 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Greater London Authority |
Greater London Authority Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 11 January 2007(Morning)[Ann Winterton in the Chair]9.30
am
Greater London Authority BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the House for publicationGLA 3 London
Councils
Michael
Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): On a point of order, Lady
Winterton. First, may I say how delighted I am to see you here?
Secondly, I do not know whether all members of the Committee
experienced this, but many of us were not formally notified by the
Clerks of the room number or timing of this Committee, although the
timing is, of course, on the amendment paper. That is most unusual
because the Clerks are usually very efficient. I do not know whether it
was the post that went astray or the Clerks, but could we have an
explanation at some point? I had to contact all my colleagues to tell
them which Room we were in, and I think that my counterpart in the
Government Whips Office had to do the
same.
The
Chairman:
I am most grateful to you, Mr.
Fabricant, for raising that point, and I can assure you that the
problem is in no way due to inefficiency among the Clerks. Cards were
sent out before Christmas, but they obviously got lost in the Christmas
post; indeed, I did not receive one either. However, the normal route
was taken, and I can only apologise to the Committee for the lack of
notification. I can assure you, however, that the intent was there and
the deed was
done.
Clause 17Restrictions
on disposal of land: method of giving
consent
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Jim
Fitzpatrick):
Good morning, Lady Winterton. It is a
pleasure to see you presiding. We all formally welcomed you and your
co-Chairman to our proceedings on Tuesday, but it is a pleasure to see
you, and I am sure that we will benefit from your assistance and
guidance. That is especially true of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath,
who made a pertinent point about needing guidance to Mr.
O’Hara when our sitting opened on Tuesday.
The clause
provides that any disposal of operational land by Transport for London
should receive the Secretary of State’s written consent. That
would include the disposal of any land by a subsidiary of TFL,
including London Underground and London
Buses.
Currently,
section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 requires the
Secretary of State’s consent to any proposed disposal of land by
TFL to be given by order. The clause will restore the previous
position, which existed under the London Regional Transport Act 1984,
in which the Secretary of State’s consent was given by written
letter.
The clause
will simplify and speed up the existing process, which is predominantly
used by London Underground to dispose of redundant land that no longer
serves any operational purpose. It will also reduce the administrative
and regulatory burden on
Parliament.
Mr.
Andrew Pelling (Croydon, Central) (Con): I also welcome
you to the Chair, Lady Winterton. My speech will be very
short.
Mr.
Pelling:
Thank you very much. Given that there will be
quite an accumulation of land as a result of the Olympic bid, what
approach are the Government taking to ensure flexibility over the
disposal of land by the London Development Agency? Will legislation
propose similar flexibility in that regard to make things easier for
the Government in
future?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The hon. Gentleman asked a very relevant
question, but if he does not mind, I suggest that we deal with it when
we reach planning and other issues. The clause refers specifically to
Transport for London, which is a different issue
altogether.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 17
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 18Membership
of Transport for London: eligibility of holders of political
office
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 10—Membership of Transport for
London—
‘(1) Schedule 10
to the GLA Act 1999 (Transport for London) is amended as
follows.
(2) Leave out
paragraph 2 and
insert—
“2 (1)
Transport for London shall consist of 15 members of
whom—
(a) eight
(“the Assembly representatives”) shall be the Assembly
members appointed by the Mayor;
and
(b) the remainder
(“the borough representatives”) shall be members of the
London borough councils appointed by the Mayor on the nomination of the
London borough councils acting
jointly.
(2) The Mayor shall exercise his power to appoint
members under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above so as to ensure that, so far
as practicable, the members for whose appointment he is responsible
reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the
members of the Assembly.
(3)
The London borough councils shall exercise their power to nominate
members under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above so as to ensure that, so far
as practicable, the members for whose nomination they are responsible
reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the
members of those councils taken as a
whole.
(4) It shall be the duty
of the London borough councils to nominate the first members under
sub-paragraph (1)(b) above in sufficient time before the reconstitution
day so that the appointment of those members takes effect on that
day.
(5) The Secretary of State
may by order vary any of the numbers for the time being specified in
sub-paragraph (1) above, but the number of the Assembly representatives
must exceed by one the number of the borough
representatives.
(6) Before
making an order under sub-paragraph (5) above, the Secretary of State
shall consult—
(a) the
Mayor;
(b) the
Assembly;
(c) Transport for
London; and
(d) every London
borough
council.”.’.
Michael
Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): I welcome you to the Chair,
Lady Winterton. The Minister was chivalrous enough to mention that,
when the Committee first met, I was indebted to Mr.
O’Hara for his kindness in guiding me through this part of the
legislative process. As you may be aware, this is the first significant
Public Bill Committee on which I have served and, by chance, I find
myself serving on the Front Bench, so the potential for me to make
mistakes is altogether magnified. [Hon. Members:
“No.”] I meant mistakes of procedure. I am of course
supported by my hon. Friends, to ensure that I get everything right on
policy, but if I make mistakes of procedure, I hope that you will treat
me gently and guide me back on to the straight and narrow path, Lady
Winterton.
