Proceeding contribution from Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 September 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Localism Bill.
Localism Bill
My Lords, Ministers already have the power to delegate functions to the mayor and the London Development Agency under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. We believe that it is right that Ministers continue to have such a power once the LDA is abolished. Through the London reforms in this Bill, the GLA will be gaining significant new powers and responsibilities, including activities from the LDA, enabling London itself to meet the strategic challenges facing the capital. There may be instances in future where it makes sense for the mayor to play an active role in the delivery of national programmes, through a power of delegation, to ensure that these programmes can be better tailored to London’s specific circumstances. However, we are conscious of the concerns expressed in the other place about this power and the risk that it could marginalise the role of London boroughs, and of the amendments tabled in Committee by my noble friends Lord True and Lord Jenkin, which we did not have time to discuss. In response to these concerns, we are proposing through government Amendment 105 to require a Minister to consult London boroughs and the London Assembly before the use of this power to delegate functions. This will ensure an opportunity for debate and dialogue within London about the appropriateness of any proposed delegation of a ministerial function to the mayor prior to the delegation being made. Amendment 106, which was tabled by my noble friend Lord True, would go further than this by requiring a Minister to consult boroughs specifically about whether the function could be more appropriately and effectively conducted at a more local level and then to lay a Statement before Parliament if boroughs believe that they are better placed than the mayor to undertake the function. While I fully understand my noble friend’s reasoning, I do not believe that such detailed stipulation is necessary. It should be readily apparent from the statutory consultation whether boroughs have concerns about the mayor exercising a function that they are better placed to undertake. If the function was of sufficient importance, one could see Members of both Houses wanting to raise the issue with the relevant Minister. I reassure my noble friend that this Government have striven to ensure broad consensus between the mayor, the Assembly and the boroughs about the future direction of London’s governance and, if I may say so, it is exemplified by the reforms in this Bill. We will continue to do so in future. It is vital that both tiers of London government—the GLA and the boroughs—fully accept each other’s democratic mandate and remit and that there is consensus about any use of this power. I therefore ask my noble friend not to move his Amendment 106 in favour of the Government’s Amendment 105, which I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 730 c524-5
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Consumers Advisory services Fees and charges Elections Greater London Greater London Authority Fire and rescue services District councils Local government Protection Planning Public transport Railways Passengers Mayor of London Passenger transport executives London Transport Users' Committee Mayoral development corporations Transport for London Regeneration Economic prosperity boards Mayors
- Legislation
- Localism Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-06-30 18:35:20 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_768566
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_768566
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_768566