---

Greater London Authority Bill

I thank the Minister for that answer, particularly for the last part, because it goes some way towards addressing our reasons for tabling the amendments. I fully respect the knowledge of the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Tope, of the MPA and their involvement in it. They obviously know more about how it functions than me. I was a member of the Essex Police Authority for some years. Although it was much smaller and rather different, I know the differences that exist between the authority and the way the chief constable operates. However, we tabled these amendments to dip our toes in the water. Clearly, neither the noble Lords, Lord Harris or Lord Tope, nor the Minister, have looked at how Conservative Party policy is developing in this area. The arguments today strengthen the whole idea of a directly elected MPA—as far as my party is concerned, if the workload proves too much for the GLA and so on, that should happen. Returning to my comments on the previous amendment, there should be much greater elected elements in all such bodies. That is why we have proposed the amendments. Whatever we think of the GLA and the Mayor, at least they are elected. The amendments need rethinking and rewording and I accept some of the points made about them. We will rethink them before we bring back any similar amendments. Regarding executive powers for the Mayor, I have a tremendous number of executive powers in Essex; I do not fulfil them all and I delegate them to other people. Whatever powers you give the Mayor on policing, he would obviously delegate many of them. He would not attend some 39 partnership meetings and so on—or is it 40? I shall return to these matters but beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.