Greater London Authority Bill

I hope to be able reassure the Committee about the issues raised in this short debate. I am hoping that, while I am talking, I will come up with a better animal, but that may be too controversial an area to get into. The Government have no intention of abolishing the Government Office for London. We believe that the office has an important role to play, and we firmly reject the amendment. Not only is the amendment defective—I shall not bore the Committee with it; well, I suppose I will—the Government Office for London is an administrative unit of central Government and has no legal status, but I strongly question the underlying thinking behind it. Let me be clear, central Government will continue to have a strong presence and interest in London as the UK’s capital city and only world city. Evenwith the passage of the Bill, which gives the Mayor further important powers and responsibilities, there are many public services in London which the GLA will continue to have no significant statutory influence over and where responsibility will rightly remain either with central Government or London boroughs. I am sure that the Committee will agree, for instance, that the performance arrangements for boroughs should remain the responsibility of Ministers. Similarly, in areas such as planning, where the Mayor has an important strategic role, there remains an important statutory role for the Secretary of State—for instance, in calling in planning decisions. Furthermore, the Government were elected on a manifesto to transform public services and tackle the pressing problems facing ordinary people right across the country: problems such as poor schools, crime and anti-social behaviour. That inevitably means central Government engaging extensively with local bodies and communities in London and elsewhere so that real improvements are made on the ground. The salient question to ask then is: what is the most effective way for central Government’s presence to be organised in the capital? One approach would be for individual departments to undertake their specific London-related functions operating directly out of Whitehall. In some cases, that may make sense, but that approach generally risks duplication and confusion. It is a potentially inefficient use of resources, especially when there is already a strong expectation from all sides that central departments themselves should be slimmed down. Perhaps more importantly, that approach does not easily enable cross-cutting issues, which span across more than one department, to be addressed. It makes it much more difficult for the Government and boroughs to engage effectively with each other on specific problems and priorities facing particular parts of London, especially when there is greater appreciation across the political spectrum of the importance of place in the delivery of public services and the need for more joined-up thinking across the public sector. That is why it makes sense to have a Government Office for London; that is, an office that can represent Whitehall in the capital, whose civil servants work directly to Ministers right across the Government, and which can forge strong working relationships with the GLA, boroughs and other local partners to ensure the Government’s priorities for public services in London. In this regard, the Government Office for London’s role is clearly distinct from that of the GLA and will become even clearer as the wider review of the government office network is implemented. The Government Office for London’s focus will very much be, first, acting as the key interface between Whitehall and boroughs to ensure government priorities are delivered, particularly through the new statutory local area agreement framework and, more specifically, in relation to facilitating the Every Child Matters agenda, and driving forward crime reduction targets; secondly, advising Ministers on the Mayor’s strategies to ensure they are not inconsistent with national policy, in line with the Greater London Authority Act, as well as supporting Ministers in relation to London-specific legislation; and, thirdly, working in partnership with the GLA, emergency services and other public bodies to ensure that London is sufficiently prepared to respond to all kinds of civil emergencies, which reflect Ministers’ ultimate responsibility for civil resilience in London. The Government Office for London will also focus on undertaking casework and advising Ministers in relation to their statutory planning functions in London, including where necessary calling in planning applications. Finally, it will help to bring together the public sector across London—whether central government agencies, mayoral bodies or boroughs—to deliver specific ministerial priorities which address London’s particular problems, such as the resettlement of offenders and most recently youth gun crime. The Government Office for London’s role in administrating individual funding programmes in London will decline with the next round of European structural funds rightly becoming the responsibility of the Mayor, nor will it be responsible for preparing regional strategies for London, such as the housing strategy, which are again better undertaken by the Mayor. I believe that that picks up on some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. That transformation of functions will create a new Government Office for London that is significantly different from the one that existed 10 or even five years ago. The office will become considerably smaller and more streamlined, with staffing numbers already down by a quarter to 268 since 2004 and further reductions envisaged. Picking up on a point made by my noble friend Lord Harris, resources are being streamlined, and staffing numbers are being reduced and will reduce further. At the same time, it will create an office that is able to raise its game, to deliver ministerial aspirations and work in partnership with the GLA and boroughs to improve London’s public services and address the city’s challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, suggested that more functions should be delegated to the GLA. We considered very carefully what further functions undertaken by the Government could be sensibly devolved down to the Mayor in our review of the GLA last year. We concluded in terms of functions undertaken by the Government Office for London that responsibility for regional housing and strategy, and the next round of EU structural funding, should be transferred to the Mayor. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to consider now, so soon after this review of the GLA’s powers, whether there should be any further major transfer of functions from the GOL to the GLA. The Mayor’s new powers and responsibilities as a result of this Bill need time to bed down. I therefore thank Members of the Committee for this debate, which is very important. I do not think that there should be any complacency about the role of regional government bodies and how they relate to local government, and in this case the unique authority, the GLA. My noble friend said, ““If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck””; although I am not quite sure how he intended finishing that. We are dealing with a unique situation, and the Government are very mindful of the need to be clear about maximising the relationship between the GLA and the boroughs, with the minimum resources possible, to achieve strong partnership working and very positive results for Londoners so that the Government’s priorities can be met.