I should
also like to thank you, Lady Winterton, and the usual channels for
consenting to allow the Committee’s proceedings to start at 9.30
this morning, rather than at 9 am. Given the exigencies of travelling
through London on a busy Thursday morning in January, it is entirely
appropriate that we have a degree of flexibility. However, it is
incumbent on us all to try to deal with the business before us as
expeditiously as possible, so I shall try to explain precisely why we
have proposed new clause 10, which would change the composition of
Transport for
London.
Clause 18
makes provision to have political appointees on Transport for London.
The Mayor currently has complete freedom to appoint the board members
of Transport for London, but the Bill would seem to give him even
greater latitude. The provisions seem to imply that there are no
political appointees on Transport for London’s board, but that
all depends on how one defines political.
The composition of the
Transport for London board is hardly a model of bipartisan consensus
building. Apart from the Mayor himself, who is obviously Labour, there
is Mr. Dave Wetzel, the vice-chair of the board. He is an
admirable figure, with whom I have been in correspondence on a number
of issues, but he is nevertheless the chair of the Labour Land
Campaign.
Among the other members, Paul Moore was vice-chair of transport at the
Greater London council between 1981 and 1986, and is therefore, to put
it at its best, an intimate friend and political ally of Ken
Livingstone. Gulam Noon, another board member, is also a Labour party
donor, while Patrick O’Keeffe is deputy regional secretary of
the Transport and General Workers Union. Tony West, another board
member, was previously assistant general secretary of ASLEF, and Toby
Harris, a special adviser, is a career Labour politician, as we all
know. One searches in vain among the board membership of TFL for any
representation of any other political traditions or shades of
opinion.
It is
certainly the case that there are people who have technical expertise,
and so it should be. It is also the case that some of those who have
strong political views and trade union links also have technical
knowledge that can enhance the operation of TFL; but to suggest or
imply that the Mayor is constrained in appointing simply a board of
technocrats would be a mistake. Equally, to believe that the Mayor
needs extra latitude in order to have political support for his
objectives would also be mistaken, since many of those who have been
appointed are from his own political
tradition.
What
worries us is that there are no members of the board who represent any
other political tradition or who can complement the Mayor’s
insights or ideology. That is why we have tabled new clause 10. TFL
could operate more effectively and, crucially, more accountably if its
membership and composition replicated that of the London Fire and
Emergency Planning Authority, which is one of the other functional
bodies, and which people generally accept works well and whose
operations we shall discuss later. Our model replicates the current
LFEPA model, with representatives from both the Greater London assembly
and the London boroughs. It is entirely appropriate to have both that
political spread and that geographical
spread.
I shall touch
briefly on some of the issues with which Transport for London and the
Mayor had to deal that emphasise the need for greater accountability
and political diversity. First, championing buses has been one of the
Mayor’s crusades. It appears that he has succeeded, by a variety
of manoeuvres, in increasing the number of people in London who travel
on buses. In many respects, that is a welcome manoeuvre. However, there
was one decision that the Mayor took with regard to London buses that
was nothing if not controversial, and that was of course the abolition
of the Routemaster bus. Someone once
observed:
“Only
some ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the
Routemaster.”
The person
who made that pithy observation was of course Ken Livingstone, when he
was running for Mayor of London. It was as Mayor of London, transformed
from candidate to office holder and from insurgent to dehumanised
moron, that he got rid of the Routemaster
bus.
One reason why I
am particularly sad that the hon. Member for Ealing, North is not in
his place is that he has, of course, direct hands-on experience of what
the Routemaster was like, because, in the 1960s, before he went to the
London School of Economics, he was a bus conductor. He has been quoted
as saying:
“I
will weep if they finally go”.
He remembers having, when he was a bus
conductor, to go upstairs to collect fares. He said he knew that anyone
who was upstairs was either
“a smoker or a snogger”
.
We know that he was previously
in the former category; I shall leave it to the Committee to deliberate
on whether he remains in the latter one. Perhaps the hon.
Gentleman’s absence is due to the fact that he cannot bear to be
here to discuss Transport for London, because that would inevitably
force him to weep over the demise of the bus that he, and Londoners,
loved so much.
I
mentioned the Routemaster because there was undoubtedly huge public
support for the continuation of that bus in service. It now survives
only on a very few heritage routes. There are strong and compelling
reasons, put forward by representatives of disability organisations,
for change to the Routemaster and to bus provision. However, a variety
of individuals have also argued that some modernisation of the classic
Routemaster design could have accommodated those concerns. Nevertheless
the Routemaster went, and unfortunately the wishes of the overwhelming
majority of Londoners, who supported its retention in a poll
commissioned by Policy Exchange and run by Populus, were
overridden.
Michael
Fabricant:
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only
the abolition of the Routemaster that is in question, but what replaced
it—namely the bendy bus, which doubles the footprint, increases
congestion and knocks pedestrians off their feet when it tries to go
round tight bends and a pedestrian has the misfortune to be standing on
the
corner?
Michael
Gove:
Thank you, Lady Winterton. My hon. Friend made an
admirable point because one of the aims of the board of Transport for
London—and I suspect that it would be an aim of any future
board—is to increase the number of people who cycle in London,
such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr.
Cameron). If the hon. Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington,
North also cycles from north Kensington to Westminster, I should be
interested in her experiences, but if she does—as I have had
occasion to do myself from time to time—she will realise that
bendy buses are a nightmare for cyclists in comparison to the
Routemaster.
Ms
Karen Buck (Regent’s Park and Kensington, North)
(Lab): I use the bendy buses on a regular basis, when I am not
walking, but one thing that I can guarantee I have never done is walk
or cycle into the Palace of Westminster followed by a chauffeur-driven
car.
Michael
Gove:
We all regret the fact that a chauffeur-driven car
is no longer at the disposal of the hon. Lady, since she left the
Government’s service, but it is always a pleasure to hear her
interventions from the Back Benches. We all appreciate that all of us,
in different ways, make a contribution to public transport. Some of us
cycle, some take the bus and some walk; but the bendy bus, as my hon.
Friend the Member for Lichfield pointed out—whatever its
attractions in allowing people who live with disability to get on and
off—is undoubtedly one of a number of deterrents to those who
want to cycle. That is one reason why we believe that a more
effectively democratic Transport for London might have taken a
different decision from the one taken by the current Transport for
London, and that new clause 10 would better allow the views of
Londoners on vital issues to be
represented.
I should
also mention the issue of the westward extension of the congestion
charge.
Mr.
Andrew Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)
(Lab): I am enjoying the trip down memory lane, although I am
annoyed that it has taken until the third sitting of the Committee for
the hon. Gentleman to mention the right hon. Member for Witney; I
should have expected him to do that 20 or 30 times, and I can
already see that I am going to lose the sweepstake being held on this
side of the Committee. I was following the hon. Gentleman’s
argument, and agreeing with him 100 per cent., as I try always to do. I
of course regret the passing of the Routemaster, as well as the
trolleybus and horsedrawn version. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman
and his hon. Friends regularly take London bus services, as I do: when
I am standing in the rain with hundreds of my constituents on the
Uxbridge road, the bendy bus that hoves into view, which is easy to get
on, is capacious, clean and efficient and takes me down the Uxbridge
road smoothly and efficiently. I am afraid that I no longer regret the
passing of the Routemaster, much as I enjoyed jumping on and off them
at traffic lights and doing other dangerous stunts throughout
my
use.
9.45
am
Michael
Gove:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
intervention. He says that he is fond of dangerous stunts, and indeed
his interventions are often examples of that. I take the point that for
some people the bendy bus is an innovation, but the point that I would
make is that the majority of Londoners favoured the retention of the
Routemaster. There was no reason why the Routemaster could not have
survived on many more routes than the few heritage
routes.
My hon. Friend
the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham also has something important to
say.
Mr.
Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): Before my hon.
Friend moves on from buses, can he say something about the effect that
his proposed changes to the board of TFL might have on fares? One of
the incredible things that has happened since the year 2000, which saw
the establishment of the GLA and the current Mayor, is that single bus
fares have gone up from 60p to £2, which seems quite an
extravagant
increase. The disparity between cash bus fares and those paid with an
Oyster card is a significant deterrent to tourists and others who come
to London and use buses and other forms of public transport once or
twice. Would my hon. Friend therefore support early-day motion 610, in
my name, which says those things to some
effect?
Michael
Gove:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. He
is absolutely right. In the same way as I argued for flexibility in the
provision of different buses on different routes, he rightly makes the
point that a degree of flexibility in accepting cash fares is
important. I suspect that in many respects most of us welcome the added
convenience of the Oyster card—those of us who are regular users
of London transport—but we have to recognise that London, as a
global city, is a magnet for business and for tourism. In so being, it
is vital that getting around London should be as convenient as possible
for those on whom London’s economy depends. Whether they are
taking the bus on a heritage tour or the tube for business reasons, it
would be appropriate to have a greater degree of
flexibility.
Mr.
Pelling:
Does my hon. Friend share concerns about the
changes in the price of the Oyster card, too? It has increased by 25
per cent. for ordinary users, particularly for users of public
transport in outer London. I am a regular user, as I do not drive a
car—I am almost as green as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney in
that respect—and surely that is an example of rip-off Britain
and the way in which people’s costs are going up
dramatically.
Michael
Gove:
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It was reported
in The Daily Telegraph recently that overall transport costs in
London are higher than in any comparable city. Getting around our
capital is one of the most expensive jobs that anyone can
face.
Ms
Dawn Butler (Brent, South) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman
think that being able to order the Oyster card online adds to the
flexibility for
users?
