Examination of Witness (Questions 732-739)
TONY TRAVERS
8 JULY 2008
Q732 Chairman: Mr Travers, I think perhaps
the easiest way to start would be to say whether, having listened
(as I know you were) to Ken Livingstone's presentation, you differ
from him at all in your perception of the advantages and disadvantages
of the structure of London government which has created the Mayor/GLA
structure?
Tony Travers: I did not hear the
very beginning, so I may comment only on part of it. First, I
should say thank you for inviting me to give evidence. I agree
significantly with what Ken Livingstone said, particularly about
the weakness of the Assembly part of this Greater London Authority
structure.
Q733 Chairman: I was not quite clear
whether, listening to him earlier, that was a virtue or a fault.
Tony Travers: I should imagine,
as a powerful mayor, he saw it arguably as a virtue. Whether democratically
it is a virtue to have a very powerful executive not fully checked
by what in an American system—which is what we are talking
about here—would be a legislative arm of Government, I think,
is a wide issue, possibly beyond the remit of this inquiry. The
Assembly was given only the single annual power to stop the Mayor's
budget, and then only with a two-thirds majority for an alternative
proposition, an alternative budget, but that power is nuclear
and it is actually very difficult, given the proportional representation
method of electing the Assembly, to imagine any one party in London,
as in Scotland and Wales, getting an overall majority very frequently,
if ever. So getting a two-thirds majority for an alternative proposition
to the Mayor's budget, I think, will always prove extremely difficult
and, therefore, even that check is limited, but beyond that the
Assembly has no capacity to stop the Mayor's policy-making in
a way that would be more normal in a fully American system of
government.
Q734 Chairman: But in an American
system, if you are making a comparison, what is the analogous
power that you would be looking for? Clearly, legislative power
would reside with the Assembly, it could pass by-laws and so forth,
but otherwise are you talking about appropriation power, this
kind of thing, or what is the comparison?
Tony Travers: There are two things,
I think, that one might do. I think it would be well worth considering
giving the Assembly something akin to legislative powers and certainly
a power to vote on mayoral policy and, indeed, perhaps to lower
the bar on the budget. These would be ways of strengthening the
Assembly without stopping the strong mayor model working, because
I think that is what we are looking for here. It is a balance
between the executive power of the Mayor and the legislative power
of the Assembly.
Q735 Julie Morgan: Mr Travers, what
are your views on city mayors and city regions throughout England?
Do you feel that would tackle the devolution issue?
Tony Travers: I should declare,
I was always a supporter of the idea of directly elected executive
mayors and, having seen both the London Mayor and other mayors
operate in England—as I think they are all in England so
far—I am still broadly enthusiastic and I do think that
the London model, although it could not be moved precisely to
any other part of the country, would offer the potential for city
regional government if other Metropolitan areas wanted this to
happen. So I do think it would be transferable, though probably
not in every single aspect. London is not like everywhere else
and everywhere else is not like London, but, yes.
Q736 Julie Morgan: Do you think that
would help address the English question?
Tony Travers: It could do, though
I think it would risk not quite answering Mr Turner's question
about the non-urban parts of England, to which I could return,
but I think there is no question that larger cities, potentially,
could be made significantly more powerful and, indeed, I would
argue in the late nineteenth century they were: not with a mayoral
system of government, but when the Imperial Parliament was focused
on the dominions and the Empire, then city government, local government,
shire government, was much of what governed England, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland.
Q737 Alun Michael: Could I ask a
supplementary question about this relationship between a directly
elected mayor and the Assembly. In the mayoral model, the directly
elected mayor, there is a similar situation to the London model
of what is the Council or what is the Assembly there for, and
if you tinker at the edges, you address today's problems. So if
you gave more powers to the Assembly to intervene on the budget,
that is fine unless the numbers change, in which case you have
a situation, not of challenge, but of instability. How do you
resolve that, because it is not an easy one to resolve, is it?
Tony Travers: No, and those of
us who watch American politics indirectly and as a recreation
are aware of the risk of gridlock; and I am not talking getting
to a point where gridlock occurred, but, in fact, with something
such as the budget, local authorities are required by law to pass
budgets by a certain date, so my suspicion is that that would
stop gridlock occurring for and of itself, so I think we could
be spared that.
Q738 Alun Michael: But that is more
a hope than a necessary consequence?
Tony Travers: I honestly think
that the requirement that precepts and council tax are set by
a certain date—a consequence of earlier battles between
central and local government—would ensure that gridlock
did not result, at least insofar as the budget is concerned. When
it came to the possibility of a greater set of powers over policy,
I can see that there is a risk, but as there is in this institution
and with the House of Lords, a bit of a check and an argument
and the capacity to negotiate is an essential element in the way
in which democratic institutions resolve their differences. I
do not want to weaken the directly elected mayor or the strong
mayor model, but I think that if we are going to have it, it would
be better to consider developing the other parts of that model
to ensure that they have sufficient power for me to check this
strong and powerful office.
Q739 Mr Turner: I would like to hear
his other half of the answer on the non-rural areas.
Tony Travers: Certainly. Personally,
I am very strongly pro-localist, and I would not want to force
shire areas to do things that shire areas did not want to do.
So, if a county is a recognised unit of government, as it is in
many places, and districts may be as well, then that structure
may be the best one in rural areas. I would not, however, personally
rule out the idea of taking the directly elected official model
to the county level in the form of something that could have a
different name. It might not be mayor, but governor, sheriff—we
are creative about these things. So the Sheriff or the Governor
of Somerset, I think, would be something that it would be perfectly
reasonable to offer, but I would not want to impose it.
|
