I was interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I cannot quibble at all with his ultimate objective or with his view that the functions that he listed and enlarged on are required. I wonder whether he will develop at some stage in this debate the argument that the existing arrangements have failed or have been subject to criticism, or that someone should have been doing something that they were supposed to do but have not. The noble Lord used the phrase ““democratic deficit”” more than once, I think, but frankly we are not in a business where everything can be perfect.
I am all for providing a mechanism whereby these things can be challenged, but I am puzzled as to why an existing arrangement that is working satisfactorily—that is the premise on which I build my argument—needs to be radically spatchcocked into the existing arrangements. I should say at this point that I am not suggesting that I have my ear to the ground; I am merely performing my function as a Member of this House, with local knowledge elsewhere. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would explain, first, why one needs to make these changes, and, secondly, whether he believes that they could be performed better within the structure of the Mayor’s office.
Greater London Authority Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Graham of Edmonton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Greater London Authority Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c31GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:45:09 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396456
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396456
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396456