| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, but does not my noble friend recognise that whatever the conclusions of the report, the accident will cost somebody a lot of money and that that should not be the responsibility of the local authority? My noble friend said that other sources contribute, but he has not ruled out the possibility (under the laws that we have established) of making that the responsibility of the local authority. I do not think that it should be the local authority's responsibility.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, local authorities have a significant role in this process. They are there on the scene, often with considerable expertise and assets at their disposal, to assist with the clean-up operation. I certainly commend the local authorities' work in this respect. They did not look for payment beforehand, but went straight ahead with the work in hand. They worked extremely hard and long hours in order to achieve the clean-up. However, as I have said, there is an international regime specifically to cater for exactly such expenses. After having performed an analysis of the total amounts that will be involved, it is the Government's view that all valid claims will be met and settled by the compensation fund.
Lord Clinton-Davis: But meanwhile, my Lords, is it not the case that the local authorities are bearing at least 25 per cent. of the financial cost? I hope that the Minister will convey to the chief inspector the disquiet that has been expressed in the House today about the urgency of the publication of the report. It should not simply be laid on the Minister's desk. Does not the Minister recognise that if there are criticisms--perhaps major criticisms--to be made of the Government's actions or inactions, it might not be in the interests of this Government to see the report published before the election?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I should think that I would be in the best position, as the Minister most directly involved, to say that the Government believe that the report should be published as soon as possible. We want to learn its lessons. It is an independent report. Ministers have not influenced--of course, we would not
want to influence--the contents of that report. We want to see it in the public domain as soon as possible. However, statutory processes have to be followed to give those who are criticised in any way full opportunities to make sure that there is no injustice.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what contribution will the owners of the "Sea Empress" make?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the owners of the "Sea Empress" were insured and their insurers will pay the contributions up to the limit of the liability, as set out in international law, for the tonnage of the "Sea Empress".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Minister stated that the Government believe that the financial shortfall which is currently being borne by the local authorities will be met by the appropriate funds from outside. In the event that that is not the case, will the Minister give the House an assurance that those local authorities which acted immediately and without thought of the eventual cost--and have been praised by the Minister for that--are not left with the bill for any part of that operation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not able to give that assurance; but I can repeat what I have said. We have looked carefully at the figures involved. Those figures are in the public domain. I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness and provide detailed estimates of each category of claim: tourism, local authorities' preventive measures, and so on. We firmly believe that on the estimates that have been produced in the course of time the local authorities will be able to claim in full the costs that they have incurred. The Government have also incurred very substantial costs but they are prepared, as in the case of the incident involving the "Braer" to place their claim at the back of the queue.
Learner Drivers: Identification
3.20 p.m.
The Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What proof of identity is now required to be produced by learner drivers when they take their driving test.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, at present a candidate for the written driving theory test and the practical driving test has to produce a valid signed driving licence to the examiner at the start of the test and on both occasions sign a form. The examiner checks the signature against that on the candidate's driving licence. From 1st March all test candidates will also have to provide photographic confirmation of their identity at the start of both tests.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. It is good news that a
photograph is now necessary, as was foreshadowed in reply to my similar Question in May 1994. Does my noble friend now feel more confident that an episode at that time, when a learner driver failed the driving test 25 times and then arranged for an impersonator to take his place for the 26th test, will not occur again and that our roads are likely to be safer than they were?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is important to tackle this problem with whatever measures are at our disposal. We believe that the new photo-identity check will deter candidates from attempting such fraud and foil it if they do.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, while, on behalf of the Opposition, I express support for what has happened, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was not suggesting that Rory Bremner was one of those impersonators. I am quite sure that he would have been able to do it. Clearly, any attempt to ensure that fraud of this kind does not occur is to be thoroughly welcomed.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a watertight system is required to deter corrupt driving schools from continuing the practice about which I have complained?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not sure that any system can be completely watertight. If people are determined to commit fraud, albeit a very dangerous one in these circumstances, there is always a possibility that they will succeed. However, I am sure that a proper photo-identity check will help in the war against crime.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister able to finish the story begun by his noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy? Did the individual concerned pass on the 26th attempt?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as my noble friend tells the story, in that case the driving test was performed by an impersonator. Whether or not the individual passed the test will, I believe, require further detailed research.
Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.23 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl of Carnarvon set down for today shall be limited to five hours.--(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Business of the House: Debates, 6th March
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The effect of this Motion is that the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which currently appears at the bottom of the Order Paper on Thursday 6th March, will be taken before my noble friend Lord Henley's first Motion in the dinner break. This follows agreement within the usual channels.
Moved, That Standing Order 38(4) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday 6th March to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken immediately before the first Motion standing in the name of the Lord Henley.--(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
London Government
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon rose to call attention to the case for a strategic authority for London; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, like other noble Lords I very much look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Tweedsmuir. In particular, I shall be interested to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, since his father's greatest book Greenmantle was based upon my great uncle Aubrey Herbert.
I should begin by explaining why I seek to bring the case for a strategic authority for London to your Lordships' attention. During 1994 and 1995 the All-Party London Group of your Lordships' House, of which I have the honour to be chairman, heard presentations from a wide range of bodies concerned with London about the work they were doing and the problems they were facing. One of the common themes, which was mentioned again and again, was the difficulties which were arising from the absence of a strategic authority for the capital. This point was strongly made by people from the business sector as well as from the voluntary and public sectors.
The London Group decided to address directly the question of creating a London-wide authority. During the first six months of 1996 we concentrated our attention upon it. As an all-party group, the London Group did not see it as its function to put forward a particular solution, which would inevitably be politically contentious, but felt that there was a case to be examined. We believed that the best contribution we could make was to seek an opportunity for your Lordships' House to debate the matter and provide a briefing paper which would assist peers wishing to take part in the debate. This paper, The Question of a Strategic Authority for London, has been available from
the Printed Paper Office since July, and I hope that many of your Lordships will have found an opportunity to read it.In the introduction to the paper I expressed the hope that discussion would concentrate on certain matters of principle whose resolution would determine whether a new strategic authority should be established and, if so, provide a basis for defining the body's powers and functions. These matters of principle would be relevant whether the authority took the form of an assembly, council, a group of commissioners, a mayor or any variation of these options. I expressed the key principles in three propositions. These are not recommendations by the London Group but they are expressed in positive form in order to give a focus to the debate. First, there should be an authority, whatever its form, responsible for dealing with those issues which affect London as a whole and that authority should be directly elected by, and be accountable to, the citizens of London. Secondly, the functions of the authority should be defined precisely and its powers drawn from those currently exercised by government departments and agencies, not those currently exercised by individual London Boroughs. Thirdly, the authority should have control of adequate financial resources.
The arguments for and against the creation of a new authority are summarised fully and, I hope, fairly in the paper. I believe that the principal argument in favour is that under the present arrangements there is no single body able to speak and act on behalf of all the people of London, and be accountable to them, across the whole range of issues which concern them; and there is no single body which can represent London in its dealings with the Government, other parts of the United Kingdom, the agencies of the European Union and other world cities. If we can trust opinion polls--obviously, that is a problem--this deficiency, which has been referred to as the democratic deficit, is felt by the people of London to be detrimental to their interests. It is also felt to be detrimental by many bodies that are currently concerned with promoting the well-being of London, notably London First and the London Government Association, which is the body that represents the London boroughs.
The principal arguments against a new body are that the present arrangements are working well, and that a new body would be an additional, unnecessary and expensive tier of administration. However, as I have indicated, some of the organisations most intimately involved in the operation of the present arrangements do not find them satisfactory.
If there is to be a new authority or group of commissioners, the fundamental matter to be determined is what, precisely, its functions are to be. There is general agreement among those advocating the creation of a strategic authority or executive that its powers should be powers which are currently exercised by the Government, by government-appointed agencies or quangos, or by London-wide bodies nominated by the London boroughs, such as the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority or the London Planning Advisory Committee, and that powers currently exercised by the boroughs individually should remain with the boroughs.
Most lists of functions produced by those favouring the creation of a new authority include strategic planning and transport, economic regeneration and promotion, tourism and support of the arts, information services, and public safety, including the oversight of the fire service and the police. When this last point was raised with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, we found that he was not averse to it. Last week, the London group interviewed Mr. Robinson, the Chief Fire Officer for London. He was of the same opinion.
Transport seems to head everybody's list, but it illustrates the difficulties which must be faced if the new arrangements are to be successful. The organisational structure for handling transport matters in London is extremely complex, and has become more so with the introduction of rail privatisation. The multiplicity of interests is such that much of the complexity would inevitably remain, even if a strategic authority with a transport role were to be created. The crucial questions are whether such an authority could more effectively discharge many of the responsibilities now exercised by the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment and the Home Office, and how far the government of the day would be prepared to allow the strategic authority to determine the scale and priorities of expenditure on transport in and for London.
In strategic planning a viable balance would have to be found among the roles of the new authority, the London boroughs and the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Transport and planning are especially pertinent to a point I particularly wish to make as chairman of SERPLAN, the London and South East Regional Planning Conference. While it may be appropriate to consider London as an entity whose government in strategic matters should be entrusted to a single authority, it would in my view be a gross mistake to regard London as a self-contained region. London's relationship with the counties of South East England--in transport, planning, waste disposal, business and employment, and culture and the arts--is too complex for that. Whatever new arrangements may be adopted they must provide for London to continue to work closely with the other authorities of South East England. The previous strategic authorities, the London County Council and the Greater London Council, fully recognised this important matter. They were prominent in creating and sustaining SERPLAN, to which all the London borough councils, the county and district councils, and the new unitary authorities of South East England belong. Any new strategic authority for London must be just as fully conscious of, and just as fully committed to, its role within the wider region of which London is the vital heart. This point has been well taken in Paris, where the arrangements for managing affairs which concern both the metropolis and the Paris Basin as a whole are well established and strongly supported. In fact the population of the Paris Basin region (18 million) is the same population as covered by SERPLAN.
I turn now to finance. London expenditure is about 14 per cent. of the UK total--a figure of £35 billion. It is self-evident that if a new authority were not adequately resourced to carry out the functions assigned to it, it would have no chance of success. Those opposed to a new authority argue that it will cause additional expenditure and indeed some say that the advocacy of a new authority is, in reality, a concealed demand for additional public expenditure. Those who favour a new authority argue that no net increase in expenditure is involved, since resources should be transferred to it along with its functions.
Members of the London group, and others, have argued that it is misleading to talk of "local government expenditure" in a situation in which 82 per cent. of the finance required is provided, and the remainder tightly controlled, by central government. I have much sympathy with this view, and would like to see the business rate returned to local government. This is an issue wider in its implications than the governance of London, but it cannot be ignored.