Michael
Gove:
My view is that making it as easy as possible to
access the Oyster card is entirely appropriate. I am glad that the
number of outlets at which one can buy or top up an Oyster card has
grown. I certainly do not oppose it. However, my hon. Friend the Member
for Croydon, Central was making a good point about increasing costs
overall. His point was not only about increasing costs, but about
increasing costs for people who live in outer London. That goes to the
heart of the purpose of new clause 10. The change to the composition of
Transport for London would ensure not only a broader spread of opinion
but a broader geographical spread, too. LFEPA—and the
Metropolitan Police Authority, in a different way—ensures that
almost every borough in London has one representative who can speak up
for it. If we could do that, we could ensure that the voices of outer
London were heard on transport provision and crucially on transport
costs, which have risen disproportionately for residents of the outer
boroughs.
Ms
Buck:
I think that by an oversight the hon. Gentleman has
failed to mention the offer of free fares to under-18s, which has been
of huge value, particularly to the lowest-income households in London.
I know that there has been some controversy on that issue among his
fellows in the London assembly, but will he commit his Front Bench to
the retention of free transport for under-18s? In the general context
of his comments on fares, is he making a Front-Bench commitment for a
significant increase in central Government
support?
Michael
Gove:
Thank you, Lady Winterton. I shall not trespass on
your good will by taking too long, but I stress that this is a devolved
matter. Conservatives are committed to doing everything possible to
make getting around London easier for children, particularly those at
school, its residents and, as I was pointing out, its
visitors.
Before the
hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush intervened, I
was talking about the westward expansion of the congestion charge. He
might have intervened to draw me away from that subject, but I mention
it because it once again underlines the importance of having a broader
geographical spread, by statute, in Transport for London’s
membership. As we know, many residents of Kensington and Chelsea, and
elsewhere, and businesses in those areas, in particular, were deeply
opposed to the westward extension of the congestion charge. We will
perhaps have an opportunity to debate this in greater detail later. The
voices of those who expressed that concern were not represented in the
composition of the board of TFL. For that reason, I believe that we
would have had a more balanced proposal and a greater degree of
sensitivity in the consultation process if, at an earlier stage,
representatives of that geographical area had been on the functional
body.
Mr.
Hands:
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems
that goes to the heart of the matter on consultation, which I know we
will consider in due course, is that although the Mayor is obliged to
consult on things such as the westward extension of the congestion
charge, he is at no point obliged to pay any heed to the results? That
leaves tens of thousands of residents in my constituency and other
parts of west London feeling totally disfranchised from the whole
process; they receive a glossy brochure with a picture of the Mayor and
give their response, but find that it is
ignored.
Michael
Gove:
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which
underlines the importance of the new clause. If we were to have more
effective, broader representation, someone who was elected directly by
people in Hammersmith and Fulham would inevitably be on the board and
would therefore have a clear reason to ensure that those
people’s views were effectively represented. Such an approach
would also compel the Mayor to take more seriously the results of any
consultation process. One of people’s broad concerns about local
democracy more generally is the way in which their views, particularly
the views of
communities, are often overridden for what are termed “strategic
reasons”. Sometimes that is done for good reasons, but when it
happens incessantly, the degree of disaffection with local government
grows and that is bad for our political culture
overall.
Martin
Linton (Battersea) (Lab): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that
in proposing a mixture of elected members and borough members he is
almost exactly recreating the constitution of the Inner London
education authority, which was abolished by the Conservatives for being
undemocratic? In one sense, they had a point, because the borough
representatives were not elected for their views and policies on
education—they were elected on different subjects. Does his
proposal not risk a conflict between the Mayor and elected
representatives of the Greater London authority, and the elected
representatives of the boroughs? If there were such a conflict, who
would be right and which mandate would
prevail?
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Gentleman makes a thoughtful point. My
point is that a body more modern than ILEA—LFEPA—has an
exactly similar constitution to the one that we propose for TFL. LFEPA
has not been the subject of any political controversy or ideological
division. It has worked effectively and I suspect that that will be
reflected when we debate the provisions that relate directly to it. I
take it from his support for ILEA that he is declaring himself also a
supporter of one of its most respected alumni, the Secretary of State
for International Development, who is of course standing for the deputy
leadership of his
party.
Mr.
Pelling:
Is it not important that this proposal is adopted
because of TFL’s culture of being unwilling to listen to
residents, which applies in outer London too, where many schemes are
introduced on the fiat of the Mayor? Is it not also important to note
that the Mayor’s response is, “I am elected, so I can
disregard consultations”? Does this not go to the heart of the
Government’s willingness to adopt a strong mayoral model so that
he can be so dismissive of public
consultation?
Michael
Gove:
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We all
recognise that an appropriate balance has to be struck and that the
Mayor has to have a degree of executive freedom, but consultation
procedures were written into the Greater London Authority Act 1999 in
order that the establishment of the mayoral office did not lead to what
I called earlier municipal Bonapartism. It is vital that the Mayor
should recognise that; even though he has a mandate to push through
change, he should also respect the views of others, particularly as he
draws ideas and policies like rabbits out of a
hat.
