Communities and Local Government Committee - Minutes of EvidenceHC 213

Back to Report

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Communities and Local Government Committee

on Monday 17 June 2013

Members present:

Mr Clive Betts (Chair)

Simon Danczuk

Mrs Mary Glindon

James Morris

Mark Pawsey

John Stevenson

Heather Wheeler

________________

Examination of Witness

Witness: Darren Johnson AM, Chair, London Assembly, gave evidence.

Q100 Chair: Let us make a start on our session on the Greater London Authority Act 2007, and the operation of the London Assembly. Welcome. Thank you very much for coming to be with us. Just for the sake of our records, could you say who you are and your position?

Darren Johnson: Darren Johnson, Chair of the London Assembly. I was first elected back in 2000 as an Assembly Member.

Q101 Chair: Thank you very much for coming this afternoon. You are probably aware that we have already had some witnesses giving their view as to the situation. One thing that is difficult for us, as a Committee, to quite get a handle on is whether the Assembly is-as some people might describe it-a super­Select Committee where its job is basically to scrutinise the executive, or is it really more like a council? Or is it neither of those, and something unique in British government terms?

Darren Johnson: In many ways, it is a fairly unique institution. It does embrace some elements of local government, some elements of Parliament, and so on, but it is not a legislature. Obviously, we have the strong mayoral model. The role of the Assembly is to hold the Mayor to account and to investigate issues of concern to Londoners. Apart from certain areas where the Assembly does have a potential veto or ability to amend by a two­thirds majority, generally we are there to scrutinise and recommend, rather than actually act as a legislature.

Q102 Chair: When Sir Edward Lister, the Mayor’s chief of staff, came before us, he was very clear that what had been created was a model of government with a very strong Mayor at its centre. In order for there to be a strong Mayor, do you think that requires there to be a fairly weak Assembly with limited powers and control over what the Mayor can do, or is the Mayor strong because the Assembly is actually quite weak?

Darren Johnson: Clearly, we do have a strong Mayor model. I would argue-and I think Assembly Members of all parties would argue as well-that it is possible to enhance the powers of the Assembly and the ability to hold the Mayor to account without unravelling the whole strong Mayor model. We have seen, through the original Act and the successive sets of amendments, that the strong Mayor model is in place and is part of the political landscape. That is not going to change, but we can enhance the ability of the Assembly to hold the Mayor to account without unravelling that strong Mayor model. Even with, as you term it, fairly weak formal powers, the Assembly has had very significant influence in terms of the investigations we have done, the recommendations that have been taken on board, and the way that we have been able to shape both mayoral administrations on a number of issues and get a number of our recommendations taken on board.

Q103 Chair: Could you give a couple of examples?

Darren Johnson: There are a few examples I would like to talk about. In 2009, we had the heavy snow and for the first time ever, we saw the complete London bus service withdrawn. Even during the Blitz, they did not stop running. There was a lot of concern amongst Londoners about that, and within a very short space of time we had commissioned a special investigation and made some recommendations. TfL did take many of those recommendations on board, and next time we had very severe weather conditions, we saw London buses continuing to operate, partly as a result of the recommendations the Assembly made.

Again, some time after the 7 July bombings, the Assembly held a very detailed investigation into that, and some of the communication aspects. We made some very, very detailed recommendations. Those were overwhelmingly taken on board by the various bodies: the police, fire, Transport for London and so on. I would like to think, should London ever have to face something as horrific as that again, that we will have an improved response thanks to those Assembly recommendations taken on board.

There are a number of areas where it has not just been about influencing the Mayor to take recommendations on board. The planning policy changes in terms of front gardens and preventing flooding were helped by an Assembly report before that, and some recommendations that helped influence central Government policy. Our report was heavily name­checked in the White Paper circulated on that.

Q104 Chair: We are going to ask some other questions about how you might see things changing in the future, but just in terms of the 2007 and 2011 Acts, have they actually made any difference to the balance of power and responsibilities between the Mayor and the Assembly?

Darren Johnson: The 2007 Act contained fairly incremental, minor changes. It did not significantly change the relationship. Obviously, the scope of the 2011 Act-both in terms of policing and the Localism Act-was significantly broader. It has not dramatically changed the Mayor/Assembly relationship. Obviously, we have seen some innovations as a result of those. For example, we can now by a two­thirds majority reject mayoral strategies, which is a new development. Various mayoral appointments are now subject to confirmation hearings as well, which is something that was not in the original 1999 Act. There are a number of areas where the Assembly’s ability to hold the Mayor to account has been improved in a small but important way. It has not dramatically changed the overall relationship.

