---

Greater London Authority Bill

I have great sympathy with what has been said about Clause 25. I could sum it up by asking the Minister: if it ain’t broke, why fix it? There is common consent among London borough councils and the London Assembly that, of all the functional bodies, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority has worked best in terms of its governance. The balance between the Assembly and the borough membership works very well on the whole. Indeed, the Commission on London Governance, of which I was a member, suggested that it should be a model for other functional bodies, particularly the Metropolitan Police Authority, which is outside the remit of this clause. I have not been convinced by any case to weaken by two members the elected representation on the authority and increase it by two unelected appointees, whoever they may be. There may well be a wish to increase the size of the authority, but reducing its elected membership would be very much a step in the wrong direction. We are also debating whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill. I support that clause. At the moment, we are in a rather strange position. If the chairman and deputy chairman of the fire authority were not Members of the London Assembly—in other words, if they came from the borough council—they would be entitled to an allowance but, as Members of the Assembly, by virtue of the GLA Act, they are not entitled to an allowance. Considerable work is involved, and it is right to correct that anomaly as we seek to do here. Although I recognise that it is outside the scope of this clause, perhaps I may ask for clarification on a similar situation regarding the Metropolitan Police Authority, where the workload of the chair is even greater. Schedule 2 to the Police and Justice Act provides for allowances to be paid to the chair and deputy chair, subject to regulation by the Home Secretary. However, it does not make clear what would happen should the chair of the MPA be a Member of the Assembly, as has always been and is likely always to be the case. That may be clarified as and when the Home Office makes regulations, but, if not in the reply today—I recognise the difficulty there—it would be helpful, perhaps by letter later, to receive clarification that we are putting the two functional bodies on an equal footing, as I am sure is intended.