the matter was considered by the London
assembly, support for this proposition and the principle of call-in
powers was agreed only with the abstention of the euphemistically named
“One London” group—the ex-UK Independent party,
ex-Veritas group. In other words, every serious group of politicians,
of all shades of opinion, supported the call-in powers. I hope that the
Government will take that point on board.
If the Minister is about to
spring into action, perhaps he will tell us why, if it was good enough
for the executive-strong mayor of Lewisham, it is not good enough for
the Mayor of London to have to deal with the call-in power on this
basis?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The new clauses return the Committee to our
debates on part 1 of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath
said. Those debates centred on the respective roles of the Mayor and
the assembly. It was made clear then that it is our belief that the
current model for the Greater London authority works well, with a
strong Mayor as the
executive arm of the authority and the assembly holding him to account
on behalf of Londoners. Our view is unchanged, but the new clauses
would fundamentally alter the balance of power between the Mayor and
assembly, and we cannot accept them.
I shall summarise each of the
new clauses in turn. New clause 30 would allow the assembly to call in
for scrutiny a decision made by the Mayor, except planning decisions,
if at least 13 assembly members make such a request in writing to the
chief executive within 14 days of the decision. The assembly must then
meet within 12 days of the call-in to debate the decision.
Such a provision would serve little purpose. The assembly may already
scrutinise the decisions and actions of the Mayor, as the hon. Member
for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out. Indeed, the assembly has a
statutory duty to keep under review the Mayor's exercise of his
statutory functions. New clause 30 would merely serve to formalise an
existing process, and I see little merit in seeking to pigeon-hole
assembly scrutiny of the Mayor into a rigid, time-bound process.
New
clause 43 would require the Mayor to send to the assembly any direction
that he intends to issue to the London Fire and Emergency Planning
Authority. Hon. Members will recall that clause 27 gives the Mayor a
power of direction over LFEPA. The Assembly may recommend to the Mayor
within 21 days of receiving the proposed direction that he should not
issue it, or should issue it with amendments. The new clause also
imposes a duty on the Mayor to have regard to the assembly's
recommendations and, within 21 days of receiving them, prepare a
statement giving reasons why any of the recommendations made by the
assembly are not accepted. New clause 44 would make a similar provision
in respect of any directions or guidance issued by the Mayor under the
1999 Act.
The new
clauses would gravely hinder the Mayor, leaving him unable to act
quickly and decisively when exercising his powers of direction. The
Mayor would need to wait up to three weeks for the assembly to make its
recommendation on his proposed direction, and he would not be able to
issue directions in a timely manner.
Of course, there is nothing to
prevent the assembly scrutinising retrospectively any directions issued
by the Mayor. However, part and parcel of our model for London
governance is that the Mayor, as the executive, should be free to act
in a strong and decisive way, and that the Assembly should hold him
accountable for his actions. Extending the assembly's power of scrutiny
to decisions that he intends to make would change fundamentally the
balance of power within the GLA—a balance that is proven to work
for the benefit of Londoners.
I therefore urge the hon.
Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw the
motion.
Michael
Gove:
In one sense, the Minister did not disappoint me.
Once again, with admirable clarity, he outlined the Government’s
position. We have rehearsed the arguments before. We are naturally
disappointed that the Minister will not accept what we believe is the
logic of our argument. It is clear from earlier debates that when the
Mayor needs to issue directions, not least to LFEPA, at moments of
crisis, a responsible
assembly would not seek to inhibit him—for example, if he was
dealing with the aftermath of events such as 7/7. I accept that the
Minister has the big battalions behind him, so I shall not push the
point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
| 
