| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Randall: Why, then, was such a system the basis of the Greater London council, which the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends seem to think worked so well?
Ms Buck: The GLC was based on parliamentary constituency borders, not local authority boundaries. I am not arguing that the GLC was the ideal model of government; I do not think it was. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) said, it had flaws, and it is, in any case, right, 12 years later, to consider a new model.
The problems of borough representation are twofold. On the one hand, borough representatives argue for their local agendas, which differ for outer London boroughs and central London boroughs for all kinds of reasons that are reflected in the political control of the boroughs. On the other hand, an assembly drawn from individual constituencies or local boroughs would make it easy for the mayor to construct coalitions of support by favouring particular boroughs or constituencies. That is why the electoral boundaries have been drawn in such a way that each constituency represents at least two local authority areas.
We must allow the Association of London Government to get on with the job it does so well--representing local government. As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, the leaders of local authorities should be left to get on with representing their own authority's interests.
Responsibility, Mr. deputy mayor--
Mr. Pound:
It is Mr. Deputy Speaker at the moment.
Ms Buck:
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Responsibility should devolve from the Government, or rise from the boroughs, to reflect particular issues that are being transferred to the mayor and the assembly. Many other hon. Members have put the arguments for co-ordinated and pan-London strategies for issues such as transport, environmental protection, strategic planning and policing. I am perhaps a little jaundiced by my own experience of local borough representation because I represent at least part of the borough of Westminster, whose controlling councillors could not run a whelk stall without seeking to turn it to their electoral advantage, then
splitting the profits to pay their own legal fees. I have a particular desire to see that that borough does not havea higher profile in the strategic management of London.
The interaction of mayor and assembly will create an opportunity to develop a new political style based on dialogue and practical negotiation. There will be conflict aplenty. I was surprised and disappointed to hear hon. Members talk as if conflict was a bad thing. It lies at the root of politics, and it is healthy and right as long as it is rooted in a passionate conviction about the best solutions for the problems of London rather than point-scoring exercises or sterile bickering.
The constituency style of representation by which the assembly is to be elected will demand a new style of politics. We shall seek to include in those politics the many disfranchised communities in London. I was particularly pleased to note that representatives of Operation Black Vote have welcomed the mayor and the assembly in the belief that an assembly with powers on economic regeneration and the appointment of a police committee will be perceived as being more important to black Londoners than the local boroughs. We must take the opportunity to reach out to the quarter or so of the London population who are non-white so that we can bring them more directly into our political and civic processes.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington in asking the Government seriously to consider the idea of a civic forum. That idea, which was debated during our proceedings on the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, would create a vital counterweight to the political management of the city through the mayor and the assembly.
The relations of the mayor and the assembly with central Government will involve more than a little creative tension, as they should. The Evening Standard had it about right in its editorial last week, when it said:
The task facing the mayor and the assembly is huge. If we were pitched today into the anticipated annual state-of-London debate, which is a welcome part of the Bill, contributors would rightly focus on transport, an issue addressed by many hon. Members this evening. They could draw on the recent revelation that speeds on the capital's roads have fallen again to a 19th century average of 10 miles an hour. At the same time, however, one child in seven is afflicted with breathing disorders such as asthma.
The recent MORI survey referred to by hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) related to an Evening Standard poll that found that poor air quality and too much traffic were by far the most serious perceived threats to health. An estimated 24,000 excess deaths in Britain's urban areas are connected to pollution. Tough action cannot come soon enough.
Such a debate would focus also on the need for further and more evenly spread improvements in the Metropolitan police's reduction of crime. It would encourage the police to tackle the injustices of stop-and-search figures that overwhelmingly discriminate against black Londoners. A more accountable Metropolitan police service will be very welcome, and it can and must demonstrate that it is a service for everyone in London.
The debate would also pay attention to an excellent study--on which the Association of London Government should be warmly congratulated--that maps out the challenge of combining economic regeneration in all parts of London with the need for environmental sustainability.
No doubt, contributions would also be sourced to the recent independent public health study on health inequalities in Britain which, alongside other evidence, confirms that the incidence of suicide among young men is reaching a critical--even an academic--level in the city and that the scale of psychiatric morbidity in central London is four times the national average, while also confirming the recurrence in the late 1980s and 1990s of the diseases of poverty, such as tuberculosis, which have been linked to chronic overcrowding and the rise of homelessness. The devastating impact of poverty and social exclusion would be spelt out, drawing attention to facts, such as the fact that, in 1996, one in four of London's children lived in households with no one in work.
The mayor and assembly, with the tools available to them, can take on the policy debate about London's future and simplify and popularise it. There can and must be a transparent set of objectives for change in London and transparency in the measurement of progress. Citizens of London should know as fact whether our city is, at least partially thanks to their efforts, moving towards the goals of a cleaner environment, a more competitive economy and greater social inclusion. For, as "The London Study" points out,
Henry James summed up the city rather well at the end of the 19th century, when he said:
Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam):
I was first elected to my local authority, the London Borough of Sutton, in 1986, at the point at which the Greater London council was about to cease to be. For the past 12 years--it seems more like 15--I have observed the way in which London has been governed as a consequence.
I once saw a chart that was drawn up by someone who was trying to map the lines of accountability of decision making in London following the abolition of the GLC. So
confusing was it, with all the quangos and joint boards that had been established, that it looked like a plate of spaghetti. It is no wonder that people have felt increasingly dissatisfied with the quality of governance in our capital city. That is why I welcome the opportunity in the coming weeks and months to debate with the Government how we should re-institute and restore to London what it always needed, which is a voice and a proper way to gather the strategic view and translate it into action.
In so far as the Bill returns to Londoners that right to self-government, I welcome it, as do my colleagues. However, I must point out to the Minister for London and Construction and the Minister for Transport in London that, during the referendum campaign earlier this year, I did not detect much enthusiasm on the doorsteps in my constituency for the Government's proposals. Indeed, the level of awareness of the existence of the referendum was depressingly low. I am sure that Ministers found it depressingly low as they were working hard to try to raise the turnout and raise interest in the issue.
Londoners may have voted yes in the referendum, but many more of them did not express a view one way or the other, and it is inappropriate for any of us to attribute our view to those people who did not cast a vote. In my constituency, few people mentioned the referendum on the doorstep. I dare say that the issue failed to excite constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps that is a reflection of the general expectation, as recorded in the opinion polls, that it was going to happen anyway--that London would get a new form of government. After all, the majority of Londoners voted in the general election for parties that favoured restoring government for London. Perhaps it also reflected the fact that the referendum did not allow us to debate how London should be governed, but shifted the focus to the more media-friendly question of who should govern London. Like the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet(Sir S. Chapman) I believe that it was a mistake for the Government not to allow more questions on the ballot paper, but, equally, I accept that that is now passed and we must deal with the legislation before us. That is what my colleagues and I intend to do.
Offering Londoners no choice of the way in which they were governed was perhaps a sign that the Government lacked confidence in their case--or perhaps they do not trust the judgment of Londoners. That lack of trust goes through the Bill. In some ways, the Government are hard-wiring a lack of trust into the new institutions. I shall demonstrate what I mean. The Secretary of State does not appear to trust the mayor, who is not allowed to trust the assembly or the London boroughs.
The Bill is crammed full of new powers for the Secretary of State to direct and guide the mayor. The purse strings are tightly held by Whitehall. Indeed, as Tony Travers and Gerry Stoker wrote in the Association of London Government's paper, "A Tale of Two Cities, the Government of New York: Lessons for London":
Like any council, the GLA will be subject to the new twin capping regime--so-called sophisticated capping. The Secretary of State has described it as Prescott's sophisticated capping. I am delighted that he chose to add his name to the capping regime. There is also the council tax benefit clawback. The GLA's freedom of manoeuvre will be further circumscribed by the imposition of a spending floor as well as spending ceilings.
The authority will find its power to promote economic, social and environmental well-being--I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that the Bill's wording on this is not appropriate--undermined by lack of discretion and flexibility in using its budgets. It will not have access to the revenues that it needs to fulfil its purpose.
"The balance will be hard to strike . . . A Mayor who turned out to be little more than a Departmental Minister will be too tame for London's tastes . . . on the other hand, a Mayor conducting a running duel with central government will be equally damaging."
That comment positively screams for a response along the lines of a third way, but I shall resist that temptation. A challenge will give the mayor and the assembly something to rise to, and will give the Government something to which to respond. Londoners will not forgive any participants who neglect their duty in favour of posturing or vapidity.
"there is not one London, but many, and children in the different Londons have grown up in different worlds".
Those divisions and that experience have weakened us, and the absence of an effective voice for London has allowed those divisions to deepen. Now, we are being given the chance to make a fresh start. As an Essex girl who came to the city 20 years ago and fell in love with it, that makes me proud.
"It is not a pleasant place, it is not agreeable or cheerful or easy or exempt from reproach. It is only magnificent."
It is good, at last, to see it getting the government that it deserves.
8.30 pm
"The greatest doubts about the proposals for London remain around its fiscal and financial capacity. The Mayor of London will have much more than the Mayor of New York to look to higher levels of government for funding. The relationship between the Albany--capital of the state--and New York is not always comfortable.
14 Dec 1998 : Column 687
In other words, the same disease that afflicts local government will afflict the Greater London authority: lack of financial independence. Without that, everything that is welcome in the Bill becomes secondary.
The proposed new arrangements for London may prove even more difficult for Whitehall given that the funding regime may give the Mayor little option but to look to central government for the increased resources, backed by the votes of some 5 million Londoners."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |