House of Commons
Tuesday 4 April 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [Lords]
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 11 April.
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 April.
1. Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead):
What representations he has received opposing his plans to divide councillors into those with an executive function and those with a scrutiny function; and if he will make a statement. [116141]
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong):
We have received many representations both supporting and opposing our proposals for new constitutions for councils. The evidence is that local people want directly elected mayors to lead their communities.
Mr. McWalter:
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that it is not her intention to have a single monolithic model imposed on all councils and, in particular, that, as long as councils achieve the aim of greater transparency in their dealings, the Government agree that that is an effective way to run local councils?
Ms Armstrong:
My hon. Friend is right. The reforms in the Local Government Bill will open up many opportunities for councils to run themselves in the way that is most appropriate to their local area, after consultation with local people. Greater efficiency, transparency and accountability are at the heart of the Bill--as the Joint Committee recognised when it
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport):
Is the Minister old enough to remember the words of the old Erasmic shaving soap advertisement? Does she think that £58,500 a year for three days work a week on Cardiff council is a bit too much, not enough or about right?
Ms Armstrong:
I am concerned that we should have a local government system that local people feel is really effective and is working for and with them. I do not know about shaving soaps--I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but the matter is not one that I spend much time worrying about. However, I do spend time trying to ensure that local government is open, accountable and working with local people.
Mr. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent):
Will the Minister explain how, on the one hand, the Government are in favour of devolution of power, but, on the other, in relation to local authorities, they seem to be concentrating on the centralisation of power in the hands either of a mayor or a leader and a cabinet? Does the Minister accept that, if a councillor does not fit into one of those categories, his or her role will be minimal? Will she accept the amendment from the other place that gives local authorities the option of maintaining the status quo?
Ms Armstrong:
There is a slight problem with the amendments from the other place; three or four were accepted--all are contradictory. The status quo does not allow for scrutiny. It does not allow local people to find out what is really happening in their council; what the effect of any of its decisions would be on the ground; and how they would be implemented. The present system was right for 150 years ago, when few people had the franchise and were allowed to sit on councils. That system does not meet the needs of modern society or the demand from local people to have a better look at what is happening in their council and at the consequences of its decisions.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
As the Labour leader of Cardiff receives £58,500 a year, as we have heard, and leaders of London boroughs are likely to receive £45,000, is there not a real danger of creating two classes of councillor? After the clear-cut vote in the Lords recently, will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to remove the freedom of local councils to choose their own structures? Will she listen to the voices of people such as her hon. Friends, the Local Government Association and councillors of all parties, including the Labour campaign for open local government--with 1,000-plus supporters, of whom 500 are councillors from 80-plus councils? Is it not high time that she and her friends gave up this control-freakery?
Ms Armstrong:
We are trying to emerge from an era when only one system was possible. At present, only the committee system is legal. The Bill offers a wide framework; those councils that have begun preparations to introduce it are coming up with widely different forms of governance. They are doing so after consultation with
London Transport
3. Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead): What plans he has for reform of the management of London Transport. [116143]
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I have reformed the London Transport board and appointed a new chairman and a new managing director of London Underground and a new chief executive. The Government have also decided to introduce the public-private partnership. This will tackle the £1.2 billion investment backlog, provide a stable funding environment and secure long-lasting improvements for the underground.
When the mayor takes office, Transport for London--one of the functional bodies of the Greater London Authority--will take over all London Transport's current responsibilities, except London Underground. London Transport will continue to manage London Underground until the public-private partnership has been put in place.
Mr. Cohen:
I support the changes to London Transport that my right hon. Friend has announced, which will make it more dynamic and effective in delivering better public services. However, with two French and one US-dominated consortiums shortlisted to run the deep-level underground, and with several other arrangements involving the private sector, what special arrangements will the Government make to ensure that there is effective public service management at London Transport? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will not end up with a situation similar to the one involving Railtrack and the train operating companies, in which they blame each other for performance failures?
Mr. Prescott:
It is important to ensure that the outputs of the infracos, or infrastructure companies, can be measured and that we have the proper management to measure them and make proper checks on the financial contributions that are made. Of course, incentives will be built into the system. If the organisations achieve their targets, they will do well. If they fail, they will face a penalty. That point will be built into the contracts. It is my belief--this will be subject to the public sector comparator--that public-private financing will be cheaper than the bond issue that is talked of. Those matters will be settled later, but I have no doubt that Londoners will benefit from a long-term approach to investment in the modernisation of the underground. That will be in contrast to the difficulties that we have faced from the stop-go economy which has reduced the necessary public investment in London Underground.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath):
Does the Deputy Prime Minister have confidence in the management of London Transport, given that the money that it has spent on
Mr. Prescott:
The problems with the escalators and their age are a function of disinvestment in the underground over many years. We are attempting to establish an entirely different financial framework for the underground, so that it is publicly owned and publicly accountable. That will guarantee a proper maintenance programme, so that there will not be breakdowns as there are at the moment. If we are to achieve that, consultants must give advice. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to make a judgment without proper and informed advice.
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton):
I am a London Member, and my constituents are looking for a modernisation of the tube that will achieve two things. First, they want reassurance that it will remain in the public sector. Secondly, and perhaps more important, they want value for money for the public purse. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that both those aims will be achieved?
Mr. Prescott:
It is clear that, under legislation, I have an obligation to the House to subject whatever ideas I have for the financing of the underground to the public sector comparator. I have to provide best value. That is what I am required to do by the House and that is what I intend to do. We have received the bids in the past few days, and I believe that those aims will be achieved. My hon. Friend will be able to judge whether we achieve them.
London Underground will be publicly owned, publicly accountable and properly financed. Indeed, in those circumstances, it will offer a better opportunity for the proper investment to be made in it. It is not privatisation; I do not know of any facility that has been privatised where the assets have been returned to the public.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex):
As the Secretary of State refers to the £100 million spent on consultants, can he recall any time, when he was in opposition, when he supported any money being spent on consultancies? He talks about disinvestment, so will he explain why in every year that he has been in charge less Government money has been spent on the tube than under the previous Conservative Government? Is not the chaos on the tube the result of the PPP being more than a year behind schedule, and is that not another emblem of the right hon. Gentleman's own personal failure? As he boasts about an extra £280 million from the Budget for transport, will he come clean with the House and explain that £100 million of that has been cut from his roads maintenance budget?
Mr. Prescott:
The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. There is more core investment going into the underground than went in under the previous Administration. I defy him to find any instance of my complaining about spending money on consultants in such matters; all Governments have to take advice. Considerable criticism
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |