Localism Bill

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 98A, 98B, 98C, 98D and 98G. All these amendments refer to the Greater London Authority and they have been proposed by the GLA, of which I was a member for the first eight years of its life, although I no longer am. They seek to iron out two small anomalies relating to London—in particular, Clause 16(7)—and to build into the Bill’s national provisions for standards the flexibility that I think is key to them working now and in the future. Amendment 96B is a technical amendment to Clause 16(7). It would ensure that the Greater London Authority’s future standards regime was shaped by both the mayor and the assembly, as is currently the situation, rather than just by the assembly, as proposed in the Bill. Amendments 98A, 98B, 98C, 98D and 98G amend Clause 17 to provide the Greater London Authority with the ability to delegate the relevant standards functions, which do not include decisions on whether or not to establish a standards regime and the nature of any such regime, including the potential ability of the monitoring officer to investigate relevant complaints and to take action as necessary depending on the outcome of any such investigations within the terms of the regime as may be established by the elected members of the authority. The rationale behind the relatively minor changes that these proposals represent is essentially about the need properly to recognise the governance arrangements of the Greater London Authority within the Bill. I spent many happy hours in this Chamber when the first and, indeed, the supplementary Greater London Authority Act went through. We were told constantly that the Greater London Authority was not regional government or local government but was unique government. It is therefore recognised here that it is in a unique position and has been very important. For the first eight years of my life on the GLA it was under Mayor Livingstone, who occasionally tested the standards regime himself, and I can attest that it is very important that the mayor and the Assembly work jointly on this. Both have agreed to it; indeed, a letter to this effect was sent to the Secretary of State in March and signed jointly by Mayor Boris Johnson and the chair of the London Assembly at the time, my noble friend Lady Doocey, in whose name this amendment stands. Clause 16(7), as it stands at the moment, states: "““Functions that are conferred by this Chapter on the Greater London Authority are to be exercisable by the London Assembly acting on behalf of the Authority””." This subsection provides that the GLA’s standards, duties and powers will in future be solely the responsibility of the Assembly, but, as I said, that simply will not work. As well intentioned as the provision is in seeking to apply the Bill’s national functions to London’s strategic government, it does not recognise the way in which this authority operates and, in particular, the need to reflect the respective roles of the mayor and the Assembly, which together comprise the authority. Given the context of the GLA and the significant democratic mandate which will accrue to any holder of the office of Mayor of London, it is vital that the GLA’s standards regime should be shaped by both the mayor and the Assembly, as is currently the case, rather than just the Assembly alone. The mayor will be subject to the regime and should therefore have an opportunity to shape it. If these functions are not shared, we run the risk that the important issue of standards will become a political football and place unnecessary strain on the workings of the GLA and the relationship between the mayor and the Assembly. I highlight again that this concern, and the necessity for this amendment, is shared by both the mayor and the Assembly. Take it from me, that is significant. Amendment 96B will enable the GLA—the mayor and the Assembly acting jointly, if the amendment just referred to is agreed—to delegate the exercise of its remaining standards functions. Although this power will be conferred on all other local authorities, the singular nature of the GLA’s constitution currently prohibits such delegation even where the elected members would wish to grant it. The proposed amendments would, in line with the stated wishes of the mayor and Assembly, allow the authority, if it so chose, to delegate certain functions to its monitoring officer and thereby establish a standards regime that would not require the level of meeting-related bureaucracy made necessary under the current model—something which I am sure all noble Lords would be only too willing to see. I hope the Minister will regard these amendments in the constructive manner in which they are intended and accept them as an important part of improving this Bill. I beg to move.