Proceeding contribution from Lord Hanningfield (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 June 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Greater London Authority Bill.
Greater London Authority Bill
My Lords, I support the amendment. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we had a similar one in Committee, which the Government rejected. She has improved it, of course, because the Government said that 21 days was too long; she has now gone down to 14. That must be a reason for the Government to accept it now. The Government keep bringing up the notion of a veto as a rather frightening ploy, but it is a red herring. There is no veto at all. I will repeat, as I have done several times, that the GLA should have a worthwhile job to do. It consists of democratically elected people who should have the right to scrutinise properly and who should have the right powers to do so. Otherwise, why bother to have it at all? I would not want to be a Member of it as it stands; I would not mind being Mayor, perhaps, but I shall not go down that route. There is a lot of sense in the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 693 c185
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Finance Greater London Greater London Authority Local government Powers Public appointments Public expenditure Mayor of London Transport for London London Assembly London Transport Users' Committee Public health
- Legislation
- Greater London Authority Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:58:01 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_403958
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_403958
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_403958