It is always gratifying to be commended for originality. It does not necessarily mean that you get anything other than nul points at the end of the analysis. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion. I note that both opposition parties clearly think that there is some merit in these proposals.
Briefly, on the specific arguments raised, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours talks about the boroughs. The Assembly was originally constructed precisely to avoid a situation in which Assembly Members felt that they were delegated by particular boroughs. Only14 of the 25 Members represent geographical constituencies, and each of them has two or three boroughs on their patch. That means that a diffuse sort of pressure usually arises. My experience was that the amount of pressure that I received as a Member for a geographic area on the London Assembly from the two boroughs I represented was very limited; indeed, I would have welcomed rather more pressure and engagement from the borough authorities than was the case on some issues. That could clearly change in the future. The other 11 Members have a London-wide remit, specifically to ensure that that strategic overview is given.
Greater London Authority Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Harris of Haringey
(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 c44-5GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:47:17 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396478
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396478
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_396478