Greater London Authority Bill

In establishing Transport for London, a major concern was to ensure that the board was able to drive forward a strategic transport agenda for London. On that basis, the GLA Act specifically excluded the nomination of serving political representatives to the board, with the exception of the Mayor himself, should he choose to appoint himself to the board. The GLA Act has served Transport for London well. Its board has been able to rise above competing local agendas to develop and implement a balanced strategy for the whole of London. But experience suggests that the blanket bar on political representation carries its own costs. It is important that the Mayor is able to nominate the best candidates to the board to represent the interests of those living and travelling in London. Clause 18 does this by enabling the Mayor to appoint political representatives to the TfL board should he wish to do so. The Mayor will be able to appoint Members of either House, the European Parliament or the devolved Administrations and, crucially, Assembly Members and councillors from the London boroughs. For the first time, the Mayor will also be able to draw on their experience and skills. Amendment No. 41, on the other hand, establishes a TfL board made up wholly of elected Assembly Members and borough representatives. I strongly resist this new clause. It fetters the discretion of the Mayor to appoint the best candidates to the TfL board and severely limits his capacity to ensure that board members can bring to bear experience in transport, finance and economics, national and local government, the management of organisations, or trade unions. It also raises the danger that TfL would lose its wider strategic focus, which, as we have heard, is extremely important, being drawn down instead into vested local issues and interests. Such a position cannot be in the interests of Transport for London or Londoners and those travelling in or across London. At the same time, Amendment No. 41 would remove the Mayor from the TfL board. He has significant powers over TfL, and his effective chairmanship of the organisation has served London well. It is wholly appropriate that he is able to chair, or can appoint the chairman should he wish, to provide political and strategic direction to the body. I recognise that in proposing this new clause the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, are concerned, as they perceive it, at a lack of democratic accountability of TfL. But TfL is fully accountable for its actions to the London Assembly and, through it, to Londoners. The directly elected Mayor is its chairman. It is right that he should be able to decide the composition of the board and, should he wish, include elected representatives in its membership. There are different models of membership for the functional bodies because the roles and functions of these bodies are different. The membership of TfL is defined by the GLA Act, and the Mayor is given more discretion in regard to the TfL board. That assists the Mayor in the delivery of executive transport powers, such as fare-setting and introducing and managing the central London congestion charge scheme, which has already been discussed in Committee. There are sufficient safeguards on membershipin the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 10 to the Act provide that members must have experience in either transport, finance and economics, national and local government, the management of organisations or the organisation of trade unions. The membership—this is very important—must represent interests in relation to the transport of women and those who require transport accessible to persons with mobility problems. Given my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.