Examination of Witnesses (Questions 493-499)
MR DAVID
LUNTS
12 JUNE 2006
Q493 Alison Seabeck: Welcome, Mr Lunts.
Apologies first from Dr Phyllis Starkey, our regular Chair, she
is unfortunately not here today. She is actually on a visit to
Iran so was unable to get here. It would be very helpful if you
could identify yourself for the purposes of the record.
Mr Lunts: I am David Lunts. I
am the Executive Director of Policy and Partnerships at the Greater
London Authority.
Alison Seabeck: Thank you very much.
Q494 John Cummings: Good afternoon,
Mr Lunts. Would you tell the Committee what aspects of the London
model of governance you believe to have been key in the success
of the London Assembly? What do you believe have been the major
obstacles you have encountered, and would you tell the Committee
how you have tackled them?
Mr Lunts: What do I think has
been successful about the model? I would say, firstly, I think
there is a useful degree of clarity about roles and purposes within
the governance model, which is important. In particular, I think
the decision in the 1990s to look for quite a powerful elected
executive Mayor with a very clear and distinct role separate from
an elected assembly, which of course is primarily there to scrutinise
the Mayor, was sensible. It was quite controversial at the time
but it was probably the right thing to do and it draws heavily
from international models of various kinds. The clarity and distinction
in terms of roles within the governance structure is one reason
why it has been successful. I think another is that the GLA has
been correctly set up as a strategy body. Compared with the old
GLC, for instance, its role, remit and responsibilities are at
a much more strategic level. By and large it does not get involved
in detailed matters of service delivery. I think a third reason
it has been successful is that there has been a strong demarcation
line between the GLA itself based at City Hall and the functional
bodies which the Mayor is responsible for, particularly Transport
for London and the London Development Agency. Although there is
a strong element of service delivery around the Mayor in TfL and
the LDA they are at arms' length, they are not part and parcel
of the corporate body called the GLA. I think the roles are clear.
Some of the areas that perhaps have been less successful are those
where the Mayor and the GLA has a very clear responsibility to
develop strategies, and there is a whole raft of those, many of
which are statutory obligations and some others that the Mayor
has chosen to do himself, but where the powers that he currently
has do not extend far enough to really influence the implementation
of those strategies. There are a number of areas—I do not
know whether we will talk about these but they are very much topical
matters given the consultation the Government is running on further
devolution to the Mayor—around areas of waste, learning
and skills in London, around housing and planning, where certainly
the Mayor's view is that there is a need to devolve more powers
to the GLA.
Q495 John Cummings: Can you give
any examples of major obstacles that you have encountered and
how you have tackled those given the uniqueness of your Assembly
and the powers of the Mayor?
Mr Lunts: In terms of specific
obstacles, they do largely relate to this area where the Mayor
has obligations, responsibilities, and some of them are defined
quite clearly in the GLA Act. For instance, an example would be
waste. The Mayor has a statutory responsibility to develop a waste
strategy for London. The Mayor has got some very clear views about
waste management in London, about recycling and sustainable development.
His view is that London is not working hard enough, nor in a co-ordinated
enough fashion, to deliver what is in his waste strategy. This
is his view. He does not really have sufficient powers within
the Act to see that his strategy is implemented. Areas like that
are where the way we are trying to overcome those obstacles at
the moment is very much to engage with ministers through this
consultation exercise to see if we can secure a broader range
of powers to address those obstacles.
Q496 John Cummings: It is quite obvious
that London is rather unique in its economic status and also in
its governance arrangements. How far do you think that the model
of governance in London can be transferred to other English cities?
Mr Lunts: This is very interesting
and quite difficult because, you are absolutely right, the London
model is unique, it is a new experiment in governance in this
country, although it does draw quite heavily, but not exclusively,
from international models. The circumstances in London are quite
different in many respects from the circumstances in other cities,
not least because London had an elected city government in the
form of the GLC which was abolished in 1986 and where since 1986
there has been a fairly strong view across London that London
needed to gets it governments back, and that is why there was
a clear vote for that in the referendum that preceded the GLA.
Secondly, London has a very specific identity and, again, that
is why Londoners by and large welcomed their own city government.
Of course, one of the identities that London has is although it
is a whole series of neighbourhoods and component parts, there
are many issues which can be tackled only at a pan-London level,
not least Transport but many others too. All of those factors—there
were other factors as well—meant that a new form of government
for London was likely to be on the cards and had some internal
logic.
Q497 John Cummings: Do you think
such a model of governance could be transferred to other English
cities?
Mr Lunts: Some of the factors
that I have mentioned are factors in other cities, but many of
them are not. London has 32, and if you include the City of London
33, separate boroughs. There is no other city in England that
has a comparable arrangement of really quite small scale boroughs.
There are issues in other cities about neighbouring authorities
beyond the major component part—Manchester, Birmingham and
other places—but I think the parallels are by no means exact.
I think some of the inevitable difficulties and potential tensions
around simply replicating the London model are pretty well rehearsed.
On the other hand, I think there are some elements in the London
model which are capable of more easy replication. I think in particular
there has been some very useful and important work done to try
and integrate at a city level in London land use planning, economic
development and transport planning. Certainly the Mayor is working
hard to try and secure more integration of adult skills and learning
within those strategies as well. Integration of those critical
pieces of infrastructure at a city level is something that could
be replicated elsewhere.
Q498 Alison Seabeck: You have obviously
made representations to Government on the issue of powers and
the need for the Mayor to have additional powers, and you have
set out some of the areas of strategies you would like to see
that extended into. We heard evidence from the Learning and Skills
Council that they were very anxious about the splitting away of
London if, indeed, the powers they have are transferred across
to the Mayor. Do you see or have any concerns that potentially
this could weaken a wider institution?
Mr Lunts: I think if the Mayor
were here he may say that may be an advantage of a further devolution
of learning and skills to London.
Q499 Alison Seabeck: What are the
problems? In your view, why is it essential that the Learning
and Skills Council comes across? Is it not operating well in your
view, or is that just a regional thing?
Mr Lunts: I do not think it has
worked well. The Learning and Skills Council's performance in
London has been particularly poor if you look at performance nationally
of the Learning and Skills Council. Secondly, there is no doubt
that London, like anywhere else but perhaps even more so in London
given the underlying characteristics of the economy here, is very,
very reliant on a significant increase in skills levels to respond
to new job opportunities. Something like 80% of new jobs in London
are going to demand Level 3 skills and above. We really need a
step change. We know that employment rates in London are lower
than anywhere else in England. These problems of polarisation
and people increasingly being left behind as the economy continues
to modernise and grow are very, very active in London. The Mayor's
view is very strongly that there is a compelling case just on
the basis of democratic accountability for learning and skills
to be responsible to London government rather than to the Learning
and Skills Council in Coventry, and secondly, perhaps even more
importantly, the evidence on the ground does suggest many areas
where London has specific needs are not being targeted in as specific
a way as the Mayor would want to see. I think that is not just
the Mayor's view—that is a fairly widely shared view across
business, across boroughs and across the voluntary sector in London.
|
