| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lansley: It is good of the hon. Gentleman to give way twice. I am a former member of the leaders' committee of the Association of London Government, and I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that the members of that committee felt incapable of acting as scrutineers for a mayor giving strategic direction. It would be for the mayor rather than the assembly to give strategic direction, and for the assembly, as executive body, to act as scrutineer. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the borough leaders--he was once such a leader--are incapable of acting as scrutineers of the strategic direction coming from the mayor?
Mr. Davies: I have a number of points to make in response to that intervention. First, borough leaders are
not elected to do that; they have their own constituencies to look after. The key point is that the Government take the strategic development of our great capital seriously and would want members of the authority to work full time with the mayor, not just as a counterbalance, but to define London's destiny. It is not enough to have a group of people who spend their time doing other things as well.
When I was leader of Croydon council--London's biggest council--I was also running a business. The suggestion that someone can lead an authority and also take on the governance of London is symptomatic of the fact that the Opposition do not take the governance of London seriously.
Mr. Pickles:
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courtesy to the House. Does he propose that each and every member of the strategic authority should be full time?
Mr. Davies:
That question remains open. My personal view is that members should be given an opportunity to devote more time to their duties than the leader of an average council does. As with many such matters, we are in a process of consultation and I have expressed my personal view.
As I was saying, a number of us from the London group spent an enjoyable evening with leading members of the CBI in London, who were at great pains to express their joy at the prospect of a Greater London authority, a mayor and a London development agency. They want the strategic development of a transport infrastructure, so that businesses and economic development do not grind to a halt, as they inevitably will unless we intervene. They look forward to a new deal for business, focusing on manufacturing development, and to the opportunities of new markets and new technologies. They want to combine a partnership approach to the new economy in a new world with the idea of combating social exclusion through economic development. Any visionary business community realises that it is not simply a matter of individual segments of the economy working randomly while the social community disintegrates. London's wider community needs to be planned, so that London can be a place to live and work. That is a key to the underlying transport problem. People live in one place and work in another, and there is no overview of the capital's long-term sustainable environmental development.
Environmental sustainability is another great key for the Government. We seek to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2010 and, given the amount of carbon dioxide generated by London--more per person than elsewhere--it is the principal player in the country. Unless we take a wider view of that problem, individual boroughs will have different policies, and we shall be unable to proceed coherently.
The City of London is happy about the change in Government as we have introduced a more rational interest rate policy and are taking a new direction towards economic and monetary union. The City now has a chance to hold on to its eminence in world markets rather than seeing all its jobs go to Frankfurt as a result of the Euro-scepticism expressed by certain members of the rather small Conservative party.
Opposition to the proposal is symptomatic of what we have seen since May: Canute conservatism--resisting inevitable change rather than embracing positive progress.
It is very sad to see. The Opposition cannot see the wood for the trees. They regard London as the sum of its ingredient parts rather than as a large body that needs to be managed holistically. They see the future as the activity of an invisible hand, which will bring about spontaneously some great social and economic result that will inevitably be in London's best interests. Demonstrably, that is false and facile, and the people of London know it.
It comes as no surprise to learn that 82 per cent. of Londoners who were recently polled support the idea of an assembly with a mayor as a composite proposition. The positive consultation on which we have embarked echoes that proposition, which is why we are proceeding in this way.
The Conservatives have changed their view on the London issue. First, they were against all our proposals; then they wanted some sort of mayor; now they say that they want an assembly but that it should consist of ALG leaders. They are gradually moving forward, which is a slight improvement on their normal position: that the best policy is to do nothing, assuming that nothing will change in the rest of the world. Change occurs constantly and we need positive proposals rather than Canute conservatism.
The proposition of a mayor without the accountability provided by a wider authority cannot be seriously entertained, because there would be neither balance of power nor a democratic mandate. The system proposed by the Opposition would lead to fraud and corruption, as has happened in parts of the United States. Opposition Members ask why the referendum will not contain more questions, which is ironic, given that originally they wanted no questions at all. They did not want a referendum because they did not want change. No one asked about the abolition of the GLC.
Opposition Members also said that you cannot vote for a principle unless we have every detail before voting, because that would be a recipe for confusion and inaction. They then said that the police authority cannot be changed on the ground that it has not been changed since 1829. That is extremely convincing--probably your best argument.
Mr. McDonnell:
Does my hon. Friend recall that, when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Home Secretary, he proposed that there should be a police authority for London, but he was rapidly replaced by--I cannot remember his constituency--Michael Howard?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has twice used the word "your", which is not the correct language for this House. The hon. Gentleman who has just intervened, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), must remember the names of constituencies. We do not use names of that kind in this House.
Mr. Davies:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance on the use of the word "your".
As regards the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), I did not recall that. It is an illuminating story about the way in
which the former Government used to behave, and is another reason why only three Conservative Members are present. [Interruption.] Indeed, a gang of three.
I take seriously the points made by the Opposition, and am dealing with them one by one. As there are only a few more arguments to deal with, I shall not take longer than three hours.
It was suggested that there would be inevitable conflict between the local authorities and the Greater London authority. The Government have a holistic vision for London and support the principle of subsidiarity. The ideas of democracy and decentralisation are dear to the hearts of the Government. That is why we want regional development agencies and devolution. It would be wrong to argue otherwise. There will be no conflict; there will be a happy partnership for progressive change.
One of the arguments advanced by Liberal Democrat Members was that there should be two questions in the referendum. I understand the arguments for two questions, but we are presenting a package to the people of London.
We heard arguments about health and education. One of my hon. Friends suggested that strategic scrutiny and advocacy were to be welcomed. The overall package for the Greater London authority already embraces the economy, transport, the environment, planning, police and fire services, and is a great step forward in the strategic management of London. Clearly, we are committed to a streamlined, efficient and strategically geared authority.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
It has been a pleasure to listen to the debate, not least because it gave me the opportunity to listen to the maiden speeches of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound)--who entertained the House extraordinarily well and gave us all the hope that, although we have had to wait several months to hear his maiden speech, we will not have to wait long before hearing further speeches from him--and of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I know that he will be a worthy representative of the constituents of Uxbridge, as was his predecessor, who was much respected in the House.
I regret that I was unable to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale). I shall make a point of listening to him on future occasions, as will other hon. Members.
I do not represent a London constituency, but I wish to speak in the debate because the Bill raises two important issues that have implications that go beyond London. First, hon. Members have referred to the Bill as the precursor to the implementation of regional government in London, as part of a pattern of regional government around England. Many Conservative and other Opposition Members will see that as an unhappy precedent for other parts of England, and, therefore, as one which should be examined with great care during its passage through Parliament and in the discussion of the proposals that will flow from it.
The second and related aspect is the implications of the Bill for local government. I declare an interest in that respect: I am the vice-president of the Local Government
Association. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly made an important distinction by way of a rebuke to the Minister for London and Construction who was wont to speak of the implementation of regional government as local government. It is not local government; it is regional government.
There are those who support regional government for itself. Some of us see in regional government the tendency--I suspect that it is an inevitable tendency--to exercise the powers presently held by central Government. That will probably be the lesser part of the activity of regional government over time. The greater part of its activity will be to draw powers up from subsidiary bodies in local government, and to reduce the strength of local government.
For my own purposes, which I hope to commend to the House, I have examined the Bill and the proposals that it contains or to which it will lead in respect of three tests. First, will it strengthen local government? Secondly, will it result in better government? Thirdly, will it improve the effectiveness and value for money of government?
There are two proposals: the proposal for an elected mayor, and the proposal for an assembly. Let us apply the three tests to the proposal for an elected mayor. Will it strengthen local government? I freely confess that I was in a minority among Conservative candidates before the election, in that I publicly supported the principle of an elected mayor and wrote on that subject before the election. I welcome the fact that my Front-Bench colleagues supported the concept of an elected mayor after the election.
It never seemed to me likely or desirable that an elected mayor would come first in London, and then elsewhere. It always seemed more likely that an elected mayor would come in other parts of the country, in more manageable circumstances, in a unitary authority rather than in London, with its many and complex problems, where, unfortunately, the concept of an elected mayor may be tested to destruction. I support the concept for reasons that I shall explain later, but I am worried that using London as a testbed may prove to be an unfortunate choice.
There is a tension in relation to an elected mayor and the strength of local government. Back in 1991, an elected mayor was one of the options that the Conservative Administration tested, and it met with no support in local government. Yet there are clear needs in local government that an elected mayor would meet.
There is a regrettable lack of public participation in local government elections; there is a lack of public awareness of the importance of the decisions and spending undertaken by local government; there is a lack of political impact within their communities on the part of many elected councillors. In a modern media environment, in which we must all live, happily or unhappily, the need for leadership and personalities with impact is part of the process of securing public acceptance of the Government, their purposes and direction. We must recognise that an elected mayor can play a role in providing such impetus, direction and impact of personality.
There are concerns in local government that elected mayors, and the proposal for London in particular, will tend to draw powers away from more locally elected representatives. That may be so. A mayor on a
Londonwide basis will tend to diminish the authority of the London boroughs. That is unlike the potential impact of directly elected mayors in other smaller unitary authorities around the country, who might reinforce the strength of local government.
If the proposal will not strengthen local government in London, will the direct election of a mayor lead to better government in London? On that question, we can reach a more positive view. I will not elaborate, as that has been widely agreed across the House during the debate, except by Liberal Democrat Members. A directly elected mayor would give leadership, offer strategic vision, provide energy and impetus and draw national policies towards a more London-oriented view. London is different from other regions in that there is a complex interplay, especially on transport and other policies, between the priorities for London and for the nation as a whole.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |