| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): They re-elected him.
Mr. Hughes: They did indeed, but for a mayor to conduct his city's affairs from prison is hardly satisfactory.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, the Bill contains a huge number of references to the powers of the Secretary of State--there are more than 250 such references and the Bill has only 270-odd clauses, so there is almost one power per clause.
Mr. Prescott:
I must have missed a few.
Mr. Hughes:
The Deputy Prime Minister has owned up again--that makes two concessions I pocket. The Deputy Prime Minister has realised that he will still not be powerful enough. I have heard of the all-powerful aspirations of Yorkshiremen, but this is ridiculous--even
The crucial clauses are clauses 25 to 36, because they contain the meat of the Bill, dealing with principles and powers, not with structure and policies. They illustrate the accumulation of power that the Bill contains, with the Secretary of State's full knowledge, I am sure. Clause 26(2) states:
Mr. Brake:
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the proceeds of the congestion charges Londoners pay should be spent in Chelsea or Cheam, rather than in Cheltenham or Chester; and that the Bill must be amended so that the Secretary of State is not entitled to a portion of the proceeds of congestion charges?
Mr. Hughes:
My hon. Friend has a good point, although the alliteration makes me suspect that he thought
Mr. Hughes:
I am now hearing that it will. Perhaps the Minister for Transport in London will elaborate.
Ms Glenda Jackson:
I shall reiterate the position, because either the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) was not listening to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Let me make it abundantly clear: every penny of money that is raised from congestion charging or the non-residential parking place levy will be spent where it is raised for the benefit of transport. There will be costs, but once those costs, which we believe can be kept to the minimum, are covered, every penny raised will be spent where it is raised.
Mr. Hughes:
That was clear and I am grateful to the Minister. If that was said before, I accept it. However, in that case, it appears that schedules 13 and 14 are not needed.
Ms Jackson:
There will be a 10-year review.
Mr. Hughes:
Well, we can return to that point in Committee. If the Minister is right, we accept that. We are happy with a 10-year review, but for the first 10 years, we want the money to go to the citizens of Chelsea and Cheam, to echo my hon. Friend's phrase. If that is the case, we can agree and so save time in Committee. That is the third point I pocket.
Ms Jackson:
Let me repeat, yet again, that where the money is raised is undoubtedly where it will be spent.
Mr. Hughes:
I hear what the Minister says and I am hopeful that we can agree that the big clawback clauses, which are always written in by civil servants to give big powers to their Ministers, should be done away with. I gather that such powers are called Henry VIII powers, but the Secretary of State is a far slimmer, meaner and leaner man than Henry VIII and I am sure that he does not need such powers as that autocratic monarch had in years gone by.
Sir Sydney Chapman:
The hon. Gentleman has a fundamental point. May I draw his attention to schedule 13, paragraph 15(5), which states:
Mr. Edward Davey:
I am grateful for this opportunity to spare the House from having to hear about my hon. Friend's dreams. I refer him to the Minister's comments: she said that money would be spent where it was raised. Does my hon. Friend agree that that interpretation could
Mr. Hughes:
We heard the Minister's statement and my hon. Friend has raised a linked question. It may be that we can begin the debate tomorrow if my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington(Mr. Brake) catches Madam Speaker's eye. I accept that the issue must be pursued. We are worried that the clauses may be too powerful, and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and Conservative spokesmen appear to share our concern. I hope that the drafting will reflect the comments of the Secretary of State and the Minister for Transport in London.
Mr. Prescott:
It is in my speech, so read it.
Mr. Hughes:
I will pocket a copy of that as well.
There are serious funding concerns. The Government will retain their capping powers--I understand that they will be the latest upgraded Prescott variants on capping. However, if this is to be genuine citywide government, the GLA should be able to set the ceiling and the floor and control the funding from left to right. The authority will have a starting budget of £3 billion, with the power to raise money to increase that sum to £4 billion or£5 billion. There are many detailed financial considerations that we must discuss in Committee. For example, the Government Office for London, which currently has a budget of £1.25 billion, will retain £750 million after the establishment of the GLA. Why does it not have to hand over all of its budgetary powers and responsibilities to London government?
The budget for London transport raises different issues. It appears that, unlike other capital cities, London could be without any national subsidy for its transport system under the new regime in the new millennium. I remember that, when the Secretary of State was the shadow transport spokesman, he regularly reminded the then Government--we believe correctly--that London Transport needed public subsidy. It is worthwhile for the taxpayer to pay for the public transport system because that is in the public's best interest.
It is a nonsense not to allow the people of London to choose how much money should be raised. The Government eventually conceded that power to Scotland--although the Scottish Parliament will not be able to exercise that right for the first two years. The population of London is much bigger than that of Scotland. Although the GLA will not be a national parliament, we must trust Londoners. If they think that more money should be raised--as they did with the "Fares Fair" policy under the GLC--they should vote for it, and the same applies if they want to see less money raised.
In the hours and days ahead, debate will rightly turn to the key issues in the Bill. A sustainable London means a sustainable transport system. I hope that we can agree--I think Ministers are starting in the right place--that we should look first at the pedestrians, then the cyclists, the public transport users, then quasi-public transport such as taxis and the river bus, and finally the cars. We must try to ensure that London works first for those who use the most healthy, cost-effective and least congesting and
polluting forms of transport. I hope that we will see integrated ticketing for London river transport. The Secretary of State has been committed to that policy for many years, and I share his objective. I know the difficulties involved, but it would be wonderful if London's public transport system included the river.
There is another issue--to which we shall return--concerning the confusion between borough and London responsibilities regarding roads, particularly trunk roads and some roads out of the city. I will not go into detail now, but we are concerned that that issue has not been thought through and concluded adequately.
"In deciding whether to exercise any of the powers of the Authority . . . a body or person shall have regard to any guidance issued"
by the Secretary of State. Clause 27 starts well, with:
"The Authority shall have the power to anything which the Mayor considers will further the purpose"
of the assembly. However, one then comes to what must be the subsection to reduce the power of the hon. Member for Brent, East, clause 27(10), which states:
"The Secretary of State may by order . . . make further provision for preventing the Authority from doing . . . anything . . . which may be done by a London borough council, the Common Council or a public body"--
that is any public body--
"and . . . which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order."
As if that were not enough, the final subsection in the clause, subsection (11), states:
"The Secretary of State may by order impose limits on the expenditure which may be incurred by the Authority by virtue of subsection (1) above."
The mayor can have wonderful strategies, but not strategies that are truly her or his own, because clause 33(3) states:
"the Mayor shall have regard to . . . the need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with national policy".
I am happy that the mayor's strategy should have to take account of Government policy, but what is the point of having London regional government if it cannot decide its own strategy where it thinks that the Government's strategy for the whole country is inappropriate for London? If the mayor does not do what she or he should do, clause 36 provides that the Secretary of State
"may direct the Mayor to prepare and publish the strategy within such period as the direction shall specify."
Finally, schedule 13, which was referred to earlier in respect of transport, enables the Secretary of State, in respect of both road charges on users and the non-residential parking place levy, to require the GLA
"to pay a prescribed portion of the net proceeds . . . to the Secretary of State".
So the Secretary of State is going to tell the authority, "You have the power to raise the money, but I'm going to take a whole load back, thank you very much."
"Any sums received by the Secretary of State . . . shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund."?
Mr. Hughes:
As the hon. Gentleman may imagine, I was reading that very paragraph in bed last night. I went to sleep and nearly dreamt about it--although my dreams had nothing to do with Henry VIII.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |