Greater London Authority Bill

I thank my hon. Friend for his advice. I did not realise that I had used the word as often as he implies, but I take his point. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) mentioned local involvement in consultation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall also raised. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) spoke passionately about housing, but my hon. Friend had much greater confidence in our determination to make progress and in the Mayor and the boroughs to deliver. In shorter contributions than they had perhaps prepared, the hon. Members for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), for Cities of London and Westminster, for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling), for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) and for Putney (Justine Greening) relevantly raised housing, health, accountability and scrutiny, mayoral powers and the boroughs, the timidity of the Bill, skills and training, crime reduction partnerships and the congestion charge. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst sadly managed to drag in the problems of West Ham United. I suggest to him that, by the time we successfully conclude Committee proceedings, he and I will happily be singing, ““I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles”” together again. It is instructive, however, that the two London assembly members who sit on the Conservative Benches have indicated that they are voting against the Bill as it does not go far enough and is not bold enough, in contrast to their right hon. and hon. Friends who all believe that it goes too far. I suggest that those two hon. Gentlemen are going in the wrong direction and should join us in the Lobby tonight. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), winding up for the Opposition, raised the issue of flip-flops: a fair point. Given the recent policy reverses from the Conservative party, it was made with the authority of real experience. He spoke of the failure in housing policy, which, I would point out, goes back decades. It is a policy failure that we are now starting to put right. The question of the GLA’s budget was raised by several Members. In 2006-07, 73 per cent. of the GLA precept went to the Metropolitan Police Authority. The precept also contributes to other key London services, such as fire and emergency planning. Only 3 per cent. goes to fund the core GLA, while 7 per cent. goes to fund the Olympics. The GLA precept has helped to fund a substantial increase in the number of police officers since the creation of the GLA: 5,658 more, a 22.7 per cent. increase between March 2001 and March 2006. That compares with an increase of about 10 per cent. for all other forces in England and Wales. It also supports the roll-out of neighbourhood policing across the capital: three quarters of the policing precept increase for 2006-07 is related to neighbourhood policing. Furthermore, the Mayor does not have an unfettered power in setting the precept. The assembly has the power to amend the precept by a two thirds majority, which has provided an important constraint on the Mayor’s ability to set the GLA group budget. As the House knows, the Government are prepared to take capping action to deal with excessive council tax increases. We would take such action in relation to all authorities if necessary, including the GLA. We will have a full opportunity to examine the Bill in detail in Committee. I am pleased to have had the chance to wind up this important debate. I thank again all those who have participated this evening. We have heard a well-informed exchange of views on the structure and powers of London’s strategic, city-wide government. The main purpose of the Bill is to take forward the Government’ commitment to devolution by providing more powers for London’s government, the Mayor and the assembly. We are determined that decisions should be taken at the right level of governance. In London, for many decisions, that means the strategic, city-wide level, and the Bill gives the Mayor the powers to take those decisions. The Bill provides the Mayor with new roles in housing and tackling climate change, and a strengthened role in planning and managing London’s waste. It is a robust package of measures that devolves powers from Whitehall to city hall. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning ably opened this debate by explaining that the Bill takes forward the Government’s commitment to devolution. The Bill helps to ensure that the right decisions are taken at the right level. We are building on the success of the GLA to date and the Mayor’s proven track record of achievement. We are strengthening his leadership of the capital, and ensuring that London’s government takes more of the key strategic decisions that will deliver better public services and impact directly on Londoners’ lives. Those of us who have lived in London over recent decades recognise the difficulties that London faced because of the abolition of the Greater London council. The Government have proudly restored London’s voice. That voice has made sure that services in the capital are more effective and deliver better value for money. The Bill delivers for Londoners, and I commend it to the House. Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:— The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 151.