![]() 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
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]Greater London Authority Bill2
pm
The
Minister for Housing and Planning (Yvette Cooper):
On a
point of order, Mr. OHara. I want simply to put on
the record an apology to Committee members. On Second Reading, we
undertook to publish a draft order on the Mayors planning
powers in time for us to be able to discuss it in Committee when we
reached the relevant clause of the Bill. We published the draft order
on Tuesday and made it available to the Chairs of the Committee, but
unfortunately, due to confusion, it was not circulated to members of
the Committee, although it should have been. I want to apologise to
members of the Committee for
that.
We did today, as
soon as we became aware that Committee members had not received the
draft order, circulate copies of the draft order. If any Committee
members do not have a copy of it, they should please contact me and I
will ensure that they receive a copy as speedily as possible, as we had
wanted to ensure that Committee members had copies in time for the
deadline for tabling amendments to the relevant provision of the Bill,
which is the end of
today.
I thank both
Opposition parties, which I know have had discussions through the usual
channels about the matter, for their understanding and for
accommodating
us.
Michael
Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship again, Mr. OHara. May I put on the
record my thanks to the Minister for the gracious way in which she has
acknowledged that this situation has arisen? Opposition Members
completely understand that there was no intention to mislead or to
impede the flow of the Committees proceedingswe know
that this is just one of those
things.
More
broadly, and depending, obviously, on progress in Committee, we will
have an opportunity to discuss all the planning clauses, I hope, next
week. During that time, there will be an opportunity to debate the
order. There are amendments standing in our name that would delete
specific clauses. If for any reason our amendments are not accepted by
the Government, we recognise that there may be an opportunity to
propose more specific amendments on Report with the aim of amending the
order once those clauses stand part of the Bill. I hope that that will
be acceptable. If for any reason it is not, perhaps I could be given
guidance to that
effect.
Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): I, too, thank the
Minister and her team for the efforts that were made to explain what
had happened. I now have on file the Ministers mobile phone
number, but I will not seek to abuse it.
The
Chairman:
All those expressions of mutual good will bode
well for the further progress of the Committee. I thank Committee
members for
that.
Clause 18Membership
of Transport for London: eligibility of holders of political
office
Question
proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Question
again
proposed.
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that with this we are
taking new clause 10Membership 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...
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Jim
Fitzpatrick):
It is good to see you back in the Chair this
afternoon, Mr. OHara. Before the Committee was
adjourned, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was kind enough
to allow me the opportunity to intervene on him. I had only one word
left to utter, but it would be unfair on him just to say
satisfy and then sit down. The substantive question
that I was asking was whether he would like to take on board the valid
point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and
Shepherds Bush that no consultation, no matter how thorough,
will ever be able to satisfy 100 per cent. of
respondents.
Robert
Neill:
Welcome back to the Committee, Mr.
OHara. I understand, of course, that no system will be perfect.
We are not asking for that, but what I am saying and what is, I fear,
overwhelmingly the experience of members of the London assembly is that
there is a systemic failure in Transport for London, which stems from
the culture of the organisation. I regret to have to say that. There
are individual officers who are excellent and I have had good
experiences, but there has been such a number of unsatisfactory
experiences that I have a real concern about the culture of the
organisation. That brings me back to my point that that is based on one
that has some advantages in terms of driving forward a business
planI accept thatbut does not have the advantage that
comes from those who serve on the London Fire and Emergency Planning
Authority, as a classic example, and increasingly in the Metropolitan
Police Authority as well. I am referring to the need to interact with
elected representatives and their constituents. That is where the
failure is and where the culture, accountability and transparency would
be improved by going down to the LFEPA
model.
I had nearly
finished my comments this morning. I was just making the point that
there is an issue about Transport for Londons failure to
consult on network roadworks, which affect the public, but that there
is a broader problem,
too.
I regret that
there are many instances of similar failures on borough roads. For
example, as I was saying in this mornings sitting, TFL
disburses money to the boroughs to carry out local schemes. There is no
problem with that; but there is often a feeling among the boroughs that
the funding terms and conditions, which are frequently controversial at
borough level, present them with a fait accompli.