I should like now to say a few words about the form which a new authority might take. Opinion seems to have hardened in favour of a directly elected body but there are a number of options for its form. It could be an assembly, similar in form to its predecessors, the LCC and the GLC, and to existing local authorities. It could be a commission, of elected commissioners, each with a defined portfolio, or it could be a mayor, perhaps with supporting commissioners. At the moment, I favour this option, under which one scenario would involve an elected mayor, possibly two or three commissioners nominated by London First, two or three commissioners nominated by the Association of London Government, and two or three commissioners nominated by the elected mayor. The election of the mayor could be on the familiar basis of geographical constituencies or on a London-wide basis. He or she would not conflict with the Lord Mayor of the City, as the new mayor would be executive and have no ceremonial role.
I would not wish to recommend to your Lordships' House a particular format for a new authority, but I would hope the opportunity would be taken to consider fresh possibilities, rather than merely adopting the familiar format of an assembly of councillors elected from geographical constituencies.
There is support for a consultative forum, whose composition would include representation of the business and voluntary sectors, to work with the new authority.
Perhaps I may be permitted a personal comment. I love London: I was born in London and I lived there in the 'thirties and spent two or three years at Knightsbridge Barracks just after the war. Although my direct involvement in local government was in Hampshire, I worked closely with the LCC and, later, the Greater London Council in the development of Basingstoke and Andover under the Town Development Act. I was chairman of the South East Economic Planning Council for nine years, with an office in Marsham Street, which included London, and I am now chairman of SERPLAN. These appointments therefore
have kept me keenly aware of London issues, and of the importance of London in the life of South East England and of the nation as a whole.As chairman of SERPLAN, I have made official visits over the past two years to 19 London boroughs and I was very impressed with what I saw. It was these relationships, over many years, which in 1993 led me to convene the All-Party London Group of Peers and, with their support, to put down the Motion which is before you today. Whatever view one may take about the need for a new London-wide authority, it cannot be denied that the question has once again become highly topical and requires full and careful debate.
I conclude my remarks by simply listing the matters which need to be addressed in considering the case for a strategic authority for London, both in the debate which is about to take place and in the wider debate to which it will be an important contribution. Very briefly, those matters are: the functions, the format and the funding of a new authority; the mode of election; the geographical area to be covered; the function and organisation of a consultative body to work with the new authority; and the relationship between the new authority and the existing organisations and agencies concerned with London. I beg to move for Papers.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, I would first like to express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for inaugurating the debate. It was due to him that the All-Party London Group was first set up and continued from strength to strength. He is uniquely experienced in the problems of London and the South East, having been chairman of the South East Economic Planning Council and chairman of the London and South East Regional Planning Conference. I had the pleasure of working with him many years ago.
In making a case for a strategic authority for London, I should perhaps commence by declaring my past interests. Starting as a London Borough Councillor, I was subsequently also elected a member of the London County Council. As the LCC came to an end, I was elected to the Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority. This resulted in one unusual year when I served on all four at the same time. Later I had the honour to hold the office of leader of the council for six years and, due to unfortunate democratic pressure, leader of the opposition for two years.
In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I must make it quite clear that I am not saying, "Bring back the GLC". While I was leader of the GLC I was made well aware that its powers and responsibilities required amending or delegating elsewhere. But the drastic and unnecessary step to abolish the GLC has allowed a decline in many areas of London. The experience gained by staff and councillors over nearly 100 years was thrown away, and assets so carefully put together for long-term improvements were disposed of in a sale labelled "Everything must go". That is not the right way to get the best value. But now we must look forward and try and find a way of creating for London an authority which it undoubtedly needs.
For millions of people London is a home. It also provides employment for millions, many from a huge area outside. Indeed, almost a quarter of the population of the United Kingdom is, in one way or another, London-oriented. It is one of the world's great financial centres and a concentration of wealth creation. London is a cultural magnet and a focus for tourism, and, in a unique way, the media capital. The Evening Standard and Mr. Simon Jenkins in The Times are to be congratulated on their efforts to bring to the attention of the public the urgent need to tackle the problem. I hope that they will continue.
It has become increasingly clear since the demise of the GLC that London, like so many other great cities, is threatened not only with the worldwide problems of city life, but also with specific difficulties. One has only to leave the central area of London and visit some of our suburban centres north, east, south and west, to see how tawdry, run down and depressing they have become, and how the physical and social environment is deteriorating. As part of that, private and public transport has become more congested and less reliable year by year.
Many Londoners do not like living here any more, but feel powerless to do anything about it, or know where to go to get action. To deal with those and other matters, numerous anonymous co-ordinating committees and other disparate bodies with partial responsibilities for them have been set up, but are increasingly regarded as lacking the necessary clout.
Two energetic bodies have emerged to fill the gap and in particular London First and London Pride, with my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Didgemere at the helm, have carried out valuable work in conjunction with others to identify and promote action. But these bodies in the long run cannot be a substitute for a democratically elected authority.
London needs a body which speaks with authority and responsibility for the interest of those who live and work there, and to fight for its share of resources. Too often in recent years London's interests have gone by default, a point made by the Lord Mayor of London, but the City cannot speak for the whole of London.
It is essential to create a body where citizens, the professions and business can go to obtain information and obtain answers which affect the whole region. The London boroughs are large and powerful, but inevitably they are more concerned with their own cabbage patch than the strategic needs of the region. What kind of organisation can be created which, to be successful, must deal with a limited number of important subjects, not to be in conflict with central government and London borough responsibilities and yet speaks with authority and responsibility for London?
A new body is urgently required for improved co-ordination and management of the capital: first, to study London's problems and needs; secondly, to bring forward solutions after consultations; thirdly, to fight for London's fair share of resources; and, fourthly, to set up an independent London information and intelligence centre. This is to be a centre for the continuous
collection of the current facts about London. A government office for London will never break free from the Whitehall machine.In addition to the London Planning Advisory Committee, several excellent bodies have evolved to fill the vacuum since the demise of the GLC and they have given evidence to the All-Party London Group. In particular, London First, London Pride and the Association of London Government have identified a number of key objectives, and drawn up a comprehensive and costed programme to promote the competitiveness of London as a world city, emphasising the importance of London to the United Kingdom as a whole.
The CBI London strategy group told our committee that London's economy is, in fact, larger than either Wales or Scotland, and whereas those countries are net recipients of public money London provided a surplus which is shared in the regions. Is that what the Government Office for London finds convenient, and what else does it do?
It has been suggested in some quarters that London should have an elected mayor with sweeping powers to rule the capital. In my experience, I believe that both suggestions, if implemented, would lead to trouble. The title "mayor" is ancient and well-known to everyone, being largely ceremonial. During their years of office, most mayors go out of their way to keep out of politics. The ancient office of the Lord Mayor of the City of London occupies a unique position with special powers and privileges but he cannot speak for London as a whole. There is also the Lord Mayor of Westminster and the mayors of all the London boroughs. Therefore, it would be very confusing to have someone called "mayor" running about all over London with executive powers and a strong political bias. I do not mind what he is called but he should not have the label "mayor".
It was clear from the evidence submitted to our committee that there is much preliminary work to be done before any new organisation can be established. I shall have a shot at the four main issues which have first to be decided. Should the new body be elected and on what basis? I cannot see how real public participation can be achieved unless it is elected. To ensure a strategic approach, representatives must not be elected on a borough basis. Secondly, how will it be financed and how will spending be tightly controlled?
What functions should it control? In that regard, I am wary of the long list of suggestions made by the ALG. If the new authority is to be kept to a small size, its responsibilities must be restricted or, as the noble Earl said, defined precisely, otherwise it will be the new GLC. Fourthly, where should the boundaries be fixed? Should they be the same as the old GLC? Should they be over the area of continuous urban development; but where does that stop? Or should they be within the area of the M.25?
There are many other hurdles to jump which require discussion and debate. But we should not be too long in doing that as London urgently needs its own strategic authority.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, first, I too am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for introducing the debate this afternoon. That is not merely a formal compliment, one of the usual compliments which we pay on such an occasion. My gratitude is wholly sincere because we have not had a debate on London for some time. Perhaps I may say that it was introduced with great conviction and eloquence by the noble Earl and I too look forward to the two maiden speeches which we are to hear this afternoon.
I should like to spend the greater part of my limited time on my party's position on local government for London but it would be wrong if I glossed over entirely the problems which our proposals are designed to meet. Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me for a moment or two while I briefly put those problems into two categories: the first is what I might call the present condition of London, following the noble Lord, Lord Plummer; and the second is what we regard as the unsatisfactory nature of London governance as it exists at present.
First, I take the present condition of London. As the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, pointed out, in many areas it is not good. I am well aware, as we are continually being told, that London is the fashion centre of the world, a magnet for tourists without parallel, and a truly delightful place to live. London, we are told, is--I use the current expression--"hip". But if your Lordships look below the surface, the reality is somewhat different. London is not healthy. The fact is that London has not come well out of the recession. Compared with other parts of the UK, London lost more jobs when the recession hit and has recovered fewer jobs in the interim. What has come to the rescue is the tourist trade; but there is nobody who knows anything about London who thinks that tourists move outside the central area of the city.
Leaving aside the tourist trade, which includes--in the sense of financial tourism--the City of London, there is at present little encouragement for those who actually live in London or, indeed, for those who come from outside London to work there. I hope I do not even have to mention the plight of London Underground; I hope that I do not have to cover yet again the catastrophe of the health and hospital services in London; I hope that I do not have to describe the pollution of the air that Londoners have to suffer. And those are only some of the burdens for Londoners. There are many others--homelessness, the need for new housing to meet the existing need, the high percentage of long term unemployed compared with the rest of Britain, the fall in manufacturing employment, the crime rate, the feeling of discrimination among ethnic communities. The list is long and, if I may say so, rather solemn. Outside the glitz, London is not in very good shape.
Now, to be fair the present Government seem to have come, albeit latterly, to a dim recognition of the London problem. Over the past few years or so there has been some understanding that there are many concerns which cannot be met by London boroughs acting alone. The
solution offered has been that of a Cabinet sub-committee, comprising government Ministers representing their own departments. Underneath that committee, there is the Government Office for London. Then, apparently below that, there are the Joint Committees of the Boroughs and the Association of London Government. Interspersed between and alongside these bodies are a number of advisory forums of varying degrees of formality, such as the London Pride Partnership and the recently established Joint London Advisory Panel. Moving, as it were, in the interstices of that rather complicated structure, there is a largish group of quangos controlling, so I am told, some £9 billion of public expenditure.I am sure that all those bodies do valuable work, and we must all be grateful for their efforts. But the problem is that Londoners have no means of approving or disapproving the decisions which are being made on their behalf beyond mute and sometimes incoherent protest. Above the level of the borough council, direct democracy ceases to exist. Whatever Londoners might try to do, they know that the final determination of strategic policy for London rests with the Cabinet sub-committee for London on advice from the Government Office for London and individual Whitehall departments.
Therefore, the real problem, apart from the complexity of the arrangements I have described, is one of legitimacy; and it is very simple. The future of London must lie, not with appointees--however distinguished--but with those who are elected on a democratic basis of one person one vote. And that is precisely what we shall propose. We believe that London needs, and should have, an elective voice of its own. But we go further. We recognise that there should be no monstrous bureaucracy. "Subsidiarity", to use that rather unpleasant word, should in our view apply not just between Brussels and Westminster, nor just between Westminster and a future London County Hall, but also downwards to the London boroughs and should, indeed, embrace those businesses and voluntary organisations which are involved in London's future. Those services for which the new authority will take responsibility, like the regular policing functions of the Metropolitan Police or the London Fire Brigade, might well be run by boards at arm's length from the authority itself.
We also accept--and here I take up a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the noble Lord, Lord Plummer--that the boundaries of the new authority's writ cannot be set in stone today. There will have to be much consultation and deliberation before any view on that is sufficiently firm to be put into legislation. Your Lordships will, I am sure, be aware that my party put out a consultative document on all these matters, and we are still in the process of considering the replies.
There are, however, two points on which I feel it would be right to move our position a little further. The first is on the matter of an elected mayor. For avoidance of doubt, as they say, I do not refer to the Lord Mayor of the Corporation of the City of London (whose electoral
process, by the way, would certainly not pass any reasonable United Nations supervision). Your Lordships will be aware that the Leader of my party has advocated a directly elected mayor for London, with executive powers. This has not yet become the official policy of my party, as there are various formal procedures which are required for that to happen, but it seems, if I may say so, and in the context which no doubt your Lordships will appreciate, very likely that the proposal will be adopted as policy, although no firm decision has yet been taken.Nevertheless, and this is my second point, it is no good any party trying to thrust ideas down the unwilling throats of Londoners. The transformation from centrally directed government to a broad consensus cannot be achieved simply by government fiat, whatever government may be in power. We will therefore be putting our proposals, when they have been properly considered and the process of consultation is complete and if (or rather when) we form a government, in their final form to Londoners for their direct approval.
I have no doubt that the Government's response to the noble Earl's debate will be to say that everything is all right as it is. We are getting used to such responses to any proposal for change in any direction, from whatever quarter it comes. But, as I look at the clock, I see that my time is up. I am comforted by the thought that, as I look at the polls, so is theirs.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I start, as other speakers have done, by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, first, for instituting today's debate, which I think promises to be a most interesting one; and secondly, I should like to thank him most sincerely for the way in which he introduced the debate. If I may say so, it was a most balanced and measured speech which very succinctly summarised all the major issues which we need to consider in London. However, I should like my thanks to go beyond that. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl for starting and for so ably leading the London Group of Peers. It does very useful work; indeed, the fact that we are having this debate today is an example of that work, but it by no means represents all of it. I have to say that the existence of that group and the work that it carries out contrasts very sharply with the absence of any similar group in the other place--a gap which I believe should long since have been filled but which I fear may never be filled.
We have today many well-informed and very experienced speakers who are knowledgeable in these matters. I fell to wondering what contribution I could make. I believe that I have perhaps one unique contribution to make in the debate; namely, that I can say without fear of contradiction that I shall be the only current London borough council leader to speak today, although my friend and long-time political opponent the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, (who, I am pleased to say, will speak later) has, I believe, slightly longer experience, although sadly no longer current, as a London borough council leader. Much though we agree on matters European, we have long disagreed on matters concerning London government.
I have been a London council leader by coincidence exactly since the time of the abolition of the GLC. Prior to that I served 12 years as an opposition leader on a London borough council during the existence of the GLC. Therefore, I believe that I am fairly well placed to understand life with the GLC and life since the GLC. However, I do not want to dwell on that issue. My concern is that the debate has been so characterised by the battles and arguments of the 1980s and we are now at last moving into the 1990s.
London government has changed and changed significantly in recent years. The first message that I should like to bring as a London borough council leader is that London borough government is alive and well. Much though I opposed the abolition of the GLC--incidentally, my party was calling not for saving the GLC or abolishing it; but for reforming it--inevitably, in that polarised argument, it came down to an argument of "keep or abolish".
London borough government has done well. Although I hesitate to say that it has flourished in recent years, it is now, despite all the difficulties imposed upon it, in a stronger and healthier state than it was some years ago. What has changed most particularly is that real partnerships have developed. I have in mind real partnerships with business, with the voluntary sector and with local communities. No longer do London borough councils believe that they could or should do everything; indeed, they have learnt to work together with other representatives of the community and, in so doing, have learnt a great deal. It is fair to say that most business leaders involved in that process would accept that they, too, have learnt a good deal about the nature of local government and local government in London in particular.
I should like to stress what the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, said is vitally important. If there is to be a strategic authority, then it must take its powers from central government not from London boroughs. It is vital that the strategic authority adds value to London government and does not detract from what is already there and working surprisingly well. If I say that as a London borough leader, why is it that the overwhelming majority of London borough council leaders feel so strongly in favour of a strategic authority? The system works reasonably well up to a point, but local government has an extraordinarily good record of making things work. Indeed, local government even came very close to making the poll tax work.
Local government works but it does not work as well as it should. London borough government works in a strategic vacuum. Others have said what is wrong but I shall not add to that, save to say that such as might pass for strategic government is hopelessly fragmented. I speak as a member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, one of the joint boards to which speakers have referred. It is remote from the next tier of government--central government--in the form of a Cabinet sub-committee which, perforce, meets in secret. We do not know its agenda; we do not know its future agenda; and, indeed, we only know what
decisions it may have reached when they are announced. That has been improved a little by the establishment of the Joint London Advisory Panel, but that is no answer.So we now have a Minister for London whom I know. I sincerely believe that he cares deeply about London; indeed, I acknowledge that fact. However, when we see the Minister speaking about London on London regional political programmes, he is speaking either from his front garden in Suffolk or from the Ipswich television studio. That is not the place where a Minister for London needs to be.
We have seen a number of bodies established which are doing good work. For example, the London Pride Partnership in particular has carried out excellent work in making the case for London as regards seeing what is wrong and attempting to put it right. But that is not enough. It has no power; nor indeed should it have because it has no--and seeks no--democratic legitimacy.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and I are two of the three London councillors who serve on the Committee of the Regions. I shall not take time today to talk about London's voice in Europe but I believe that we are well placed to see that the voice that London has in Europe is not at all that which other major European cities have.
My party, the Liberal Democrats, has always supported, and continues to support, a strategic authority for London. We would see that authority based on present Greater London boundaries, not least because of the difficulties inherent in trying to change those boundaries. We see that authority directly elected by a system of proportional representation which I believe is important in trying to get an elected assembly for London which would be truly representative of all the views in London. We suggest that it should be elected by the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies, and we would go further and suggest that there might be eight constituencies each returning nine members. Therefore, they would retain some geographical connection (but not one which was dominated by the self-interests of particular boroughs) thereby enabling their members to take a more broad strategic view.
We would also--this is critically important--ensure that that authority had some tax raising powers. The power to control one's own resources and if necessary, and when necessary, to raise one's own resources is important. Its functions would be broadly those that have already been mentioned: strategic planning, transport, emergency services, economic regeneration and health purchasing. It would have a co-ordinating role in the fields of leisure, tourism, the environment, and grants for the voluntary sector.
There are many other proposals all worthy of consideration. The one which seems to be coming into greater and greater favour--I listened with great interest to the carefully chosen words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel--is that of the elected mayor. I listened with interest to the procedures which the Labour Party has to go through before that becomes official policy. I can tell him--although I suspect he already knows--that one of those procedures will be to
convince Labour councillors in London to be in favour of an elected mayor. I know of none who is in favour of elected mayors. My party does not favour that. I cannot think of any London borough councillors of any party who favour elected mayors, although I do not doubt that there are some.Time does not permit me to go into all the reasons for that, but I think there is a danger that an elected mayor will be either a fairly pointless figurehead, which is not what is proposed, or will be someone with enormous democratic power. A mandate given by 5 million electors would probably be a more powerful electoral mandate than that enjoyed by anyone in the world, and certainly anyone in this country. We do not believe that that degree of democratic power should be centralised in one person, however distinguished, able or democratically elected that person may be.
However, my biggest concern as regards the debate on the elected mayor is that it acts as a distraction from the real issues that we ought to be discussing which are those of the powers and functions of the strategic authority. I want to conclude--as I must now--by recognising that there already exists a broad consensus that all is not well in London government. However, there is not yet a broad consensus about how it should be put right. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested that there should be a referendum. My party supports that view but we need to know what that referendum is about. Before we have that referendum we need to have a debate that goes beyond our individual political parties and engages with all the people in London life to determine what it is that we favour. Before there is a referendum we need a consensus on what we are for, not just a consensus on what we are against. London deserves that; our capital city deserves that; and Londoners deserve that.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carnarvon for introducing this debate and for the work over many months of the all-party group. I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak and to support the noble Earl in his quest. The proper organisation of London's administration is a most important topic.
If I understand the present sentiment correctly, there is a strong desire among the professions, the administration and other agencies to review and to revise the present institutional and administrative arrangements. The possible creation of a strategic authority for London relates to the fundamental objective of achieving good urban management. My experience as an architect and cultural heritage specialist in various cities of the world as well as in the United Kingdom, has given me a certain perspective on planning and urban development issues. I wish to review just six of certain generic types of objective a strategic authority needs to consider.
First, there is a need constantly to review and record assets and liabilities. Secondly, the available physical, economic and skills resource, and related opportunities
must be assessed and the implications explained to an increasingly informed public. Thirdly, the use, growth and potential of those resources must be co-ordinated, planned and marketed to all sectors. Fourthly, institutional legal and administrative frameworks must be constantly reviewed and adapted. Fifthly, the appropriate education, training and skills must be encouraged for urban managers and professionals. Finally, democracy and ownership constitute an important question. Above all, the means must be constantly reviewed and developed whereby the stakeholders, of which the electorate is one of the most important, can be actively involved in a process that is respected, owned by, and reflects the interests of London's people and commerce.The objectives I have outlined can only be fulfilled by some form of strategic authority. I believe also that to some degree all of the above objectives, which in my experience relate to most cities of the world, have at times been overlooked in the institutional and administrative structures that have been created since the abolition of the GLC in 1986. I would in no way advocate a return to the GLC formula. It would destroy private enterprise and initiatives which are a key to stakeholder involvement. It is more a question of the strategic authority giving essential support, essential focus and co-ordination to the different sectors of the metropolis. The form of the authority I cannot examine now, and that must, I think, follow later.
