FoI - 1328 - Consultation Responses

8/11/2019 FoI - 1328 - Consultation Responses

1/50

From:Andrew BoffSent:08 April 2014 10:58To:Edward ListerCc:Subject:Reform of fire service decision making in London

Dear Sir Edward

Thank you for your letter seeking my views on the proposed changes to the governance of the

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

I would like to begin by stating my full support for the Mayors proposed changes. I believe the

Mayors electoral mandate should give him direct control over the London Fire Brigade and although

the power of Mayoral Direction is now tested, it is far from a clear and effective means for this

influence to be exerted.

The need for such control was highlighted during the prolonged debate over the implementation of

the 5thLondon Safety Plan. It was clear to me that certain LFEPA members found themselves

enormously conflicted between their responsibilities as the executive and their desire to reject

Mayoral policy. This resulted in a refusal to balance their budget and a requirement for the Mayor to

intervene; behaviour in my opinion unbefitting a functional body.

Whereas I agree that primary legislation is the most appropriate avenue for governance change I am

sympathetic to the Mayors desire for a solution in the short term. I do not subscribe to the opinion

that these changes will in some way reduce transparency as LFEPA will still be governed by the same

rules. I do however agree with the CLG Select Committee report and feel that in order to assist in the

redrawing of the currently blurred lines between the executive and scrutiny roles, the London

Assembly should look at increasing its oversight of LFEPA using its powers to summons and inspect.

Best

Andrew

Andrew BoffConservative Londonwide Assembly MemberLONDONASSEMBLYCity Hall,The Queen's Walk,London

SE1 2AA


2/50

Direct telephone: Email: [email protected] 1

Sir Edward ListerCity HallThe Queen's WalkLondonSE1 2AA

Via email to: [email protected]

Dear Sir Edward

RE: GLA consultation: Reform of fire service decision making in London

Thank you for your letter of 5thMarch regarding your proposals to change the composition ofmembers on LFEPA. I am writing on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group on the LondonAssembly.

We have decided, following careful consideration of your proposed reforms, that we do not supportsuch proposals. We do not believe that a reduction in the number of elected members both fromLocal Government and the London Assembly or the increase in the number of appointedmembers is appropriate or democratic. We believe that the present arrangements are democraticand well balanced. They are geographically and politically representative, with members bringing awealth of experience to hold officers to account at LFEPA and ensure quality and effectivedecision-making.

It was only a few years ago that your office promoted the model of LFEPA as the preferred optionfor a reorganisation of the Metropolitan Police Authority. LFEPA has always been seen as a veryefficient public authority with the right level of scrutiny, debate and policy direction from electedmembers. Whilst the recent fire station closures have seen opinions polarised, over the yearsLFEPA has had a united front across the political divide on some major issues including previous

strikes. Given that the Mayor does have a power of Mayoral Direction, we view these proposals asunnecessary and merely a power grab by the Mayor to have his people on LFEPA rather than therange of views we have seen over the years.

Whilst we understand the emerging desire to have a Mayors Office for Fire and EmergencyPlanning, in a similar set up to MOPAC, we believe that we need to see how MOPAC is reallyoperating before any such changes are sought for Londons fire service. We therefore think thatnow is the time for maintaining the status quo, particularly following the recent major cuts andchanges to Londons fire service. We are also concerned that any changes to the composition ofmembers on LFEPA could have national implications for fire authorities across the country andcould set a precedent for other authorities. To rush through this limited consultation, without any

national debate is therefore questionable and regrettable.

City Hall

The Queens WalkLondon SE1 2AASwitchboard: 020 7983 4000Web: www.london.gov.uk

20 March 2014


3/50

Direct telephone: Email: [email protected] 2

If, following this consultation, you are still minded to push for these changes through the Secretaryof State, we would seek an absolute assurance that there is a transparent process for Mayoralappointees and that they are subject to a London Assembly Confirmation Hearing. We would alsoseek that the membership is politically balanced ensuring that all parties who are elected to theLondon Assembly are represented.

With best wishes,

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM

London-wide Member of the London AssemblyLiberal Democrat Group Leader


4/50

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the reform of fire service decision making in

London.

I agree with the Mayors proposal to invoke the order making power provided by the GLAAct whereby the composition of LFEPA can be amended.

Kind regards,

Councillor Keith Prince

Leader of the Council

London Borough of Redbridge

Town Hall, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1DD

Telephone: 020 8708 2800Email: [email protected]


5/50


6/50


7/50

Sir Edward ListerCity HallThe Queen's Walk

LondonSE1 2AAYour Ref: Fire Consultation

Date:17thMarch 2014

Dear Sir Edward,

RE: GLA consultation: Reform of fire service decision making in London

Thank you for your letter, I note the proposal to move to a MOPAC style of governance for LFEPA inthe long term. I am not in agreement with this proposal. From my experience as a member of a local

authority and a member of LFEPA I believe there is considerable gain from having experienced

members on LFEPA involved as policy is formulated and considered.

The virtue of the current arrangement is that it provides for a representation of a full range of

Londoners views on the Authority. At the same time it provides, through the Power of Direction, a

mechanism whereby the Mayor can secure compliance with his wishes on major matters. This is in my

view neither a flawed nor a broken system.

No arguments are offered in the letter for increasing the number of Mayoral appointees from two to six

(other than that it would strengthen the Mayors hand). In effect the proposal is simply one to pack the

authority and to emasculate any opposition to the Mayors views. It is unlikely to lead to any

improvement in outcomes of the quality of governance.

I suggest the Mayor withdraw the entire proposals .

You Sincerely

Cllr Peter TruesdaleChair of Resources Committee LFEPA


8/50


9/50

For the attention of Sir Edward Lister

Dear Sir Edward,

In answer to your letter regarding reform of fire service decision, I would like to confirm the opinion

of my Cabinet that too much power has already been centralised and, as such, we would not be inagreement to this proposal.

Regards.

Councillor Steven Kelly


London Borough of Havering

Town Hall | Main Road | Romford | RM1 3BD

[email protected]


10/50

Dear Sir Edward,

Thank you for your letter asking for my views on the proposed changes to LFEPAsgovernance.

I fully support the Mayors desire to reconstitute LFEPA by increasing the number ofMayoral Appointees on the Authority. The fiasco over LSP5, that ultimately required theMayor to intervene, demonstrated how broken the current governance structure hasbecome and emphasised the need for immediate change.

The Mayor has the only electoral mandate on fire related issues and it is unreasonable toexpect him to have to intervene with successive directions to ensure one of Londons mostimportant services is being run effectively. As a member of LFEPA I can guarantee that theproposed changes would have no effect on either the transparency of the Authority or thestrict diligence under which the decisions not hijacked by political posturing, are reached.

Kind regards,

Councillor Susan Hall


Councillor Susan Hall


Sir Edward ListerCity HallLondonSE1 2AA

10thApril 2014

Conservative Councillors: Working for Harrow Residents

AddressHarrow Council, PO Box 2, Station Road, Harrow, HA1 2UH

Webharrow.gov.uk / harrowconservatives.com Facebook facebook.com/harrowcouncilconservatives Twitter @HAConservatives


11/50

I respond as requested to the GLA consultation on reform of fire service decision making in

London.

Having served on both post GLC London fire authorities and led the first for 3 years at a time

of hard won cultural change, I have always believed that the inclusion of Borough

councillors on what is loosely termed the Board has added value. Some of us have made a

point of visiting numerous fire stations to meet with officers and workforce, see the

equipment and view the buildings. The product of these visits has ensured that we have

been well informed when discussing related issues and taking decisions. The visits have also

reinforced the link with Boroughs. This ability to visit would not be possible to the same

extent if there were to be one deputy mayor.

I entirely accept that the sustained opposition by non-Conservative Members to the quite

modest reductions in fire stations and appliances proposed as part of LSP5 has called into

question the continuation of the present nomination rights to LFEPA of London Councils and

the Assembly. I acknowledge the perversity that the Mayor is required to appoint nomineesaccording to proportionality when it is likely this proportionality would be used to frustrate

the Mayors objectives and as occurred in the case of LSP5, at considerable cost to the

public purse. Given the irrefutable fact that calls attended by LFB had reduced by some 40%

over 10 years and that the proposed reductions in front line resources were nowhere near

demand led, the conclusion that a political agenda was being followed is inescapable.

It is worth noting as I reminded the Authority at its last meeting, that if some Members were

thinking of heaping political opprobrium upon the Mayor for contemplating reform, it was

his predecessor who sought and was given the Power of Direction by the Labour

Government of the day as well as the reduction in nomination rights in order to create 2directly appointed Mayoral representatives. Although the Power of Direction was granted

too late for Mayor Livingstone to use it, I well recall being told by him that he had every

intention of using it. I make these points because the present situation is no different,

except in terms of the numbers of Mayoral representatives necessary to avoid potential

further opposition at this time. There can be no dispute that the Mayor is elected to run

Londons fire and emergency planning functions and is responsible for setting the

framework through which LFEPA operates.

LSP5 is by no means the last potentially contentious issue that will need to be determined

by LFEPA during the remaining 2 years of the current Mayoralty. The reform underconsideration rightly identifies that the Mayors objectives cannot risk being frustrated

under similar circumstances to the matter of LSP5. Staged outrage at the proposed changes

is likely to be muted by the fact that the principles were conceived in the time of a Labour

Mayor. The principle of Mayoral Power of Direction has recently been clarified in Court and I

suspect that the outcomes of the various legal actions will dissuade repeat

performances. However, even the creation of a majority supportive of the Mayor will not

entirely remove risk that opponents may seek Judicial Review of decisions.

Accordingly, I am content with the interim proposal to increase the number of Mayoral

representatives because given the present political climate, I am not confident that it will bepossible to achieve the Mayors agenda which I support, without them. I do however, have


12/50

reservations about the longer term proposal to abolish the Board in favour of a deputy

mayor for fire and emergency planning.

I am nominated to LFEPA by the Conservative Borough Leaders Group at London Councils

and out of courtesy have spoken with the Leader of that Group about the consultation. I am

therefore aware that the Conservative Borough Leaders Group does have some concern

over the proposal to reduce its nomination rights to LFEPA.

I still believe that a link with the Boroughs through London Councils does add value and I

hope that some formula may be found whereby a link remains. Equally, the current

Mayoral representatives make a significant contribution. I think that a Chairman supported

by a Board with a majority favourable to the Mayor would avoid opposition to the Mayor

from within, but also continue the practice hitherto followed by Londons fire authorities of

having a Board

Councillor Colin Tandy - Member of Bexley LB Council and LFEPA.


13/50

Page 1of 2

11 April 2014

Sir Edward ListerDeputy Mayor for London

Councillor Sarah HaywardLeader of the Council

Kings Cross wardLondon Borough of CamdenCamden Town HallTown HallJudd StreetLondon WC1H 9JE

Tel:Fax:[email protected]

Dear Sir Edward

I am writing in regard to the Mayors proposal to change decision making of the fire and

rescue service in London.

As a sitting member of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA), and a

democratically elected Leader of a London borough representing over 220,000 Londoners, I

am frankly amazed at the proposals to change the membership of LFEPA and the ridiculous

reasons for doing so.

The Mayor is patently seeking to politicise LFEPA at a time when he is directly opposing the

clear wishes of Londoners by closing ten fire stations. The Mayor is holding up the idea of

democracy whilst at the same time removing any democratic accountability. A fudgedprocess in the name of fairness is not democracy just because the Mayor claims it to be.

Political representatives deposited on the board at the whim of the Mayor is the antithesis of

elected politicians serving on a public body.

In your letter you have stated that the 17 LFEPA Members have not been directly elected to

that role and, as a result, hold no mandate or electoral accountability to Londoners for the

decisions they take in that capacity. Each councillor on the board is an elected,

accountable official, eligible for a place of LFEPA because of their mandate. The same

cynical accusation could be levelled at the entire Cabinet and even the Prime Minister,

something the Mayor might wish to be cautious of suggesting.

London has a complex political make up which is already reflected on the LFEPA board. It

might not be perfect, but is far better than forcing a blunt political majority onto an

organisation that is seeking to preserve the safety and lives of residents.

LFEPA did not have any overall control for the first 8 years of existence, yet still managed to

reach political consensus on potentially contentious decisions.

The present arrangements provide a check on Mayoral power. Giving an overwhelming

majority to one political party will make consensual work difficult. Arguably, the London Fire

Brigade is an organisation that the public trust and should not have to associate with party

politics.


14/50

Page 2of 2

Your letter advocates the recommendations by the CLG Select Committee which suggested

a future governance arrangement similar to MOPAC. The use of the Mayoral Direction

highlighted an inherent issue with where decision making lies, with legal advice heavily

indicating that a directly elected Mayor should be seen to have responsibility. However, we

do not agree that a MOPAC style governance arrangement necessarily offers a solution to

this issue. In our opinion, MOPAC has serious flaws, including a transparency problem andaccountability deficit.

Abolishing a system that has worked well in the past, with strong leadership that has

improved the provision of the fire and rescue service to Londoners, and replacing it with a

knee jerk reaction and a political power grab is a disgrace to LFEPA and to London.

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Sarah HaywardLeader of the Council


15/50

Boris JohnsonMayor of LondonCity HallThe Queens WalkLondon, SE1 2AA

Dear Boris

London Assembly (Mayors Question Time) meeting 19 March Motions

At its Mayors Question Time meeting on 19 March 2014, the London Assembly agreed the following

motions:

(1) That this Assembly notes with sadness and disappointment the Mayor of Londons decision to

proceed with the process of acquiring water cannon for use by the Metropolitan Police Service.

This decision has been made against the wishes of the majority of London Assembly Members.

The Assembly also regrets the Mayors failure to read and consider the London Assemblys

Police and Crime Committee report before proceeding to a decision on water cannon.

(2) That this Assembly also notes that the Mayor is minded in the short term, to seek a reduction of

elected Members on the London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) and replace

them with his appointees and in the longer term, to replace LFEPA with a MOPAC-style

governance structure.

This Assembly believes that it is important that the London Fire Brigade is governed by elected

Members, representing the views of the whole of London and who can provide a check and

balance on the Mayors powers. The Mayors proposal to increase his appointees by 4, from 2

to 6, jeopardises the democratic integrity of the Authority.

Rather than looking at improving the leadership on the Authority, the Mayor is advocating the

drastic measure of changing the governance of the London Fire Brigade to effectively

manufacture an inbuilt majority more likely to agree with the Mayor than the political balance

within the Assembly and London Councils would otherwise suggest is appropriate.

Date: 24 March 2014

Darren Johnson AMLondonwide Member

Direct telephone: 020 7983 4411 Fax: 020 7983 4398 Email:[email protected]


16/50

This Assembly condemns these proposals and demands that the Mayor instead works with the

Assembly to develop proposals that would provide strong leadership, accountability and

democratic representation to improve the provision of the fire and rescue service to Londoners.

I look forward to receiving your response to the above motions.

Please note that, in the interests of transparency, your responses will be published on the GLAswebsite.

Yours sincerely

Darren Johnson AMChair of the London Assembly


17/50

Dear Sir Edward,

GLA consultation: Reform of fire service decision making in London

Thank you for your letter dated 5 March and for giving me the opportunity to express mypersonal views on the proposed changes to the composition of the London Fire and EmergencyPlanning Authority (LFEPA), upon which I sit as one of the Mayoral Appointees.

At the outset, may I say that I support the Mayor's views on the restructuring of LFEPA.

Over recent years I have witnessed, on a number of occasions, what I consider to be the"political posturing" of some of LFEPA Members who have, I believe, chosen to make party-political decisions rather than concentrate on their fiduciary duties in relation to the efficient

running of LFEPA. The Authority has, over recent years, had to face up to a stark financialreality and find significant savings in its operational budget. However, it became apparent earlyon that not all Members were willing to accept their responsibilities as part of the executive.The Commissioner and his team assembled, what I consider to be, sensible and robust plans toachieve the necessary savings for a balanced budget, which at the same time would maintainappropriate fire cover across London. However, a number of Members chose to ignore theCommissioner's professional judgement, vote against his draft budget, but at the same time failto provide a draft balanced budget of their own, preferring to force the Mayor into the processof formal direction. It was these actions that made it evident to me that the governancestructure of LFEPA was no longer appropriate and that change was essential.

It is clear to me that the Mayor is held accountable by the public for the management of theLondon Fire Brigade. Since the details of the draft fifth London Safety Plan (LSP5) were firstdiscussed, long before any formal directions were necessary, the proposed closure of firestations were portrayed as the "Mayors plan" by Members of the London Assembly, themajority of Members of LFEPA, some local politicians and, of course the media. As the Mayor isthe only one who holds an electoral mandate for the governance of the fire brigade, it is notsurprising that the general perception is that he has actual control over the administration ofthe Fire Authority and London Fire Brigade, however inaccurate that perception may be. Whilstthe Mayor holds the ultimate power of direction over LFEPA it is in my opinion, a slow andinappropriate means to exercise proper control. Given the Mayor already sets the Authoritysbudget, restructuring LFEPAs governance in line with the other citywide services is in myopinion the most apposite solution.

My views were echoed by the Communities and Local Government Select Committees Post-Legislative Scrutiny of the Greater London Authority Act 2007 that recommended thegovernance of LFEPA be reformed along the lines of the Mayors Office for Policing and Crime,with a Deputy Mayor for Fire and Emergency Planning and a dedicated Assembly committee,along the lines of the Assemblys Police and Crime Committee, to scrutinise it. I am pleased tosee in your letter that this is also the Mayor's goal for future change. However, given thepotentially long delay awaiting the necessary primary legislation, I completely understand andsupport the Mayors intention for altering the composition and structure in the short term toimprove efficiency and effectiveness. As some LFEPA Members have, in my opinion, clearlydemonstrated a willingness to disregard their fiduciary responsibilities when in disagreement

with the Mayor, the current situation is untenable and should be addressed.


18/50

Yours sincerely,David

David Cartwright QFSMMayoral AppointeeLFEPA


19/50


20/50


21/50


22/50


23/50

Dear Sir Edward

Thank you for your letter dated 5 March seeking my views on the proposed changes to thecomposition of LFEPA.

As I sit on both the London Assembly and the Fire Authority I have first-hand experience of how

broken the current governance arrangements have become and fully support the Mayors proposedchanges.

Whereas the Mayors electoral mandate should give him control over the running of the London FireBrigade the current structure has instead produced an executive more interested in blocking theMayor than fulfilling their duties to LFEPA. Crucially, in the context of this issue, not a single Memberof LFEPA is elected to serve on the Authority and therefore none of them have either an electoralmandate nor electoral accountability for the actions they take whilst serving on it.

The debacle over LSP5 demonstrated the willingness of some Members to put the financial stability ofthe London Fire Brigade at risk, voting through proposals that actually increased the Authoritysexpenditure by millions of pounds at a time when significant savings needed to be found. TheMembers concerned seemed unaware that the actions they were taking would actually have the effect

of increasing expenditure (until it was pointed out by Conservative Members in a full Authoritymeeting) but rather than offering this in mitigation of the actions of the left wing parties, I feel it furtherdemonstrates the short comings of both the present system and some of the people chosen to be partof it.

The LSP5 process further demonstrated to me a clear conflict between certain LFEPA Members'desire to scrutinise Mayoral policy and their responsibility to set a balanced budget. The refusal toadopt the Commissioners proposals would have enjoyed more legitimacy if any effort had been madeto draw up alternative plans for the future of the Brigade. The failure to do so highlights not only howshallow the political posturing during this debate became but also the highly irresponsible manner inwhich some of those charged with the running of one of Londons most vital services were capable ofbehaving.

It is ultimately this behaviour that demonstrates the need for immediate change. I believe your longterm goal to restructure LFEPA along the lines of the Mayors Office for Policing and Crime is the rightone, and also feel the short term proposal to increase the number of Mayoral appointees is entirelynecessary.

The public elect and subsequently hold the Mayor to account for, among other responsibilities, therunning of the London Fire Brigade and whilst he possesses the ultimate power of direction, to beobliged to use it repeatedly to break a long drawn out impasse is an inappropriate means in which toexercise control.

Fears that the proposals to change the structure of LFEPA will somehow threaten the transparency ofa body that will still be governed by the same rules are unfounded and having had the pleasure to sitalongside the two current Mayoral Appointees on LFEPA I can speak highly of the experience and

diligence they bring to the Authority.

Best

Gareth Bacon AM

Gareth Bacon AMLondonwide Assembly MemberCity HallThe Queen's WalkLondon SE1 2AA

Tel: 020 7983 5784email: [email protected]


24/50


25/50


26/50


27/50

10 April 2014

Dear Sir Edward

Thank you for your letter dated 5 March regarding the Mayors proposed changes to the London Fireand Emergency Planning Authority.

During my tenure as Chairman of LFEPA I have witnessed how inappropriate the current governance

arrangements have become and wholeheartedly share both the Mayors desire for a more effectiveinterim arrangement and his goal of longer term reform.

It became apparent during the production of the 5th London Safety Plan that a number of LFEPAmembers felt a significant conflict or confusion between their role as part of the executive and theirdesired or perceived role as "members of the opposition" and their wish to reject the Mayorsbudgetary decisions.

Instead of accepting the budget that the Authority had been allocated and working to achieve adeliverable plan within budget a number of members decided not only to reject the only package ofreforms proposed but voted to increase operational expenditure by millions of pounds.

By creating an impasse the Mayor was forced to intervene through his power of direction, a move

which was then opposed by the very members who had created the situation.

I share your view that ultimately the structural reform suggested in the CLG Select Committee reportinto the GLA Act, namely reshaping the Authority along the lines of the Mayors Office for Policing andCrime, is the most appropriate solution. It should be remembered, however, that there is no currentseparation between the Fire Authority and the Fire Brigade as there was between the MPA and theMPS.

I understand that primary legislation would be needed to bring about a reform of this kind so increasingthe proportion of LFEPA appointees directly nominated by the Mayor is an acceptable way forward.

Criticism that this proposal is "undemocratic" is misguided and indeed perverse. All members ofLFEPA are appointed by the Mayor and he is the only one who has a democratic mandate on fire

service issues. Although LFEPA is a Local Authority its members do not set the Authority's budget andcannot be voted out in the event of poor performance.

Currently LFEPA is scrutinised by the London Assembly only once a year at a plenary meeting, wherea number of Assembly Members who sit on LFEPA question another Assembly Member who sits onLFEPA about the decisions they have all collectively made. This is a parody of scrutiny and a clearerdistinction needs to be created between the executive function and the scrutiny function, as wasrecommended by the CLG Select Committees report.

Whilst the scrutiny of LFEPA is not formally part of this consultation, I hope that the Assembly will takethis opportunity to review its scrutiny role in regards to LFEPA.

Yours sincerely

James Cleverly AMChairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority


28/50

City HallThe Queen's WalkLondon SE1 2AA

Tel: 020 7983 6571email: [email protected]


29/50

Dear Ed,

At the recent Congress Executive meeting we discussed your consultation on the future governancearrangements for LFEPA. We have used the extended two week period that was agreed at thatmeeting to discuss various ideas, informally, with Group Leaders here at London Councils.

The starting point for this discussion was the set of principles that we set out at the CongressExecutive meeting as being ones that should govern any review of the future governance of theAuthority, including:

strengthening accountability; ensuring robust decision-making; reinforcing partnership working with London boroughs; ensuring transparency of decision-making.

Against that backdrop, Group Leaders have picked up on a number of the points that were made atthe Congress Executive meeting, including:

the value of retaining LFEPAs status as a local authority there was a clear purpose to this

status in the 1999 Act and members believe it worth preserving to help ensure constructivejoint working on safety issues in localities;

the need to enhance the executive role that you and the Mayor made at the meeting in orderto focus on key, medium term strategic issues;

the need for robust decision-making and the benefits of being clear about how executive and scrutiny roles are played out.

We have, as I indicated to Jeff Jacobs earlier in the week, begun to consider some ideas around howthese sort of principles could be reflected in a modified form of governance.

It cannot be possible, of course, particularly in a very busy pre-election period as was explained bymembers at the Congress Executive meeting, to believe that a two week additional period is longenough to develop these fully or to iterate them properly with you and your colleagues.

Group Leaders remain of the view that it would be preferable to commit to a London discussion onthese issues in the period after the borough elections, but before the summer break, to see whetherwe could reach some consensus about this before any approach is made to the Secretary of State.

There is a view that it would be preferable to see whether London could develop its own sharedproposition and to take that to Ministers at that point.

Group Leaders have asked me to ask you whether you would be willing to pursue that course?

I should reiterate, however, that there is a broadly held view among members here that the currentproposition advanced by the GLA, as part of the consultation process you have commenced, is not

supported and does not pay sufficient attention to the sort of issues set out by members at themeeting and highlighted above.

Perhaps you can let us have your thoughts on next steps.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

John

John OBrien

Chief [email protected]


30/50

London Councils59 Southwark Street, London SE1 0AL0207 934 9509

www.londoncouncils.gov.ukFollow London Councils on Twitter: @londoncouncils

London Councils represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London.

Find out more about what we do:Policy and lobbying | Events| Services


31/50


32/50


33/50


34/50


35/50


36/50


37/50


38/50


39/50

-----Original Message-----

From: GARDINER, Barry [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 28 March 2014 11:09

To:

Subject: GLA Consultation: LFEPA

Dear

Thank you for sending me a copy of Sir Edward's letter on the reform of the fire service decision

making process.

I am aware of the Select Committee's report and the recommendation for a dedicated Assembly

committee along the lines of the Mayors Office for Policing And Crime (MOPAC). This of course

would require primary legislation. Whist it may be appropriate to consider this for the future - and

here too I would express a degree of caution - I can see no merit in introducing now a radical change

that would reduce the democratic accountability of LFEPA by taking out four members who have

been elected to the Assembly or their Local Council and replacing them with Mayoral Appointees. Sir

Edward's letter argues his case for change by saying that "the 17 LFEPA members have not been

directly elected to that role and as a result hold no mandate or electoral accountability" (myemphasis) yet he proposes to replace these individuals who have actually been elected to public

office with mayoral appointees who have no mandate at all! That is a very poor argument indeed

that begins to look like a particularly inept piece of gerrymandering on the part of the Mayor. If he

believes that substantive MOPAC-style change is necessary, let him do it properly through primary

legislation where it will receive proper scrutiny in the House of Commons; not move to a halfway

house that is designed to eliminate any effective opposition on such an important body.

Yours sincerely

Barry Gardiner

Member of Parliament for Brent North

Sent from my iPad


40/50

Dear Edward,

Thank you for inviting me to comment on the Mayors proposal to seek amendments to the

composition of LFEPA. I am pleased to respond both as a London MP and a former Minister

responsible for both the Fire and Rescue Service (2001-5) and for establishing the GLA (1997-1999).

When the Greater London Authority was being created, a great deal of thought was given to how

the new Strategic Authority should relate to the 32 London Boroughs and the City Corporation. We

were particularly mindful of the history of conflict between the boroughs and the former GLC, and

the need to minimise the risk of this pattern repeating itself. We were also concerned to promote

effective joint working between the GLA and boroughs so that their respective contributions could

deliver the optimal outcome for London. These considerations helped shape the remit and

structures of the GLA as set up by the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

In the case of the fire service we were clear that the service should fall within the GLAs remit, but

were mindful that the London boroughs had played a key role in the oversight of the London Fire

Brigade through the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, and we were keen that they shouldhave a continuing involvement in LFEPA. This explains the current LFEPA structure.

While I understand the case being made for a streamlining of what may appear a rather large and

unwieldy structure, I fear that the consequence will be to undermine the ethos of partnership

between the boroughs and the GLA in their respective responsibilities for the safety of

Londoners. Coming as it does so soon after the major disagreement between the Mayor and LFEPA

over the Fifth London Safety Plan with its extensive programme of fire station closures, the current

proposal to amend the composition of LFEPA and to increase the Mayors powers can only be

interpreted as a move to fetter the ability of the boroughs through LFEPA to hold the Mayor to

account and to challenge his decisions. As such this will be a significant shift in the balance of power

that, as I have stressed, was a key consideration when the GLA was being created. The risksassociated with this course of action outweigh the potential gains from a more streamlined

structure, and I would therefore urge the Mayor to reconsider.

Needless to say I would be happy to discuss this further with you if you feel this might be useful.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Raynsford MP

Office of Nick Raynsford MP

House of Commons

Westminster SW1A 0AA


41/50


42/50


43/50


44/50


45/50

Dear Edward

Thank you for sending me this consultation letter and inviting mycomments.

I entirely agree with the course being consulted on by the Mayor and I wasone of the witnesses to the House of Commons CLG Select Committee in2013 who actually suggested this course of action, having served as vice-Chairman of LFEPA (2010-2012). I have, since becoming an AssemblyMember, thought the current LFEPA format is anomalous and nowparticularly so in light of the change in Policing governance and scrutinyfrom the former MPA to the current MOPAC. I was also deeply shocked bythe over long period, delay, and cost of the consultation on the new Fire

Plan, presumably largely because of the current structure of LFEPAmembership.

I believe the models, both in short term and longer term through primarylegislation, suggested by the Mayor are the right ones to meet the currentneeds.

Richard Tracey JP AMMerton and Wandsworth


46/50


47/50

Rt Hon Just ine Greening MP

Putney, Roehampton & Southfields

House of CommonsLondon

SW1A 0AA

Dear Edward,

Re: Reform of fire service decision making in London

Thank you for your letter outlining the Mayors views on the configuration and sustainability of the

current London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA). I wanted to take this opportunity to

share my views on the consultation.

I agree with the Mayor that the current arrangement should be reviewed and that the new model

should be based on a system where those in positions of authority can be held to account for the

decisions they make in that role.

I think it is important that sufficient time is spent looking into the practicalities of the various

options, and how the solution can be best implemented for a smooth transition. I support the

Mayor in seeking permission to request the amendment of the composition of the LFEPA in the

meantime.

Yours sincerely,

Justine Greening MP


48/50

Rt Hon Simon Hughes MPMember of Parliament for Bermondsey & Old SouthwarkMinister of State for Justice and Civil LibertiesHouse of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

www.simonhughes.org.ukSimon Hughes Now the Local MP for 30 Years

Serving All the People All the Year Round

Sir Edward ListerChief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for PlanningCity HallThe Queens WalkLondon SE1 2AA

27 March 2014

Dear Sir Edward,

GLA consultation: Reform of fire service decision making in London

Thank you for your letter of 5 March regarding your proposals to change the composition ofmembers on the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA). I am writing in mycapacity as Member of Parliament for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and would like toassociate myself with the views of Caroline Pidgeon and the London Assembly LiberalDemocrat Group.

I do not support the proposed changes to the LFEPA, which I believe has a strong trackrecord and is a respected and efficient public authority. Indeed, only a few years ago theMayors Office highlighted the LFEPA as the preferred option for the reorganisation of theMetropolitan Police Authority. The LFEPA has developed a reputation for being objective andreceives support from across the political spectrum. I believe modifying its structure isunnecessary and would put this reputation at risk.

I do not agree that reducing the number of elected members or increasing the number ofappointed members would result in a more democratic body. Indeed, the present formation ofLFEPA is both geographically and political representative.

I am also concerned about the limited time given to this consultation. Given the significantimplications of these changesboth for London and nationallyif the Mayors Office wishesto proceed with the changes, further consultation should take place, alongside furtherevaluation of how the MOPAC model is working.

Whatever changes are made to the LFEPA, there must be a transparent process for Mayoralappointments in any future governance model, and all appointments must be subject to aLondon Assembly Confirmation Hearing.

Very best,

Simon Hughes MPMP for Bermondsey & Old Southwark


49/50

I am very supportive of the proposition to reform lfepa and move towards a mopac style body.

Steve O'Connell AM

GLA Member for Croydon & Sutton

Kenley Ward Councillor

Croydon Cabinet Member for Finance & PerformanceTel: 0207 983 4353

www.steveoconnell.org


50/50

Dear Sir Edward

In response to your letter dated 5 March seeking my views on the proposed changes to thegovernance of LFEPA, I would like state that the Mayor enjoys my full support.

As a Member of LFEPA these proposals come as no surprise. In my opinion the currentgovernance arrangements became untenable as soon as the Mayor was forced to use hispower of direction last year. As certain members of the Authority were so willing tointentionally obstruct the Commissioners plans to balance LFEPAs budget, without puttingforward any alternative proposals, the Mayor was left with no choice but to intervene. Whilstthis established the previously untested control the Mayor wields over the Authority thedebate surrounding LSP5 also served to demonstrate how the public hold the Mayoraccountable for the running of the Brigade.

Given both the Mayors electoral mandate to manage Londons core services and the publicperception of his control over the Fire Brigade, it is completely understandable that changesto the ineffective governance model are being sought. I too believe the proposals put forward

by the CLG Select Committee to reform LFEPA along the lines of the Mayors Office forPolicing and Crime offer the best option but completely understand the desire for a shortterm solution. Whilst a number of LFEPA members have demonstrated their desire andcapacity to disregard their responsibilities to the Authority, the Mayor cannot be expected toissue direction after direction to ensure the correct decisions are being made. Though I donot subscribe to the opinion of those who feel these changes would in some way hampereither the Authoritys transparency or the effectiveness of its decision making, I wouldencourage greater oversight of LFEPA from the London Assembly. I believe this would notonly help clarify the current confusion felt by some LFEPA Members between their executiveand scrutiny responsibilities, but ensure a greater involvement of Assembly Members in therunning of one of Londons most vital public services.

Best

Tony

Tony Arbour AMSouth West

Documents

FoI - 1328 - Consultation Responses