All Thatcher’s arguments for abolishing the GLC have proved false. London is now dirtier, more congested and poorer. But the Green Paper New Leadership for London (NLL) is disappointing. Londoners should use the consultation process to press for improvements before legislation is published.
Despite the manifesto commitment, no one has yet given a convincing reason for a directly elected Mayor. The London Mayor would dominate the proposed authority, with Assembly members playing a minor role. Think of the negative publicity if I had led the GLC with similar powers! The idea is part of a dangerous trend to de-politicise public affairs, leaving one person in control of large resources. The lesson of the USA is that personality-based politics is the bedrock of corruption.
Some London Labour politicians have urged that the Mayor be paid a very high salary to make the position attractive to the great and the good. But there was never a shortage of candidates amongst very poorly remunerated politicians for leader of the GLC. Londoners are unlikely to accept any excuses for paying the Mayor more than MPs. Indeed, MPs should be allowed to stand for the post, as long as they only draw one salary. The political support for the last GLC administration was much stronger for having a voice in Parliament through MPs like Tony Banks, and there is no more conflict between being a London MP and London Mayor than being a Cabinet minister with a big department and an MP.
According to NLL the Assembly would “examine and approve the Mayor’s budgetary and strategic proposals”, with the power to propose changes. What if the Assembly wishes to reject the Mayor’s budget? As NLL suggests “we need mechanisms to avoid unnecessary conflict” but the paper does not suggest what these might be.
The best way to resolve this is to have a Mayor elected from the Assembly’s largest group. At least the Mayor and the Assembly should be elected simultaneously for the same term of office, reducing risk of conflicting political priorities. John McDonnell’s proposal for a Mayor’s cabinet made up of Assembly members could also ease the accountability gap.
NLL has a number of passages dealing with the relationship between the Assembly, the Mayor, and other bodies. In response, London CLPs should support ways to strengthen the Assembly as the broadest and most representative body on offer. An example is the welcome proposal for a London Police Authority, which would be solely appointed by the Mayor. It would be simpler and more accountable for the GLA to directly assume that job, either by meeting as a Police Authority, or by electing the authority’s membership from its own ranks.
This principle should apply to the election for the Assembly itself. The GLA will be responsible for one of the largest cities in Europe, but NLL suggests that it have only 24 members, about one for every three parliamentary constituencies. This is a ghastly prospect. The only way to get a real strategic authority is for every borough and area to be properly represented. If anything I think it is worth considering two representatives for each borough, with one seat in each reserved for a woman.
In terms of new powers, NLL declares: “we do not propose to abolish the City Corporation”. This undemocratic and archaic institution sits on huge resources — particularly in the form of corporation and business rates — which should be available to every Londoner. The Corporation must be abolished, with functions passed to neighbouring boroughs and the new Assembly, and the City’s separate police force brought into the ‘Met’ Police under the new Police Authority.
The document could be stronger on its own priority of London-wide strategic issues. For example, the GLA would assume planning functions currently exercised by the Government Office for London and the London Planning Advisory Committee. The GLA will need powers of direction which could be enhanced by transferring powers which the Secretary of State for the Environment has over London.
The whole section on transport and environment is disappointing. NLL assumes that the GLA should produce a transport policy “consistent with national transport and planning policies”. But if we ever have a Tory Government concreting over green spaces the GLA should not constrain itself within such a framework.
The new London Transport Authority will be appointed by the Mayor, with the Assembly approving the appointments. The Assembly must assume these responsibilities, with powers to co-opt borough councillors or others as it sees fit.
The GLA is an historic opportunity to integrate public transport in London, but NLL weakly suggests “we will consider ways which will enable the LTA to influence decisions made on rail services”. Londoners should have the right to expect that their strategic authority can decide what happens to their local rail commuter services. NLL’s approach to rail is repeated for the M25, the Thames, bus/cycle priority routes and London-wide bodies such as the London Ecology Unit. London would benefit enormously if all of these were under GLA control.
What will make or break the GLA is whether it can raise the resources to deliver better services for Londoners. The GLA should become a house building authority (something not envisaged by NLL). NLL repeats the big myth of post-Thatcher Britain - that you resolve deep-seated problems of society without paying for them: “Any additional spending in setting up the GLA would need to be offset by savings”.
Tackling London’s transport chaos, environmental degradation, poverty and unemployment requires resources and the GLA must be able to raise them. For example NLL says “we are not currently persuaded of the merits of a business levy to finance transport spending.” But the tube system needs around three quarters of a billion pounds of extra money each year. The corporate sector benefits from public transport. It is in its long term interest to pay to modernise it. The GLA must be able to draw on precepts and levies on the London boroughs and, more significantly, on a London Corporation Tax structured to ensure that struggling businesses are not hit.
Londoners should make their voices heard before 24th October to make sure that we can look forward to a GLA with real power to improve the lives of Londoners. The London Labour Party has a special role to play in expressing that progressive agenda.