London Government (Hansard, 2 May 1990)

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the people of London the legal right and duty to elect a London Council and Mayor so that the needs of London may be met and its administration secured on a basis that is fully accountable to the people through the ballot box; and for purposes connected therewith. The Bill would restore to the people of London the legal right and duty to elect a Londonwide council and for the first time directly to elect someone to the office of mayor of London.

Tomorrow, the people of London will vote for their new borough councils and, of course, the Labour party confidently expects to do well. All the poll tax fiddling in the world to try to keep Wandsworth and Westminster in Tory clutches will not prevent the Labour party from making sweeping gains throughout the capital. Hon. Members and people outside know that the main reason for Tory defeats will undoubtedly be the poll tax. I remember when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) described the Labour party's 1983 general election manifesto as the longest suicide note in history. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will disagree with that, as I did.

All of us think it accurate to describe the poll tax as the political equivalent of the cyanide capsule. After all, why be annihilated on a shopping list of policies when one will do the trick? The poll tax will undoubtedly be the Tory killer in the local government elections. However, in London, a climate of general dissatisfaction about the state of our city will also be in the minds of numerous voters when they cast their votes.

London is the only capital city in the world that does not have citywide local government. Deep in her bunker, behind those preposterous iron gates at the end of Downing street, the Prime Minister might be able to deceive herself that the abolition of the GLC was a good idea, but to the rest of us, who do not have the benefit of travelling around London in an armoured police convoy, reality tells a different story. From the near-chaos on our congested, rubble-strewn, crime-ravaged streets, to the overcrowded, overpriced and inefficient transport system, London shows all the signs of a city that is unplanned, unco-ordinated and unpleasant.

The abolition of the GLC in 1986 was an act of political vandalism by the Prime Minister. The folly of that politically malevolent decision becomes more evident by the day. In an editorial last month, the Financial Timesspoke of the degeneration of many London streets and the absence of a strategic plan for Britain's capital city. It said that such factors were surely not unconnected with the disappearance of the GLC. Similarly, in a recent report, the Henley centre for forecasting warned about London's "dirty and dangerous" reputation.

What the Financial Times and the forecasters observe, so do Members of Parliament, commuters, visitors, residents and anyone who knows and cares about London. No Londonwide service previously run by the GLC is now more efficiently organised. The consequences of the transfer of former GLC services to quangos and 1038 Government Departments have been inefficiency, expense and remoteness. Nowhere is that more disastrously evident than in strategic planning, or in the absence of strategic planning. Put starkly, strategic planning for London has ceased to exist. In its place, we now have the Department of the Environment's so-called strategic guidance for London. I should love to know what Ministers intend to do about it, because it is nothing more than a string of clichés joined together with wishful thinking.

Draft guidance is predicated on the fallacy that fewer and less effective planned controls and the free operation of the market will lead to greater prosperity, a better environment, and easier movement, and will correct the imbalances in labour supply and availability of housing in London. As the man said, only an idiot in a hurry would believe such absurdities to be an adequate replacement for the Greater London council's strategic plan for London. Unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of idiots in a hurry, and many of them end up as Ministers in the Department of the Environment.

My Bill would reintroduce citywide local government for London for those services where the strategic overview is essential, such as land use planning and transport, and for those services where economies of scale can be achieved, such as waste disposal, sewerage and emergency services. For those who wish to know the Labour party's official line, the document "London Pride"—printed in sparkling Kinnock colour—launched by my right hon. Friend last month, spells out the Labour Government's intentions for the capital city.

Although I fully expect Labour policies eventually to catch up, my Bill goes a step further than "London Pride". I envisage that the new London council will be run from county hall, which will be taken back into public ownership by compulsory purchase. I should not expect compensation terms to be generous. No one—I direct this at my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench—involved in the outrageous and insulting proposal to turn county hall into a hotel should be under any illusions concerning the utter determination of myself and my London Labour colleagues—I have the honour to be the chair of the group—to recapture county hall for the people of London. The developers and their backers have been warned. They will have only themselves to blame if they choose to disregard these warnings.

My Bill proposes the introduction of a directly elected mayor of London.

§ Mr. Banks

I would be honoured to serve in that capacity—it would be dishonest of me to pretend otherwise—but that is not the purpose of my Bill. When London votes for the new London council based on single-member constituencies, it will be able to vote also on the basis of proportional representation, with a run-off ballot if necessary, for a new mayor to speak on behalf of all London. That person will have wide-ranging executive powers and authority, and will become the London equivalent of Jacques Chirac of Paris or Mayor Dinkins of New York. I envisage the London mayor residing in the Mansion house and maintaining the lord mayor's show. The existing City corporation would, of course. be abolished.

1039 London needs a powerful voice, and one that can speak on behalf of London. Perhaps my voice would be powerful enough, but I would not have the temerity to put myself forward for such early candidature before knowing whether any hon. Member will vote against the Bill. As I have said, we need a powerful voice. We need someone who is able to speak on behalf of the capital and all Londoners. Only the ballot box can provide that level of authority and accountability.

I reject the idea of a Minister for London, as such a person would owe his or her loyalty to the Prime Minister, who appoints, or to collective responsibility in the Cabinet. We want someone whose first loyalty would be to London and its citizens, someone who can stand up to central Government and make the case for the capital. A directly elected mayor would be able to fulfil all such functions. I accept that such an office is new to local government in this country, but it would bring us into line with practice on the continent and in north America. I believe that it is a proposal whose time has come and that it will find great support throughout London.

1040 In common with many Londoners, I have much for which to thank the London county council and the Greater London council. Those of us who love this great city are deeply saddened by its decline in recent years. We are determined, however, to restore London to its pre-eminent position. My Bill would be one step in that renaissance.