Greater London Authority Bill

Various myths about the Bill have been put around by both the Government and the Mayor of London. In my view, the Bill is not a devolutionary measure. Almost all the new powers will come from the London boroughs, not the Government. I represent a part of London in which the Mayor is deeply unpopular, although I do not have sufficient time to go through the reasons why. I have always believed that when considering such constitutional changes, it is important to try to separate the personality and the position. In that regard, it is slightly unfortunate that we are talking about a new set of powers when we have had only one Mayor so far. Without having seen Mayors with different personalities and from different political parties over a period of time, it is difficult to determine how the mayoral position will work. It would have been more helpful if the debate had been held in four years’ time. Although my view on constitutional change is that personality should be slightly divorced from position, it is, unfortunately, rather difficult to do so. The Evening Standard, London’s major print media, has said that the debate is about whether people are for or against ““More powers for Ken””. The launch of the consultation in November 2005, which led to the Bill, has been an example of poor government. The process straddled either side of the May borough council elections. If Labour had won dozens of London councils in May, I cannot imagine that the Government would be proposing to shift powers from the boroughs, most of which were run by relatively new Labour authorities, to the present Mayor of London, who is largely out of sync with the Labour leadership. To a large extent, the Bill is a result of headlines such as that in the Evening Standard on 5 May: ““Blue is the colour—jubilant Tories crush Labour in London.”” Given the timing of the Bill, one cannot help but think that there is a connection. The huge movement of powers from the London boroughs is a blatant attempt to override the results of May’s elections and to deny local democratic choice on matters such as housing and planning. It is notable that when the GLA was created in 2000, Labour controlled 18 of the 32 London boroughs—just more than half. Today, it controls just eight, or a quarter. Moreover, when one looks at the three layers of government in London, it is the London Mayor who has the most questionable democratic mandate. Turnout in London in the 2005 general election was 58 per cent. The turnout for the 2006 borough elections was 38 per cent. The Mayor was elected in the election with the lowest turnout of the three. The Member who was elected with a share of registered electors nearest to that of the Mayor was the Minister with responsibility for London, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick). The Bill takes away powers from those with a stronger and more legitimate electoral mandate and gives it to those with a weaker mandate. My hon. Friends have spoken eloquently about planning. However, a specific point must be made about those who are in charge of regeneration. I strongly object to the same person or committee being responsible for both regeneration and planning decisions. I have direct experience of that. In the last eight years of Labour’s control of Hammersmith and Fulham council, the cabinet member for regeneration was also on the planning committee. She was so influential that the administration majority on the planning committee would follow almost her every move. Why is that important? It is like merging the Executive and the judiciary. Planning is a quasi-judicial function, while regeneration is an executive function. It is extremely difficult to envisage how the Mayor could combine his existing role of promoting economic and social development and that of making decisions on individual planning applications to such an extent. As I said in an earlier intervention, the Bill misses an opportunity by not fixing the grave problem caused by the Mayor’s powers on consultation. The Mayor carries out an enormous number of consultations, which gives rise both to poor government and to expensive government. It is poor government to ignore routinely the results of consultations, as the Mayor does, and it is expensive government when those consultations simply add to the cost of a scheme. For example, part of the reason why the costs of the west London tram have escalated is the extensive consultation on it. There are various reasons why the Bill should be opposed. I look forward to its being opposed, or at least amended in Committee.