In that respect,
there has been a recent check on the Mayor’s wishes. For
example, he made it clear that he supported the west London tram, which
I believe is supported also by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and
Shepherd's Bush. However, it was striking that at the most recent
borough elections the Labour
administration in Ealing went down to a crashing defeat. Talking to
people on the doorstep, one hears that among the many reasons for not
voting Labour, of which there are all too many, the west London tram
was inevitably mentioned. We have clear proof of a democratic view
being expressed by those who would be most intimately affected by that
development, but the Mayor still sallies on, as he does so often,
heedless of local public
opinion.
Mr.
Slaughter:
I would be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a
copy of my election literature, which makes clear my consistent
opposition to the west London tram, both as leader of Hammersmith
council, which was also opposed to it, and in my current role. I am
sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman is right; Labour members of Ealing
council needed the salutary lesson of last May to make them change
policy. The council is now opposed to the west London tram—for
good reasons—yet it still supports better public transport in
the area.
The hon.
Gentleman is right that public consultation sometimes throws up
different views from those that the Mayor would wish, and on occasion
I, like him, wish that the Mayor would take account of the fact, but
that is not unique to the Mayor. For instance, Hammersmith and Fulham
council is closing a popular secondary school in the borough despite
unanimous public
opposition.
The
Chairman:
Order. Before I call Michael Gove, I make this
point for the benefit of newer Members: interventions should be short
and crisp. I have been generous in allowing many rambling
interventions—all excellent, of course—but I hope that
Members’ interventions will in future be
brief.
Michael
Gove:
Thank you, Lady Winterton. I like long
interventions—especially as I am a member of the Ramblers
Association. I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Ealing,
Acton and Shepherd's Bush, and I am grateful to him. I appreciate his
argument because, with impeccable logic, he was underwriting the
importance of considering changing the constitution of Transport for
London. I am grateful to him for correcting me on his opposition to the
west London tram, but he, as an elected Labour Member, finds the Mayor
taking a different view from that which most of the electorate
understands—[Interruption.] Naturally, as my hon. Friend
the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham points out, the hon. Gentleman
should support the amendment. I hope that on this occasion he will
display his characteristic independence of mind and join
us.
Ms
Butler:
My constituents in Brent have made representations
to the Mayor. Although they are not in the middle of the extension to
the congestion charge area—they are on the periphery—they
made representations about access to a local supermarket and the local
hospital. After representations, the boundaries were changed so that
they would not be charged. Is that an example of the Mayor listening or
not listening?
Michael
Gove:
On that occasion the Mayor listened. The fact that
he was formerly the Member of Parliament for Brent might have swayed
his affections somewhat, but the hon. Lady makes a good point. However,
the capacity of the Mayor to listen on one occasion does not take
anything away from the fact that there are a number of significant
schemes—I have mentioned at least three—in which he has
either resiled when it was convenient for him to do so from a position
that was politically popular, or has ridden roughshod over local
opinion.
10
am
Mr.
Hands:
I would not want my hon. Friend to move on from the
extension of the congestion just yet, because it brings us back to the
new clause on the TFL board. It is ironic that, between them, three
Committee members represent Ealing, Acton, Battersea and part of
Brent—all areas that will be adversely affected by the
extension. Yet an advantage of the new clause might be that we get
representatives on the TFL board who are likely to be far more in touch
with residents and constituents in opposing that scheme, which will
have such an adverse effect on their
boroughs.
Michael
Gove:
My hon. Friend makes my point more crisply than I
could. Such a constitutional change would ensure greater
accountability.
The
westward extension of the congestion charge would be a redistributive
measure, but in the wrong direction. Car owners in the London borough
of Kensington and Chelsea are hardly likely to be among the wretched of
the earth; they are the wealthiest residents in London—not
always, but often. And yet, as a result of the westward extension,
those who live in that borough and drive into London will face a
significant discount because they are in the congestion charge zone.
That strikes me as, at best, quixotic. It will be bad for commerce and
good for the wealthy in that area. For that reason, I would have hoped
that the Mayor paid closer attention to public
feeling.
Ms
Buck:
What concerns me about the hon. Gentleman’s
argument is that when the original central London congestion charge was
being proposed, precisely the opposite argument was made by his
predecessors in Committee and subsequently. I would be grateful for a
rebuttal, but it seems that the Opposition’s argument changes to
suit their political
convenience.
Michael
Gove:
Heaven forfend the Conservative party being accused
of changing, but we have, and I am glad that the hon. Lady has noticed.
Modern compassionate conservatism, with its commitment to social
justice, recognises that matters such as the westward extension of the
congestion charge and technical issues including traffic flow involve
social justice and redistribution. We are not saying that any one of
those factors should be decisive; they should be balanced, which is why
the new clause would allow local representatives across London to
contribute more
effectively.
We wanted
to table an amendment that would license pedicabs in London in the same
way as black cabs and private hire vehicles—minicabs. I know
that that issue
is dear to the hearts of the hon. Lady, my hon. Friend the Member for
Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and, I suspect,
other Members. Sadly, the proposal fell outside the scope of the Bill.
However, for those of us who are committed to the more effective
registration of pedicabs, ensuring that someone on the TFL board spoke
up for the city of Westminster—the borough most affected by the
phenomenon—would push the matter higher up the Mayor’s
agenda and ensure that it was dealt with more accurately. It is an
important issue. As anyone who read the London Evening Standard
exposÃ(c) of pedicabs will know, many of those who drive them
have scant regard for public safety and are often linked to a variety
of unsavoury activities. Ensuring that that unlicensed trade, which
threatens public safety and is linked to sub-criminal activities, was
more effectively regulated would be a step
forward.
Mr.
Slaughter:
From the examples that the hon. Gentleman has
given, he seems to want representatives from Hammersmith, Brent,
Battersea and Westminster. He has not yet got outside inner-west
London. He wants not an assembly, but an amalgam of borough leaders,
which the Conservative party wanted at one time. That is the problem.
Some of his points have merit—I agree with him on the extension
of the congestion charge and the west London tram—but not every
borough with a vested interest should be
represented.
Michael
Gove:
I could detain the Committee by going, borough by
borough, through a range of transport issues, and I suspect that Back
Benchers might quiz my knowledge of their communities and take the
opportunity to acquaint the Committee with why their important concerns
should be better reflected. However, the point is that the LFEPA model
ensures that there is a mosaic covering the entire capital with someone
speaking up for each area, whether that is a GLA representative for a
specific geographical area, as my hon. Friends are and have been, or a
borough
representative.
The
same thing applies in a different way, because the constitution is
different, with the Metropolitan Police Authority: there is someone
speaking up for either one or two boroughs as part of the MPA to ensure
that the voice of each borough is heard on policing issues.
Two of the most important
issues devolved to the Mayor are policing and transport. As discussed
in relation to a previous amendment, they are two of the areas of
greatest public concern, particularly when inter-meshed with issues
regarding transport security and safety on the transport network. It
seems appropriate that we should move to a model that works with LFEPA
and that is analogous in some respects with the
MPA.
Martin
Linton:
But surely the Greater London authority already
has a representative at Battersea and at Hammersmith and Fulham,
elected by residents to represent the transport interests of those
areas. If those representatives are not effective or articulate in
defending the interests of their constituents, so be it. In my
experience, Members of Parliament are often more effective. The
point is that those interests are already represented and those people
were elected for their views on transport. The hon. Gentleman still has
not answered the question: if there were borough representatives as
well as Greater London representatives on TFL, whose mandate would
prevail? Surely, it must be the views of the Greater London
representatives elected for that purpose, particularly the
Mayor?
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Gentleman is, in effect, arguing for the
status quo ante presentation of the Bill. The Government have already
conceded, as a result of clause 18, that there should be political
representation and that it is appropriate to have political
representatives. If that principle has been conceded by the Government,
which we welcome, the question is, how many representatives should
there be and how widespread should the process
be?
We contend that,
rather than allowing the Mayor leeway to appoint one or two political
representatives, this or a future Mayor might appoint only
representatives who reflect their political views. The current
composition of TFL shows that this Mayor is only too happy to do so.
Therefore, it would be more appropriate to have a constitutional
structure that allowed wider
representation.
On the
question of whose view would prevail, as I pointed out, LFEPA already
provides a working model of people who are certainly prepared to be
strong representatives of their party and vessels for their
party’s values. However, they are also prepared, when serving on
a functional body, to do their best to make it work. In that respect,
the body would function like a Select Committee, and the hon. Gentleman
serves on one of those with
distinction.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that,
regardless of the composition of the TFL board, it is the Mayor, not
the board, who has the power under section 174 of the Greater London
Authority Act 1999 to direct fare
increases?
Michael
Gove:
I appreciate that the Mayor has those powers and
that they are consistent with a strong-Mayor model, but when it comes
to the operation of TFL the Mayor relies upon the board and, as I will
mention in my final point, the commissioner. Given the reliance that
the Mayor places on the board, it would be more appropriate if that
functional body more accurately and effectively represented the
coalition of interests that makes London such a successful
city.
As I have
mentioned before and will no doubt have occasion to mention again, the
Mayor said that London’s strength flows from diversity. We are a
global city, and it is the multiplicity of communities making up London
that make it so successful. One of the most important issues facing
London and the future of transport is ensuring that that multiplicity
of communities and views is more effectively
represented.
I have
not yet exhausted the transport issues that we could discuss, but I am
conscious of the time, so my final point is on the appointment of the
TFL commissioner, which is a vital role and a huge
responsibility for the Mayor, as advised by the board. At the moment,
Peter Hendy is the commissioner. He is a controversial figure to some,
but I shall not dwell on his personality. Instead, I will look at the
historic figure of Bob Kiley. Who could forget the massive sums of
money that accompanied Mr. Kiley’s arrival in London?
Who could forget the heavily subsidised Chelsea accommodation in which
he was fortunate enough to spend his time while advising the Mayor? Who
could forget the huge amount of time and expense devoted to a pitched
battle between the Mayor and the
Treasury?
It would be
wrong for me to take sides in that battle, and to do so would be
difficult, I suspect, for the two Ministers present. However, although
Bob Kiley’s appointment raised Londoners’ hopes, it was
done in a high-handed and ultimately very expensive fashion. When it
comes to the disposal of public money and the appointment of transport
commissioners, a wider spread of individuals on the TFL board would
ensure that subsequent appointments were made more consistently in
respect of public money and UK expertise in the transport
sector.
For
all those reasons—the need to ensure a wider ideological spread
of voices and wider geographical representation of interests—and
because there is already a successful working model in LFEPA and a
successful geographical spread in the MPA, we believe that the
Government’s intention to allow political representation on the
TFL board would be better carried out if they were gracious enough to
accept new clause
10.
Norman
Baker (Lewes) (LD): My hon. Friend the Member for
Carshalton and Wallington is not here this morning, but the Liberal
Democrat members of the Committee support new clause 10 and accept the
logic put forward by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. In particular,
we accept that there is a need to ensure a spread of membership to
reflect geography and political views. Like all cities, London has a
spread of political views and geography that needs to be represented,
and we are not convinced that the current arrangements produce a
satisfactory outcome.
We endorse
some criticisms of TFL. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the
fiasco—that is what it was—of the withdrawal of the
Routemaster bus. People have their own views on whether that was the
right policy, and there are arguments on both sides. However, there is
no doubt that public opinion in London and more widely was in favour of
retaining the Routemaster. On that occasion, not only was public
opinion ignored, but there were what I regard as phoney polls,
conducted on behalf of the Mayor of London, to demonstrate that his
policy was correct. The free sheet The Londoner includes those
phoney polls and attempts to justify policies that do not have public
support.
For example,
the introduction of the bendy bus, which has been referred to, was seen
as a triumph. People using route 29 were polled on it and said that
they preferred the new bus to the previous vehicle. The implication
from the article in The Londoner was that that previous vehicle
was a Routemaster, but those familiar with route 29 knew that it was in
fact a clapped out 1980s bus. That is typical of the spin that has been
indulged in to justify retrospectively opinions and decisions taken by
the Mayor and those in his close circle.
10.15
am
In many ways,
TFL has done a good job. As a user of public transport, I say that
there have been significant improvements in London—particularly
to the bus services, which have enjoyed a significant upturn in
patronage. There have been successes, but that is not to say that
policies could not be better deployed. A greater spread of membership
and a greater geographical spread would secure those objectives. It is
important that TFL is seen as a vehicle—no pun
intended—for the public in London and not simply as a close
circle serving the Mayor. TFL would be damaged if that impression were
more widely felt. If clause 18 is accepted and new clause 10 is not, I
fear that the potential for that to occur will increase, not
diminish.
Transport
for London has in many ways done a good job, but it does not listen to
valid criticisms of its policies. Indeed, it talks to itself, persuades
itself that it is right and then tries to find ways to justify its
decisions, rather than simply asking whether policies ought to be
amended. Through my dealings by letter with the Mayor of London on
several matters to do with transport in London, I am not convinced that
logical argument is met with a logical response on all occasions. In
speaking to new clause 10, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath deployed
logic of considerable validity, and I hope the Committee supports it in
the vote.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): It is a pleasure to
see you here this morning, Lady Winterton.
The hon. Member for
Lewes characterised admirably the nature of TFL. That is a point to
which I shall return, because there is no magic in the composition of
the functional bodies in the Greater London authority; they vary partly
for historical reasons and partly due to variation in function. There
is no reason for not reconsidering their composition. Although the
Government’s provision meets the criticism about TFL’s
lack of accountability—a criticism that has existed since the
establishment of the authority—it goes nowhere near meeting
evidence of TFL’s performance on accountability and
transparency, particularly when contrasted with other bodies.
That is why I
support my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath. By addressing the
real issues, he seeks to go further and to be bolder—by no means
for the first time during the Bill’s consideration—than
the Government. Examples of lack of transparency are legion, as anyone
who has had dealings with the authority and its functional bodies
knows. There is almost an institutional arrogance in TFL, which
seriously undermines the technical merits of its performance. I am
afraid that it comes from the top—from how senior management are
appointed and to whom they think they are accountable, and from the
board’s lack of accountability. Essentially, the board is a
creature of the Mayor, and in that respect it is different from the
boards of other key functional bodies such as the MPA and
LFEPA.
TFL is a
major bureaucracy. It is the largest consumer of budget share,
consuming more than any other single functional body or the core GLA.