The legacy of London's history has given us one of the world's most powerful financial, commercial and cultural centres. It is a world class city. Its citizens have extraordinary skills and experience, and the city provides a magnet for people and commerce from all over the world. But the world is changing, and many people express concern that London's future may be vulnerable in the longer term. We should anticipate growing competition with other major cities in Europe. Radical changes over recent years have occurred in the world's economic, political, and trading balances. The continuing revolution of information technology has demanded changes in the workplace and scientific progress continues to modify our concepts of transport, housing, healthcare and patterns of trade and commerce. I do not believe that the response to these opportunities and threats can be safely left to the unco-ordinated efforts of the local boroughs, quangos and other agencies, nor can it be left to the market place alone.
I believe that to respond to world trends, and to respond to the threats and opportunities as they may affect London, we need a strategic authority. It is, I believe, the role of a strategic authority to develop policy, to promote compatibility and synergy among the different sectors of the metropolis and their often disparate aims and objectives, and to oversee the implementation of policy.
From the experience of my group of companies and my own particular observations from our work in Europe and further afield for the World Bank, the Overseas Development Administration and other international agencies, there is often not so much a problem for an administration to know what has to be done, but for an administration to know how to
implement policy, and to do so fairly and with adequate consultation among the stakeholders--a particular problem in China.I personally think that there is often a real degree of alienation felt by people in large urban areas such as London. This, I believe, arises out of the obstacles to their involvement in a democratic process. To some extent I think we have been unclear about how to structure our institutions, our administration and our democratic systems within the special context of London. The authority should have an important role in strengthening this democratic process with regard to strategic issues.
I wish to note four other relevant observations which complement and enlarge on what I have said. First, as the noble Earl stated, there is no single voice to represent the metropolis to adjacent regions of the country, or to the national Government, or to our partners in Europe. In consequence I understand that there is continued underfunding of the city relative to its contribution to the economy.
Secondly, there is no easily identified inward investment agency for London, and while the role of such an agency in relation to the local market context needs careful consideration, the Welsh, Scottish and other regions have adopted a more integrated approach to the problem of inward investment and perhaps with more success.
Thirdly, there is no single perspective on the more domestic issues of urban deprivation in London. This is a multifaceted problem requiring a strategic response on housing, social services, training and education and access to employment initiatives. With the present constitutional set-up of responsibility lying at the local level, initiatives tend to be localised, unco-ordinated between areas, and disparate. I believe that implementation should be at the local level but within the context of an overall strategic framework.
Fourthly, co-ordination is needed. The present unco-ordinated system naturally leads to competition for resources and investment rather than collaboration among the range of local agencies regardless of sector.
Since the abolition of the GLC, there have of course been many positive achievements. London has developed a culture of partnership between public and private enterprise. There has been considerable co-operation between various policy actors at the sub-regional level. Much mention has been made of the London Pride Partnership which has worked hard to develop a vision. Both the West London Strategic Framework and the Thames Gateway have made important initiatives. But they have been dependent on developing consensus and collaboration at every step. Perhaps we need to promote a stronger basis for the support and implementation of their strategies.
I submit the view that it is only a strategic authority for London, designed to enable, to co-ordinate, to complement and to add value to the existing political, economic and social structures that can defend and promote London's world class status. It must be capable of developing a vision in consultation with all interested parties, drawing on the abundance of experience and
skills available within the capital. I believe that discussion should be devoted to further analysis and definition of the form and function of such an authority.4.22 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, on his maiden speech. We saw the skills of his design and architecture in the structure of his speech. His knowledge of the inner city and some of the regeneration issues are highly relevant. Perhaps a degree at London University was not entirely irrelevant. If he were nervous, as I was a few months ago, he did not show it.
To me London is a great economic success. Of course there is much to be done in London; of course there are areas of London which do not have the standard of living required. The issue before us is how to build on that success rather than a discussion on whether success has been achieved.
I begin by declaring not an interest but a passion for London, the city in which I was born, and I am not ashamed of that passion. I am honorary chairman of London First, a private sector group concerned with making London a better place in which to live, invest, and work as well as to visit. With councillor Toby Harris, I am honorary joint chairman of the London Pride Partnership. London Pride brings together business, local government leaders from all parties, the Churches, and other groups.
My contention, shared with my business colleagues in London First, is that a strategic authority, despite the best intentions, would inevitably hinder rather than help the task of making London a still greater success. Perhaps I may say why. It is apparent that such an authority would be sandwiched between the boroughs and central government. It would struggle, therefore, to find a useful and effective role. It would threaten to create another layer of bureaucracy and impede action and slow down progress.
But, importantly, such an authority would endanger the factor which is growing extremely fast in London--partnership. Partnership takes many forms. It may involve individual local authorities coming together to work on individual issues. However, another example--it is one on which I wish to spend a few moments--is London Pride Partnership. Noble Lords have heard that London Pride Partnership is not a conventional gathering of people. It cuts across all parties; and comprises people of all types of background, and so on. Yet it is our experience that we can reach agreement, sometimes to our own amazement, on most issues. How do we do that? Simply by focusing on the issues on which we agree and taking action, rather than focusing on spending time debating those on which we disagree.
Perhaps I may give three brief examples. As regards inward investment, we know that multinational companies can choose freely where they will relocate their headquarters or their activities. Since it came into existence a couple years ago, London First Centre, which is local government, central government and business, has attracted 70 overseas investors to London.
More importantly, it has about 100 on the books; they are coming in fast. They see London as potentially a great success.Action by the London Tourist Board, fully supported by London Pride Partnership, has seen tourist income for London reach the world level. Of course it should be above that, but for each of the past two years it has reached 8 per cent. per annum. Let me give one example of partnership working in practice in tourism. In Southwark the local authority and business are working together to build hotels in what is central London--but no one had previously noticed that.
My last example concerns domestic waste recycling. Between them, local government, central government and the private sector have just launched plans to increase the recycling of waste in London from 7 per cent. to 25 per cent. over the next four to five years, thereby not only improving the environment but also creating green jobs. Each is an example of partnership in action. Many people state that what we need in London is a transport strategy. Yet it already exists, not in a vague or imprecise form but as a fully costed prioritised plan covering all aspects of transport over each of the next 15 years. That has been signed off by business, local government, ALG and the voluntary sector and is supported by the Government in their own transport strategy issued last year.
The issue as regards transport for London is not what needs to be done, but how to attract private investment to speed up implementation of the plan. It is encouraging to find that both the Labour and Conservative Parties are calling for ways of encouraging more private investment.
Perhaps I may turn to the key points. London does not need a new layer of bureaucracy. It would take time to implement and inevitably would enlarge itself, as government always does. By concentrating on points of disagreement rather than action, it would have the effect of stifling the very initiative for which its supporters call.
Partnership in London is up and running. It is action driven. It gets results. Why do we not focus our attention on promoting partnership rather than wasting resources by installing what would be a redundant strategic authority? Do not misunderstand what I say. We must not be complacent. In the business world I have observed that it is the companies that never cease to evolve which are the most successful. London must continue to evolve and improve. Once we think that we have made it, we are dead. Over the past few years London's record on governance has not been bad: a Minister for London, the Government Office for London, and a Cabinet sub-committee which now meets formally and regularly with members of the London Pride Partnership, with minutes fully published, are all examples of how the governance of London has successfully evolved over the past few years.
Nobody supposes that the system, or London itself, is perfect. Last year, London First conducted an in-depth discussion on the governance of London with its business members. Each member participated in a
discussion lasting approximately two hours. Many changed their minds and firmed up their views during that time. There was consensus that much had been achieved as a result of the partnership drive that I mentioned, but that we had to find ways of building on that success.Our members, after much serious discussion, expressed strong opposition to a new London authority. They did, however, express a strong view that London lacked a loud and effective voice to champion its cause abroad and stand up for its interests at home. One has only to have been involved in work on the Millennium Exhibition or the national stadium which we now hope is to be built at Wembley to appreciate that a London champion is very long overdue.
The champion, whether he or she is called a mayor or a chief executive--we used the title "governor" to avoid confusion with mayors--must have a clearly defined remit. He or she must give priority to action. Any bureaucracy inherent in the system must be minimised. Local issues must continue to be handled by the boroughs. Above all, the champion must encourage and promote partnership between political parties, and with business, the Churches, the voluntary sector, etc.
To meet that need, London First's proposal is for a directly elected governor with limited executive powers--limited because London already has directly elected local authorities, agencies and organisations to carry out everyday tasks. The governor's powers would be: to champion London with central government and within the UK--it is necessary to sell London to the rest of the UK; to promote London overseas; to make key appointments within London; and to plan strategically for London where that is appropriate, although there should not be planning for the sake of planning. Last autumn, London First published details of the proposals, including the precise interface with all the various agencies that exist.
I maintain that what London needs is not a strategic authority but a champion. That is the next logical step in the continuous evolution of our great city and its governance. If the Government have difficulty with the idea of an elected authority--I agree that 5 million votes must be rather frightening for a politician of any party--and if they are concerned that such an authority does not work, perhaps we need to test this opportunity by means of an appointed role. However, I believe that, in the end, the transparency of a direct vote will be needed.
I conclude my remarks as I began. I see London as a great success. My proposal is that there should be a champion for London.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I, too, give warm and genuine thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for introducing the debate in so admirable a way. I could carp about the use of the word "strategic" to qualify the idea of an authority for London, but I will not. Instead, I welcome the conversion of many Conservatives to the need for an elected authority, council or parliament for the people of London. I understand that there is joy in
heaven when a sinner repents. As a result of this debate, I hope that heaven's cup of joy overflows at the swelling ranks of repentant Tory sinners.In researching this debate I came across a quotation about my great, great grandfather, the second Lord Monkswell, who was a founder member of the LCC. It was reported in the Hackney & Kingsland Gazette of 29th May, 1893, that Lord Monkswell had an idea of a "practical socialism", leading men,
- "to such a state of mind that private property might be usefully and considerably diminished and public property increased."
I believe that I have inherited the genes and I aspire to that noble ideal.
In considering the case for an elected authority for London there is a temptation to look at the history of London, of the LCC from 1889 to 1965 and the GLC from 1965 to 1985. However, there are other models that we might usefully examine. I refer to the English metropolitan counties and the Scottish metropolitan regions. In particular, I suggest careful study of the way in which the English metropolitan counties, in their short life from 1974 to 1985, developed differently. They did so because the people in those urban conurbations had different circumstances, aspirations and problems; and they developed different solutions to those problems.
I would argue that we should allow the people of London to elect their representatives to decide on matters for the benefit of Londoners. That will be a dynamic process; it will not be fixed, but will be a progression as time goes on.
I am very glad that all sensible people interested in the effective governance of London argue for the devolution of powers from national level rather than the centralisation of London borough powers. I support those sensible people.
