| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 pm
Ms Joan Ryan (Enfield, North): As the Member of Parliament representing London's most northerly constituency, I obviously have an interest in the Greater London Authority Bill. However, I am conscious that the legislation is not just about London and Londoners. Perhaps that is because I was not born and brought up in London. I am in London through no accident of birth: I choose to live here. I chose to come to London 18 years ago and I have stayed. I think it is a magnificent city.
However, I am conscious that London is a capital city, and therefore belongs to all the citizens of the United Kingdom. We have a responsibility to them: they want to visit a clean, well run city of which they can feel proud. Tourism is very important to London and its economy. In turn, the London economy has an important effect on the whole United Kingdom economy. So we must also view our responsibility for London in terms of its role as a capital city and its significance to the whole country.
My constituents, like many others in London constituencies, have suffered from the lack of co-ordination of key London services and functions, and will benefit greatly from the reforms that the Bill proposes. I congratulate the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and his colleagues on many aspects of the Bill. I shall concentrate briefly on three major areas of responsibility for the Greater London assembly and its directly elected mayor: economic development, the environment and the policing of London.
I think it important to consider the reality of London's economy. It is one of the dominant capital cities of the world and, historically, has depended on its ability to trade and create wealth. As we have heard, however, 13 of Britain's most deprived local authorities are located in London. We have extremes in London. Unemployment in the capital is greater than the totals for Scotland and Wales combined. London businesses are crying out for skilled workers who cannot be found. Effective measures to address those problems should have been taken over the past decade, and probably before then, too. Those issues should have been dealt with years ago, but we had to wait until 1 May 1997 to see any solutions advanced.
Enfield, North is perhaps a good example--if "good" is the right word--of how London has suffered from the lack of any co-ordinated strategy. The responses to the consultation exercise illustrate what most Londoners, and certainly most London businesses, already know: there is a desperate need for a body with a strategic role in economic development, regeneration and tourism.
In a sense, London has become many cities. Each borough competes with its neighbours to provide often isolated facilities in order to attract enterprise and employment, or works with its immediate neighbours while competing with other bits of London. I do not single out those boroughs and their efforts for criticism--what else can they do? They cannot ignore the needs of their populations. However, I point a finger at the Conservative party for its negligence in government.
In yesterday's debate, we heard nothing but carping from Conservative Members as the Government strive to overcome their legacy and their neglect. Each borough needs--and plainly requests--a strategic body to maximise the benefits of investment in London, its facilities, opportunities and its work force. The Greater London authority will deliver that body. The mayor will draw up London's economic development strategy with the London development agency, which will be responsible for implementing that strategy. That is a clear and straightforward process, which will free London's businesses and allow them to devote their energies to ensuring that their businesses succeed. It will help to attract sustainable long-term investment projects, which I believe are frequently deterred by the frustrations of the current system.
In my constituency--an area that once thrived, with household-name manufacturing industries--there are earnest efforts to create new business opportunities. They are necessary because of the collapse of the industries that made Enfield the place it is today. However, those efforts are undermined because Enfield is competing for investment not only with other European cities, the far east or America but with other London boroughs. Enfield is part of London, and Enfield and London will benefit from the focus and coherence that the Greater London authority and the mayor will bring to London's economic development.
While economic development is certainly a major concern, there is more to London than that. The Bill recognises that fact and sets out wide-ranging proposals to improve quality of life in the capital. London's environment must be considered positively. My constituency, which borders the northern fringes of the capital, is home to sights of great beauty and interest. It was good enough to serve as a retreat for royal persons in centuries past, and now provides a haven of recreation for the people of Enfield and from across north London. The protection and promotion of London's natural habitats, assessment of the state of London's environment, the management and recycling of waste generated in greater London and air quality management strategies will bring to London the benefits of improved health and a better quality of life. Our nation's capital deserves those improvements.
The policing of London is an issue raised constantly by constituents, and is a major concern. Through the Bill, our Metropolitan police force will become more accountable and much more in touch with the population that it serves. I understand that tourism in the capital creates unique problems, but the basis of an efficient and respected police service is a relationship of trust between the police and the communities in which they operate. I believe that the Bill will strengthen that relationship.
I was surprised to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler): one would think that the Bill was an attack upon the Metropolitan police. They do not view it as such. It is not an attack, but a step forward in the relationship between London's police force and the people of London. That can only be a good thing. Such a move is long overdue and much needed, and I think it will be very welcome.
It is remarkable to hear Opposition Members--particularly Conservative Members for London constituencies--attacking the Bill's proposals. Londoners have told them at every opportunity, "This is what we
want." They voted for it in the Government's manifesto at the general election and in the London referendum--an overwhelming result, with more than 70 per cent. of Londoners voting for the Bill.
I am delighted that my Government have listened to Londoners, and have set about delivering for them with vigour, enthusiasm and commitment. Whatever the Conservatives might think, the Bill has achieved something very important: it has united Londoners in a positive proposal for the city's future. It is important to note that the interest that we have witnessed in the mayor for London and the GLA will help to reconnect Londoners to the democratic process and perhaps assist in reversing the worrying trend of low turnouts in local elections.
Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington):
I thank the Home Secretary, who is no longer in his place, for giving me such an interesting history lesson about the Metropolitan police.
I shall concentrate on two aspects of the Bill--policing and transport. I welcome the establishment of the Metropolitan police authority and the fact that a majority of its members will be assembly members. I hope that the authority's democratic oversight of, and input to, the Metropolitan police will reduce the occurrence of serious miscarriages of justice such as the case of my constituent, former Police Constable Gordon Warren, who was thrown out of the Met on bogus medical grounds and offered a paltry sum to compensate him for his pain and suffering. He received no protection from senior Met officers.
Although I welcome the establishment of the authority, I regret the absence of tax-varying powers for Londoners, which means that they will not be able to decide whether they want more or fewer police officers patrolling the streets. London streets have a small police presence compared to cities in other European countries.
I am reluctant to bore the House with statistics, but I am sure that hon. Members will find figures for London more relevant than the rather misleading national figures quoted by the Minister for Transport in London in last night's debate. The need for further funding is more apparent than ever. Despite an increase in the special grant to the Met, the overall increase in its allocation for 1999-2000 was only 1.7 per cent., which is below inflation and below the national average increase of 2.7 per cent.
The position is even worse if one considers the 4 per cent. pay rise for the Met, because staff costs account for 80 per cent. of expenditure. The police estimate that an increase of 6 per cent. per annum is required if they are to stand still in real terms. All that is taking place in the context of a drop of 1,500 in the number of police officers since 1992. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) did not refer to that fact in his contribution, in which he gave figures from 1979.
Although Liberal Democrat Members welcome the birth of the Metropolitan police authority, we believe that the mayor should be given the power to raise more funds, if that is what Londoners want, to improve London's policing.
All hon. Members would, I am sure, agree that Londoners will judge the success of the mayor, the Greater London authority and the new citywide government on their ability to deliver a radically improved transport system. That has been severely hampered in a number of respects. In yesterday's debate, much was said about the proportion that the Secretary of State and the Consolidated Fund will take from the proceeds of congestion charging or parking levies.
I shall not dwell on schedules 13 and 14, because I am sure that, by now, most hon. Members know them by heart, but it is worth quoting from "Breaking the Logjam". Page 13 of the document refers to powers
"to require a proportion of the revenue to be paid to central government",
and page 16 says that local authorities that introduce charging schemes
"should be able to retain 100 per cent. of the net revenue generated for at least 10 years".
We have been told that London will have a citywide government, so perhaps it is outside the scope of a measure that applies to local authorities.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |