Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, I think that noble Lords will agree that many—if not all—aspects of this Bill, in spite of today’s amendments, will improve on what we have achieved so far. I do not think that I will be able to give the reassurance for which the noble Lord is looking. I will continue to resist these amendments. I appreciate that noble Lords welcomed the proposed removal of the prohibition on holders of political office sitting on the TfL board. I also recognise the noble Lord’s point that it is the permissive nature of the proposal, rather than a binding requirement on the Mayor, that causes concern. However, it is important that the Mayor is able to nominate the candidates best able to represent the interests of those living and travelling in London. Clause 18 would allow the Mayor to appoint Members of either House; the European Parliament; the devolved Administrations; crucially, Assembly Members, which I think chimes with what is being said; and councillors from the London boroughs. I am pleased that in our previous debates, noble Lords have recognised the great advantages of being able to draw on such talent and experience. I recognise the wish of noble Lords to bring such talent to the TfL board, but this amendment tips the balance too far in requiring the board to be made up wholly of elected Assembly Members and councillors from the London boroughs. I appreciate the arguments that are being made, but in this Bill we are building on the 1999 Act and talking about change. This amendment removes the discretion of the Mayor to appoint the best candidates to the TfL board and severely limits his ability to ensure that board members have relevant experience in transport; finance; economics; national and local government; management of organisations, as I have said before; or trade unions. In Committee, Members said that TfL must be strategic and local, drawing local people into the decision-making process. Again, I support the broad thrust of that argument and I have sympathy for the view that the work of TfL could be improved by increasing the number of local representatives from boroughs, which Clause 18 seeks to do. I do not believe that you balance the local and the strategic by constituting the TfL board wholly of Assembly Members and borough councils. There is a real danger that TfL could be drawn into vested local interests and lose its wider strategic focus. Such a position would not be in the interests of Londoners, those travelling in or across London or Transport for London. Amendment No. 28 would also remove the Mayor from the TfL board, where he has significant powers over TfL. The Mayor’s effective chairmanship, I believe, has served London well. It is wholly appropriate that he is able to chair the board or can appoint the chair, should he wish, to provide political and strategic direction to the body. I recognise that in tabling this new clause, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, are mostly concerned by a lack of democratic accountability, as they perceive it. But as a functional body of Greater London, as has already been expressed, TfL will continue to be held accountable by the Mayor and closely scrutinised by the Assembly, which is made up of 25 elected members. The Assembly is the appropriate safeguard on the manner in which the Mayor exercises his powers, including his powers of appointment. We should be prepared to let that scrutiny regime continue. So, on that basis, I shall continue to resist the amendment. The proposal for removing the ban on elected representatives is a good one and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.