Works as straightforward as
road widening or the installation of a pelican crossing should
ordinarily be dealt with without the need for the Member of Parliament
or the assembly member to rectify communication problems. They should
be dealt with by a local ward councillor taking up a
constituents concern with the appropriate officers and sorting
it out. Repeatedly, and repeatedly is the problem, that does not
happen. When a matter is resolved, it seems to be dependent on the good
will of individual officers, some of whom come from borough
backgrounds, rather than on a TFL system that inculcates into the body
the need to consult and to take on board the views of elected
representatives.
I
regret that there is a feeling among TFL management that they are
answerable solely to the Mayor, and that if they are driving forward
the Mayors policy, everything else is subordinate. That is not
a satisfactory way of doing business or of delivering those works, and
that is the major failure. The funding is important to London boroughs,
but although they can negotiate individually with TFL, at management
level they have no collective voice on the policies that underpin the
terms and conditions of their funding. They should have a voice, and
the LFEPA model would enable
it.
That is the thrust
of my point. Many of us have many other examples: from major schemes to
the siting of bus stops, many of us have postbags full of consultation
problems that could be solved if there
were a different ethos in the organisation. The new clause would not
only produce that ethos, but enable London transport policy to move
forward on the basis of a much more effective partnership between the
Mayor and the boroughs. Both must deliver transport policy in London,
and the structure of LFEPA would enshrine that partnership more
effectively.
Michael
Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): I did not originally intend
to take part in this debate, or indeed in any debate on the Bill,
representing as I do a Staffordshire constituency, and never ever
having been a councillor; so I assure the Committee that there will be
no discussion, as there was this morning, about the No. 433 bus route
or potholes in Brent.
Siobhain
McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab): I want to clarify
that point: it is the No. 463 bus
route.
Michael
Fabricant:
I withdraw my earlier statement. It is the No.
463 bus route, which only goes to show that sometimes there is an
advantage in taking the broader perspective from
Staffordshire.
I
shall make just two points, which will not be about the detail of the
new clause. Some hon. Members know about my interest in broadcasting
and my service on the Select Committee on National Heritage and, later,
the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. We constantly thought
that the BBC required protection when criticisms were made of it. There
is a direct relationship with the new clause, which I shall explain
later. The BBC needed protection because until recently it had been its
own judge and jury. I felt, as did the former excellent Chairman of the
Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the right hon. Member for
Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), that an external body should
protect the director-general, the chairman and the board of governors
of the BBC from criticism when they defended criticisms made against
the BBC because it should not be seen to be its own judge and
jury.
I shall relate
an example to the clause. I do not know whether you have been in the
back of a London taxi recently, Mr. OHara, but
whenever I have been in that position I have heard nothing but
complaints about provisions, congestion charges and other issues
directed at the Mayor. They all say that it was Ken Livingstone wot
done it and that if he were in the back of their cab, they would have
something to say to
him.
If new clause
10 were adopted, it would offer protection for the Mayor of London
whoever he or she may be. It would clearly provide an open, democratic
and easily visual system whereby decisions could be made about
Londonincluding on the congestion charge and Routemaster buses,
which we discussed this morningthat would be isolated and
separated from the Mayor. For that reason alone, new clause 10 is worth
having.
The second
point that I want to put on the record is that, whatever we might think
of congestion charging
and whether it worksthis morning, it certainly did not work
because there was gridlock around Westminsterthe organisation
in Coventry that is employed to operate congestion charging for London
is superb. I have just bought a new car. Before I am accused of being a
profligate Tory, I must say that it was the first time in 11 or 12
years that I had done so. I have had to change the number plate. There
have been all sorts of complications because of a cherished number
plate which I must say, before the hon. Member for Ealing, North says
something, was not FAB 1. For those who remember her, that was the
number plate of Lady Penelope. I am not Lady Penelope nor do I have a
pink Rolls-Royce, but my point is that the company has handled
congestion charging very well indeed.
[Interruption.]
Michael
Fabricant:
My serious point is that, although the
operation of congestion charging may or may not be admirable, the way
in which it is operated in Coventry in respect of individuals is very
efficient. I felt that that should be put on the
record.
My main
argument is that without new clause 10 not only will there be a lack of
glasnostI speak as someone who worked a lot in the Soviet Union
in the 80s and early 90sbut there will be no
protection for the current Mayor of London or future Mayors from the
many people, including cab drivers, who would perhaps sometimes
unreasonably like to string him or her
up.
2.15
pm
Stephen
Pound:
The late Neville Chamberlain was always accused of
looking at life through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe. The
hon. Gentleman is clearly looking at life from the perspective of the
back seat of a cab. I assure him that there has been only one time in
Londons history when cab drivers have been united in their
support of any political figureand that was Ken Livingstone in
his early years when he allowed night pricing. Congestion charging was
also supported by the cab trade, but I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not
always to listen to all cab drivers. They speak sense and with great
wisdom most of the time but, by and large, opposition runs deep in
their veins. Such opposition is very often not directed at an
individual, but is a matter of
principle.
Michael
Fabricant:
I would be ruled out of order if I were to talk
about the merits of black cab and hackney drivers, although they
provide a unique service in London, which is the envy of the world.
Anyone who has travelled in Washington DC will know precisely what I
mean, because it is virtually impossible to work out the cost of
getting from A to B. We think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to
Joseph Chamberlain rather than Neville Chamberlain, but I nevertheless
take the point that he makes. I was going to sit down before that
helpful intervention. I hope that I have made my position clear, taking
a distant view from Staffordshire.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Clause 18 removes the prohibition of the
appointment of political representatives as members of TFL. It is
important that the Mayor is able to nominate to the board the best
candidates to represent the interests of those living and travelling in
London, which the clause ensures by providing the Mayor with the
opportunity to nominate appropriate political representatives,
including borough and assembly representatives. The Department for
Transport has separately consulted on whether to give the Mayor greater
influence over rail services beyond the GLA boundary. There is a
provision in the Railways Act 2005 to ensure that, if that is taken
forward, the Mayor will appoint to the board at least two additional
members, who may be political representatives for areas outside London,
to represent the interests of rail users from their areas. An
announcement is expected on that shortly.
New clause 10, which was tabled
by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, seeks to provide a different model
of membership for the TFL board. It would prescribe that membership was
limited to assembly members and borough nominations, which would not
strike the balance that he mentioned during his contribution today. The
clause would also exclude the Mayor from the board and from its chair.
We strongly resist that change. The restrictions could affect the
delivery of the decent transport system that London requires. For that
reason, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the new
clause.
Mr.
Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): Will the
Minister outline why he does not have any objections to the structure
for the LFEPA
board?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
As I mentioned in an earlier intervention,
the different functional bodies are providing different services for
London. They have different responsibilities and are working to
different programmes. Their controlling organisations and structures
accurately reflect the jobs that they are supposed to do. TFL is a
board that delivers transport services; there should be an opportunity
to appoint political representatives, and also to appoint a mix of
people to the
board.
It is important
that the Mayor is able to nominate the best candidates to represent the
interests of those living and travelling in London. Clause 18 ensures
that that will happen by providing the Mayor with the opportunity to
nominate political representatives. That would allow the Mayor to
nominate assembly members or members of local
authorities.
Michael
Gove:
I am disappointed that the Minister has chosen not
to accept the logic of the new clause, particularly after the eloquent
contributions from my hon.
Friends.
In
proposing the clause, we sought to make the case that Transport for
London should have a broader level of representation because of the
vital functions that it discharges. The Minister has made clear why he
opposes that and we have had ample opportunity to canvass our
reasoning. I can only register my disappointment that the Minister has
not accepted the logic. During the debate, however, I detected some
sympathy for our arguments, not least from the hon. Member for Ealing,
Acton and Shepherd's Bush, which I hope will be reflected in any
Division that we have.
Question put, That the
clause stand part of the
Bill:
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
6.
Division
No.
8
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 18 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clauses
19 to 21 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 12 January 2007 |