It is a major organisation. Achieving the best possible transparency is
important for Londoners, and that is where there is failure. On all
measures that independent assessors, the Government’s regulatory
bodies and others have carried out, LFEPA invariably scores higher on
efficiency, accountability and public satisfaction than any other
functional body. It has a better reputation with the public than any
other functional body, because it has a political culture that comes
from a politically accountable board—a mixture of assembly
members and borough representatives. In response to the point that the
hon. Member for Battersea made, having been appointed through London
Councils, the borough representatives are accountable not only to their
borough, but to the totality of London
boroughs.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The hon. Gentleman will concede that the
London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, now LFEPA, is regarded so
highly because of the consensual way in which it conducts its politics,
as well as the way that fire services operate within a national
framework, as it is now, and, generally, within a national strategy for
dealing with fire and rescue
issues.
Robert
Neill:
That supports my contention; I agree with the
Minister. He and I, in different roles, were in at the beginning of the
old London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. I would like to replicate
that operation, which is precisely why I support the new clause
standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath. We
could do with more of the same culture in the running of TFL, and we
seek to achieve that. Let me show how it
works.
In my assembly
constituency of Bexley and Bromley, two projects important to local
people have been carried out by TFL. Both were perfectly desirable, but
the manner in which they were carried out completely ignored any
consultation of local residents. TFL is diabolical at consulting local
people. Consultation is non-existent and there is a positive arrogance
in the operation of TFL’s
bureaucracy.
In the
London borough of Bexley, a footbridge over the A2 was replaced.
Everyone agreed that that had to be done, and it would affect residents
on either side of the A2 because of where it went. However, there was
no consultation of residents. As the London assembly member, I was
given no notification that the works were to take place. As soon as I
knew—to answer an intervention made from the Labour
Benches—I got on the case, but one needs to know about such
things first. TFL’s bureaucracy has no concept of
accountability, and the London borough of Bexley was not notified. Had
it been, it could have come up with a scheme more acceptable to
residents.
It was only
because of pressure from me, as an assembly member, that a public
meeting was held within days of the scheme being due to commence. At
the meeting, significant criticisms of the scheme were made and a
number of alternatives suggested, including an offer from the leader of
Bexley council of alternative land to achieve a better configuration.
Within four days, all that had been ignored by the bureaucrats at TFL.
There is no
accountability.
Mr.
Hands:
May I mention another consultation, relating to the
C1 bus route in my constituency? We called a public meeting. In
attendance were me, as Member of Parliament, the council leader and
deputy
leader, and the Greater London authority representative. We invited the
Mayor to represent TFL. He did not attend. He sent two junior officers
instead, who were totally not up for the job. It transpired afterwards
that the Mayor was on a flight to Cuba, which was why he could not
attend. That shows a lot of the culture at
TFL.
Robert
Neill:
That sums up the position perfectly, and it is also
demonstrated by the example that I gave—road works in the
parliamentary constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham
(Mrs. Lait), which comes under my London assembly seat.
Those works had to be done, but there was no consultation of the London
borough. The traders in a major shopping centre to which there would be
no vehicular access as a result of the works received leaflets through
their doors the night before, and when they turned up for work, they
could not get into their business premises because the road was closed
off. One of them went out of business and others lost significant
revenue.
My hon.
Friend and I are still pursuing claims with TFL on behalf of those
people. The practices that I have described represent monstrous
arrogance and monstrous incompetence. Had anyone had the wit to pick up
a telephone and call the London borough of Bromley, it could have
suggested a different means of rerouting the traffic to prevent that
from happening. Had there been borough representatives and a culture of
accountability, which those of us who have served in local authorities
are used to, it would not have
happened.
Siobhain
McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab): It would be unfair of
us to brand all junior officers who work at TFL as somehow ineffective
in what they do. My experience relates to the 463 bus being rerouted,
which local residents did not want—it was a high-quality
service. Officers from TFL who came to our
public meeting were most helpful, and that bus has not been rerouted. I
would like to thank those junior officers, on the public record, for
their
help.
Robert
Neill:
The variation in experience is itself a concern.
There ought to be consistency of service to the public, but they do not
get
that.
The
other important reason why there should be borough representation is
that TFL, as well as dealing with the Mayor’s projects, the
buses and the TFL road network, is the vehicle through which
significant money is disbursed to the London boroughs for the local
improvement schemes. The money comes from the Department and is then
passed from TFL to the boroughs. Those road works are often on borough
roads, not TFL roads, but TFL can dictate the terms of the works that
should be carried out. It is fundamentally wrong that the boroughs have
no one to speak for them at the table where those decisions are
made.
Robert
Neill:
I shall give way to the Minister of course. Perhaps
he will change the situation that I have
described.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Notwithstanding that we would all agree that
the lack of consultation is to be regretted, does the hon. Gentleman
not agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and
Shepherd’s Bush said, even with the most effective and the best
possible consultation, sometimes at the end of it some
people—
It
being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock,
The
Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at Two
o’clock.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 12 January 2007 |