Q105 James Morris: Notwithstanding your answers to the previous questions, what do you say to the case that the Assembly has effectively been a talking shop for the last 12 years and should be abolished?

Darren Johnson: If we are just a talking shop, I think we have been a very effective talking shop. We have not just talked. We have made recommendations in a number of areas that have been taken on board by decision­makers, whether by the Mayor, Transport for London, the police, or central Government. Even private companies like Thames Water took on board some key recommendations from the Assembly. If we have just been a talking shop, I think we have been a very, very effective one. As a democratic check and balance, anyway, it is absolutely vital that we have a body there that can hold a single­person executive to account.

Q106 James Morris: Why could the 32 boroughs not perform a much more adequate function of holding the Mayor to account than a glorified Assembly that Londoners do not really know anything about?

Darren Johnson: I remember, when the original Act was first being debated, there was a lot of talk then about the possibility of borough leaders taking on this role. Firstly, I think borough leaders have enough to do running their boroughs without the additional responsibilities of scrutinising the Mayor. Secondly, I think you would have a real danger of pork­barrel politics where borough leaders may just be interested, not in the wider strategic issues of the governance of London, but simply in what they could get for their borough. Thirdly, because we have a single­person executive with a directly elected Mayor, it is really, really important that you have a scrutiny body that represents as broad as possible a range of Londoners’ opinions through the ballot box. The Assembly, by being a proportional system through the additional member system with constituency members and a top­up list, does provide that diversity of views. We can probably take a strategic view for the whole of London, not simply a view for individual boroughs.

Q107 James Morris: You have 10 sessions a year where you can ask questions of the Mayor. Can you give an example of where the Mayor has gone away and changed his policy as a result of the questioning from the Assembly?

Darren Johnson: There are a number of examples where both Mayors have agreed to go away and look at something. I remember back with the previous Mayor, when there were concerns about the operation of the then-London Development Agency, and issues around transparency, possible corruption and so on, that as a result of the Assembly scrutiny and shining a spotlight, far more robust procedures were put in place. Also, because it is a very public session-it is followed by the media, by the Evening Standard, the BBC and ITV News, for example-they are interested in what the Mayor has to say to Assembly Members. It is a very public and very transparent process.

Q108 James Morris: At the moment, the Mayor’s decisions are not subject to recall. Do you think having 10 Question Times a year is a more or less effective way than having the Mayor have his decisions called in?

Darren Johnson: It is absolutely vital that the Mayor is subject to public questioning in the way that he is from Assembly Members each month. I could not imagine that disappearing; that is a vital check and balance, for the reasons I said earlier. However, it would enhance the Assembly’s ability to hold the Mayor to account if we did have call­in powers, and the Mayor was required to produce a forward plan of key decisions, as happens with every other directly elected Mayor in local government around the country. They have to produce a forward plan, and their decisions are potentially subject to call­in. It would be an important check and balance. At the moment, we can only scrutinise decisions after they have been made, or make recommendations before decisions have been made. We cannot take that formal role, in the way that councils holding directly elected Mayors in local government to account can.

Q109 Mark Pawsey: The Assembly is seeking to gain more power and more influence. It has argued that the threshold to intervene in the Mayor’s decision, which is currently set at two thirds, should be reduced to 60%. Sir Edward Lister, in giving his evidence, felt that that would not allow the Mayor to do what you have acknowledged the Mayor is there for: to have strong government and get decisions made and things done. Why do you think 60% is the right figure?

Darren Johnson: Two thirds is a very, very high hurdle. The advantage of 60% is that is still enshrines the strong Mayor model, as it is not a simple majority, but I think it would be a more realistic check and balance. I do not see that sort of hurdle as being something that would be used lightly, simply to slow up the decision­making process and be bloody­minded for the sake of it. The fact that the Mayor would have to take more notice of the Assembly could lead to a better relationship between the Mayor and the Assembly.

In terms of taking some legitimate concerns on board-all­party concerns, often-I remember the first time when the Mayor was given a new power for the creation of the Mayoral Development Corporations, and we had the proposals for the London Legacy Development Corporation that was taking over the Olympic site. There were some genuine cross­party concerns from Assembly Members around issues of transparency and so on. We were able to question the Mayor on that, and because we had this new power to approve or reject those plans, we actually ended up voting in favour unanimously. We had had a proper dialogue with the Mayor; the Mayor knew that we had this new power and listened to our concerns. We did not use it to frustrate, embarrass, or be bloody­minded for the sake of it. I think it was an example of very good governance, with the Mayor responding to legitimate concerns from the Assembly and the Assembly acting in the interests of London.

If we had a 60% threshold, we could potentially see more of that, and I think it would allow the Assembly to play a stronger role in decision­making in London government without slowing everything down and unravelling the strong mayoral model.

Q110 Mark Pawsey: It is argued that there would be all sorts of horse­trading; there would be lots of deals having to be done with lots of parties, and things simply would not happen in the effective way that they are taking place currently.

Darren Johnson: I do not think that is the case. You might argue that, if we had a simple majority introduced, it could start to really slow things down. You would still have to have a substantial proportion of Assembly Members to pass a 60% hurdle. I do not accept that it would simply unravel the whole process. I think that Assembly members would use that power in a way that was effective on behalf of Londoners, rather than simply just to frustrate the process for the sake of it.

Q111 Mark Pawsey: Is moving this figure from two thirds to 60% a key objective of the Assembly? Would it not be better off seeking to do away with some of the anomalies that exist with regard to, for example, mayoral appointees? Would it not make more sense to put time and effort into regularising the situation, rather than trying to do something that is rather more radical?

Darren Johnson: We are pleased that you, as a Committee, are looking at this and the role of the Mayor and the Assembly. We put forward a number of suggestions, most of which were agreed unanimously across the entire Assembly. There are a number of other areas where we would like to see change, particularly around the budget. We think there should be an enhanced role for the Assembly. Legally, at the moment, we can only amend the bottom line of the Mayor’s budget. We argue that, if we were able to amend individual programme budgets-and I think that is the right level, as line­by­line may be excessively nerdy and lead to delays-that would be more effective. We would also like to have a proper role in terms of the capital budget as well as the revenue budget.

This takes on board some of the changes that have taken place. When the GLA was first set up, the overall budget was, I think, £4 billion a year. It is now up to £16.5 billion a year because of the additional powers that the Mayor has taken on in terms of housing and so on. I think, if some of the recommendations from the recent London Finance Commission were taken on board and there was more financial devolution to the Mayor of London and more flexibility on things like borrowing, it would be even more important that you had that check and balance through the Assembly to hold the Mayor to account. If you were going to ask if there was one thing that I really thought could make a difference in terms of enhancing the Assembly’s role and properly holding the Mayor to account, with a real eye on the future and the possibility of greater financial autonomy for the Mayor and so on, then greater powers over the budget­setting process-not just in terms of the hurdle, but in terms of our ability to amend individual programmes and so on-would be a significant prize.

Q112 Mark Pawsey: You will be aware that Professors Jones and Stewart have brought forward some proposals for reforming the Assembly’s powers. Do you think that any of those are likely to be taken up and proposed by the Assembly?

Darren Johnson: There have been some useful proposals there. One of the things that we would particularly like to do, which could be done fairly simply in terms of legislation, is just to clear up some of the anomalies that we have got in terms of various sections of the Acts that were drafted at different times. This has created a number of anomalies: in terms of confirmation hearings, we have the power to reject by a two­thirds majority the Mayor’s potential appointee for the Policing and Crime Deputy Mayor, but there is not a similar power for other confirmation hearings, which does seem a complete anomaly. Again, in terms of strategies, we now have a power to reject mayoral strategies by a two­thirds majority, apart from the Police and Crime Plan, where we do not have a similar power. Again, relating to the budget, as I just mentioned we do have powers over the revenue budget, but not the capital budget. Given the changes that have taken place at City Hall over the last decade, it does seem really inconsistent that we have not got that.

Q113 Mark Pawsey: So you would support a tidying­up.

Darren Johnson: I absolutely think that some sensible tidying­up could significantly improve things, yes.

Q114 Heather Wheeler: I would like to explore the anomalies there are in the numbers of Assembly Members that sit on certain boards. Some of them, they do not sit on at all. In the first instance-again, with those anomalies-how do you think that helps the public understand the governance of how London is run?

Darren Johnson: It probably is confusing in terms of understanding, probably even for people who know a lot about London government, let alone average members of the public. At the moment, the Mayor can appoint an Assembly Member to the TfL board, but has so far chosen not to. We think that, where the Mayor does have boards under his control, it makes sense-for good, sound, democratic reasons-to have an elected member from the Assembly represented on that.

On LFEPA, the fire authority, it is done on a proportionate basis, which is standard practice for fire authorities across the country. We would not want to see that changed. However, in terms of other boards where the Mayor does have a board under his control, it makes sense to have an Assembly Member on there as an important democratic check and balance. That is different from an Assembly Member’s scrutiny role, and if the Mayor appointed one member to the board of Transport for London, you obviously would not expect that same member to sit on the Transport Committee at the Assembly scrutinising TfL. However, we think there is a role for different Assembly Members playing a part in both.

Q115 Heather Wheeler: Not to be the devil’s advocate, but are you saying that the Assembly Members would settle for one appointee for TfL, rather than a similar style to the one you have for fire and rescue, where it is politically proportionate?

Darren Johnson: I do not think there is an appetite in the Assembly to replicate the fire authority structure for TfL, but it is important that you do have some political representation on there through the Assembly. The Mayor has been given a power now to appoint an Assembly Member to the TfL board, but has not so far chosen to exercise that. If we are looking at one small change to the Act in that regard, we could make it a duty to appoint an Assembly Member, rather than just an ability to do so. That would be a significant improvement.

Q116 Heather Wheeler: Are you saying that the logic is that whoever it is that gets nominated does not then sit on the transport scrutiny? You think that members of the public understand that you have this scrutiny role, even though there would be an elected person on the board, and you can have a clear line of separation?

Darren Johnson: That happens in local government all the time. It happens in Parliament as well. People can see that some Members play a scrutiny role and some Members play an executive role. I do not think that is too difficult to understand. One of the things about the Assembly is that, because we are a body of only 25 members, it does require a certain amount of doubling up and playing multiple roles. Unlike local government, where you would be purely in a scrutiny role or purely in an executive role, having a body of only 25 members would make that extremely difficult. You may play a scrutiny role in one area-for example, health-and you may play an executive role in another area, such as transport. I do not see that as a fundamental problem

Q117 Heather Wheeler: To finish, then: you think that the scrutiny arrangements for policing work okay?

Darren Johnson: Of all the recent changes, that has probably been the one that has caused the Assembly the most headaches, and has been the most problematic so far. We did have a Deputy Mayor for Policing appointed who came with, in our view, a very narrow interpretation of the legislation. His initial thinking was that the Assembly did not need to directly question the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police; that this could be done through him. He attempted, at the first meeting of the Police and Crime Committee, to do that, and then found he was not able to answer any of the questions that were put to him. It was one of those YouTube car­crash TV moments. In a number of areas, there have been problems. The Mayor has intervened, thankfully-and credit to him-to ensure that there has been a better relationship. There is a need for greater transparency in terms of MOPAC. That has been a particular issue, yes.

Q118 Chair: I was confused by one of your answers there. You referred to it often being the case in councils that some Councillors do scrutiny and some have an executive role in the Cabinet. That is true, yes, but rarely do they do both. What we have got here is a position where some Assembly Members are doing scrutiny; the same person could also be appointed to an executive role as an Assembly Member, and could also be appointed to an executive role as a Mayor’s representative. How on earth is the public going to disentangle that and understand it?

Darren Johnson: I understand what you are saying on that. As I said in my answer, when you have an assembly of only 25 members, it is inevitable that you have Assembly Members playing multiple roles. On the average local council in London, you have got 50 or 60­odd members to choose from. It is very, very easy to have a very, very clear separation between scrutiny and executive. When you have only 25 members, you would find yourself short of sufficient people to fill committees, boards and so on if you did not have some doubling­up. It is an inevitable consequence of the 1999 GLA Act, which was very clear about only having 25 members and having a very, very slim­line elected body, which is what we have got. If you were looking to have a very, very clear separation between scrutiny and executive, I think you would have to have a larger Assembly.

Chair: Or you could have Assembly Members not doing executive functions.

Q119 Simon Danczuk: How do you think the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime is doing, Darren?

Darren Johnson: This was one of the problem areas. As I said in my earlier answer, in terms of our ability to hold the Mayor to account, it has been probably one of our biggest headaches so far since the changes with the Localism Act and the Police and Crime legislation. There is an issue when you have an unelected member holding a role such as that. I understand that it is unreasonable to expect one Mayor to be Mayor of London, chair TfL, hold the Police and Crime role, and chair the Waste and Recycling Board, or whatever. There are limits, and the Mayor has to appoint other people: we understand that. However, there is a real problem in having an unelected member fill a role as significant as that, rather than an elected Assembly Member.

Q120 Simon Danczuk: What score would you give him out of 10, one being very poor and 10 being very good? What score would you give him, Darren?

Darren Johnson: I do not want to get too drawn into particular personalities here, and so on. He has got some significant work to do still in terms of reassuring the Assembly that he is on top of the job and on top of his brief, but I do not particularly want to get drawn into particular comments on personalities.

Simon Danczuk: Well, it is not his personality. You are there to scrutinise his performance on behalf of Londoners, and I am saying to you, "How would you score him in terms of his performance in doing that job?"

Darren Johnson: Members of the London Assembly, across all parties, were very, very concerned at his initial high­handed approach, and his lack of willingness to engage properly with the Assembly on what we saw were very serious issues. We have seen an improvement now, and part of this is down to the intervention of the Mayor himself. We have seen an improvement, but of all the relationships, I think that has been one of the most problematic since the new Police and Crime legislation and the Localism Act came through.

Q121 Simon Danczuk: The Deputy Mayor for Policing said, "We need to make sure that we make proper use of Assembly Members" in his work. That is what he said. How is he doing with that?

Darren Johnson: The Police and Crime Committee at the Assembly is doing some important detail work on policing in London. It has taken over from the scrutiny role that the Metropolitan Police used to play in London. Assembly Members are doing it through the Police and Crime Committee. I do not sit on that Committee myself, so I have not got the detailed reports of all the work that is done there, but it is doing some very useful work, and I believe is having a very good impact at holding the police and the Deputy Mayor for Policing to account.

Q122 Simon Danczuk: Do you think the Assembly wished they had rejected the Deputy Mayor for Policing?

Darren Johnson: I am sure it crossed most Committee members’ mind when the Deputy Mayor for Policing came along to that first meeting, had torn up the invitation to the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, told him he was not needed, and then sat there literally unable to answer any of the questions that Assembly Members put to him. I am sure there were some moments of regret going through the Committee then. Since then, the Assembly has tried to improve the flow of information and improve transparency. We have had some helpful interventions from the Mayor of London on this, on what we saw as an overly narrow interpretation of the legislation by the Deputy Mayor. Thankfully, things are starting to improve.

Q123 Simon Danczuk: The Mayor of London has had to put a lot of effort into defending this guy, has he?

Darren Johnson: He has put a lot of effort into defending him, but he has also put a lot of pressure into ensuring that this Deputy Mayor actually gave the information to the Assembly and showed the Assembly the courtesy that other members of his administration have shown, and that other members of previous administrations have shown.

Q124 Mrs Glindon: The London Finance Commission devoted only one paragraph of its 92­page report to the London Assembly. Does this reflect the Assembly’s significance, and if so, will it be peripheral to the future of London?

Darren Johnson: The Assembly had a thorough session with Professor Travers, who led that Commission, only last week. The report was very much welcomed by the Assembly, but there was a very strong recognition from Professor Travers that the Assembly’s scrutiny role would have to be enhanced if there was going to be significant devolution of this type. He said that he did not see it was within the remit of the Finance Commission to go into the details of that, but if you are devolving significant financial autonomy on things like council tax setting, business rates, borrowing restrictions, and so on to a single­person executive, the need to have effective tools to hold that person to account becomes greater than ever. It would have to be combined with some increase in the Assembly’s tools to hold the Mayor to account, particularly, as I was saying before, on the ability to amend the capital budget as well as the revenue budget, and also to be able to amend individual programmes within budgets, rather than simply the bottom line. At the moment, the Assembly can only legally amend the bottom line of the Mayor’s budget, not individual programmes.

Q125 Mrs Glindon: What do you think of Martin Hoscik from the MayorWatch website’s view that the Assembly should seek to be an honest broker between the Mayor and the boroughs? Is that not what you would consider a sufficient role?

Darren Johnson: Was that generally, or in terms of the finance?

Mrs Glindon: I think just that, because of the fact that there are competing interests between the two.

Darren Johnson: The boroughs are going to be there fighting their corner. It is absolutely the job of the boroughs to secure resources and so on for themselves. The Mayor is going to take an executive view London­wide, and there is a proper role for the Assembly to be able to take a step back from that; to be an honest broker, to take a London­wide view as to what is in the best interest of Londoners, and do some of the very detailed scrutiny work on the proposals that are coming forward that may be missed, both at the mayoral level and the individual borough level.

Q126 Mrs Glindon: What role can the Assembly play in the London planning process?

Darren Johnson: The Assembly has always had a fairly limited formal role in the planning process, unlike local authorities, or any local authorities with a directly elected Mayor. Directly elected Mayors in local government do not play a role in planning decisions, only in the planning policy. Obviously, in City Hall, the Mayor does play a key role in planning decisions. The Assembly has been concerned about the use of the Mayor’s ability to take over applications, and whether the criteria at the moment are clear enough, as to what criteria he uses to take over applications, compared to ones that he does not. There is a need for greater clarity around the criteria. Assembly Members do, of course, play a representational role in the run­up to decisions being made on behalf of constituents-just as councillors in local government would on a local application-but we do not have an actual, formal role in the planning decision process. There is certainly a need for greater transparency there.

Q127 John Stevenson: At the outset, you said that the arrangement between the Mayor and the Assembly was unique. Lord Heseltine, in his recent report, has recommended that the concept of Mayors be extended to other conurbations up and down the country. Do you think the London model of government is transferrable out to other parts of the country, such as Manchester or Birmingham?

Darren Johnson: I think that, possibly, it is. The problem we saw last year with the referenda that were put forward and were overwhelmingly rejected in various cities around the country was that it was not actually the London model. It was simply bolting a directly elected Mayor on to existing local authorities, and those local authorities were not, on the whole, representing big conurbations on the regional strategic level like London. It was simply the central bit of the Greater Manchester conurbation, and so on. If you were looking for a successful model for Greater Manchester, you would need a strong regional component that covered the whole conurbation, not simply trying to imagine that a directly elected Mayor could make a massive impact on Manchester City Council. I do not think it would dramatically change things.

In a way, it would be like having a directly elected mayor for Westminster City Council rather than a Mayor of London and expecting them to have delivered Crossrail, to have won the 2012 Games, to have introduced congestion charging, and so on. It is just unimaginable. The reason why the Mayors of London have made a real impact is because they represent a whole conurbation, and have the resources to act strategically on behalf of the entire conurbation.

Q128 John Stevenson: On that line, then, if the Government came up with the idea of a Mayor for a conurbation, would you be supportive of it, and do you think the London model is the one to follow?

Darren Johnson: There would need to be greater scrutiny powers for the body that held that Mayor to account. If we were looking at models for regions or conurbations, then we would not necessarily always go with a directly elected mayoral model. The Welsh Assembly is delivering and making a difference for Wales with the Executive drawn from within the Assembly, rather than elected separately. That may be an equally valid model, and it would be up to people within those areas themselves to make the final decision. What is often forgotten in the discussions about the impact of the Mayor of London, the GLA, City Hall, and so on is that they represent a whole conurbation. They are not just a directly elected mayor for one council. It covers 32 boroughs in the city. It is a very big conurbation.

Q129 John Stevenson: Just out of interest, are you personally supportive of the Mayor model, subject to maybe additional powers to the Assembly? Do you support the actual principle of it?

Darren Johnson: No, to be honest. It was not my preference for London when the GLA Act was going through. I did vote "yes" in the referendum, and did campaign for a "yes" vote, because that was the only thing that was on offer. My personal preference at the time would have been something more akin to what was being proposed for the Welsh Assembly, with an Executive drawn from within the Assembly. However, I accept that this is the political landscape in London. We have got the strong Mayor model. I do not see that we will change that model at any time in the foreseeable future, and certainly not any time in my lifetime. What I do think is that, while we have the strong Mayor model, we can-without unravelling the whole thing-actually improve the checks and balances, and ensure that the Assembly is equipped with all the tools it needs to hold that individual to account.

Q130 John Stevenson: Overall, do you think it has worked?

Darren Johnson: Overall, it has made a massive positive impact for London since the GLA was first set up in 2000. Whether you agree with specific policies or not, the scale of change would have been impossible. We have had the improvements in public transport infrastructure, bidding for the Olympics, Crossrail, and congestion charging. It would have been unimaginable to have had those sorts of policies introduced without a strategic, London­wide authority for London. It may not have been my ideal preference for what I wanted to see starting off, but it has made a very, very significant difference.

Q131 John Stevenson: My final question, then, is this: on the basis that you think it has been very successful for London, do you think it could be equally successful for-by way of example-the Manchester conurbation?

Darren Johnson: Yes, something along this model, with strategic powers over transport, economic development, policing and so on for Greater Manchester would make a very great difference, whether it was a directly elected Mayor with an Assembly or an executive drawn from an Assembly. Whatever your political views on the performances of both the first Mayor and the second one, they have made a significant policy impact. It would have been unimaginable to have that scale of change without some sort of directly elected authority for London

Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Thank you for giving evidence to us this afternoon.