Greater London Authority Bill

Localism has been one of the themes of this debate. I think, and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends agree, that localism is becoming more important, not less. For example, on the issue of social exclusion, it is often the most marginalised in our society who have the most difficulty with remote bureaucracy. If we can bring bureaucracy closer to people, it can assist with that problem, as well as many others that have been discussed this evening. As well as espousing localism in its true form, I also support mayors. Local mayors have much to commend them and there are some interesting examples round the country. In many instances, therefore, I support the transfer of powers from central Government to mayors. The problem with the Bill, and its flawed psychology—ably spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait)—is that while it includes some transfers from central Government to the Mayor, it also includes crucial transfers of power from the boroughs to the Mayor. Although the Minister for Housing and Planning is a very logical woman, there is no logical way to defend the transfer of powers on housing and planning from the boroughs to the Mayor and espouse localism at the same time. Much of the difficulty stems from the original conception behind the Mayor and the Greater London assembly. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) went into the history of the issue, and we all remember that the Government essentially chose to avoid hard choices and fudged many of the issues by inserting a third tier of government between central Government and the existing boroughs. That inevitably requires a precise definition of what each layer of government will do. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that leads to tensions, wrangling, the need to redefine the position in the light of experience—which is what is happening this evening—and increased complexity. I submit that complexity is the enemy of democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) made an important point when she said that if we want people to participate in local democracy, to vote and be involved, we must keep it simple. Complexity of the sort that we have in London is inimical to real involvement. If it is over-complex, it becomes a matter for the experts, not the people who are not experts and do not understand, even though they wish to do so. To take a local example from Orpington, one of my constituents, Mr. Vic Heasman, was concerned about large lorries going down a country lane. They were damaging the pavements and hedgerows and were a safety hazard for local residents and the children of a nearby school. He therefore tried to find out who gave the lorries permission to travel down that narrow country lane. He asked Bromley council, but it was nothing to do with it. He asked Transport for London, but it was nothing to do with it. He asked the Mayor’s office, but it was nothing to do with him. He asked the police, but it was nothing to do with them. In fact, he discovered, after three months of trying, that the Association of Local Government issued the permits for those large lorries. It took three months of hard effort by that determined constituent to discover who was responsible before anything could be done about the issue. That exemplifies the problem, created by the Government, of a complicated system of local government in London. It need not have been like that. The Government may claim that it was the only way forward given the existing situation in London, but there were other models. Paris has a different model, for example. It is defined by the historic core inside the boulevard périphérique and banlieues outside it. London could have adopted a similar model, with only two layers of government rather than three. Many of the difficulties that we now face, which have occasioned the Bill, would have been done away with, but the Government chose a three-tier system. It is increasingly centralised and over complicated. I am especially concerned about housing, where the complexities and difficulties are most severe. I shall not spell out the details, as we are short of time and, unlike the previous speaker, I wish to be brief. The truth is that the powers that boroughs such as Bromley have in relation to housing are circumscribed and directed by the Mayor who, in turn, must pay attention to the national housing strategy. We know a lot more about the national housing strategy after the second report from Mrs. Barker. Like her first, it is a crude and soulless throwback to the era of predict and provide. She has simply taken the forecasts of possible housing demand and advocated that the necessary housing can be supplied by a process of ““densification””— an invented, ugly, word for an ugly process that causes suffering to people in the suburbs, and elsewhere. In her report, Mrs. Barker makes no attempt to analyse the demand for housing. For example, I and others have often made the point that a significant element in housing demand, especially in London, is the high level of immigration. In the Select Committee the other day, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality was asked whether he had looked into the effect of high levels of immigration on housing in London. He had no answer, but immigration is a factor. We all know that we benefit economically from high levels of immigration, but we must consider the implications for housing and public services. Whatever one’s conclusion, it is absurd not to consider the matter.