Over the years there has developed a culture of denigration, of lack of respect, for one tier of governance by another. That has led to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties and to the antagonism between the UK and the European Parliament. It appears that it will provide a landslide win for our party at the next general election. That antagonism between different tiers of democratic interest is not good for our society. We need to think in terms of a hierarchy of democracy with elections at every level, for new local or neighbourhood councils, smaller than the London boroughs; probably keeping the London boroughs as they are; a new London authority; our national Parliament; and the European Parliament. We should try to devise mechanisms whereby each tier can work in harmony with the other tiers rather than in competition with them.
It is generally agreed that there is a good chance of having an elected authority for London. That authority should have a home, and its home should be in County Hall. County Hall was built by the people of London for the public administration of London. It should be used as such.
I have rather galloped through my speech. I drafted it as I sat here in the Chamber and did not know how long it would last. As I still have a couple of minutes in hand,
perhaps I may use them for my peroration--a plea that we should allow the ordinary people of London, right across London, to decide. I believe it is agreed that what we mean by "London" is that part of our great country that exists within the M.25, generally speaking the old GLC boundaries.I have heard criticism of the GLC, and the perennial cry that we must not recreate it. I was quite interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who said that, with hindsight, reform rather than abolition or status quo was probably a very sensible idea. That idea may not have been on the table at the time. I was on one side of the barricades and the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was on the other.
The thought that I wish to leave with the House is that we should think, not in terms of any authority for London being a "champion", one that can articulate a voice for London, as suggested by the previous speaker, but a mechanism by which the people of London can work together. That is surely the essence of all democratic activity. It is not just a matter of speaking for people, but of enabling them to live, work and develop together. I hope that will be the reason for installing a new elected authority for London. I hope that our national Parliament will trust the people of London to come up with a sensible scheme of activity and work which enables them to live and work together in harmony.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Tweedsmuir: My Lords, it is with a sense of exhilaration and at the same time some poignancy that I rise to address your Lordships as a new Member of this House. The exhilaration comes from the great honour which has befallen me and the poignancy is because I owe my seat to the death last year of a very distinguished elder brother who had no other male heir.
I am a writer. In fact, I have never sat on any public body and I must say right away that I cannot give the House the expert advice which it has received and certainly will receive from other noble Lords. On the other hand, I was born in London--in 1916, which was a fair time ago--and have lived in London for a great deal of my life. I offer the comment--and, incidentally, the admiration--of the man in the street, on something to which I have comparatively recently come, which is the meat of the submission to the House of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. So all I can do is perhaps recapitulate those points which would strike the man in the street as the most important so far that we have heard.
I imagine that noble Lords will all have studied the report of the House of Lords All-Party London Group. We are most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for bringing it to our attention. In it there is an immense amount of matter for discussion, all deserving the most serious and profound consideration, which I am certain it will receive at your Lordships' hands.
The report in question is concerned with the idea of establishing a strategic authority for London. I lived through the days of the old London County Council, then the Greater London Council, and the state of some
fragmentation that followed. I was attached to the old London County Council for many reasons, one of which was that if one wished to research the ownership of old properties, it had the most magnificent system for doing so. I used it frequently. I just hope that that system is to be found somewhere even now. Since the abolition of the Greater London Council in 1986, London's various needs have been catered for by a number of different bodies, some of them originating with the Government. As we heard today, in addition valuable work has been and is being done by various independent organisations.In preparing its submission, the All-Party London Group was able to analyse the results of a number of opinion polls, about which we may but do not need to be too sceptical. Those polls clearly showed deep dissatisfaction among Londoners with the state of their city and the methods of its governance. Further, it was strongly felt by the group that the present methods of governing the city were insufficiently democratic. That is a feeling shared by a great number of Londoners who have come to believe that they have little or no voice in what is being done in their name.
The report puts very clearly the reasons why a strategic authority might be desirable to control from a single source the destiny of one of the world's finest cities. One of many important points made in the report is that representatives of other major European cities and from other parts of the world have expressed amazement and voiced their regret that there is no single body representing London with which they may confer. It is because of a rather bewildering division of functions in London's present government that we have before us the proposal that the city should be governed by a duly elected London-wide authority, which should be led by a single figure, perhaps to be known, at least for discussion purposes, as London's mayor, prefect or governor--anything which might be suitable.
The All-Party London Group offered a concise expose of its ideas and has even-handedly given the arguments for and against them. Very few Londoners would not agree that those ideas could have a truly significant bearing on their life and happiness. As I said, they deserve the most serious consideration. Not all proposals for reform are of equal value but I feel your Lordships will agree that here we have something of real importance in its conception and its possible benefit to millions of lives. These are urgent matters which require a degree of boldness and great breadth of vision both in discussion and implementation. It is not difficult to foresee what might happen in terms of argument and friction developing, which will have to be met.
There is a nettle here to be grasped. As many of us learnt in our youngest days, the harder one grasps a nettle, the less painful is the sting.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, first it is my pleasing task to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, on having given us--if I may allude to the title of his autobiography--not so much rags of time as riches of experience and ideas. He said that he is an author. He
is now, in the tradition of his great family, an author and a public figure. We are fortunate in being able to listen to him as well as to read his works.I rise to make one simple point only: to summarise the arguments for a directly elected mayor of London. The case for a strategic authority has been made persuasively so far as I am concerned by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for having introduced this important debate, and by the thoughtful maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. But such an authority will have the desired effect only if it is led by a mayor who is elected by and accountable to the people of London.
I am well aware of the counter-arguments, which are advanced by experienced representatives of local government. Indeed, some of them are not very far away from me and I have been wondering whether I should put more clear red leather between the Front Bench ahead of me and myself as I speak.
I love London. I regard it as my city. I suffer when it fails and I am delighted when it succeeds and does well. I believe that in order to do well it will need a champion who is more than a champion. Let me give your Lordships six reasons why I think so.
First, keeping a great metropolis going and moving it forward is more than its effective administration. As has been said already, large cities are, by their very nature, diffuse and even alienating. They probably cannot be run in any real sense at all and perhaps they should not be. It is all the more necessary that Londoners can identify a focus of responsibility. That focus of responsibility cannot be a building and cannot be a council, however distinguished and competent its members. It has to be a person who captures the imagination--and no doubt from time to time draws the ire--of the people of London. London needs a face as well as a voice to make the case for this great metropolis to the rest of the country and to the world.
Secondly, governing London is a task which cuts across party lines. In the nature of the case, it does not lend itself to national party politics. I say that as someone who firmly believes that political parties are a necessary (though wrongly maligned) instrument of gathering interests in the country. But London's citizens need something different for their city; perhaps the kind of partnership about which the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, spoke. No doubt most plausible candidates for mayor will be members of national parties, but they will and should appeal to their electorate with a London manifesto, even one which others in their own party from other parts of the country do not particularly like.
Thirdly, much needs to be done at all times to keep this great city going in the face of all kinds of pressures. Not everything can be done at the same time or, rather, in addition to the day-to-day administration; certain priorities have to be set. One person elected as mayor is more likely to stand for a specific set of priorities than any council or even party. It seems to me desirable that people should choose a mayor for his or her special interest--in transport, in law and order, in business opportunities, in parks and leisure facilities or whatever.
Progress is more likely to result from concentration on specific issues at specific times than from trying to do everything all at once.Fourthly, one of the strengths of the constitution of this country is that one knows who is in charge and how those who are in charge are checked in their actions. Without wishing to overstate the point, those in charge can, on the whole, be named, and what they are doing is accountable; for such accountability there are institutions. It is a pity that local government has not followed the national lead in that respect. It remains for most--I say this with humility and hesitation--a somewhat remote collection of often able and competent, but for most people, nameless individuals. For London, if not more generally, that is just not good enough. Londoners need to know both who is responsible and how they can call him or her and their team to account.
Fifthly, London has benefited greatly from some of the Lord Mayors of the Corporation of the City of London. In recent years in particular they have been well aware of the fact that the City and its financial institutions can flourish only in an environment which is attractive to inhabitants and visitors alike. Some Lord Mayors have therefore spoken up for London. However, as has been said before, their claims to speak for London are limited in more ways than one. What the best Lord Mayors have done merely illustrates the need for an elected mayor who can speak for London as a whole.
Sixthly, several European countries have, in recent years, discovered the value of directly elected mayors. In eastern Europe they were a central feature of the road to democracy, with Serbia only the latest example. More relevant perhaps, in Italy the law stipulating direct elections of mayors in all cities above 15,000 inhabitants has freed local issues from the constraints of national politics. In Germany, the south German model of direct elections has migrated north, even into the former British zone of occupation which had originally adopted the British model of local government. Everywhere it has led to an increase in the commitment of people to their cities, in local pride and civic sense.
There are clearly many questions which will have to be answered if a constitutional innovation is envisaged like the direct election of mayors. How are they to be elected? What is to be their term of office? How do they relate to the authority elected, or chosen, in other ways? Some fear that an elected Lord Mayor of London would have too prominent a place in the national scheme of things.
Questions need to be answered, and I believe that they can be answered. We are often asked these days to envisage considerable constitutional changes. My view is that a directly-elected mayor for London is a constitutional leap which is at least as important as some of the others we are asked to consider. We should therefore prepare the legislative ground for an elected Lord Mayor of London.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Feldman: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for initiating this important and
interesting debate, and for the great work he does patiently and regularly on the all-party Committee for London. I congratulate also the two maiden speakers--the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Tweedsmuir--and hope that we hear more from them in the future.I hope that my experience of the GLC will be of interest today when we discuss the possibility of another strategic authority. Perhaps I can give your Lordships a little of my history.
In February 1973 I was selected as the GLC candidate for Richmond. It was mid-term in the Heath Government, and the Liberals were winning council by-elections across the borough. I campaigned hard and learnt a lot about the interesting tactics of the Liberals which, in a philosophical vein, should qualify me for a BA in community politics. With hindsight, it was my good fortune to lose, although I was not so sure at the time.
I found that very few Londoners knew anything about the GLC and, in my innocence, I used to tell the voters that the GLC had the 16th largest budget of any country or town in the world. I presented that as a plus point, but soon realised it was a negative.
I have learnt that there are two ways to predict the future: one is to create it; and the other is to learn from the past. A new Greater London authority would be a strategic leap forward--into the past--and a magical mystery tour leading to extra bureaucracy and costs.
As a consolation prize for losing, I became an adopted member of the GLC Housing Management Committee and a member of the GLC Arts Board. In housing, I learnt of the way in which it was controlled by Labour: the high cost of repairs by the direct labour force; the self-inflicted damage done to property by unhappy tenants; and the fact that no details were ever given at committee of rent and rates arrears. We changed that.
I remember walking down miles of brilliantly and expensively polished floors at County Hall and began to marvel at the cost of the 20,000 staff. No wonder the GLC had the 16th largest budget in the world! I was there when Ken Livingstone usurped Andrew McIntosh, as he then was. I must say that the GLC's loss was a gain for your Lordships' House. After abolition, very few people mourned the passing of the GLC while ratepayers celebrated the saving of the unnecessary costs involved.
Let me give your Lordships a financial picture. In 1985-86 the GLC spent £1 billion. In its last five years spending went up by 170 per cent. On that basis I calculate that it would today be spending well over £4 billion, which is equivalent to 2p off income tax.
We are told that the son of GLC is set to start up small, but can we believe it? I believe that the staff, the powers and the budget would all rise inexorably in time. And would we have a return to receptions for Sinn Fein, long campaigns on Nicaragua and the delights of a nuclear free zone?
Of late, an unrealistic nostalgia has hit Londoners. Opinion polls purport to say that the majority of Londoners want a return to a strategic authority. I must
say that I do not accept the validity of such opinion polls at this time. Londoners are being made to feel that whereas, 12 years ago, when the GLC was there, London was a place flowing with milk and honey, the sun shone every day, it never rained, the traffic flowed effortlessly and the Underground was perfect, it has now become a democratic desert and a failure.London is, in fact, a great success story, as my noble friend Lord Sheppard said. Tourism is booming. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, having served as a member of the English Tourist Board for many years, that London is a gateway for all parts of the country and that many parts of London have benefited from the work of the London Arts Board and the ETB. We have seen more hotels built, more jobs created and growing support for the arts and sport. Inward investment is developing and our museums, galleries, theatres, operas and sports arenas, as well as many other areas, have benefited from the lottery.
I suppose that part of the nostalgia stems from the hope of people that the new authority might spend more money. As a child I was taught that money did not grow on trees; that you cannot plant a tree in your garden and then go up and shake money from it whenever you need it. Surely we have learnt that money must be earned or taxed before it can be spent.
My noble friend Lord Sheppard listed the work the Government have done to emphasise the growth of London in the absence of the GLC. My noble friend was asked to chair the London Forum. His record in London, in the work he has done within London First and London Pride, bringing together all parts of the capital, is outstanding. And no mention has been made of the fact that we have a dedicated Minister for London. The affairs of London have been enthusiastically and successfully carried forward by a deeply committed Secretary of State, John Gummer, despite the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, that some of the television broadcasts may have come from other parts of the country.
We do not need yet another tier of local government with more bureaucracy slowing up decision making. We will just end up with the dubious privilege of a London version of the tartan tax. We have talked about the boundaries of the new Greater London authority, should it happen. Where will they end? They will have to go much wider--perhaps as far as Brighton, Grantham, Reading and further into the M.25. My own rather courageous PA commutes every day from Leamington. Will we have to include Leamington?
The proposal of a mayor, champion or governor of London is an extremely interesting one. I have considerable sympathy with the principle of a champion or host, though I find the title of governor much too pompous. A form of host or champion would be valuable. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I have thought long and hard about the possibility of having a mayor, host, or whatever, directly elected by up to 5 million people. I wonder what would happen if we had a strong new strategic authority for London and a strong directly elected mayor, governor or host with
the democratic credentials of 5 million voters behind him or her. There would be endless hours of fun in the corridors of London.My proposition is more simple. I propose that the role be filled by a full-time Minister for London, at Minister of State level, who can draw upon the existing resources of the department. That person could be a strong voice for London at home and abroad. At least he or she, whoever occupies the post, will already have been indirectly elected through a general election and will therefore have a strong democratic credibility.
To summarise, I am against a new strategic authority for London. Let us have this full-time, dedicated Minister for London at the department. That is the best and most cost-effective way of continuing to improve London, in the interests of all Londoners, which is what we all want to achieve.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, in the report of the All-Party London Group there is only one short paragraph on the policing of London. The paragraph includes a sentence that the present commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has indicated that he would welcome the establishment of a police authority for London. My own researches have confirmed that this is so and that most senior officers in the Met would welcome a police authority for London.
Since 1829 the Metropolitan Police Service has been accountable to only one person--the Home Secretary. All other police forces in the country are answerable both to the Home Secretary and to an elected police authority. A single debate each year in the other place is not sufficient to provide democratic accountability for this great force. It might be thought that this limited accountability would be to the advantage of the Metropolitan Police Service. But that is not so, as has been apparent for a very long time.
There is inevitably an uneasy symbiotic relationship between the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police Service and similarly between the Home Secretary and the commissioner. The lines of responsibility of decision making and of accountability are inevitably blurred. It is impossible for the commissioner to adopt a different line in public from the Home Secretary. It is not even possible to have a public debate about necessary resources for the Metropolitan Police. A shortage of personal radios, for example, in my time became a scandal. Many Metropolitan Police buildings are decaying. When I was responsible for building works in north-west London, I had police stations where the rain came through the roof and I had one which had a permanently flooded basement. It is not possible for the commissioner to say those kinds of things publicly. I do believe, to pick up a word that has been mentioned several times in the debate, that it is necessary for the Metropolitan Police to have an external champion who can stand up to the Home Office and act on their behalf. This single line of accountability to the Home Secretary also does a disservice to the public of London. There is a lack of democratic accountability.
During the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 we argued for a separate police authority for London and put down amendments to that effect. All that the Government were willing to offer was an advisory committee for the Home Secretary, to be appointed by himself, comprising a number of people whom I do not think anyone has heard of since then. Police authorities elsewhere in the country were established on a much more clear-cut basis, with direct responsibility for influencing the policing objectives of their police services. The non-statutory police committee that is appointed to advise the Home Secretary has 12 members who have been appointed by the Home Secretary and the chairman is appointed by the Home Secretary. It is very unlikely that they will be offering him unwelcome advice. The committee lacks clarity of purpose and inevitably the servicing of its needs requires a great deal of expenditure, time and effort by the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and other officers in the Metropolitan Police. But it has done nothing for the public of London.
The Metropolitan Police Service therefore supports the concept of a police authority under the umbrella of a strategic London authority so that there are clear, effective and visible lines of accountability to the people of London which are so necessary for policing by consent. A police authority embedded within the structure of a London-wide strategic and elected authority would offer an opportunity for consultation with the body which formally represented the people of London. It would make it much easier to establish London-wide partnerships for tackling crime and, under the umbrella of such an authority, it would be able much more effectively to deal with strategic problems such as traffic control. Under the much-maligned GLC the London-wide system of controlling traffic lights and effectively running the whole of London's traffic, was set up and maintained by GLC officials and it is extremely difficult for London boroughs to operate such a London-wide scheme.
Relationships with the other emergency services--the fire brigade and the ambulance service--could be made much more effective and, by being responsive to modern technology, could form part of a unified system of emergency services for the citizens of London. Considerable thought would need to be given to the constitution of a London police authority, which might indeed have some appointed members with particular skills. One of the values of the Home Secretary's advisory committee has been the business knowledge that some of the members have brought to it, which has assisted with the strategic management of resources in a large organisation. The Metropolitan Police employs something like 42,000 people and business experience and background does assist with the management of resources and personnel on that scale.
The Metropolitan Police has national and international responsibilities. This has always been the excuse for retaining the present system and for saying that the Home Secretary should be the only authority for the Metropolitan Police. But I do not believe that that is sufficient. The great majority of policing is to do with on-the-ground, everyday beat patrolling throughout the
boroughs of London. The consequence of having the Home Office and the Home Secretary as the single police authority for London has tended to be to draw resources, manpower, office space, equipment and so on, into the central squads and away from the ordinary, everyday policing of the streets of London. These national and international responsibilities would probably require some Home Office representation within a police authority for London, but I do not believe that that should be the only consideration when policing this great capital.A police authority for London could represent, for example, ethnic minorities within London and other minority groups who at present feel disenfranchised and resentful of the way that they are policed. Great strides have been made by the Metropolitan Police through the consultative groups and with the London boroughs, but I believe that there should be a strategic representation as well for the people from many different parts of the world who live in London.
The time has come for London to have a strategic authority which would include a police authority providing democratic, public accountability for the people of London and a counterbalance to the muffling and bureaucratic powers of the Home Office.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, as a London resident of long standing I would like to express my thanks to the All-Party London Group for producing the admirable report which we are debating today. I must declare another interest. I have the honour to be the president of a charitable association established some years ago to safeguard a conservation area in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
I have to confess that I have no experience whatever of local government or local politics, and I do not feel competent to express any worthwhile view on the major issues discussed in the report. Indeed, it is with some hesitation that I take part in this debate at all. There does, however, appear to be expressed a widely-held belief that there ought to be brought into existence some form of overall strategic authority for London with a closely limited remit.
On that basis I have canvassed the views of certain members of the charitable association over which I preside in order to ascertain whether there are any functions which might usefully be performed by a strategic authority for London, if one were set up, in addition to those identified in paragraph 24 and the later paragraphs of the report.
I would like first to mention road traffic as distinct from public transport. Transport is mentioned in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the report. However, it is submitted that the regulation of road traffic and its associated parking and waiting problems, is a heading sufficiently distinct from transport to warrant separate consideration. At present, the major part of the regulation of road traffic, parking, loading and waiting is, I understand, carried out by the boroughs separately and individually. I suggest that more co-ordination of their activities would be helpful. I am told that particular
problems arise where a much-used street crosses the boundary between two boroughs or has such a borough boundary running down its centre line.A strategic authority could be given powers enabling it, quickly and uniformly, to reconcile differences in policy of the two boroughs over such matters as permitted parking days and parking hours, permitted waiting periods, lorry prohibitions and discouragement of use by through traffic. I am sure that more uniformity generally over these matters would be appreciated by the public.
I would also like to touch on one other problem suggested to me; namely, pollution, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Measures to combat pollution, whether generated by vehicle exhausts or by effluent from works and buildings, again would benefit from co-ordination and common action. London probably has more severe problems from traffic pollution than any other part of the country, but it is quite impossible to suppose that boroughs acting individually could do very much about it. Apart from the two areas which I have mentioned--road traffic and pollution--the excellent report of the All-Party London Group would seem to cover all the issues that have to be addressed.
I close my very brief contribution to this debate by thanking my noble friend Lord Carnarvon for raising this matter and I venture the view that, whatever faults may be ascribed to the old GLC, it did possess some raison d'etre, which might perhaps usefully be revived for reasons mentioned in the report.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I should also like to add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for initiating this debate and at the same time to apologise to him most sincerely for missing the first two minutes, I believe, of his introduction. I feel that particularly strongly since at my introduction into the House he welcomed me so kindly both to the all-party group and on previous occasions to SERPLAN. So those of us who are involved in London local government very much appreciate the keen interest which he takes in all these matters.
I have to declare my interest as a member of a London borough council and as a former London borough leader. Since former interests are apparently the order of the day this afternoon, I also declare my interest as a former member of the London Residuary Body, which was charged with winding up the affairs of the Greater London Council and, latterly, ILEA. In passing, I must advise my noble friend Lord Plummer that there can have been no body which was more closely watched by Government, Opposition parties and the public to ensure that its property was disposed of at the very best price possible. I give my noble friend the assurance that things were not sold off in a hurry, regardless of price.
Like my noble friend Lord Feldman, I do not think that we should look backwards; we should remind ourselves of what has gone before. Having declared my interest, I appreciate that my views on the matter might
be suspect. Therefore, to remind your Lordships of the climate that existed when the GLC was still in existence, I turned back to some of the newspapers of the day. In 1983, The Times stated:
- "The case for scrapping the GLC in its present form existed long before Ken Livingstone turned it into a personal socialist fiefdom. The bureaucratic wastefulness of a local authority which had already lost many of its most important functions to the borough (not to mention the operation of the unaccountably and unrepresentative ILEA which is responsible for education ... demanded ... reform".
In 1984, when the campaign for abolition was under way, The Times stated:
- "Despite multi-million pound propaganda campaigns, elective support for the GLC and metropolitan counties is minimal. Functions, boundaries and relations with district authorities are ill-defined. Problems of finance, urban renewal, transport, housing, environment, education and training, youth and community, have been badly tackled.
- London has been without strategic roads planning for more than 10 years. GLC sites take even longer to develop. Integrated transport is non-existent".
I must advise noble Lords opposite that since the author of that was Mr. Reg Freeson, the Labour MP for Brent, East, those words might have more credibility than anything that I can say to remind your Lordships' House that, despite the myths of today, the GLC was not a popular or successful authority.
I oppose the creation of a new authority because I believe that it is also a myth--however sincerely believed by those who proposed it--that a new strategic authority will assume the functions of central government rather than the functions of the boroughs. I also believe that it is a myth that it will assume the resources of central government rather than those of the existing local authorities. I believe that it is a myth that a new authority will be able to speak for London as a whole, however it is defined. That point needs to be settled, but it remains unclear.
I really cannot accept that the perceived or real problems of London will go away by creating a new authority. Indeed, frequently the problems that are perceived to be the problems of London are quoted by those who support the creation of a strategic authority. They appear to forget either that the problems existed when the GLC existed or that those matters were never the responsibility of the GLC in any event.
As a former chairman of the London Boroughs Association, I, together with my colleagues who were Conservative borough leaders, called for the abolition of the GLC before the Government thought that it was a good idea. One of the reasons that we did so was precisely that the GLC had become redundant and its functions had ebbed away. We also believed that one of the key issues facing London was transport. We believed that many of the calls for a London-wide authority arose because of particular problems, real or perceived, which related to transport and the recognition that in the capital city and in a place the size of London those problems would have to be dealt with by central government with their powers and resources. I believe that our call for a Minister of Transport for London was a great success. I believe also that the appointment of Mr. Norris to that position vindicated the calls made by Conservative borough leaders at that time.
I feel that there is a problem in that we tend to speak of London as one city. I am not attracted to what I see as a cliche, "a collection of villages", but London is made up of a number of different towns and villages. Its history, development and physical size make it different from other cities in the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe. Indeed, we perpetuate that in our very language when we refer to the "Lord Mayor of the City", the "Mayor in the City of London" and the King and Parliament sit at "Westminster".
London is different and it is equally true that the systems of governance of other countries, which are often quoted, are not quite as one believes. London is different things to different people for different purposes. Very often, those who call for London-wide solutions seem to think that they have left London when they cross the Thames in a southerly direction.
I have no doubt that major infrastructure projects need the involvement of central government. We should have no reservations about that whatever. However, what we do not need is another tier of local government or another local government reorganisation, yet that is precisely what the creation of a new authority would bring about. The proposal for a mayor, governor or chief executive (appointed or elected) and supported by commissioners (appointed or elected) is in my view a recipe for frustration. Indeed, the public would see their expectations dashed because there would be conflict and no resources.
I would be the first to admit that immediately after the abolition of the GLC the boroughs tended not to countenance co-operation and groups because they feared joint structures. They feared that that would lead to keeping the GLC in exile, as it were, but the position has already changed dramatically. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to the co-operation that exists between the different boroughs. That is something on which we ought to build. We ought not to be looking backwards to find a different variation of the old theme; we ought to be looking forwards to see how the co-operation of the principal units of local government in London can be improved and encouraged. In European countries, specific powers are given to enable authorities to work jointly with others, sometimes with different partners for different activities. I refer to the French experience of communautes urbaines and its district arrangements where towns work together within a statutory framework. That bears examination. Even if London is geographically too large for that to happen here, I believe that we could work on a system based on sectors coming together in the centre.
However, I also believe that the mechanisms for the government of London, however defined, must remain firmly in the hands of the boroughs. I totally reject that the boroughs are undemocratic. Their members are elected by, and to serve, the people of the towns and areas that make up the whole of our capital. I do not know how those representatives can be perceived to be undemocratic. The boroughs are much more democratic than would be a body elected across the whole width and breadth of greater London but bearing no allegiance to any part of it.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I join in the congratulations which have rightly been paid to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, until he must be getting rather tired of them. However, my congratulations are genuine because I agree largely with his approach. Indeed, I congratulate the noble Earl and his committee particularly on producing what was a genuine all-party solution. The noble Earl avoided a number of matters which have surfaced here recently, but he understands and faces the fact that if we were to have a Bill seeking to implement that solution, those differences must again arise. That is the place for them, not this attempt to find a wide area of agreement.
I was particularly impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, who spoke from experience. He knows that, although the GLC has become a whipping boy since it has been disposed of, it fulfilled a valuable and essential function. Whatever we do here, we must try to ensure that that function is properly carried out in future. It is not being carried out at the present time and that is the reason for the situation in which we find ourselves. This matter has been glossed over by a number of people, but at the moment in many respects, traffic among them, London is in a mess. One of the reasons for that is that the work formerly done by the Greater London Council is no longer being done. Certainly, there has been an attempt to replace it: some of it has been devolved to the boroughs and some to various joint bodies. However, it simply does not work. For example, the bridges of London have been overlooked. It was not until they began to collapse and had to be repaired that someone discovered that no provision had been made for looking after them. Certainly, there is not the necessary manpower or machinery to do it. The regular inspections that used to take place somehow fell by the wayside. That is just one example of the fact that London badly misses the work previously done by the GLC. We should not allow the denigration of the GLC that has been voiced to some extent this afternoon to obscure the fact that the abolition of that body was drastic and unnecessary.
The GLC did a number of things: it was quite good at tourism; it played an important part in the arts. Perhaps I may speak from personal experience, although from a long time ago. As Winston Churchill once said, the purpose of reminiscing about the past is to enforce action in the present. As long ago as 1958 I was elected with David Pitt and Barry Payton to represent Stoke Newington and Hackney North on the then London County Council. In my election address I told the people of that constituency that my two main purposes were: first, to see that a national theatre was built; and, secondly, to abolish the Civil Defence Corps. They are the only two endeavours to which I have set my hand that have been achieved, although I hasten to say that they were not achieved by my efforts alone.
Ike Hayward, whose name is commemorated on the South Bank, was a great supporter of the arts. He provided the land on the South Bank and, by so doing, forced the Government on this side of the Thames to cough up the money which was already available for that building. As for the Civil Defence Corps, every
member on the council, irrespective of political opinion, knew that it provided no defence against nuclear weapons and that it was a chronic waste of money that could be devoted to other much more important purposes. The LCC soon terminated its contribution to the Civil Defence Corps. A little later both this House and the other place took the same course and the Civil Defence Corps disappeared.I should like to draw attention to two particular matters. First, I shall deal with the first principle set out in the document produced by the committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon: there should be an authority responsible for dealing with those issues which affect London as a whole, and that the authority should be directly elected by, and accountable to, the citizens of London. Those are very carefully chosen words. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Plummer. A powerful and executive mayor would not fit the pattern of London. Mayors cause enough trouble in New York, so we do not want to have any over here. Such a mayor, who is in effect a force on his own, can be an awful nuisance. We would do well not to tread that path.
Secondly, I am worried about the second part of the principle put forward in the document. In effect, it is said that the new body, whatever it is, shall not take away anything from the boroughs; its powers shall be drawn from other sources, but the boroughs must be sacrosanct, powerful and elected as they are. I have some experience of serving on a borough council. I am by no means opposed to the metropolitan boroughs, but there are some matters that should be dealt with by a central authority. If not, they will probably not be done or, if they are, they will be done badly. In my view, some functions that were carried out by the GLC in the past should be carried out by a central body. I do not want to exclude the possibility of removing some powers from the boroughs. Conceivably, they could be compensated by the award of powers more suited to boroughs if they felt that they were missing out in some way. At the moment some powers are not being exercised at all. In some cases boroughs would be glad to get rid of powers that they were not exercising anyway.
I have been speaking for nine minutes and it is about time that I sat down. I am not a member of this committee. Eight years ago, when I was 80, I decided that some things had to go, and committee work was one of them. That does not prevent me from having considerable admiration for the work that is done by this and other committees of the House.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly declare my credentials for the debate. In two weeks' time it will be my birthday, for those who wish to be reminded. I will also celebrate 55 years of living and working in London. During that time I have commuted by bicycle, car, train, and, for the benefit of the young to whom I can give an explanation subsequently, tram as well. For my sins, I was lumbered much later in life with some responsibility for London Transport and British Rail.
The problem with the current debate on London is that it is bogged down with the Labour Party firmly committed to a new elected tier--and we now understand an elected mayor--and the Government basically defending the status quo, with John Gummer chairing an advisory council which includes no fewer than 12 Ministers. There is a point at which the more Ministers one has, the less attention one will get from them.
There is room for a new look in rather greater depth at the problem which, I suspect, is a matter for a Royal Commission, but I shall come back to that later. It demonstrates also that the traditional confrontational relationship which has always been a feature of London government in a very big way will continue to dominate any new elected body as it has dominated local government in London in the past.
The idea that there will be an elected mayor who will be neither a Labour candidate nor a Conservative candidate is a happy thought, but I do not believe that it is at all likely with all that that entails.
I think that it was Lenin who said:
- "All problems have the seeds of their solution within them".
That may be an exaggeration, but, as a general rule, it is not a bad idea to start with an analysis of the problem before moving on to possible solutions. We have become tied down by a limited solution to a massive problem. I make that point, because the problems facing London are not just massive, deep rooted and highly complex, some of them are literally insoluble. We have to face that.
The fundamental problem for London is that the shape and size of London has evolved without interruption or anything resembling a serious plan over 700 to 800 years. Comparisons have been drawn with other capital cities. In the mid-19th century Paris was completely replanned by one man--Baron Haussmann--who demolished the slums, built a new road system, seven new bridges and a complete new sewerage system. One hundred years later West Berlin was completely rebuilt, because there was no alternative, regardless of expense.
There is a simple test. One has only to take--I make this suggestion--a street map of Paris and a street map of Berlin, and compare them with the City of London to see why the problem in London is insoluble. We are the prisoners of history; the prisoners of the design of a city which has grown in that way.
The solutions to some of the problems of modern cities are just not available to London. It is that which worries me. The problem is much greater than we believe. People believe that it is basically a political problem, when there is primarily a need for a highly sophisticated, mathematical planning exercise to make the best use of the resources in the situation in which we find ourselves.
London is unique. It is not just a very big city, it is New York and Washington combined, and then some. It dominates this country economically, it is the international financial centre, and the home of 40 per cent. of our major companies.
Just to add to the problem, London's transport system, for example, serves a commuter network 200 miles wide from Worcester to Folkestone. That does not exist anywhere else in the world. It is no good thinking that there is a neat Labour Party solution or a neat Conservative Party solution. For a lot of it, there is no solution. That is the size of the problem, and, we are stuck with some aspects of that problem for the foreseeable future, while the others require a long-term and massively expensive investment programme.
With the establishment of the Government Office for London and London Pride under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, we have the basis upon which we can at least begin to analyse the problem and begin to move to a structure which would come into place relatively quickly, which would enable us at least to refrain from making a bad situation worse. In those two examples we are taking tentative steps in the right direction. But because--this is a key point which has been mentioned by others--of the unique role of London and the level of public resources involved, we have to face reality.
London is and will remain highly dependent on central government approval and finance. It is cloud-cuckoo-land to believe that any party will allow to exist indefinitely a structure over which it does not have control, with the vast sums of money and the impact on the rest of the country which are involved in London.
There has been a great deal of talk about the GLC's winding up. I do not think that it did a lot of harm. I went to some incredibly good parties there. They were not as good as those which the LCC used to throw, but they were quite good. But do not let us delude ourselves that we are simply trying to solve a problem which began when the GLC was wound up. The problem is much deeper than that.
Using the infrastructure already in place, which is already conducting surveys in the areas in which we are interested, a restructured GOL could provide the back office for a strategic authority. The regional director's role would be upgraded--call him a chief executive, a director or a commissioner. This concern with titles to define fashionable gladiators of the moment I find strange. It does not change much, but it makes people happy. He would be a major figure immediately. It needs taking out of central government but given the status of a department.
London Pride, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, has already set out its priorities for London: first, business growth; secondly, raising skill levels; thirdly, improving transport; and, fourthly, improving environmental quality. They are all very much the type of things that we all want.
Many of the key players with London Pride are also members of the Government's advisory panel. Among them, they represent all the key organisations, including the political parties. So what about the democratic deficit? I must say that with over 2,000 elected local authority members, 74 MPs and 10 MEPs, I find that problem exaggerated. We need to approach the problem in a new way.
I suggest that we look at Commons Select Committees. They have a considerable reputation and unique powers. Under chairmen such as Terry Higgins at the Treasury and Frank Field at Social Affairs they are major and influential bodies. They have the power to order Ministers to attend, and they do attend. If we approach the matter in that way and use the structures which already exist with a London Select Committee in the House of Commons, that would give us time to set up a Royal Commission to take a serious look at the problem.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. I had the pleasure and the honour of sitting on a committee of this House to consider the Croydon tramlink Bill which was under his able chairmanship. It was also a great pleasure to hear the two model maiden speeches.
I do not have the credentials of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, but I have one credential which he did not mention. Although I often ride a bicycle in London and drive almost daily because I do not live near an Underground station, from time to time I ride pillion on a motorbike. I have lived and worked in London not for 55 years but for 47 and I hope that that gives me the necessary credentials. Furthermore, I have been a committee member of the Automobile Association for 15 years.
I am personally frustrated by the traffic congestion, the lack of co-ordination and the ubiquitous roadworks which appear like a virus without warning or apparent plan on London's busiest roads--for example, on the Strand--and by the arrogant and arbitrary rearrangement of one-way streets without reference or notice to the local residents, let alone concern for their convenience. However, I wish to go beyond personal considerations.
The recent Blackwall Tunnel incident is one of the practical manifestations of the transport problems which exist in London today. Perhaps I may refresh your Lordships' memories. About a month ago an over-height vehicle became stuck at the entrance to the Blackwall Tunnel. It caused a traffic jam for three hours. East London came to a standstill. There was no one to take overall responsibility for the emergency. Another manifestation of the problem is the confusion over funding and timing, which year after year bedevils the repair work to the Hammersmith Bridge. Who is responsible for emergencies, as in the former case, and for funding and management, as in the latter? Nobody! As the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said when making his fourth point, we need a responsible and accountable person to exercise control.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a few statistics. There are more than 40 highway authorities within the M.25 which are responsible for roads. They include 33 London boroughs, the Home Counties, the British Airports Authority and the Secretary of State for Transport. There are trunk roads, designated roads, local roads and a primary route network. Under reserve
powers, the London Traffic Control Systems Unit is responsible for computer controlled traffic lights and variable message signs within Greater London. A statutory traffic director for London, appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport, is responsible for the implementation of the Red Route network. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner is responsible for parking enforcement on Red Routes, but not on local roads, and for traffic law enforcement. A statutory London Parking Committee is responsible for co-ordinating London parking policy matters. A lorry ban is run by a statutory committee from the boroughs. I have not even mentioned the fact that there is a Minister for Transport in London and that John Gummer is overall Minister with special responsibility for London. Involved in transport decision making in London is London Regional Transport, the London Planning Advisory Committee, the South East Planning Conference, Railtrack and franchised rail services which are responsible for mainline and regional services. No wonder there is confusion on London roads. No wonder we who live in London are bewildered and frustrated.There are two tiny glimmers of hope. The Automobile Association's public affairs director has asked the Minister, John Bowis, to review in particular how the London-wide effect of incidents such as Blackwall could be better managed. I understand that the Government have accepted the AA's advice to look at incident management on Britain's motorways and are now consulting on regional traffic control centres. Those will cut across the boundaries of the highway authorities and the police.
I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, that there is a transport strategy for London. That is very good news indeed and I only hope that we can find a co-ordinator to implement transport planning for London and the South East. That might be a strategic authority for London, an overall mayor and elected executive or the noble Lord's champion.
I cannot help thinking of Dr. Johnson. I assure your Lordships that I am not tired of life but I am heartily sick and tired of transport confusion. The present fragmentation of responsibilities is unacceptable. Today I have heard of the democratic deficit in London. I believe that it is in urgent need of some democratic credit.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the fact that we are having the debate, so powerfully introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, is a sign that the abolition of the GLC created a vacuum. I liked the GLC. I was not among the seething masses of elected borough councillors of many parties, nor a Minister. However, as an ordinary London person who does not drive a car and is too afraid to travel by bicycle or ride pillion, I believe that the fares fair policy was the only economically rational way of running public transport. Indeed, it was profitable. How many people remember that?
London transport used to work in those days. Ask any taxi driver to learn that the traffic problem in London has worsened! No doubt the Minister will say that that is a result of prosperity, but other world cities try not to have traffic problems despite prosperity.
One might say that the GLC was useless and expensive. However, I imagine that if someone added up the financial cost of all the quangos and the cost of Ministers' time in forming committees, to say nothing of the invaluable time of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere--no doubt the cost would be hefty--we are not saving much money having abolished the GLC. Furthermore, we are wasting a great deal of time in not achieving good results.
I should like to put in a good word for ILEA which does not receive much praise. Three of my children went to comprehensive schools run by ILEA and had a very good education. ILEA did a lot for music which is very difficult on a borough-wide basis. Children's music requires economies of size. The London Institute, which has co-ordinated the colleges of art in London, is another achievement of ILEA. Therefore, it should not be denigrated. When the GLC was abolished, it may not have been popular with borough councils. However, a poll showed that 75 per cent. of people favoured its continuation and only 25 per cent. were against.
We must consider the GLC as one of the many solutions proposed over the past 200 years for the running of London. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, say that we should not think so much of solutions; rather, we should find out what the problem is and what the problems are. We should determine which set of problems can be solved by a strategic authority and which remain insoluble.
First, I should say that in a sense, when looking at the problem of London, we should not think of it so much as a city but as a region which has different boundaries depending upon which function of London we are thinking of. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, mentioned the 200-mile transport corridor. People come into London; they commute. Therefore, London's health needs during the day are different from those at night. London businesses have a global reach. If there was a power breakdown in London, it would have worldwide consequences. Therefore, we must think of London as being of different shapes and sizes and we must try to see which solution is appropriate for a particular problem.
I should perhaps draw the attention of noble Lords to a document I found called Creating a sustainable London which is published by something called the Sustainable London Trust. It is very interesting because it looks at the problem of London within the environmental framework of sustainability. It asks how London can be made sustainable for people who live and work in London as well as from the point of view of transport and finance and other such matters. It makes a wide variety of suggestions, especially about local participation. It proposes a London citizens' forum for discussing matters. Far too often, when we think of a democracy, we think of people being elected to sit on
councils. But that means election only once every four years. We need to have the continual participation of London's citizens.London generates something close to £80 to £90 billion of the GDP of the UK. It is larger than Saudi Arabia from that point of view. We think of London as a city but we should think of it as a region. We have had many debates on devolution. London does not have a separate ethnic population so that it is treated slightly worse than Scotland or Wales. If we think about it, there are Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales but there is no Secretary of State for London. Why not? A Secretary of State for London might be a quick and dirty, as it were, solution to the problem. We have a Minister responsible for London but he has many other responsibilities. When one thinks of the size and importance of London and the particular financial problem which it poses, then I do not believe that it is adequate to have a Minister who has a responsibility for London among other things. We need to think about that. It may be that that would be a better solution than an elected mayor for London. It is not a bad idea to have an elected mayor but if he is to be a chief executive he must have a supporting cast of a small body of efficient commissioners, or something like that. That can perhaps be achieved by elevating people who are already dealing with such matters as road traffic problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said. But the position of mayor in itself is not the solution; it is only part of it. We must think much wider than that.
We need to have something like the Abercrombie Plan and we must think at that level. We have new tools and new needs. Information technology has changed quite a lot of things. It may be that a strategic authority for London should not be a body but a series of functions and solutions, some of which could be co-ordinated either through a Secretary of State for London or through some sort of revived M.25 area authority or by a single mayor.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that there is not a single solution because finance will always be a problem. No large city ever finances itself because, while it generates a lot of income, it is difficult to capture that income into taxation without killing a lot of activity in the city. Therefore, London will need a central transfer because Londoners contribute in other ways to the national economy.
Whether or not London gets its fair share is a matter of rather tedious calculation, and perhaps a Royal Commission might do that. But more important, any solution must incorporate recent developments rather than make a break with what has happened in the past 10 years. Secondly, it must harness a lot of the private energy, from both business and citizens, which exists in London. Far too often we think in terms of elected councils and elected people. The rank-and-file of London citizens have a lot of energy and they may be able to generate some of the solutions we are looking for.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |