Settlement Covers

A New Settlement

for London

A report by the Commission on London Governance

Volume 1

A New

Settlement

for London

A report by the Commission on London Governance

Volume 1





February 2006

copyright

Greater London Authority

February 2006



Published by

Greater London Authority

City Hall

The Queen’s Walk

London SE1 2AA

www.london.gov.uk

enquiries 020 7983 4100

minicom 020 7983 4458



ISBN for complete set of 3 volumes: 1 85261 821 3

ISBN for this volume: 1 85261 822 1

This publication is printed on recycled paper

THE COMMISSION ON LONDON GOVERNANCE



The London Governance Review Commission (now the Commission on London

Governance) was first set up in February 2004, with Members appointed by the

London Assembly and the Association of London Governments Leaders’ Committee.

Following a break before the GLA elections, the Commission was

re-established on 21 July 2004.



The terms of reference as agreed at the 9 November 2004 Commission meeting are

to examine and make recommendations in respect of:



a) the accountability of service delivery agents;

b) the participation of the citizens of London in the delivery of services;

c) the customer perspective on service delivery arrangements, including levels of

satisfaction and involvement;

d) the provider perspective of service delivery arrangements;

e) the extent and effectiveness of coordination between service delivery agents;

f) the efficiency and ownership of the funding streams;

g) the appropriate role of other public sector agencies, quasi-autonomous non-

governmental organisations and regional authorities in the provision of

services;

h) inequalities of service provision to consumers as a result of geographical

location;

i) the scope for increasing public participation in holding public service providers

to account



The Commission intends to concentrate on how well London works. That is why the

Commission has decided not to review the boundaries of London or its boroughs; the

costs of reorganisation would likely outweigh any possible benefits of better service

provision. The Commission’s interim report “Capital Life” was published in June 2005

and “Making London Work Better” in October 2005.





Members of the Commission

London Assembly Association of London Government



Bob Neill (Deputy Chair) Cllr Hugh Malyan (Chair)

Richard Barnes Mayor Steve Bullock

Darren Johnson Cllr Merrick Cockell

Murad Qureshi Cllr Cameron Geddes

Valerie Shawcross Cllr Steve Hitchins

Graham Tope Cllr Edward Lister

Cllr Andrew Judge



Director of Studies Media Contacts

Richard Derecki Denise.Malcolm@london.gov.uk

Richard.Derecki@london.gov.uk Telephone: 020 7983 4090

Telephone: 020 7983 4899 Suzanne.Stevenson@alg.gov.uk

Telephone: 020 7934 9757

FOREWORD

“I love London because on any day of the week somewhere, you

can find something that will enrich you” Kwame Kwei-Armah





This report is not only about London’s governance: it is about

London’s future success.



The capital faces a remarkable combination of opportunities and

challenges in the years running up to the 2012 Olympics, when it will

become the focus of world attention, and beyond. London’s ability to

maintain future economic, social and environmental improvements

will depend on the extent to which public services become more

efficient, effective and accountable. That is why this report matters

to all Londoners.



To take a single example, London, is in many ways the powerhouse

of the national economy. It will see further growth during the coming

ten years with projections of big increases in population and

employment. That is good news, except that almost half of existing

Londoners lack the skills needed to take advantage of the types of

new jobs that are emerging in the capital’s economy. Our report’s

proposals aimed at creating a more effective structure for training

and skills provision are a crucial step towards providing London and

many individuals with the higher skills that the future will demand.



London secured a new form of strategic government in 2000 with

the introduction of the directly-elected Mayor of London and the

London Assembly. The Government is now reviewing the Mayor and

Assembly’s powers and, although this report also covers that

ground, it looks more broadly at how London works as a whole.



Many of the findings relate to specific services or functions. Readers

of this report will find, among much else, recommendations that call

for:



■ the accountability of local police teams to elected represent-

atives and local communities to be enhanced;



■ a single Strategic Health Authority for London, with well-

performing borough councils taking over the commissioning

of local health provision from NHS primary care trusts;



■ powers, budgets and responsibilities of London’s five

Learning and Skills Councils to be brought into a single

structure accountable to the Mayor and answerable to the

London Assembly;



■ appointment powers in the arts, which are a core part of

London’s creative industries economy as well as a publicly

funded activity, to be devolved to London’s government;



5

■ a London Performance Agency to drive more intensive joint

working between boroughs;



■ consideration of separate council tax billing for the GLA

precept so that Londoners have a clearer understanding of

services provided by the GLA and its functional bodies;



■ giving London boroughs the flexibility to consider new

revenue streams; re-localising business rates and linking

increases to rises in council tax.





More important than any specific recommendation, however, is the

context in which they are all presented. An over-arching theme

running through this report is that Londoners should have more say

in the way their city is run. One of the current barriers to this is the

extreme complexity of London’s governance arrangements, which

involve not only the GLA and boroughs but many other agencies

and organisations. This complexity, we conclude, undermines

attempts by citizens to engage with service providers and shape

services. The price of this lack of local engagement can be failure of

efforts to reform services, poor performance and low public

satisfaction. Inadequate accountability therefore has practical and

economic as well as democratic implications, leaving Londoners

deprived as both citizens and users of public services.



The Commission is clear that organisations which plan, procure or

provide public services should be answerable for their decisions and

actions to those who fund or receive those services. Obviously, this

is easier to assert than to achieve. Moves in recent years towards a

more mixed economy of service delivery, with public agencies

increasingly commissioning services rather than providing them

directly, have made it more difficult to ensure proper accountability

in London’s already complex governance structures.



In the Commission’s view, strengthening the commissioning and

community leadership roles of democratically elected councils, and

enhancing the councillor’s right to be consulted, is crucial to any

attempts to improve accountability and local community

representation. The quality of local service delivery would be

improved by strengthening boroughs’ powers to build and lead local

partnerships and commission services which more accurately

reflected local need. Such an approach would see the London

boroughs building up their commissioning role in health, social

services and education, and setting local strategies for

regeneration, health, social services, skills and policing.









6

The Commission proposes that elected local councillors should be

supported to become the “human face” of all publicly funded local

services in their areas. Under this vision councillors would be true

local champions, not micro-managing services but equipped with

statutory powers to engage with their planning, policy development

and delivery. The ward councillor would be residents’ first port of call

when they had concerns about the quality of any local service

provision.



This human dimension is an appropriate point at which to invite

readers to consider the report as a whole. Good governance is not

only about how large organisations are structured to make decisions

and conduct meetings. It is about real people’s daily lives. London is

Europe’s largest city with a unique combination of mobile and

diverse peoples and long standing communities. We need to

improve its governance arrangements to secure a stronger sense of

local ownership and accountability, which brings public services

closer to all those for whom they exist.









Hugh Malyan Bob Neill

Chair of the Commission on Deputy Chair of the

London Governance Commission on

London Governance









7

8

CONTENTS



1. INTRODUCTION 11

Past reviews

The evidence base



2. THE CHALLENGES 16

Government fit for a growing, mobile and diverse population

Unique and complex needs

A “clutter of institutions”



3. MORE ACCOUNTABLE LOCAL SERVICES 19

Jeannie’s story

Affordable housing

Regeneration

The Metropolitan Police Service

London’s Health care economy

The Learning and Skills Council

Arts funding in the city



4. DELIVERING MORE EFFECTIVE SERVICES 38

The boroughs as units of representative democracy

The boroughs as administrative units

Full service delivery

Is big really better?

The boroughs delivering economies of scale

More effective waste management



5. A NEW SETTLEMENT FOR LONDON: 46

REINVIGORATING LOCAL DEMOCRACY IN LONDON

The Government Office for London

The role of the Mayor and the Greater London Authority (GLA)

Separate billing for the GLA

The role of the London Assembly

The role of the Council

London’s financial landscape

Re-localising the business rate

The role of the Councillor

Urban Parishes in London



ANNEX 1: A brief summary of some of our key recommendations 65



ANNEX 2: Submission to the ODPM review of the powers of the Mayor 67

and the London Assembly



ANNEX 3: Devolving GOL funding streams 73



9

10

A NEW SETTLEMENT Union. As the economic powerhouse of

FOR LONDON the UK economy it attracts workers of

all skills from throughout the UK and

“I have been arguing publicly for across the world, yet there are pockets

four years now for the need for of deep deprivation and long term

a new constitutional settlement unemployment. The ethnic and

that recognises a revised set of religious diversity of the city is

responsibilities for local government… celebrated and renowned the world

I wish you well with what I regard as over. Every day hundreds of thousands

a very important exercise, not just of people travel into London to work

for London.” and every year hundreds of thousands

Sir Michael Lyons of people move in and out of London to

live. Such diversity and mobility has a

profound impact on the demands for

1. INTRODUCTION local public services and, on levels of

understanding of and engagement

1.1 There have been two significant with service providers. This challenge

previous reviews of London governance is the driver for our work.

since the Second World War and this

review builds on that work: the Herbert 1.3 That London is distinct from the

Royal Commission, led by Sir Edwin rest of the country is a principle that

Herbert, set up in 1958, which reported has been accepted by successive

in 1960, and the Marshall report, led by national governments for generations.

Frank Marshall, which reported in 1978. Regional government is now firmly

Both reports continue to make established in the capital and

interesting reading even today as the accepted. London’s local and regional

authors sought to devise rational government is working well; there is

systems of administration on “the reality cross-party working in both the Greater

of what is truly London.” We London Authority (GLA) and at the

acknowledge our debt to these works in Association of London Government

the paragraphs that follow but, whereas (ALG). London is delivering; the Audit

Herbert’s Commission was set up by the Commission’s most recent report

Government of the day and Marshall’s reveals that London borough councils

by the then leader of the Greater London are leading the way in England. But we

Council, Sir Horace Cutler, our can do better still. We need greater

Commission has been set up by freedom and flexibility in our

politicians from across London’s political institutional arrangements to build on

spectrum and operating from a local as our success.

well as a pan-London perspective. Its

great strength is that it draws on and 1.4 There have been two significant

reflects upon experiences of London life previous reviews of London

from Croydon to Hackney, from governance since the Second World

Hounslow to Barking and all places in War and this review builds on that

between. It is London’s voice that we work: the Herbert Royal Commission,

seek to project. led by Sir Edwin Herbert, set up in

1958, which reported in 1960, and the

Marshall report, led by Frank Marshall,

1.2 London is one of the largest cities which reported in 1978. Both reports

in the developed world in terms of its continue to make interesting reading

total land area and is, with a population even today as the authors sought to

of 7.4 million, by a considerable margin, devise rational systems of

the most populous city in the European administration on, “the reality of what is



11

truly London”. We acknowledge our government held accountable by local

debt to these works in the paragraphs people for choices on spending over

that follow but, whereas Herbert’s which it has little control. Our proposals

Commission was set up by the that follow seek to address these

Government of the day and Marshall’s fundamental issues.

by the then leader of the Greater

London Council, Sir Horace Cutler, our 1.6 The Commission has reviewed

Commission has been set up by the current governance arrangements

politicians from across London’s through the perspective of public

political spectrum and operating from a service delivery. The process we have

local as well as a pan-London been through has involved learning the

perspective. Its great strength is that it lessons from previous reviews,

draws on and reflects upon building an evidence base through a

experiences of London life from wide and open consultation process,

Croydon to Hackney, from Hounslow to testing our principles and emerging

Barking and all places in between. It is recommendations and building

London’s voice that we seek to project. political agreement to carry our work

forward.

1.5 The objective for this

Commission is to concentrate on how Past reviews

well London works - on the

effectiveness, quality and 1.7 The Herbert Royal Commission

accountability of local public services. was tasked to make recommendations

London faces unique challenges in as to “whether any, and if so, what

delivering its public services and yet so changes… would better secure

much of what happens in London takes effective and convenient local

place outside any locally accountable government” and led to the abolition of

body. The public is confused as to who the London County Council (LCC) and

is responsible for what service, how to the establishment of the Greater

hold providers to account, how London Council (GLC) and the 32

services are funded and how they can boroughs plus the unchanged

influence or engage with different Corporation of London. For Herbert,

service providers. Public expectations the key challenge lay in “hold[ing] a

are rising yet, despite decades of new vision of London in mind”. London’s

initiatives and schemes, public “astonishing quality of vitality” needed

satisfaction levels are in long-term to be “guided and directed for the

decline and voter participation rates general good through the medium of

are low.1 We welcome the interim self-government”. Herbert saw the

report from Sir Michael Lyons2, which growth of London outwards as a single

shares many of our concerns over the great city, rather than a merging of

weak public understanding of how important urban centres once

local government is funded and separate, and recommended a

recognises the public confusion over rationalisation of existing local

how the responsibility for the delivery government. For Herbert the

of local services is shared between “extraordinary complication of local

central and local government. We government”, which included 29

welcome his identification of an Metropolitan boroughs in inner

“accountability gap” between central London, Middlesex County Council,

and local government, with local boroughs within Essex, Hertfordshire,





1 See for example, the Association of London Government’s Survey of Londoners, Winter 2005.

2 Lyons Inquiry into Local Government, December 2005



12

Kent and Surrey, three county powers and responsibilities of the

boroughs and 24 urban districts, was Mayor and the London Assembly,

confusing to the electorate and led to which looks at one tier of the

poor government. He recommended governance arrangements in London.

the creation of the Council of Greater Our report is broader in scope than the

London (GLC) and 32 Greater London government review because we

boroughs and the Corporation of believe it is time for a fundamental

London. review of how London works; so, whilst

we contribute to the Government’s

1.8 Marshall’s work built upon the review we also look at the role of the

foundations of Herbert, but focused Government Office for London, the role

only on the role of the GLC, which he of the national health service, the value

felt had failed to fulfil its role as a of the boroughs, the role of the council

genuinely strategic authority. For and councillors and the prospects for

Marshall the key challenges that urban parishes.

London had to grapple with were

“problems of the quality of life in a The evidence base

capital city, of economic regeneration,

of the resuscitation of obsolescent 1.10 The Commission has reviewed

districts and the revival of the governance arrangements in

communities”: issues that are still London to assess where changes

important today. Marshall sought to need to be made to improve the quality,

consider how “London government efficiency and value for money of local

can best be organised” to deal with public services. To support our work

these challenges. Marshall we have sought the widest possible

recommended a re-balancing of range of contributions.

activity between the GLC and the

boroughs with the former taking a more ■ In April 2004, the Commission

strategic approach. He argued “the held a seminar at City Hall to

GLC is necessary to take a lead for discuss the results of an opinion

London”: a view that the Government poll we commissioned into

of the time did not share. Londoners sense of identity and

belonging4. A series of

1.9 There was no formal review of presentations explored in detail

London governance on the lines of the some of the key influences that

Herbert or Marshall inquiries prior to make up London’s complex

the abolition of the GLC in 1986 or the geographical, social and

legislation in 19993 setting up the economic landscape. The

Greater London Authority (GLA). Six presentations, from among

years after the creation of the GLA and others Lord Heseltine and writer

the first election of London’s Mayor is Ian Sinclair, are set out in our

an opportune time for reflection on the document “What is London?”

current governance arrangements.

Our focus is more sharply practical ■ Our consultation paper “Is

than either of the preceding reviews London Working?”, published in

although we share many of their February 2005, set out a series

underlying principles in how we of issues where we believed

approach our work. Since we begun there was need for debate, for

our work the government has example: giving communities

announced the start of a review of the more of a say in their affairs;

3 There was however a Government consultation leading to a referendum

4 Web address www.london.gov/assembly/reports/londongov.jsp



13

London’s funding needs; the

responsibilities of the GLA, the These principles guide this report and

boroughs and councillors. We its recommendations

have received close to 100

written submissions, have held 1.12 We argued further that there are

22 panel sessions where invited clear and powerful arguments for:

guests put forward their views,

spoken to senior officers in, ■ a streamlining of current

amongst others, the health, governance arrangements;

waste, skills and police

services, to community groups, ■ a staged reduction in the size

members of the public, to think- and role of the Government

tanks, to journalists, and Office for London;

politicians.

■ the development of councillors

■ We commissioned a series of into local champions brokering

focus groups to get structured local solutions; and

feedback from the public on the

issues of concern we ■ a return of the business rate to

highlighted. local control.



In total we have received over half a In this our final report we refine and

million words of evidence for which we expand these arguments.

express our thanks to all those who

have contributed. This evidence is 1.13 Following the announcement of

published in two volumes and is the Government’s review of the powers

available in hard copy, or CD-rom or and responsibilities of the Mayor and

via the web. the GLA, we published “Making

London work better” in October 2005.

1.11 Our interim report “Capital Life”, This report set out our views as to how

published in July 2005, set out the the next phase of devolution to

case for London to have a governance London’s government should proceed.

regime which: We believe that national government

needs to take a holistic approach to

■ gives Londoners a greater say reform of London’s governance

in their affairs; arrangements. A simple horizontal

slicing addressing just one level of

■ provides more accountability by London government, namely that of

service providers to service the Mayor, misses the opportunity to

users; create a new financial and governance

settlement for London which can

■ provides greater efficiencies define the roles and responsibilities of

whilst enhancing local all levels of London government,

accountability; bringing clarity and greater

understanding to service providers and

■ provides more discretion to users.

local authorities to tailor

services to meet local needs;

and

■ restores the link between voting

for improved services and

paying for those services.



14

1.14 The evidence we have received

indicates clearly that accountability by

service funders and providers to the

users of London’s public services is a

key driver for change. As Tony Travers,

Director of the Greater London Group,

London School of Economics, argued

in evidence to the Commission

“Democratic principles would suggest

that, unless the public can broadly

understand what is going on when it is

explained to it, it is not going to be very

democratic and pressures will not be

brought to bear on services that would

be likely to achieve the most efficient

and effective results”. Accountability

will improve performance, public

engagement and public satisfaction.



1.15 We believe that clearer lines of

service delivery will help the public

identify how and when they can better

engage with a provider to better tailor

the service to meet their needs. The

recommendations we set out in this

report are addressed primarily to

government as a significant

contribution to its review of the GLA, to

Sir Michael Lyons, who is conducting a

review of the future for local

government, and to all those with an

interest in how London is run. We hope

that many of the proposals here will

find support from all Londoners. Local

public services are life changing and

life enhancing: it is right that Londoners

have a greater say in how these

services are shaped and delivered.









15

2 THE CHALLENGES ■ London’s population has a

higher representation of all

Government fit for a growing, minority ethnic groups than

mobile and diverse population does the national population;



2.1 London faces extra-ordinary ■ Around 2 million people who

demographic challenges5 belong to a black and ethnic

minority (BME) group live in

■ London’s population will London, roughly 29 per cent of

expand by over 700,000 over the city’s total population, and

the next 10 years, from its this is likely to increase to

population of 7,388,000, to around 35 per cent by 2016;

8,100,000 by 2016, with the

population of the eastern part of ■ The classification for “white but

the city up by 250,000; not born in the UK or Ireland” is

likely to grow from 8 per cent of

■ The increase in population is the population to 11 per cent by

explained largely by the high 2016;

rate of natural change in

London (7.1 persons for every ■ London’s employment rate is

thousand residents - with the below that for the UK as a

UK figure at just 1.7) resulting whole;

from a high crude birth rate and

a low crude death rate; ■ Over the current economic

cycle to date the gap between

■ This in turn is due to the higher the employment rate for London

proportion of women of and that for the UK as a whole,

childbearing age in the which stood at 3.3 percentage

population and the high fertility points in 1997, has grown

rate for women over the age of further to reach five percentage

30. London’s population will points now;

therefore be younger than the

UK average; ■ One reason for the divergence

in the employment rates for

■ Every year over 600,000 people London and the UK is the

will move into and out of London change in working age

to live (close to 1 in 10 of the population. London’s

population); employment rate has fallen

relative to the UK’s because the

■ Trends in net migration in number of people living in

London (from within the UK and London and in employment has

abroad) have moved from a net increased at a slower rate than

migration loss of about 22,000 a the growth in London’s working

year in the 1980s, to an average age population.

annual net inflow of 26,000 in

the period 1996-2001. However,

London was estimated to have

had a net migration loss of

nearly 35,000 in 2002-03;





5 We commissioned a briefing paper from John Hollis, Demographic Consultant for the GLA. The paper is available in

Volume 3



16

Unique and complex needs A clutter of institutions



2.2 London’s government needs to 2.4 In Tony Travers’ book, “The

respond to the challenges of meeting Politics of London”, there is a diagram

the needs and aspirations of a fast that sets out some of the bodies that

growing, increasingly young and deliver public services in London (see

ethnically diverse population which is below). This diagram is reproduced in

the recipient of its services, its the Cabinet Office’s Strategy Unit

electorate and its workforce. This great report into London. In that report the

vitality is one of the defining Cabinet Office argues that “London’s

characteristics of what makes London government is complicated and multi-

a great city. Alongside vitality, there is a tiered, but that in part reflects

reputation for tolerance towards complexity in the real world”. The

people coming to visit, live, study or Commission believes, however, that

work in the city6, there is great this complexity undermines attempts

adaptability in learning new by citizens to understand and engage

occupations and skills, and there is with service providers and ultimately to

resilience in the face of adversity. shape those services. This lack of local

engagement undermines service

2.3 The challenges London’s local reform and can lead to poor

services face are immense; for performance and low public

example: satisfaction. Indeed, our focus groups

identified “transparent systems for

■ London has the highest rate of accountability to service users” as vital

recorded crime per head of to make services run well.

population in England and

Wales; 2.5 This lack of understanding

about who provides what service has

■ more than half of England’s been emphasised by Sir Michael

severely overcrowded Lyons as a key driver for his inquiry into

households are in London; the future role and funding of local

government. Our proposals that follow

■ London’s economy is are designed to increase the

increasingly specialised yet accountability of local service provision

nearly half of Londoners have and to provide clear access points

low numeracy levels; through which citizens can engage

with service providers. Government

■ around a quarter of all formal will appreciate that we need to be

admissions under the Mental constantly looking at how to capture

Health Act 1983 in England take the views of Londoners to give us all

place in London; and greater power to influence the services

that shape our lives for the better. We

■ over 50 per cent of children in believe that there needs to be a new

inner London live in poverty, settlement with central government

compared with 29 per cent in which will allow London greater

England and Wales. flexibility and freedom to design and

deliver its public services to meet local

need.







6 See for example Stonewall’s submission in Volume 3







17

Chart 1: London’s Government – key statutory bodies









18

Source: Travers “The Politics of London: Governing the Ungovernable City”

3. MORE ACCOUNTABLE concept and trying to find an accurate

LOCAL SERVICES and comprehensive definition is

correspondingly difficult. The

Jeannie Treasury’s Public Services

Productivity Panel states

3.1 Jeannie and her son that “accountability

Luke have just opened the involves an agreed

door and stepped into their process for both giving an

new two bedroom flat. They account of your actions

are excited about moving and being held to account:

and starting a new chapter in a systematic approach to

their lives. The flat is clean put that process into

and comfortable, the rent operation; and a focus on

affordable. This successful explicit results and

outcome is the culmination outcomes. Real

of a long “chain of delivery” accountability is concerned

that stretches right from not only with reporting on

Parliament voting the or discussing actions

money, through the Housing Minister completed, but also with engaging with

allocating the resources, through the stakeholders to understand and

Government Office for London setting respond to their views as the

the housing strategy, through the organisation plans and carries out its

borough finding the land, through the activities.” Local residents need a clear

private company building the flat, process by which service providers are

through the housing association held to account for successful delivery

making the allocation, to Jeannie and and over whom there is a form of

her son moving in. sanction. Transparency of the chain of

delivery means a greater clarity in who

3.2 For the officers and politicians provides what services and by what

involved this ranks as successful funding stream. Greater transparency

service delivery, but for Jeannie and in service delivery is a necessary

her family the shortage of affordable condition for greater accountability.

housing has meant that the experience

of being re-housed has proved 3.4 Many different organisations

confusing, exhausting and frustrating. assess the needs for, plan, procure

It has taken nearly three years for and/or provide public services to the

Jeannie to secure permanent community. They should therefore in

affordable accommodation8. There some way be answerable to those who

have been three moves of address, fund or receive those services for their

changes of GP and schools, and great decisions and actions in devising,

uncertainty about the future. Jeannie planning, organising and delivering

has not understood the “chain of them. The election of politicians is

delivery” nor to whom she could talk to undoubtedly a form of accountability

or how to influence the process. She but it is only periodic and the mandate

has felt powerless and alone. There of a party’s manifesto is necessarily

has been a lack of transparency and very broad. Policy, planning and

accountability. provision need to be far more

responsive to the specifics of

3.3 Accountability is an elusive community needs and the concept of





8 The average time taken to secure permanent affordable accommodation in London is around three years, but for

larger



19

“subsidiarity” proposes that as many 3.7 The Commission believes that

decisions as possible should be taken to improve transparency of service

as close to the community as can delivery in London, government should

reasonably be done. make clear the distinct roles of the

different tiers of government:

3.5 Crucially there needs to be:

■ at the regional level (Mayor and

■ clarity about who does what; Assembly) - strategies and

accountability;

■ clarity about who pays for what;

■ at the Association of London

■ clarity about service policies, Government - co-ordination and

objectives and standards; lobbying; and



■ the opportunity for the ■ at the boroughs - representation

community to input to and articulation of local

the various stages of needs, accountibility to

policy, planning, procurement, local communities, the com-

provision and performance missioning of and delivery of

review; services, and leadership in local

partnerships.

■ public review of policy and

performance; and 3.8 Because service provision is

complex we need constantly to be

■ interaction between decision aware of:

takers, service providers,

service users and those who ■ the citizen’s perspective;

pay for those services.

■ the appropriate roles of different

3.6 A number of guests to the levels of London’s government;

Commission have argued for a new

settlement between central ■ the particular exigencies of

government and local government to different service areas.

make clear the “chain of delivery” for

local services. Both Sir Michael Lyons9 3.9 A new settlement for London

and Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart10 stated means more streamlined service

the need for a new constitutional provision and better understood

settlement that recognises a revised governance arrangements. We

set of responsibilities for local and believe that this can best be

regional government. For Sir Sandy, achieved by strengthening the

central government has a role in commissioning and community

setting national or minimal standards leadership roles of London councils

but is overbearing in its desire to micro- and enhancing the councillor’s right

manage a whole raft of local to be consulted to ensure better

government responsibilities. For Sir capture of local knowledge and

Michael, service delivery suffers need, greater accountability of the

because “the public do not have a clear service providers and democratic

map of who they should hold representation of their local

accountable for what, and that serves community.

nobody well”.

9 Strategic Adviser to Government

10 Chairman, Local Government Association



20

Affordable Housing Executive, Circle 33) it was clear that

there was a need for “one strategic

3.10 As an example of the kind of body in charge of the delivery of more

area where such new thinking is housing for London with better

required, at our panel session on 15 management at the very local level. I

March we heard from a number of think it inevitably has to be the GLA…

guests involved in housing and ”. For others of our guests, what

homelessness service provision. All mattered most was that local

agreed that the current governance authorities had the ability to decide

arrangements were “complex and how best to plan and build within the

there are a lot of players.” (See chart broad parameters of the Mayor’s

2.) For Donald Hoodless (Group Chief London Plan.









Chart 2: The provision of affordable housing in London







National Regional Local



The ODPM directly funds boroughs via the Major Repairs Allowance, the Management Allowance

and regeneration funding which indirectly support the Decent Home aims.





DECENT HOMES

£270m









Stategic Housing

Single Regional Pot – Housing Improvement Programme (HIP) 33

Boroughs



ODPM

London Housing

Board

English Produces housing strategy. £270m

Partnerships GLA

Brings together GLA &

Sets Regional Planning

ODPM/GOL, LDA, ALG.

Strategy - with housing

English Partnerships.

GOL Chaired by GOL - advises

targets - has veto on

large applications

ministers on all Single Pot £243m

allocations.

Housing

Corporation

Housing 507 Housing

Corporation Associations

London NEW BUILD (RSLs)

£243m

Single Regional Pot – Approved Development Programme Private

Developers

Many allocations are being granted at the sub-regional level for these streams.



National Government Regional Local GLA Group or

Quango Department Quango Quango London Borough







Explanation: Red lines are funding flows and dotted lines are strategic influence.









21

3.10 A more streamlined delivery Regeneration

chain which reflects devolution of the

power to set strategy and to direct 3.11 Regeneration funding involves

resources from central government to many Government initiatives and the

the Mayor, coupled with an enhanced spending annually in London of

role for the boroughs in terms of millions of pounds in public and private

service delivery, is set out in the money.1 There are a host of agencies

following diagram: tasked with delivering aspect of

regeneration. This clutter of institutions

causes a range of difficulties and there

Delivery chain for affordable is clear scope for streamlining to

housing under the New Settlement improve accountability:

for London.

• There is poor co-ordination at

the regional level

ODPM formula allocates funding for • Individual projects find it hard to

housing capital spending by region pull together the infrastructural

Mayor sets Housing Investment Strategy (or “economic”) aspects of

funding with the funding to

develop the skills (or the

Mayor allocates the regional ‘pot’ for “social”) side of the workforce or

new supply of housing. Funding for local local population

authority decent homes continues to be • There is an unnecessary

allocated by ODPM. administrative burden on

organisations bidding to receive

funding

Based on borough, sub-regional and • Community involvement in

regional housing strategies, project development needs to

boroughs and sub regional groups of be enhanced

boroughs (together with Housing • The transfer of lessons learned

Associations) bid for money, boroughs from successful regeneration

contribute capital resources, S1O6, and initiatives into mainstream

identify land and opportunities practice does not take place

routinely.1



Housing Associations and private sector

developers build the housing units Chart 3 gives some indication of the

complexity of current arrangements.



Housing Associations manage

the social housing schemes





Homes allocated by host borough,

sub-region and zone agents. Development

of a pan-London choice based letting

system will build on opportunities offered

through local cross-borough schemes.





Jeannie moves in





22

Chart 3 Current delivery arrangements of regeneration projects







National Regional Local



Business Link

for London

DTI Single GLA

Programme

Partners

LDA





GOL

10 NDC

Partnerships









Regeneration Delivery

New Deal for

Communities

ODPM 20 London

Boroughs





Neighbourhood

Renewal 20 Local Strategic

Funding Partnerships

Membership includes LSCs, Job Centres





Learning & 5 Learning &

DFES Skills Council Skills Councils





5 Learning

Partnerships





National Government Regional Local GLA Group or

Quango Department Quango Quango London Borough









3.12 We believe that there is

significant scope for streamlining these

arrangements (see Chart 4). In

particular by releasing funding of post-

16 education and skills development in

London from the Learning and Skills

Councils a more integrated framework

bringing together economic

regeneration and social regeneration

could be achieved. Furthermore by

building on best practice in those

boroughs that produce borough-wide

regeneration and skills strategies the

demand side would be more co-

ordinated giving greater transparency

for the local population as well as

scope for economies of scale and

shared learning. A further refinement

which is beginning to happen is the

development of sub-regional economic

development implementation plans,

which will feed into the Mayor’s pan-

London vision for regeneration and

skills development.



23

Chart 4: A more streamlined devolved delivery chain for regeneration delivery









National Regional Local









Accountable to the Mayor and London Assembly

DTI









Local Skills and Regeneration Strategies

LDA NDC

Partnerships









Regeneration Delivery

ODPM

Boroughs









Skills Local Strategic

London Partnerships

DFES









Government GLA Group or

Department London Borough









The Metropolitan Police Service day-to-day or territorial policing is

managed at borough level. Each

3.13 The Metropolitan Police Service borough has its own operational

(MPS) is, with more than 30,000 command unit and a borough

officers, by far the United Kingdom’s commander, and there is a similar

largest police force. In addition to its arrangement for Heathrow Airport.

30,000 police personnel it has about

12,000 civilian staff and a growing 3.14 As part of the governance

number of police community support arrangements the Metropolitan Police

officers (PCSOs) - currently about Authority (MPA) was set up by the

1,400. The MPS’s annual budget Greater London Authority Act 1999 as

exceeds £2.5 billion. Its organisational a statutory body charged with

structure includes a series of pan- scrutinising and supporting the MPS.

London specialist operations but,

following a recent restructuring, most







24

The MPA Board is made up of 23 Appointing the Commissioner

members: 12 from the London

Assembly (including the Deputy 3.17 The appointment of the

Mayor) appointed by the Mayor, Metropolitan Police Commissioner is

four magistrates selected by the currently a Crown appointment made

Greater London Magistrates’ Courts upon recommendation from the Home

Authority and seven independents, Secretary and the Metropolitan Police

one appointed directly by the Home Authority, with the Mayor being

Secretary and the other vacancies consulted. We believe that the Mayor

advertised openly. The Chair of the should in principle have the power to

MPA is chosen by the members appoint the Police Commissioner. This

themselves, all of whom are eligible to would visibly strengthen the direct

stand. accountability of the Metropolitan

Police Service to the public through the

3.15 Crime and the fear of crime office of the Mayor. However, given the

remain at the top of the list of roles of national importance that the

Londoners’ main worries.11 Recent MPS carries out (eg counter-

policing trends show a mixed picture; terrorism), the Home Secretary will not

total notifiable offences in London fell wish to lose the power of

by 3.9 per cent between June 2004 recommendation. We accept that

and June 2005, and there was a position and believe instead that the

reduction in some particular types of Mayor and the Home Secretary should

offences eg homicides fell from 205 to discuss the relevant candidates’ merits

166. There was, however, an increase and make a joint recommendation to

in some offences that are of particular the Queen.

concern to the public, with recorded

crimes of violence up 9.7 per cent. One 3.18 Some commentators have

of the most difficult issues facing the argued that there needs to be a review

MPS is balancing the exceptional of the role and powers of the London

policing pressures on London as the Assembly to hold the Mayor and the

UK’s capital city with its high MPS to account. There is an argument

international profile, such as the that the position of Assembly Members

terrorist threat, with meeting public serving on the MPA and yet

demand for greater concentration on questioning MPS officers and MPA

local community safety issues. Under Members at Assembly meetings is

the new Safer Neighbourhoods policy, untenable over the long term. One

dedicated teams of police officers and possible solution, proposed by the

PCSOs are being allocated to groups Mayor and some Commission

of wards throughout London to provide members, would be for the MPA to be

reassurance and strengthen contact abolished and its executive powers

with the public. transferred to the Mayor and a Police

Board, appointed by the Mayor, with

Recommendations the scrutiny function of the MPA being

transferred to the London Assembly.

3.16 There are a number of initiatives This would, however, give London a

that we believe should be pursued to different mechanism for accountability

align more clearly accountability of and from the rest of the UK and by

for service delivery and funding removing directly elected

streams for the MPS. Borough representatives from the MPA would

partnerships should be continued and also weaken the links with local

strengthened. communities.

11 Association of London Government, Annual Survey, 2004



25

3.19 We believe that the government of £23-45 million.”

should give consideration to the option A local voice in service delivery

of following the London Fire and

Emergency Planning Authority model, 3.21 As part of its duties the MPA

which has Assembly Member and local seeks to listen and engage with

government representation. This Londoners. This is a crucial part of the

arrangement would further increase the MPA’s activities as it informs policing

transparency of, and strengthen the priorities for the year ahead and the

links between, strategic planning and way in which London is policed. The

service delivery at the local level. This MPS has set up a Citizens Panel,

process of ‘co-decision’ will benefit made up of 3,000 people chosen to

efficient service delivery. The represent London’s population and

Commission notes the recent diversity. Each MPA member is

government proposal that the Mayor associated with each of London’s

could be appointed to Chair the MPA. boroughs so that local views can feed

However, we believe that in order to into the accountability process.

prevent overloading the Mayoral post, Furthermore, the MPA is committed to

the Mayor should also be allowed to ensuring that every borough in London

appoint the Chair. We believe that there has a community engagement

is also a need to address the anomaly mechanism for local people to speak to

of requiring the Deputy Mayor to be their local borough command about

appointed to the MPA. policing issues. In most boroughs this

takes the form of a Community Police

The demarcation of local and Consultative Group (CPCG). In other

national interests boroughs consultative mechanisms

and the ways in which the local

3.20 The merging in the MPS of both community can speak with the local

local and national interests with police are being reviewed or

separate lines of accountability developed.

complicates the funding arrangements

for the MPS. Greater clarity may be 3.22 At the sharp end of crime

required to ensure full funding for all the reduction, many of the borough’s

national responsibilities which the MPS Crime and Disorder Reduction

carries. Central government recognises Partnerships (CDRPs), which bring

that there are distinct national functions together statutory agencies to deliver a

carried out by the MPS. A ‘Special local crime reduction strategy, are able

Payment’ is made every year; in 2005- to demonstrate the success in having

06 this came to £217 million. joint tasking and collaborative working.

Nevertheless, the MPS believes this However, for some there remain

pot is underfunded. In a written important issues of accountability,

submission to the Commission, Sir Ian continued resistance to pooling

Blair argues that “there is a shortfall in funding streams and tensions between

the funding of the National, national priorities and local needs to

International and Capital City (NIC) be resolved. Further thinking needs to

activities, including Counter-Terrorism, take place as to how CDRPs will fit into

undertaken by the MPS. For 2003/04, a complex local government

an independent review by Avail landscape at a time when central

Consulting assessed this shortfall at government is promoting the model of

nearly £34 million. Allowing for variation Local Area Agreements for joint

of deployment on NIC tasks, Avail working.

Consulting assessed the current level

of systemic underfunding in the range 3.23 The Commission is keen to



26

develop ways to strengthen this their community. There will be scope

process of community engagement for engagement over strategic

and influence, without the need for operational matters, for example the

inventing new mechanisms or new broad approach to setting of priorities

layers of bureaucracy. The around policing of the Notting Hill

Commission believes that within the Carnival, but individual police

existing local government family there operations will rightly remain within

may be scope for developing a more existing policing frameworks.

formal role for borough leaders with

their borough commanders. This could 3.25 Our proposals work with

mean that: existing community assets to provide

clear, easy to understand and effective

■ the Council executive be given mechanisms for local people to

the right to be consulted in the develop and strengthen relationships

process for appointing borough with borough policing commands and

commanders; their Safer Neighbourhood teams.

Crucial to the success of these

■ there could be formal powers to measures is the resource support that

support borough Overview and councils and their officers can bring

Scrutiny Committees to support to these engagement processes.

engagement with local police A well supported, professionally run

teams; and engagement process will bring

benefits to both sides of the debate in

■ building on the good practice in terms of focus and follow-up. The aim

many boroughs, a statutory is not to create a new set of ‘talking

right should be given for local shops’ but to create a dynamic

Councillors to be consulted by environment where information is

their Safer Neighbourhood team shared and a virtuous circle of

on issues of local priority. influence, accountability and higher

quality outcomes is achieved.

Government has proposed similar

initiatives in its recently published

Respect Action Plan, for example

the proposal for “face the people”

sessions, where senior represent-

atives from the police and local

authorities take responsibility for their

services in an open question and

answer session with the local

population.



3.24 The underlying principle for

these proposals is that

answerability of local police teams

to elected representatives and the

local community should be

enhanced where possible. But this

is not an invitation for boroughs to

seek involvement with daily

operational control of the police in







27

London’s health care economy schools) as well as devising incentives

to encourage providers to increase

3.26 It cost £9 billion to run the choice (for example choice of school

National Health Service (NHS) in subject or medical treatment).

London in 2002/03, making it an

organisation similar in financial scale to 3.28 This is a time of potentially great

the GLA Group or the combined change for the NHS in London. The

London boroughs. The service is consultation stage of the review into

managed in London on behalf of the the new Strategic Health Authority

Secretary of State for Health by five arrangements in London is due to

strategic health authorities (SHAs), close on 22 March 2006 and this is part

responsible for the performance of wider programme for delivering a

management of the service. A variety patient-led NHS. Our proposals

of trusts commission and deliver contribute to that debate. Commission

services. Primary care trusts (PCTs) members are grateful that the

are the core local organisations in the Department of Health now recognises

NHS. They are responsible for that that the needs of Londoners would

providing or purchasing most of the be best met by maintaining borough-

NHS services familiar to Londoners, based PCT. We note however, that the

from hospital treatment to General Department is keen for “a radical

Practice (GP) and dental services. programme of change… to ensure that

Spending decisions on 75 per cent of London PCTS are fit for purpose”. We

the NHS budget are made by PCTs. would urge that PCTs should not (by

Londoners’ contact with the NHS is stealth) start to amalgamate

most frequently through their GPs who commissioning of NHS services as this

act as gatekeepers to specialist could diminish the transparency of

services. The capital has about 4,500 health care delivery.

GPs, who are in effect independent

contractors responsible for buying or 3.29 Wider choice is only one aspect

renting their own premises, hiring their of the policy of reform. Government

own staff and running their own has argued that greater involvement by

practices as small businesses. individual citizens in public bodies is

also needed if public services are to

3.27 Governments have for some improve. Effective representative

time promised greater choice for those institutions, complaints systems and

who use public services, but bringing user surveys are all mechanisms for

market pressures into health care giving users a ‘voice’ in service

provisioning remains controversial. provision. Furthermore, alongside its

The Prime Minister has stated that his five year plan, two papers from the

objective is to “change monolithic Office of the Deputy Prime Minister14

services into services which are far set out a number of proposals for

more centred around the users of involving communities more effectively

those services, which are more diverse in decision-making.

in their supply, which ensure that if

people are getting a bad system that 3.30 For members of the

they have got the ability to go Commission, increasing the impact of

elsewhere.” Policy reform in the public the local voice is vital to create a

services is therefore focused on flexible and tailored service for all

increasing the choice of providers (for London’s citizens. Reconfiguring

instance a choice between hospitals or services can help, but it is only by tying



14 ‘Citizen Engagement and Public Services: Why neighbourhoods matter’ and ‘Vibrant Local Leadership’



28

the delivery of health care services into are among the first hospitals in the

the local community that reform will country to hold foundation trust status

deliver health improvements for the and the Government intends to extend

community. The diversity of London’s this form of organisation.

communities and the increasing

complexity of Londoners’ needs 3.34 In addition to conventional

require strong input and feedback from boards of directors, foundation trusts

the local community. Local government have larger boards of governors

can play a vital role in mediating that (sometimes known as members’

voice. councils) on which local authority

representatives and other community

3.31 The NHS has a number of stakeholders sit. Boards of governors

initiatives aimed at increasing the also include members elected by local

public voice in service delivery, but residents, patients and staff.

they are resource weak and poorly

understood. These include the 3.35 It is the Government’s hope that

Commission for Patient and Public involvement in such elections, as

Involvement in Health, Patient and either candidates or voters, will

Public Involvement Forums, Patient stimulate local interest in the way the

Advice and Liaison Services and local NHS is run. Participation in the first

council Overview and Scrutiny foundation trust elections has been

Committees. The proposals that follow low, however, pointing to the need for

are designed to increase local further debate about the best way to

involvement in the shaping of service represent local democratic interests on

provision at all levels of care in the bodies such as NHS trusts.

capital.

3.36 Nationally, some of the first trust

Structural change in the NHS and hospitals received insufficient

the impact on local accountability nominations for office to fill all

vacancies, while the numbers of voters

3.32 In considering how to increase in contested elections, as proportions

the impact of the local voice on service of local populations, has been tiny.

delivery two key strands of the Even at a time of concern over

Government’s reform policy need to be declining turnout in parliamentary and

highlighted - the creation of NHS local government elections, the

Foundation Trust hospitals and the comparison between the election of

latest drive to change the way services councillors and foundation trust

are commissioned. governors is striking.



NHS Foundation Trusts and local 3.37 This is illustrated by the contest

democratic accountability for ten public seats on the members’

council of Guy’s and St Thomas’

3.33 Foundation trusts were Foundation Trust, one of London’s

introduced in 2004. They have leading hospital groups located in the

enhanced financial and other boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth.

freedoms, while still having to deliver to The ten successful candidates in the

NHS national standards and targets. public section of the members’ council

Guy’s and St Thomas’, Homerton, took office on the basis of 924 returned

Moorfields, Royal Marsden and voting papers, 901 of which were valid.

University College hospitals in London At the May 2002 local government



15 Other hospitals have had higher turnouts (eg Homerton)



29

elections in Southwark, by rather than one dominated by big

comparison, more than 45,000 people hospitals and centralised decision-

voted. In the same elections in making. More services will be offered

Lambeth, all except three of the 63 in the community, with an increasing

councillors elected in 2002 received variety of advanced treatment taking

higher personal votes than the total place in GPs’ surgeries and other

number of valid voting papers in the settings such as walk-in centres, local

public section of the Guy’s and St diagnostic centres and a new

Thomas’ members’ council generation of community hospitals.

elections.15 Social services staff will work in

primary care premises such as GPs’

3.38 Different hospitals have surgeries, and healthcare services will

different ways of building up their be located in some schools and other

members’ councils: some prefer as local government facilities.

large a membership as possible,

others prefer a smaller membership 3.41 At the same time, the NHS is

with whom the executive can being opened up to private sector

communicate more easily. involvement, not only through the

Nevertheless the board of governors Private Financial Initiative (PFI) but by

has little real power over the board of direct involvement in clinical activity.

directors; it can influence or persuade John Reid, the former Health

but has no powers to amend budgets Secretary, has suggested that 15 per

or force a change in procedures. cent of non-emergency operations

could eventually be undertaken

3.39 While we welcome the genuine privately.

efforts made to engage with the local

community, we remain unconvinced 3.42 The latest Department of Health

that the governance arrangements for consultation (Commissioning a

such important institutions as London’s patient-led NHS) proposes a step-

hospitals are best suited to deliver change in the way services are

clear, local accountability. A majority commissioned by front-line staff. GP

on the Commission believes that practices will take on responsibility

these boards should be abolished. from their PCTs for commissioning

We recommend that there should be services. A primary care-driven NHS

statutory local government will increase pressure on local

representation on the board of authorities and primary care trusts to

directors and regular appearances in break down institutional barriers

front of boroughs’ Overview and between health and social services.

Scrutiny Committees. While governments have advocated

this for many years, progress has been

Reforming the NHS: implications patchy. Since 2002 it has been

for governance possible for local authorities and

primary care trusts to go beyond

3.40 The NHS’s new Payment by collaboration and form formal Care

Results financial structure is only part Trusts, bringing elements of NHS and

of a radical change programme which local authority social services care

may have considerable implications for under a single management. The

its governance and its relationships intention is to provide a more

with local government. A core objective comprehensible and connected

of the Government’s changes is to service to groups, such as the elderly

refocus the NHS as a community- and people with mental illnesses, who

centred, primary care-driven service often require both types of service.



30

However, only eight care trusts have purpose across London and closer

been formed throughout the country, engagement with pan-London

including one at Camden and Islington organisations, and develop a sense of

and another at Bexley. community and communality for the

NHS in London. There are however

3.43 Another impact of the reforms detailed issues of governance, such as

will be to begin redirecting the NHS ensuring a sufficient talent pool from

from a highly-centralised, service- which to appoint non-executive

delivery organisation to a more directors to deliver the required level of

fragmented commissioning agency. local accountability and to ensure the

The new model envisages PCTs, appropriate geographical spread, that

themselves strongly influenced by the need to be resolved. To enhance the

choices of patients, purchasing local accountability of the SHA,

services on behalf of GPs or groups of consideration should be given to

GPs in a mixed market of arms-length appointing borough and GLA

foundation trust hospitals and private representatives as non-executive

and voluntary sector providers. directors to the Board.



3.44 This has considerable 3.46 We believe that, building on the

implications for future NHS work of the London Health

governance. The current governance Commission, there should be a

structure still reflects the NHS’s London Public Health strategy

centralised origins, with all members of formally set by the Mayor, at the start of

trust boards appointed on behalf of their term of office, and in consultation

central government and accountable with the NHS in London. There are

upwards to the Secretary of State for significant gains to be made from

Health. Patient choice, community- bringing together resources and

based primary care and local capacity from across the GLA Group to

commissioning will focus tackle complex health and social

accountability much more towards the needs. There needs to be a much

local level. As the NHS reforms evolve, closer working relationship between

the logic of strengthening links with the GLA’s London Health Commission

local government and bringing the and the new SHA to avoid duplication

commissioning activities of PCTs of effort and to ensure a clear direction

within the realm of local democratic of travel for health commissioners and

accountability needs to be providers in London.

strengthened.

3.47 At a minimum to achieve better

health outcomes and efficiency

Recommendations savings, boroughs’ health plans should

be brought into conformity with PCT

3.45 London should have a single plans and vice versa. As the NHS

Strategic Health Authority (SHA) and reforms advance, the well performing

we urge its early establsihment. We boroughs should be allowed to take

believe that the current system of five over health commissioning from

SHAs is designed to weaken the PCTs. Social care and health budgets

London voice within a national service would be pooled within a single

with significant costs to operational organisation. Health commissioning

efficiency, an effect which staff in the priorities would become subject to

five SHAs have worked hard to local democratic debate and control,

mitigate. This rationalisation will bring making choice an issue for the

efficiency savings, a coherence of community as well as for individual



31

patients. Some boroughs are well looking NHS arrangements, enhancing

advanced down this path. Croydon has councillors’ roles as community

a number of budgets pooled between representatives and linking health to

PCTs, Health Trusts and the Council’s wider local policy objectives. Local

Social Services Departments. Joint councillors should be supported to

commissioning boards for mental become the public face of all publicly

health services in Croydon have funded local services.

yielded significant, demonstrable,

efficiency savings. 3.51 We believe that boroughs

should continue to develop close

3.48 Members of the Commission working relations between their PCT

have been involved in a round and their scrutiny panels. We believe

of discussion with senior health there is a strong case for a joint

officials as part of their review committee established by the

of London’s NHS structures. boroughs, to give the committee the

We welcome the Department of formal powers for health scrutiny, with

Health’s commitment to PCT co-opted Assembly Members to look at

co-terminosity with the boroughs. pan-London issues, for example the

We believe that the growing benefits work of any future single Strategic

from co-terminosity of the borough and Health Authority or the London

PCT boundaries (which brings close Ambulance Service. This could be a

working relationships with the police, transition model if government decides

fire and prison service) would outweigh to grant the Assembly enhanced

any marginal managerial cost savings. scrutiny powers, in this field.

In our view more joint-borough working

will develop organically and that PCT

commissioning should follow the

development of these relationships.



3.49 The pre-1990 right of the

boroughs to nominate councillors to

serve on all NHS trusts in their area

should be restored, with the GLA and

ALG nominating to London-wide NHS

bodies such as the London Ambulance

Service Board.



3.50 The boroughs’ health scrutiny

role, which gives councillors

responsibility for representing the

local-level public interest in the NHS,

including with the GPs in that

councillor’s ward, should be expanded.

The NHS’ patient and public

representation services, introduced

only when Community Health Councils

were abolished in 2003, are already

being changed again. Giving

councillors formal responsibility for

representing the public interest in local

NHS institutions would be more easily

understandable than the inward-



32

The Learning and Skills Council our meeting “for London as a whole

these statistics are extremely

3.52 London has a highly dynamic worrying”.

economy, with productivity per person

20 per cent above the UK average. It is 3.55 The national Learning and Skills

estimated that there will be 600,000 Council (LSC) was established in

more jobs in the capital by 2016; an 2001, combining the training functions

increasing proportion of these will of the former Training and Enterprise

require advanced skills. As in many Councils (TECs) with the work of the

areas of London life there are great Further Education Funding Council. It

disparities in the population; some 24 is responsible for funding and planning

per cent of working-age Londoners education and training in England for

(roughly one million people) have a young people over 16 years of age

degree, with a further seven percent (other than those in universities) and

having a postgraduate qualification. adults. These responsibilities take it

Yet at the other extreme about 700,000 into the fields of: further education;

Londoners have no qualifications, 23 work-based training; school sixth

per cent have inadequate numeracy forms; workforce development; adult

and literacy skills and some groups - and community learning; advisory and

such as refugees and asylum seekers - guidance services and education-

face particular barriers to employment. business links. It has a budget of £9.3

billion in 2005/06, set to rise to more

3.53 At our panel session on 20 July than £10 billion by 2007/08. In

we heard that alongside these 2003/04, funding to London totalled

absolute numbers, the trends in about £1.2 billion.

learning development in London are no

longer moving in a positive direction. 3.56 The 15-strong national Learning

Despite the success registered in and Skills Council is appointed by the

improving the numeracy and literacy Secretary of State for Education and

standards of some 150,000 adults over Skills. It operates through 47 local

the past five years,16 we heard that in learning and skills councils across

terms of improvements: England. Five cover London - Central,

East, North, South and West - and their

■ the proportion of those with a directors have a co-ordinating regional

degree in London is not growing structure. The boundaries of London’s

as fast as in other regions; five learning and skills councils are not

co-terminous with those of the five

■ the proportion of London’s London Strategic Health Authorities,

population with five GCSEs at but LSC boundaries are the same as

A-C grades has actually gone the sub-regions in the Mayor’s London

down; and Plan. LSCs overlap with the boroughs

in many areas including sixth form

■ the reduction in the number of education, regeneration and economic

people with no qualification in development, and with the London

the workforce is at its lowest Development Agency. A memorandum

level over a seven-year period. of understanding is intended to ensure

that the LSCs and local government

3.54 As Jacqui Henderson, the work together effectively.

former Regional Director, London

Learning and Skills Council noted at



16 Peter Pledger (Executive Director, London West Learning and Skills): evidence to the Commission, 20 June 2005



33

Recommendations the Mayor and answerable to

the London Assembly. This

3.57 There are a number of powerful should include all the LDA’s

arguments as to why changes are existing skills responsibilities

needed to deliver a more effective and including Business Link. The

responsive service. targets and budgets for the new

body should be set regionally

■ The establishment of five LSCs but aligned so as to contribute to

appeared to be designed to the delivery of the national

weaken the voice of London framework.

within a national framework. At a

minimum, a single LSC with a ■ The new functional body should

sub-regional structure would be have a board modelled along

more effective, allowing easier similar lines to that used for the

coordination of working London Fire and Emergency

partnerships to operate at the Planning Authority (LFEPA),

regional and sub-regional level which combines elected

and with more efficiency. It representatives from both local

would allow a degree of government and the London

flexibility for moving resources Assembly. Specialist

across London to meet greatest experience can be brought in to

need. It would give London the support the elected members by

clout it needs to ensure it Mayoral appointment.

achieves the level of resources

to meet the challenges ■ Some members of the

identified earlier. National Commission believe that the

standards set by central LSCs are too remote, fail to

government would set the engage effectively with local

benchmark, which London politicians and are unable to

would build on. respond flexibly to changing

local circumstances. Borough

■ Giving the Mayor the budgets, councils have a vital role to play

and the responsibility, to deliver in feeding in local intelligence as

on the priorities of the London to the challenges, needs and

Regional Skills Partnership demands of the local

would enhance accountability population, public sector

and strengthen the strategic employers and the business

role of the Mayoralty; this would community. With the powers,

also allow for a greater degree budgets and responsibilities of

of fine-tuning in policy to meet the London LSCs being brought

the distinctive challenges faced into a new regional body

by professionals delivering accountable to the Mayor, the

learning and skills services and Local Strategic Partnership

give London a clear mechanism (LSPs) should as a matter of

to demonstrate its value-added best practice be tasked with

in delivering these services. drawing up borough adult skills

plans setting out local needs

■ The powers, budgets and and demands. This will begin to

responsibilities of the make the system more

London LSCs should be obviously demand-driven. The

brought into one structure, LSPs could also monitor

Skills London, accountable to progress in the delivery of the



34

skills and training development are complex, vary from one sub-sector

strategy across its borough. to another, and produce an

inconsistent patchwork of delivery.

Arts funding in the City Some boroughs receive significant

subsidies: others, particularly the outer

3.58 London’s cultural organisations London boroughs, very little.

contribute to a wider creative industries

sector which forms one of the most 3.59 Funding of some of London’s

dynamic areas of the city’s economy, most famous cultural institutions - its

with a £21 billion annual turnover. The national museums - takes place

Mayor is statutorily required to produce through direct agreements with the

a cultural strategy, and in this the Department of Culture, Media and

Mayor calculates that London’s cultural Sport, and in many cases their trustees

sector receives financial support from are appointed by the Prime Minister.

all sources of £1.33 billion a year. Most Arts Council England, created in its

of this comes from the public sector, present form in 2002, channels both

with the arts the biggest single the Government’s contribution and

recipient (£320 million in 2002). But the National Lottery money to arts

structures for spending public subsidy organisations.









Chart 5: Public funding streams for London’s arts





Local

ALG Grants £2.75m



LONDON

BOROUGHS

London Boroughs £40.7m

Arts in London

Corporation of London £26.4m







Regional



GLA Group £3.45m







National





ODPM £82m – NRF - London GOL £2.6m





Creative CP - London

DfES South & East

£1.5m

Partnerships



DCMS £97.84m



LOTTERY Arts Council Arts Council England £129m

England

£16m









35

3.60 The Arts Council England’s example, shows that 53 per cent of the

national council is appointed by the total came in the form of public money

Secretary of State for Culture, Media from Arts Council England, and

and Sport. There are nine regional arts another 28 per cent directly from

councils, including one for London, and members of the public via the box

chairs of the regional councils form office; some of the remainder came

part of the national council’s from other public sources such as

membership. Regional arts councils Westminster City Council. Yet neither

are responsible for agreeing regional London local government nor the

strategies and plans within the national company’s regular paying audience

framework, approving investment contribute to the make-up of its board,

plans, and agreeing regional budgets on which members serve by invitation.

and larger grants. All four large arts organisations are

registered charities and, although

3.61 The 15-strong regional councils charities may elect trustees from

include six seats for representatives of among their members, they are not

regional and local government. obliged to do so. The arts

Members of the London Assembly and organisations have various friend and

London borough councillors serve on membership schemes, but these do

the London regional council and there not confer any power to elect board

have been discussions between the members. This absence of direct local

Mayor and the London region to seek government or public involvement in

coherence between its future governance is particularly striking in

programmes and the Mayor’s cultural respect of the South Bank Centre,

strategy. which was run by the Greater London

Council until its abolition in 1985 and,

3.62 While Arts Council England in its earlier days, by the London

reserves seats on its regional councils County Council.

for local government representatives,

there is no obligation for funded 3.64 Sarah Weir (Executive Director,

organisations to do the same, however Arts Council England - London) set out

substantial the grants they receive. In for the Commission the ways in which

March 2005, Arts Council England the Arts Council works closely with

announced regular funding of £300.7m partners at all level of society, including

to arts organisations throughout with local authorities and the Mayor.

England in 2005/06. Slightly more than But as Councillor Denise Jones (Chair

half of this, £152.3m, will go to London. of the ALG Culture and Tourism Group)

That is because four of the ‘big five’ argued “there is cross working,

flagship organisations supported by although it is not good enough yet.

Arts Council England are based in There should be more joined up

London. These are the Royal Opera working to make sure that we all know

House, South Bank Centre, Royal what arts are going on in London.” We

National Theatre and English National particularly welcome the work that the

Opera. Between them these four Arts Council is involved in to

institutions will receive more than encourage bids for grants to come

£76m, or half London’s total allocation. from outer London boroughs, but there

may be scope for the Mayor to promote

3.63 All four institutions, like most the availability of arts funding to ensure

others funded by Arts Council England, a wide diversity of recipients.

are heavily reliant on public sector

support. English National Opera’s

analysis of income for 2000/01, for



36

Recommendations



3.65 The Mayor has created a

London Cultural Consortium (LCC)

and shown the benefits of elected

regional government becoming

actively involved in promoting and

lobbying for the cultural sector. There

is a case for extending the Mayor’s

powers to help bring greater cohesion

to a highly fragmented sector. As well

as reducing ambiguity and overlap in

the present funding arrangements, this

would position cultural activities within

the framework of broader social and

economic policies. The government

could as a minimum fund the

Mayor’s LCC, as it funds other

regional cultural consortia.



3.66 Government should also

devolve down to the Mayor, in

consultation with the ALG, the

appointment powers for the board

of Arts Council - London, including

the post of Chair. Closer working

relations between the Arts Council, the

ALG and the boroughs could help

avoid duplication, ensure a more

equitable distribution of support across

the whole of London and, by providing

a mechanism for combining funding

streams, create greater pools of

upfront capital to draw in private

sponsors.









37

4. DELIVERING MORE service delivery will be improved by

EFFECTIVE SERVICES a strengthened role for boroughs in

leading local partnerships, building

The value of the boroughs - partnerships and commissioning

Identity and belonging services to more accurately reflect

local need.

4.1 During the course of our work,

we have often heard that previous The boroughs as units of

reviews created governance representative democracy

arrangements 30 or 40 years behind

the times17. It is quite a task to shape 4.3 The Herbert Royal Commission

the “delivery chains” for the challenges (1958-60) was tasked to make

yet to come. Yet this is what we must recommendations as to “whether any,

do. The arrangements for the delivery and if so what changes… would better

of public services must be fit for a secure effective and convenient local

rapidly growing and increasingly government”. Herbert saw the growth

diverse city. But they must also of London outwards as a single great

respond to the needs of the hundreds city, rather than a merging of important

of thousands of commuters who travel urban centres once separate and

every day into the city to work and recommended a rationalisation of the

those who come, often for just a short “extraordinary complication of local

time18, from elsewhere in the UK and government”, which included 29

abroad, to live and work. Metropolitan boroughs in inner

London, Middlesex County Council,

4.2 In literature and poetry two boroughs within Essex, Hertfordshire,

powerful metaphors are often used to Kent and Surrey, three county

capture the essence of London life: the boroughs and 24 urban districts. He

image of London as a great sea19 and proposed 51 boroughs and the

the image of London as a series of Corporation of London; the

villages. Both have value in helping us Government eventually settled on 32

to understand the city’s social plus the Corporation of London.

dynamics and they each provide

distinct challenges for policy makers, in 4.4 London’s 32 boroughs (plus the

that the first reflects the transience of Corporation of London) have their

people moving in and out and across roots in the parishes and vestries of the

London, while the second speaks of eighteenth and nineteenth century,

deep rooted, permanent communities. though some claim very remote and

Local government provides the glue even mythical origins.20 They are the

to bind these two worlds; its creatures of government decision

democratic mandate, its physical made over 40 years ago and they

infrastructure of community assets, divide London into administrative units

its collective memory and local of variable size. Their purpose is to

knowledge can create powerful provide accountable and effective local

anchors for community identity. We government.

believe that the quality of local





17 For example, the Herbert Commission created the Greater London Council in the early 1960s belatedly recognising

the 1930s expansion of London into the suburbs.

18 Data from the 2001 Census shows that since the mid-1990s around 600,000 people have migrated from the rest of the

UK and abroad into and out of London every year. Many thousands of people also move within London every year.

19 The nineteenth century poet Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote “London, that great sea, whose ebb and flow at once is deaf

and loud, and on shore vomits its wrecks and still howls for more”.

20 The Royal Commission on Local Government (The Herbert Commission) 1957-60, p.30



38

4.5 Current London boroughs vary Improvement District (BID). Existing

in size of residents from 164,000 in regulations limit the possibility of

Barking and Dagenham to 340,000 in BIDs crossing boundaries, so we

Croydon, with the average borough would press for the regulations to

size around 240,000. Within the set be changed to better reflect

borough boundaries the ward community identity.

boundaries are kept under periodic

review by the Boundary Committee of 4.8 The boroughs provide a

the Electoral Commission. The reasonable mix of rich and poor, of

Boundary Committee strives to ethnicities and of professions. Recent

maintain electoral equality and to research shows that over the decade

reflect accurately the interests and 1991-2001 there has been an increase

identities of local communities. Each in ethnic minority communities in areas

ward has either two or three members, where previously there was only

giving constituencies of around 10- small representation. There has,

11,000 voters. Proposals for boundary furthermore, been a dispersal of the

changes are consulted on and population away from areas of

individuals, resident associations and traditional settlement for many

other interested parties are able to communities22. Recent research also

lobby to ensure an accurate reflection shows that “the majority of London

of the local community. boroughs are undoubtedly very

religiously diverse areas and amongst

4.6 There are a number of the most diverse areas in the country23.

anomalies in the pattern of the borough Income diversity is also high; ward

boundaries: for example Finsbury Park level data shows that there is a large

is at the meeting of Islington, Hackney disparity within boroughs with high

and Haringey, Kilburn is all in Brent but and low income wards in close

West Kilburn straddles Westminster proximity24. They are in essence the

and Kensington and Chelsea and the “sustainable communities” promoted

Lambeth/ by government.

Wandsworth boundary splits Clapham,

Balham/Clapham Park and The boroughs as administrative

21

Streatham . Hazelbourne Road and units for service delivery

Cavendish Road are examples of

where the borough boundary runs 4.9 For many service providers the

down the middle. borough is a useful administrative unit

at which to marshal resources to meet

4.7 Developing ways to ensure local need25. Working with the local

visible leadership for these particular authority, valuable relationships are

communities is a challenge for developed to tackle issues that require

respective ward councillors. But one a cross-agency response. The

possible initiative could see ward boroughs are the right size for the

councillors of places with a specific development of working relationships

community identity (e.g Finsbury at both the strategic level and coal-

Park) coming together with local face. Some boroughs are well

businesses to create a Business advanced down this path. Croydon has





21 Lambeth and Wandsworth have the highest number of cross-borough movers in London.

22 Patterns of Ethnic Segregation in London, GLA Data Management and Analysis Group, October 2005

23 Religious Diversity Indices, GLA Data Management and Analysis Group, August 2005

24 Pay check, GLA Data Management and Analysis Group, September 2005

25 Our focus groups highlighted the high priority given to boroughs as the body best placed to deliver a range of

public services.



39

a number of budgets pooled between has argued in a personal capacity

PCTs, Health Trusts and the Council’s “there is a clear economy of scale

Social Services Departments. Joint argument for more resource-intensive

commissioning boards for mental services being organised in units that

health services in Croydon have are larger than the current boroughs…

yielded significant, demonstrable, I would favour a structure based on 15

efficiency savings. Local Strategic to 20 local authorities in order to

Partnerships and Local Area provide the basis for cost-effective

Agreements are another more formal service delivery while remaining close

representation of this phenomenon. In enough to local communities”.

Islington, the social services and PCT

are co-located and have a number of

joint appointments at Director level. Is big really better?

Support for present structures also

came from Sir Ian Blair who argued 4.12 There are however different

that “the late 1990s decision of the views as to whether big really is better.

MPS to go to co-terminosity was a In its interim report “The future of local

dramatically important and useful step, government” the Cabinet Office’s

which I cannot imagine reversing Strategy Unit examines the factors that

under any circumstances”. account for cost effective service

delivery. The report argues that, while

4.10 A number of commentators economies of scale have long been

have challenged the existing borough seen as a critical issue in determining

boundary arrangements. The Mayor, the appropriate size of local

Ken Livingstone, argued that he authorities, “overall, the evidence base

favoured the merging of existing on this issue is extremely poor.

boroughs into “five boroughs that Empirical studies up to the mid-1990s

reflect the real sub-regions of London” are both unsatisfactory and produce

in order principally to improve the inconsistent results.” Indeed the

efficiency of the administration by current reorganisation of the NHS in

attracting to London government the London has found that the value of co-

best and the brightest of those wanting terminosity may well outweigh possible

to serve as elected members or in the gains from forced mergers of PCTs.

officer corps. His vision is of a

Mayoralty setting policy on a pan- 4.13 Programmes for structural

London basis, with five super- change are often promoted as a

boroughs of over one million residents mechanism for delivering more cost

each and a vast number of effective services. But alongside any

neighbourhood councils with some 15 estimate of the benefits that might

elected representatives from the ward accrue, there are, of course, significant

deciding on small local planning costs of disruption that need to be

applications, and having some say on taken into account. This would include

the management of community assets tangible issues such as the

and engagement with local police reconfiguring of council services,

patrols. 26 including staffing upheavals to re-

branding of offices, websites and

4.11 Len Duvall, Group Leader of the stationery. It would also have to include

Labour Party on the London Assembly, the opportunity cost of staff time





26 Interestingly enough this proposal was examined and rejected by the Herbert Commission on the grounds that the

sub-regional bodies would be too large to respond flexibly to local need and the parishes powerless leading to

“irresponsibility” and “frustration” of their members. (op. cit p.191)



40

involved spent on managing the During the recent unsuccessful

reorganisation when their focus should referendum to establish a regional

be on serving the needs of their assembly in the North of England,

communities. There are no it was estimated that the costs

authoritative estimates for the range of of the consequential local

costs likely to be involved, but they government reorganisation which

could amount to upfront costs of some would have been required in

hundreds of millions of pounds (see County Durham would have been

box article). between £37million and £49

million.

4.14 Delivering more cost effective

services can be achieved in more It is not possible simply to multiply

imaginative ways by promoting greater such figures to calculate the

joint working and joint commissioning, potential costs of a reorganisation

and through pooling of budgets. We in London. The creation of unitary

have already set out the value of the authorities involved a realignment

borough boundaries in promoting of services in what had been two-

closer working relationships between tier areas, while the London

different service agencies. But we boroughs are already single-tier

recognise the tremendous scope that authorities. Using the available

exists for more cross borough figures as a rough guide, however,

initiatives to generate cost benefits. it would be legitimate to speculate

that a large-scale reorganisation of

the London boroughs could result

Costs of previous local in one-off costs of up to several

government reorganisations hundred million pounds.



When asked in parliamentary Governments have conventionally

questions about the costs justified the immediate costs of

of previous local government reorganisations on the basis of

reorganisations ministers have not savings which they are expected to

provided figures, saying that such generate later. When the GLC was

information is not held centrally. abolished, the then Government

The Boundary Committee for projected long-term savings of

England has said that it has been about £100 million a year as a

shown in the past to be extremely result of staff reductions.

difficult to predict the cost of

reorganisations. Reorganisations often give rise to

other financial issues. The Scottish

There are, however, a few figures reorganisation of 1996, which led

around that give some sense of the to a move from two-tier to unitary

scale of costs. Between 1994-95 local government, created a need

and 2000-01 the Government gave for a reallocation of grant to the

supplementary credit approvals of new authorities. Some Scottish

£492 million to councils involved in authorities complained that they

setting up new unitary authorities in were inadequately funded for the

England. This money was intended new services they took on, a

to meet one-off costs of complaint that has persisted over

reorganisation, although the £492 the past decade.

million did not necessarily cover all

costs. Research: Alan Pike





41

The boroughs delivering boroughs have taken to promote sub-

economies of scale regional partnership working27.

Examples include choice based letting,

4.15 In their submission to the dealing with empty properties, IT

Commission, the Chief Executives’ systems, transport improvements and

London Committee (CELC) stated that training and development of staff and

‘Within our councils more flexible councillors. We welcome these

working across departmental piecemeal steps but believe that there

boundaries and outside of traditional needs to be greater leadership and

hierarchical structures is an everyday drive across London.

feature and is transferred to working

across organisational boundaries’. 4.18 We wish to support the

A number of examples illustrated the development of a London

point: Improvement Partnership (Capital

Ambition) to act as a driver for more

- five North London boroughs run intensive joint working across the

a joint adoption scheme; boroughs. The present “Capital

Ambition” proposals form the basis for

- two North London boroughs run that partnership. This body made up

£50+ million PFI Street Lighting; principally of elected representatives

and officers from the boroughs, the

- four West London boroughs GLA and LFEPA, would work closely

setting up a London Arms with the London Centre of Excellence

Length Management Organis- and London Connects. This one stop

ation (ALMO) Procurement shop would offer a range of services to

Board. the boroughs in terms of developing a

collective responsibility for self

4.16 Under questioning from regulation and improvement, and

Commission members, the Chief procurement and efficiency matters,

Executives argued that contracting out identifying and supporting joint

of service provision often itself leads to working, commissioning and shared

consolidation of activities as private services where there are proven

and voluntary sector providers bundle benefits. It would also commission the

up contracts to gain economies of identification, collation and analysis of

scale. Commission members are clear core performance data through a

that, as boroughs move increasingly performance office for London. Capital

away from direct service provision to a Ambition would also promote

commissioning role, pressures for increased peer review as an

deeper and broader joint working will improvement support activity and will

increase. develop robust and challenging

intervention processes there are poor

4.17 Sir Peter Gershon’s review of performing or failing services.

public sector efficiencies is an

important driver for reform, but in order 4.19 One particular area where we

for joint working to succeed the believe there is scope for a practical

process needs clear strategic direction and symbolic break through in pan-

and commitment on all sides over a London borough working is in

period of time. The West London delivering a one-stop phone number

Alliance is proud of the steps its for queries on local public services.



27 See the West London Alliance submission May 2005 for more detail

28 Ester Fuchs, Special Adviser to Mayor Bloomberg and Rosemary Scanlon, former Deputy State Comptroller for the

City of New York spoke at the 12 July Commission meeting.



42

The benefits of introducing such a for local services. We believe that the

system were set out to us by officers benefits in terms of increasing

from the New York City satisfaction with local service delivery

administration28. Mayor Bloomberg are such that one phone number for

introduced his innovative 311 all London’s public services is

telephone number to increase the something that we would want

accountability and transparency of the London Improvement

public service delivery. As Ester Fuchs Partnership to begin to develop as a

explained “If you have a problem or an matter of priority.

issue, you can call 311 and the

operator routes you to the appropriate

place to get an answer. You get a More effective waste management

number. You get a call back to make

sure that you are satisfied with at least 4.22 The Commission believes

the service you are receiving now or that there are strong arguments to

that somebody addressed your consider changes to the current

complaint.” The benefits to the public arrangements for waste

are immediate including easy access management and waste planning.

for addressing issues of concern over Municipal solid waste in London is

public services and the avoidance of currently collected by 33 separate

buck-passing by the service providers. Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs)

As a management tool calls through which are co-terminous with the

311 help map emerging areas or issues boroughs and delivered to London’s

of concern. Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs) for

treatment. Prior to its abolition on 31

4.20 The Home Office is currently March 1986, the Greater London

developing its Single Non-Emergency Council was the WDA for London. With

Number programme with local the abolition of the GLC, four federal

authorities as a national service. We groupings of boroughs (funded by levy

believe that there are opportunities for on the constituent boroughs) were

London to build on this scheme and to created, leaving twelve individual

develop further the scale of services boroughs that act as both collection

that could be dealt with. The present and disposal authorities.29

proposals are for core services to

cover vandalism, noisy neighbours, 4.23 The existing collection and

abandoned vehicles and so forth. We disposal arrangements have been in

believe this could go further to include place for nearly 20 years. However,

any service provided, contracted or the challenges that waste disposal

commissioned by London boroughs. authorities face in the future are of a

different order to those faced so far

4.21 We appreciate that this is a (there are new EU statutory targets, for

major challenge for the boroughs and example) and it is timely to consider

the GLA. And we recognise that much whether more strategic arrangements

work is on-going at many boroughs’ may make these challenges easier to

call-centres. But our intention is to give resolve.

that work a boost and greater focus.

The technology now exists to provide a 4.24 The Commission heard from a

pan-London one-stop reference point number of leading experts in the field.



29 East London Waste Authority - Barking & Dagenham, Havering, Newham and Redbridge

North London Waste Authority - Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington and Waltham Forest.

Western Riverside Waste Authority - Hammersmith & Fulham, Lambeth, Wandsworth and Kensington & Chelsea.

West London Waste Authority - Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond.



43

Many of them spoke of the need for that there are a number of options,

leadership and vision for managing which need to be assessed more

waste collection and disposal across thoroughly. In particular, many on

London. Some argued that “next to the Commission support a so-called

nothing” has happened in the past 20 Section 101 Committee with a full

years to tackle the issues facing the role for the Mayor and embracing

sector and that only a strategic his strategy. This option would avoid

London-wide body could undertake the separation of collection and

these tasks. For example, we heard disposal into different tiers of local

that London will need another 100 government and could be delivered

facilities for re-cycling, yet only five quickly as it avoids the need for

planning decisions have been reached primary legislation.

in this area in the past five years.

Others argue that, before restructuring 4.27 In evidence to the Commission,

the sector, what is needed is a clear we heard a number of concerns

steer from central government: expressed in opposition to the Mayor’s

including a settled policy, clear route proposals, which the government

maps and adequate funding for local should address: in particular, the fear

government to meet its targets. that the Single Waste Authority (SWA)

would not be in touch with local

4.25 The Mayor’s Policy Director for requirements, perceptions and

the Environment set out arguments to feelings. The fear is that decisions

the Commission for a London Single could be imposed on local

Waste Authority (LSWA). Collection communities in the name of what is

would still be arranged by, and be best for London regardless of genuine

accountable to, the boroughs and local concerns and without an

there would need to be a separate appropriate timescale for those

planning board to whom the waste concerns to be properly aired. There

authority would apply for planning could be cost implications associated

permission. Key to his case is the with the Mayor’s decisions and for

argument that such an authority could: which the Mayor would need to be

responsible. There needs to be some

■ deliver a more cost effective protection offered to the boroughs from

waste disposal regime; the possible imposition of a regime by

a Mayor which might have serious

■ create pan-London ‘sticks financial consequences. There should

and carrots’ to drive up re- be some checks and balances on

cycling rates; anything that involves the transfer of

resources directed by a person who

■ harness available funding does not collect them. Furthermore,

streams to raise the level of consideration must be given as to how

investment for needed to preserve links between collection

infrastructure; and and disposal functions to avoid

disputes at the margin.

■ promote a single awareness

campaign. 4.28 The Commission believes

that if the SWA were established its

4.26 Some members of the board should combine the

Commission expressly support the strengths of Mayoral leadership,

Mayoral proposals for a Single borough expertise and the pan-

Waste Authority (SWA) structured London perspective brought by

as a functional body. Others believe Assembly Members. A mixed



44

membership along the lines of LFEPA

with private and voluntary sector

participation as necessary would

provide firm foundations for

implementing an agreed London waste

strategy. These arrangements would

also need to ensure that the budget be

open to scrutiny by the Assembly and

that the Assembly’s powers of

summons in respect of functional

bodies’ personnel and documentation

would apply.









45

5. A NEW SETTLEMENT FOR the Greater London Authority, an

LONDON: REINVIGORATING elected executive Mayor and full-time

LOCAL DEMOCRACY Assembly. These major developments,

however, have not led to changes in

The Government Office for London the scope of the Government Office for

“As the vast majority of Londoners do London or reductions in its size.

not know of GOL’s existence, I do not

believe it is accountable to the citizen. 5.4 GOL’s running costs in 1999/00,

It is another tier of central government a year in which the office was

and the question must be asked as to preparing for the first Mayoral and

why government departments can’t Assembly elections and the

deal directly with local authorities.30 establishment of the GLA, were £16m.

In each of the subsequent two years

5.1 It is ten years since Government these fell to £13.2m but by 2003/04

Offices were set up in the English GOL’s running costs had risen again to

regions in an attempt to take locally- £16.6m. The 2003/04 administrative

focused central government activities expenditure of the Government Office

closer to the public. Their introduction for the South East, a region

followed concerted local-level comparable to London in terms of

criticisms of restrictive Whitehall population but without elected regional

departmentalism, excessive numbers government, was £14.1m. Most of

of national policy initiatives, lack of GOL’s expenditure is on staff.

integration between projects, the Numbers fell from 370 in April 2000 to

short-term nature of government 240 in April 2001, but have since risen

funded programmes and insufficient again annually and now stand at

local autonomy. In spite of progress in around 320.

some areas, many of the same

criticisms continue to be voiced. 5.5 A breakdown of GOL’s £2.72bn

programme expenditure for 2003/04

5.2 The Government Offices now was set out in our report ‘Capital Life’.

represent the interests of ten Whitehall Although a large part of this is passed

departments: Office of the Deputy on as grant to the GLA family of bodies

Prime Minister (ODPM) Department of and other service providers, GOL is

Trade and Industry; Department for involved in managing more than 40

Education and Skills; Department for individual programmes on behalf of

Transport; the Cabinet Office; Whitehall departments.

Department for Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs; Home Office; 5.6 Many of our guests and

Department for Culture, Media and respondents to our consultation paper

Sport; Department for Work and have argued for the abolition or radical

Pensions; and Department of Health. downsizing of GOL. One particularly

The ODPM has lead responsibility for telling argument is that “GOL has the

the regional offices. ultimate conflict of interest: to seek to

represent London’s interests to

5.3 Since the Government Office for government whilst being government’s

London (GOL) was established, the agents in London”. In respect of

capital’s governance structure has housing, one of our guests argued that

diverged from the other eight English “The strongest reason for getting the

regions. It now has, with the creation of GLA to take over is that GOL have

done such a bad job of having the



30 LB Waltham Forest



46

strategy and having the money. They Wales Offices, have become part of

have represented us badly… they are the Department of Constitutional

essentially paralysed; they cannot do Affairs. Their main function is to

anything about it because one bit of represent Scottish and Welsh interests

government would be seen to be at Westminster and liaise with the

arguing with another bit of devolved administrations; they are not

government.” involved directly with on-the-ground

services and they have staff

5.7 A number of boroughs argued complements of about 66 and 55

for radical change from a variety of respectivley.

different perspectives including:

5.9 The Scotland and Wales Offices

■ “Experience of GOL will vary provide an alternative model for central

across boroughs and activities. government’s relationships with

We certainly have questions London now that it is - and for the

about value added in relation to foreseeable future will remain - the

some activities… funding only English region with elected

streams could be channelled regional government. On such a basis,

through the GLA or directly to the test would be whether it was

London boroughs.” absolutely necessary for GOL, rather

than elected regional and local

■ “GOL has responsibility for a government, to fund or monitor a

significant volume of funding particular programme; where it was

streams and its role and the not, GOL would withdraw.

resources available to it seem

entirely disproportionate in 5.10 A system of dual responsibility

relation to that of the GLA and between central and London

what might be expected to be a government could be adopted where

more rational local government necessary. The London Development

structure for London following Agency (LDA) is an existing example

the GLA’s inception. Certainly of such a dual approach. Although one

having such funding streams of the nine statutory English regional

administered through the GLA, development agencies, the LDA is a

for example, rather than the GLA functional body. Its board is

GOL, would increase appointed by the Mayor rather than the

accountability for obvious government, and its performance

reasons.” targets are agreed by both the Mayor

and government.

■ “The Council’s main concern

about GOL is that it has not 5.11 Most of GOL’s activity is in

been successful in presenting areas where it overlaps with London’s

London boroughs with a single regional and local government; a

face… [GOL] is not accountable reduction in its role would simplify

at all… .” structures and offer opportunities for

efficiency savings.

5.8 The continued size and

influence of GOL contrasts with the Recommendation

scaled-down way in which central

government has been represented in 5.12 Our conclusion is that GOL

Scotland and Wales since devolution. should be released from the standard

The former Scottish and Welsh structure of the English Government

Offices, now called the Scotland and Offices to one reflecting London’s



47

unique status in having elected The role of the Mayor and the GLA

regional government. We believe that

GOL should be re-structured in such a 5.14 At the London-wide level, the

way that its main functions are to offer Greater London Authority (GLA) is

secretariat and briefing support to made up of the Mayor of London and

ministers at ODPM, principally the the London Assembly. The GLA is a

Minister for London. A transition team focused, strategic authority providing a

at GOL should help devolve down long vision and voice for London. The

running programmes such as the New Mayor is the executive arm of the

Deal for Communities or Authority, with responsibilities for

Neighbourhood Renewal Funding, and devising London-wide strategies and

initiate and then withdraw from plans, proposing a budget, making

schemes such as the proposals for the appointments to the bodies under his

extension of Local Area Agreements control and co-ordinating actions to

across London. In order to assure implement his strategies. The

ministers that there is a safeguard to Assembly is the scrutiny arm of the

prevent any programme or service GLA providing essential checks and

previously overseen by GOL from balances to the power of the Mayor.

failing there should be a right of

intervention, with co-decision 5.15 Following the announcement of

being effected by the Mayor and the the Government’s review of the powers

ALG Leaders’ Committee through and responsibilities of the Mayor and

our proposed London Performance GLA, the Commission set out a

Agency. number of recommendations for

devolving powers down to the regional

5.13 We are disappointed that the tier. We welcome the opportunity now

Government’s consultation into the to consider specific proposals to

powers of the Mayor and the GLA do devolve powers and responsibilities to

not include recommendations to the the GLA. However, we are clear that

HM Treasury review of Government the GLA should remain a strategic

Offices. We believe that it is now time authority setting the direction and

to act to release resources and regional framework, and should not

cut through the duplication to make a become a delivery body. Delivery is

real contribution to improve local rightly the role of the functional bodies

democracy. A detailed list of how or the boroughs.

we would wish to see GOL’s funding

streams devolved are set out in 5.16 The Government’s consultation

annex B. paper sets out a number of options and

proposals for granting additional

powers and responsibilities to the GLA.

There are options for additional

Mayoral powers in the fields of

housing, learning and skills, planning

and waste management and waste

planning. There are also options for

changes to the Mayor’s relationship

with the functional bodies and

proposals for developing the role of the

Assembly. Our submission is included

as an annex to this report.







48

Streamlining delivery chains ment, the Commission

believes that if a single

5.17 There are a number of specific Strategic Waste Authority

areas where the Commission would were established its

wish to see powers devolved where board should combine the

the effectiveness and efficiency of strengths of Mayoral leader-

public service delivery could be ship, borough expertise and

enhanced and where the streamlining the pan-London perspective

of that delivery chain can boost brought by Assembly

accountability. Members.



■ As set out in paragraphs 3.52 ■ A mixed membership along

to 3.57 of this report, the the lines of LFEPA with

Commission supports the private and voluntary sector

radical option of devolving participation as necessary

current Learning and Skills would provide firm

Council powers to the Mayor; foundations for implementing

an agreed London waste

■ As set out in paragraph 3.46 strategy. These arrangements

of this report, the would also need to ensure

Commission supports a more that the budget were open to

formalised role for the Mayor, scrutiny by the Assembly and

in consultation with the that the Assembly’s powers

London Strategic Health of summons in respect of

Authority, in drawing up a functional bodies’ personnel

London Public Health and documentation would

Strategy; apply.



■ As set out in paragraph 5.13

of this report, the

Commission supports the Separate billing for the GLA

dramatic downsizing of the

Government Office for 5.21 Members of the Commission

London with the conse- believe that it is right to consider the

quence that EU funding separate billing of the GLA precept

should go to the Mayor/LDA so that Londoners can more clearly

understand the cost of the services

provided by the GLA and its

Increase transparency and functional bodies.

accountability

5.22 There are two main options.

5.18 There are a number of specific Londoners could receive a separate

areas where the Commission would bill from the GLA or there could be a

wish to see measures taken to greater degree of separation in the

increase transparency and presentation of the existing council tax

accountability of governance boards bill, which would more clearly indicate

for service delivery. the extent of the share of the council

tax going to the GLA. The stronger

■ With respect to the proposals option of separate billing would need to

for the establishment of a be cost neutral, for both the boroughs

new functional body to direct and the council tax-payer, and must be

London’s waste manage- easy to understand. To be cost neutral



49

the GLA bill could be included in the

same envelope as the Borough’s 5.26 Some Commission members

council tax demand and collected by believe that the London Assembly

each borough. We believe that the needs to have an extension of its

Lyons inquiry should accept this powers both to strengthen the quality

principle and make of the challenge to the Mayor and to

recommendations. validate the Mayor’s assertion that he

is receptive to the views of all

The role of the London Assembly Londoners. One refinement could be

that there should be meaningful

5.23 The Commission is clear that, in opportunities for the Assembly to

any discussion about revising Mayoral influence all the Mayor’s strategies, for

and GLA powers, consideration needs instance via pre-scrutiny or call-in

to be given to how the checks and powers similar to those exercised by

balances to Mayoral powers should be local authority Overview and Scrutiny

refined. In particular, we welcome Committees. But such powers would

consideration in the consultation paper stop short of creating a new power of

of how the role of the London amendment of final draft strategy

Assembly should evolve to ensure that documents. The need for the Mayor to

there is sufficient challenge to the consult with and gain the approval of

executive. the Assembly would mean that the

political constituency that supports his

5.24 The London Assembly is a policy would be larger than it has to be

vital partner to the Mayor in at present. The London boroughs

ensuring good governance in the would feel more assured that their

capital, the delivery of value for concerns would be aired. These

money policies and the input of the changes would not significantly restrict

views of all local people in the the Mayor’s ability to act in a decisive

Mayor’s decision-making process. fashion.



5.27 Some members of the

Assembly powers in relation to Commission believe that more radical

the Mayor change is required, with the

Assembly’s existing powers to amend

5.25 To date there have been eight and present an alternative budget, with

Mayoral statutory strategies and seven the agreement of two-thirds of its

non-statutory strategies. The members, to be extended to cover all

Assembly has a preferred stakeholder the major policy areas in which the

status, being consulted before other Mayor presents his strategies. There

interested parties by the Mayor on any would therefore be a ‘Second Reading’

statutory strategy or change to the debate on the principles of the strategy

strategies. This provides some input and then consideration of the strategy

into the formation stage of the Mayor’s in plenary session or in committee. The

policies, but no real power to check or Assembly would then have the ability

balance his ability to dispense to block the strategy given a two-thirds

resources. The Mayor can listen but majority. The Assembly would

take no notice. The electorate therefore evolve down the path of the

provides a broad mandate to govern other devolved authorities developing

but the Assembly provides the day- into a ‘quasi-legislative’ body. This

to-day accountability and challenge would in effect give the Assembly the

for specific policies and power to scrutinise the Mayor’s

programmes. spending plans before the



50

commitments are made. Authority’s main decision

5.28 Furthermore, there are clear making body. They focus on the

benefits in terms of improving organisation’s strategy and

accountability of service delivery policy; its responsibilities

for there to be an enhanced scrutiny include appointing senior staff

role for the Assembly for London- and hearing disciplinary cases.

wide bodies that are not Members, and the Chair, are

accountable to the Mayor (eg appointed by the Mayor; nine

London Ambulance Service, members are from the London

London SHA, London LSC). Assembly and eight are

nominated by the London

The role of Assembly Members on boroughs via the Association of

the boards of the functional bodies London Government.



5.29 The GLA’s four functional ■ The MPA has 23 members: 12

bodies (Transport for London, TfL, the from the Assembly appointed by

Metropolitan Police Authority, MPA, the the Mayor, four magistrates

London Fire and Emergency Planning selected by the Greater London

Authority, LFEPA and the London Magistrates’ Courts Authority

Development Agency, LDA) deliver and seven independents, of

transport, policing, fire and emergency whom one is appointed directly

planning, regeneration and business by the Home Secretary. The

support services. Collectively they MPA is tasked with increasing

have a budget of some £10 billion, the community confidence and trust

bulk of which is government grant. in London’s police service,

Each of the functional bodies has setting policing targets and

slightly different governance monitoring performance. The

arrangements: Chair is elected by its members.



■ TfL is directed by a 5.30 These boards are part of the

management board whose executive, and appointments to them

members are chosen for their an important patronage power of the

understanding of transport Mayor. Yet these arrangements lack

matters and appointed by Ken consistency and offer different forms of

Livingstone, Mayor of London, accountability. For example the Chair

who chairs the TfL Board. No of the MPA is elected by the MPA

Assembly Members or London Board but the Chair of LFEPA is

councillors are permitted to sit appointed by the Mayor. There

on the Board. appears to be no rational for these

different arrangements, nor any

■ The LDA Board is a business- underlying principles to guide

led board, which is appointed by membership and appointments.

the Mayor. It gives strategic

leadership to the organisation 5.31 The Commission, however,

and is accountable to the Mayor believes that there does indeed need

for the Agency’s performance to be reform of the boards of the

and targets. Its 14 members functional bodies, but that the

include Assembly Members, direction of travel should be in order

councillors and business to make them more representative

representatives. of London’s government as a whole.

The Commission supports the

■ LFEPA’s 17 members are the principle that all existing and new



51

functional bodies should have a Assembly and the Association of

majority of elected representatives London Government. There have been

on their governing body. This some limited examples of joint

should include a balance of working, for example a joint scrutiny of

Assembly members and borough a pan-London service, the London

representatives. The current LFEPA Ambulance Service, but closer co-

model has been put forward by operation could boost the resource

some as a preferred model. base that Assembly Members could

draw on and provide the boroughs with

The Commission believes that: a more effective way of making

representations to the Mayor’s policy

■ all functional bodies, existing development. For example, there is a

and newly created, should strong case for a joint committee

include a proper balance of established by boroughs, which would

members from both the have the statutory powers for health

Assembly and the London scrutiny, with co-opted Assembly

boroughs. Boards combining Members, to look at the work of any

borough and Assembly future single Strategic Health Authority

members achieve a mixture of for London. This could be a transition

local intelligence and pan- model if government decided to grant

London views vital to help steer the Assembly enhanced scrutiny

pan-London services. They powers, for example the ability to

provide a visible link to local summon representatives of those

communities. This arrangement bodies, in health and other fields

would further increase the

transparency of, and strengthen

the links between, strategic The role of the council

planning and service delivery at

the local level; 5.34 London’s boroughs are at the

heart of local public service provision.

■ all functional bodies should be They spend more than £11 billion a

chaired by an elected member year on public services. About half is

on appointment by the Mayor; spent on education and £3 billion of it

on social services. Among the many

5.32 Following this model would areas they work in the boroughs own

mean reform of the constitution of the and maintain just under 500,000

board of Transport for London to allow homes, provide care for over 12,000

Assembly Members and London vulnerable children in residential and

councillors to sit on it. The number and foster care, collect and dispose of

appointment of the Assembly and ALG household waste and deal with

members should be looked at in the planning permissions and the licensing

round to ensure that elected members of pubs, clubs and restaurants. Yet for

are able to contribute effectively to the many in local government the role of

running of the authorities. councils has changed to the detriment

under pressure from successive

national governments to deliver

The Assembly and the boroughs national priorities and as there has

been an increase in the diversity of

5.33 Some members of the service providers (private, voluntary

Commission are keen to explore ways and not-for-profit bodies). Government

in which greater synergies could be recognises that this is an apposite time

realised by closer working between the for a reassessment of the role of local



52

government and has extended the ■ building up the leadership role

remit of Sir Michael Lyons’ inquiry into of the boroughs through the

local government funding, so that he setting of local strategies in the

can consider issues relating to the fields of economic regeneration,

wider functions of local government.31 health and social services, skills

and policing

5.35 The Commission believes that

the scope for local discretion and ■ building up the ability of the

influence has weakened over time boroughs to enhance the local

creating a system of local environment through a menu of

administration instead of local local revenue schemes.

government. Government itself

recognises that local authorities have a

reduced role in direct service delivery The council as

and in aspects of service commissioning agent…

commissioning. For example, in the

three largest local authority services 5.37 The complex and demanding

(schools, social services and housing) nature of the challenges facing

the centre maintains a strong role London boroughs makes the

setting priorities, targets and funding, seamless provision of local

and local discretion is heavily services vital. We believe that the

circumscribed. Nevertheless, the London borough should be the

report into the Future of Local commissioning agent for the key

Government prepared by the Cabinet life-changing public services of

Office’s Strategy Unit recognises that, health, education and social

as a result of local government’s services.

historical role, together with the

fragmentation and increased diversity 5.38 Commissioning involves an

of service providers, the borough assessment of the needs of the

stands at the centre of a complex set of community, specification of services to

relationships with a wide range of local be procured and clear agreements

service agencies and interest groups. about the cost, volume and outputs

It is this role of community leadership required of providers. There are

that we seek to strengthen and opportunities for longer term

enhance. agreements with providers provided

that there is sufficient flexibility to adapt

5.36 We propose: to changes in the local need.

Commissioning enables a clear focus

■ building up the commissioning on the needs of the area and can

role of the boroughs in health, enhance the role of elected members

social services and education; in the provision of services that meet

local circumstances.

■ building up the partnership role

of the boroughs through their 5.39 The Government has

management of strengthened recognised the scope for the local

Local Strategic Partnerships council playing “a new commissioning

and expanded Local Area role in relation to a new school system,

Agreements; at the heart of their local communities,









31 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, News Release 2005/0193



53

and responsive to the needs of parents budgets and joint procedures for

and pupils”32. Furthermore the tackling delayed discharge of patients,

Government proposes that local providing aids and adaptations for

authorities and primary care trusts vulnerable people, health visitors and

(PCTs) develop the commissioning other services.

role as the basis for securing services

in a “patient-led NHS”. PCTs and 5.42 But we want to go further: we

London boroughs can also develop believe that all well performing

shared functions and integrated social boroughs should be able to act as

and health care for people with support the commissioning agent for local

and medical needs. GPs. In effect the PCT will be folded

into the local authority. We believe

5.40 Integrating the commissioning that this proposal works with the grain

of these services could generate of the Government’s proposals to

efficiency savings from the potential for develop a patient led NHS with local

shared premises and functions and intelligence and local needs

opportunities for better procurement, assessment driving the commissioning

reduction of agency costs and use of of health services. We believe that the

new technology. There are benefit of providing a more seamless

opportunities for London wide service for people with complex health

commissioning of services as well and social service needs is the golden

as agreements between egg of the streamlining of governance

neighbouring PCTs, schools and arrangements.

London boroughs on a sub-regional

basis. Supported by local strategies



5.41 There is a strong foundation for 5.43 In order to underpin this

this work in London. For example, enhanced commissioning role, one

Kensington and Chelsea has a totally proposal could be for boroughs to

integrated service for learning produce annual strategies in the fields

disabilities and aim to fully integrate of economic regeneration, health and

mental health services in 2006. Harrow social services, skills and policing.

has a joint service manager and joint These documents would capture local

commissioning team for services to intelligence fed in by ward councillors

people with physical disabilities, and other interested parties. They

people needing mental health would provide an evidence-based

services, learning disabilities, older directory of local need. Available to all

people and substance misuse and a residents they would provide a vital link

manager with responsibility for between the council and its local

prevention and carers. In Camden residents, setting out the proposed

there is similar joint working and cross direction of travel and key milestones,

sector commissioning of HIV services so increasing understanding of what

as well as joint commissioning of the council is striving to achieve and

children’s services including how the local population could get

designated nurses for children. The involved.

Southwark PCT chief executive is also

Southwark Council’s strategic director

of social services. PCTs and boroughs

have made arrangements for pooled







32 Education White Paper, Chapter 9



54

Will strengthen the role of the 5.45 We welcome the latest

council as the community leader developments in government thinking

which promotes Local Area

5.44 Government has set great store Agreements as the product of Local

by its policy of promoting Local Area Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) - see

Agreements (LAAs) They bring Chart 6 - and see this process as

together central government, local strengthening the role of the local

government and other partners. They authority as the community leader.

set high-level objectives to deliver Nevertheless we believe there are a

outcomes related to national number of issues that government

objectives, pool budgets and are built needs to address to ensure they are

around the themes of healthier truly fit for purpose for delivering LAAs;

communities and older people, safe for example to whom are LSPs

and stronger communities and children accountable? Should they have an

and young people33. There are currently administration budget? What

two pilots in London: Hammersmith and sanctions could there be on those

Fulham and Greenwich. partners who don’t deliver? How can

local councils have accountability

status (eg for some regeneration

projects) without the authority?









Chart 6: Local Area Agreement Framework





National Local Local

Priorities Community Partners







LSP







Monitoring

Sustainable Community Strategy and

Reporting







LAA

Enterprise & Healthier Safer and Children and

FUNDING









Economic communities, stronger young people

Development and older communities Outcomes

people





LAA Reward Grant





Source: ODPM , LAA team









33 A new block to promote enterprise and economic development will soon be added.



55

Greater discretion over local ■ The Royal Borough of Kingston

income streams upon Thames argued that “the

existing funding regime is in

5.46 London’s democratically need of review” because it

elected local government raises little of “significantly restricts our ability

its own money for spending on public to provide the level of services

services. Of the £57 billion34 that came that we would wish for our

into London’s public services in 2004- residents.”

05, just £2.5 billion (4.4% of the total)

was raised locally. There is also limited ■ Lambeth argued that “current

discretion over spending. Around two- funding arrangements such as

thirds of the total spent in London on the Formula Grant Distribution

public services is outside the scope system do not sufficiently

and influence of local control. And of recognise the diverse needs of

the £20 billion spent annually by the the communities resident in

boroughs and the GLA, central many London boroughs.”

government targets and priorities

direct much of that spending. ■ Wandsworth argued that

“London needs a fair share of

5.47 London’s financial flows are a resources to meet its special

complex web of national and local needs. Ideally more should be

payments. The provision of a particular raised locally. We would support

service (for example, care for the a return of business rates to

elderly) may bring together a range of London councils, with suitable

funding streams from government and equalisation arrangements.”

private providers and not-for-profit

organisations. Government funding

may be provided in the form of bloc London’s financial landscape

grants, be set by complex grant

formulae, or be bid for by organisations 5.50 Of the £57 billion funnelled into

seeking access to public funds. London’s public services in 2004/05

the largest component of government

5.48 The small proportion of taxes expenditure is social protection (ie

raised locally to fund London’s public social security). Then follows ‘health

services and the extent to which we and personal social services’ and

remain at the “mercy of central ‘education’. Together these categories

government” is a consistent refrain make up around 55% of total spending

from our guests and contributors. in London. Of this total just £11 billion is

Representatives from the business funnelled through London’s local

community argued that “powers and authorities and £9 billion through the

finance have to go together and, so GLA. But even then much of this

long as central government keeps hold funding is ‘ring-fenced’ or nationally

of the purse strings, you have not got directed (for example, much of the

real devolution.” spending on education). The table

below gives the latest available figures

5.49 Boroughs also argue for greater for tax receipts in London (*= excluding

financial freedoms to allow funding to value added tax)

better match needs:









34 Latest data from HM Treasury: Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2005



56

5.51 Though council tax accounts for 5.52 There is also interest in

just under 4% of London’s total tax exploring mechanisms by which

take, it is the only tax that can be set by London’s authorities can be

locally elected representatives, albeit incentivised to raise revenue through

subject to potential government supplementary sources by allowing

capping powers. The main difficulty is them to keep some or all of the gains

that, because the council tax meets without compensating reductions in

around 25 per cent of spending by Formula Grant. We also believe that it

councils, this means that, for each 1 is time for a mature debate on the

per cent added to spending, there is an extent to which London should provide

average increase of around 4 per cent a net contribution to the national tax

in council tax. This gearing effect, and pot. On present calculations London

the fear of capping by central contributes somewhere between £7

government, limits the ability of local and £15 billion into national coffers for

people to have control over their own redistribution across the UK. We would

financing needs35. The Commission argue that that sum should be reduced

has therefore agreed to look at with a greater local control granted to

areas of tax policy that could be locally raised finances. Our specific

used to enhance local control and proposals for re-localising the

be off-set against the amount raised business rate are set out in the

at national level. following paragraphs.



Tax Yield

Re-localising the business rate

(£bn)

5.53 Local economic development

Income tax plus tax credit 18.2

and regeneration depends upon a

Council tax 2.4 strong working relationship between

Vehicle tax 0.7 businesses and local authorities. Both

Social contributions 9.9 parties share a wide range of common

interests in terms of creating a safe,

Valued added tax 9.6 vibrant, and accessible working and

Corporation tax 4.7 shopping environment. We believe that

Stamp duty 0.9 it is time for the relationship to be

formalised to ensure what Jo Valentine

Total customs and

(Chief Executive of London First)

excise duties* 6.9

described as a “better local join”. In

Petroleum tax and particular we believe that it is time for

oil royalties 0.2 government to examine the option of

Capital gains tax and re-localising the business rate in

inheritance tax 0.5 London.

Business rates 3.5

5.54 Business rates are the means

Other taxes and royalties 1.7 by which businesses and others who

Interest and dividends 0.7 occupy non-domestic property make a

Other receipts 3.1 contribution towards the cost of local

services. The last time business rates

Total 63.0 were fundamentally reformed was

fifteen years ago, when the





35 The Council Tax contributes different proportions of total funding for the London boroughs. For example council

tax contributes just 13% for Tower Hamlets, but 50% for Richmond.



57

introduction of a Uniform Business interest the comments made to our

Rate broke the link between what Commission hearing on 12 April by

businesses pay and the service Irving Yass (Director of Policy, London

improvements they enjoy. Though they First) who argued that “one thing which

are collected by local authorities, since has been a success recently is

1990/91 business rates have been Business Improvement Districts

paid into a national pool and (BIDs), where there is evidence that

redistributed by central government to businesses are willing to pay a

local authorities according to the business tax if they have a real say in

number of people living in the area. how it is raised and what it is spent on.

Although London provides £3.8 billion Thus far we have had no objections.”

of business rate revenue, the London

boroughs receive around £2 billion and

the GLA receives £205 million. This Linking the business rate increase

gives a net contribution to the national to that of the council tax

pot of £1.6 billion 36.

5.58 The Commission believes

5.55 It is important to note that, as that the simplest option would be to

the government has limited the link the local business rate increase

increase in the business rate to the to that made to the council tax. This

rate of inflation, the share of local linking would engender closer

government funding paid through the partnership working as councils

business rate has gone down despite negotiate over the rate with business

the extraordinary period of economic and local citizens and spell out what

growth the country has benefited from additional benefits business could

over the past decade. Local expect from any changes to the

Government Association (LGA) business rate. Given government’s

estimates suggest that in 1990/91 expressed intention to limit through

business rates accounted for 32 per capping council tax increases

cent of council expenditure, but by businesses are explicitly protected

2003/04 this share had fallen to 22.4 from any extraordinary increases.

per cent and for 2005/06 it is an

estimated 22%.

An alternative option: the

5.56 We believe that there are boroughs as BIDs

strong arguments for re-localising

the business rate. In practical terms it 5.59 We want to build on comments

would be a relatively straightforward from business representatives and

process with revaluation every five develop further the relationships that

years, as now, so the business rate are evolving through contact on the

more fairly reflect rateable value. For Local Strategic Partnerships. We have

London as a whole there would also also reflected on the comments made

need to be a revised equalisation to us by Michael Snyder, Chairman of

mechanism, operating through the the Policy and Resources Committee,

government grant scheme. Corporation of London who set forth

the benefits he believed flowed from

5.57 We recognise however that establishing the City as a “sort of a

business will fear excessive or BID” and who argued that there “could

arbitrary increases. We note with now be much greater input from







36 GLA submission to the Lyons Inquiry



58

business rate payers to local policies Piloting new revenue streams

perhaps by creating an obligation to

take account of such input when 5.62 Property taxes have always

formulating the local authority’s policy. been the bedrock of local government

This should be reflected in the way revenues. There is a clear line of

money from businesses is raised at accountability from resident to the local

local level.” We believe that each councils for the provision of services to

borough should be treated as though it that household. The Council Tax was

were a Business Improvement District. introduced in 1993 as a replacement

for the unpopular Community Charge.

5.60 With our proposals for borough Overall the Council Tax raises just over

strategies for regeneration, health and £2 billion per annum, but it contributes

skills clearly demonstrating the different proportions of total funding for

direction of travel the borough is the London boroughs. For example

committed to. These strategies will council tax contributes just 13% for

allow the borough to set out its’ case Tower Hamlets, but 50% for Richmond.

for any proposed changes to the The government has now accepted

business rate and how any extra that the Council Tax is in need of

monies would be used or how any reform.

reduction in the business rate would be

funded. This would increase 5.63 There are fundamental

transparency of the borough’s problems with the way council tax

activities, increase local accountability operates, in particular relating to:

of both boroughs and businesses and

help cement a more dynamic ■ the gearing issue - small

relationship. Over the long term if could changes in spending by

see more business people standing as boroughs have a big impact on

local candidates in local elections council tax rises;

again.

■ regressivity - the banding

system means that the

Checks and balances difference between the amount

the richest and poorest pay is

5.61 We would also support the not great; and

development of a set of

arrangements whereby the council ■ capping - conflicts have

consults with its chamber of emerged between desires to

commerce and other increase service provision and

representatives of the business central government pressure to

community, which in turn consults the keep council tax rises as low as

local business community. If these possible.

talks fail to deliver agreement then

there would be a weighted voting 5.64 Some commentators have

arrangement. We would of course proposed to the Lyons inquiry the

expect the local chambers of wholesale scrapping of the council tax

commerce to ensure that they are with its replacement by a local income

more fully representative of the tax. While still a possible option, it

business community as a whole before appears that it is more likely that a

this arrangement was established. property tax will remain a significant

part of the local tax system, with







59

changes to the banding and the (2004) examined past attempts by

operation of Council Tax Benefit. There government to capture some of the

is nevertheless scope for change and windfall profits that often arise as a

we would urge the Lyons inquiry to result of development decisions. The

consider in detail better and fairer land report recommended a possible

value taxation systems. mechanism for capturing the benefits

in the form of a Planning Gain

Supplement whereby developers are

Minor local taxes required to pay a supplement to local

authorities in return for receiving

5.65 A significant piece of work has planning permission to develop

been commissioned by the ALG from residential housing. Government has

Local Government Futures to examine proposed a consultation period on her

the scope for minor local taxes in proposals.

London. The report looks at a range of

possible measures including tourist 5.68 We believe that it is now time for

taxes (for example, an accommodation government to give the London

tax or a restaurant tax), land taxes, boroughs the flexibility to consider new

localised vehicle excise duty or revenue streams. We believe that the

localised inheritance tax. The report Lyons inquiry should make specific

favours two proposals: provision to allow London boroughs,

where there is demand, to pilot new

schemes for raising local income.

Tourist Taxes Some boroughs may welcome the

opportunity to set out to their

5.66 Local Government Futures communities possibilities for directing

argue that taxing hotel accommodation local income into specific local

is feasible for the UK and may be projects.

particularly appropriate for central

London. Decisions would need to be

taken on the type of accommodation to The role of the councillor

be covered and the type of tax (flat fee

or a percentage of charges). Rough 5.69 London’s 1,800 councillors

calculations indicate that the tax could provide community representation and

raise around £150 million a year. The leadership in delivering services; they

tax take could be distributed largely to are the heartbeat of local government.

those boroughs where the Each councillor is tasked with

accommodation is registered, with a representing local communities of

proportion being spread across all the around 10-11,000. Largely

boroughs as a weak form of unremunerated, though some

equalisation. The revenue could be expenses can be claimed, being a

used for environmental improvements councillor is a demanding role, with a

and promoting tourism. high turnover rate. Initial survey work

by the Association of London

Government indicates that over a four-

Planning Gain supplement year period there is an average

turnover rate of around 40 per cent in

5.67 A recent report commissioned the boroughs. Exit surveys of local

by HM Treasury and the Office of the authority councillors across the country

Deputy Prime Minister from Kate indicate a variety of reasons for

Barker entitled “Delivering Stability: standing down including the pressure

Securing our Future Housing Needs” of competing demands on their time.



60

But over a quarter stood down ■ be a local champion for equality;

because they believed that local

government had little influence37. It is ■ motivate people to access

these issues that we want to address services;

directly in this work.

■ build local capacity.

5.70 London’s councillors must be

fully representative of our local 5.73 It is our belief that the

communities. Survey work for the community is best served by

Association of London Government councillors who are visible, local

puts the gender split for those that champions with a close working

responded to the survey at 66/34 relationship underpinned by statute

male/female; close to 20 per cent with service providers. Local

considered themselves non-white, councillors should be plugged in to the

nine percent considered themselves to planning, policy development and

have a disability, and the majority of delivery of all local service providers in

councillors were over 45 years old. their ward. They should be the first port

These proportions do not match of call if residents have concerns over

London’s demographic profile, which the quality of local service provision.

would require a slightly larger number

of women councillors than men, more

representatives from black and Visible leadership in the

minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds community

and a lower average age. We welcome

moves by all political parties to more 5.74 In order to strengthen the

closely match local representation with position of the councillor we

local communities and we hope that recommend that there should be a

our recommendations on the role of statutory right to be consulted by all

the councillor will encourage more service providers in the councillor’s

people from all backgrounds to ward. The service provider, be it

come forward to make a difference to neighbourhood police team, GP

London life. surgery, or primary or secondary

school, would be obliged to set out to

5.71 Two important findings guide the councillor, alongside all other

our recommendations. Focus groups consultees, any proposed service

run for the Commission by the London changes. The councillor could then

Civic Forum found that there were low take soundings on these proposals

levels of awareness of who the local and feedback comments or objections.

councillor is, allied with a strong belief Individuals likely to be affected by any

that what makes services run well are changes could input directly to the

transparent systems for accountability service provider or the councillor. The

to service users and good councillor would pull together

communications. comments and reactions in a

structured way, supporting and

5.72 Furthermore, in feedback to our enhancing the service provider’s

work, the London Equalities consultation process. This underpins

Commission put forward three key our proposed role for councils as the

tasks for local councillors, they should: local commissioning agent, and



37 According to research by the Employers Organisation and by the Improvement and Development Agency (Exit Survey

of local authority councillors, 2003) of those who stood down voluntarily 41.8% did so for personal reasons, 26% because

of the erosion of local government influence, 14.1% because of competing work related demands, 10.3% because of the

experience of being a councillor and 7.9% due to competing family related demands.



61

enhances the councillor’s role in business case for a specific

brokering local solutions. This is not project in their ward. The project

about the local councillor micro- could for example support local

managing services or operational grassroots initiatives, such as a

matters, rather it is about youth sports project, or an

strengthening local engagement environment improvement,

through a shared understanding of the such as cleaning up a local

strategic direction and key priorities. park. The opportunities are

many and varied. Each project

5.75 The added value of this should have local support and

enhanced role for the councillor is that the councillor will be

it could bring in comments and responsible for designing and

reactions from a far wider range of delivering the project. Each

interests than just the natural project backed by a business

constituency of the service (eg for a case would need to be

primary school consultation on approved by the executive.

extended hours responses could also

come in from residents on the routes ■ We also believe that a package

into school, from local shop owners, of support should be made

and from the local library as well as the available to each councillor.

parents of children that use the This would include professional

school). mentoring and training support

as well as financial support to

5.76 Giving councillors formal run a professional office.

responsibility for representing the

public interest in local institutions (for

example the NHS) would be more Urban Parishes: Another tier of

easily understandable, enhancing government in London?

councillors’ roles as local champions

and linking service delivery to wider 5.69 Section 11 of the Local

local policy objectives. Local Government and Rating Act 1997

councillors should be supported to allows a community at the village,

become the human face of all neighbourhood, town or similar level

publicly funded local services. beneath a district or borough council to

demand its own elected parish (urban

5.77 We believe that there are further or rural) or town council. This right only

steps that can be taken both to applies to communities within England

improve the effectiveness of the role of and outside of Greater London.

the councillor in the community and Different systems exist for Scotland

also to increase the attractiveness of and Wales, both called “community

the great commitment of time and councils”, whilst in Greater London

energy the post requires. there is at present no legal provision

for any sort of statutory elected body

■ A public realm budget: we below the level of the London Borough.

believe that a ring-fenced The Labour Party manifesto included a

budget should be made commitment to remove these

available for specific projects legislative barriers to allow urban

within individual wards. For parishes to be formed in London, but

example, Islington gives £80k to government has yet to come forward

an area containing four wards. with formal proposals.

Each councillor should have the

opportunity to draw up a



62

5.70 Section 11 of the above Act ■ the communities emerge

allows any such community within organically by bringing together

England and outside of Greater groups of residents who may be

London to collect a petition for a new in residents’ associations,

parish or town council and also to action groups, special interest

define the area that it shall cover. Once groups or just as individuals and

the petition meets a certain threshold bonding them together as a

of registered electors’ signatures, the delivery agent, with their own

local district council or unitary authority budget and electing their own

cannot stop it. The final decision as to representatives;

whether any community can have its

own parish council is down to the ■ the tier of government is not

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister legislative but, by identifying

(ODPM). There are a variety of powers priority areas through parish

and duties that parish or town councils planning tackles the issues

can exercise including:38 which local people value most;



■ to provide allotments ■ they can raise their own funds

through a precept so there is

■ to provide community centres transparency and accountability

and because they are small-

■ to spend money on various scale there is visible

crime prevention measures representation;



■ to repair and maintain public ■ they can work with other tiers to

footpaths deliver government priorities;

and

■ to participate in schemes of

collective investment ■ because they are so close to the

community are able to consult

5.71 Amongst the guests that gave effectively on issues of concern.

evidence on the value of urban

parishes we heard from the National 5.72 Many members of the

Association of Local Councils, which Commission recognise that urban

speaks for some 10,000 Parish and parishes can bring many benefits to

Town Councils in England and communities in terms of

Community Councils in Wales. representation, but question whether

there is real value added from

The Commission heard from introducing another tier into London.

advocates that:

■ Some Commission members

■ urban parishes are the closest argued that many of the roles

form of government to local and responsibilities of parish

people; councils are already managed

by area committees and

■ the sector is very diverse in neighbourhood arrangements

terms of size (for example in set up by the boroughs (eg

Leeds elected members environmental issues, parking).

represent different parishes of

between 100 to 8,000 people);



38 For the full list please see www.nalc.gov.uk/information/legal/powers/index



63

■ Some members fear that there IN CONCLUSION

would be confusion over roles

and responsibilities of parish The Commission would like to express

and ward councillors and that its sincere gratitude to all those who

the electorate will not presented evidence to us. We have

appreciate the difference. benefited from the input of many

people from many different spheres of

■ Some members argued that life who live and work in London. We

there was evidence from other hope that our report does justice to the

parts of the country of evidence we received. With this final

antagonism and negativity report the work of Commission has

between the tiers, turf wars and now been completed. Our intention

a refusal to compromise. has been to present a holistic vision of

how we believe that London’s

■ Furthermore it was argued that governance arrangements need to be

this structure empowered changed to both increase Londoners’

“Nimbyism” and could say in their affairs and to improve the

undermine attempts to equalise effectiveness of local service delivery.

access to local services and We have made a large number of

advice across London. proposals and recommendations for

how we believe changes to existing

■ There would be significant systems should be made. A short

capital and running cost summary of some of our key findings

implications39. follows, but we would encourage you

to dip into the text to sample the full

■ That in terms of capturing richness of our work.

communities some inner

London wards were only a few

streets big and it was noted that

the Boundary Commission

already takes into account

cultural factors and

geographical factors when

setting up ward boundaries.





In summary, some members of the

Commission argue in favour of

changing present legislation so that

Londoners are given the same

rights to establish parish councils

as the rest of the country. But the

majority of the Commission

believes that there is no convincing

case, nor actual demand, for the

establishment of urban parishes in

the capital.









39 Cllr Isabella Fraser, Campbell Park Parish Council Milton Keynes, stated that for her parish there was an initial set-up

cost of around £100k, with running costs of £200-220k a year.



64

ANNEX 1: A brief summary of ■ building on the good practice in

some of our key recommendations many boroughs, a statutory

right should be given for local

The recommendations we set out in Councillors to be consulted by

this report are addressed primarily to their Safer Neighbourhood team

government as a significant on issues of local priority.

contribution to its review of the GLA, to

Sir Michael Lyons, who is conducting a iii. London should have a single

review of the future for local Strategic Authority, a London

government, and to all those with an Public Health Strategy set at the

interest in how London is run. start of every new Mayoral term,

and well performing boroughs

i. A new settlement for London should be allowed to take over

means more streamlined health commissioning from

service provision and better primary Health Trusts.

understood governance

arrangements. We believe that iv. An enhanced role for the

this can best be achieved by London Assembly to review the

greater devolution to the Mayor performance of pan-London

and the boroughs, by bodies that are not accountable

strengthening the to the Mayor (eg the London

commissioning and community Ambulance Service, the London

leadership roles of London Strategic Health Authority and

councils and enhancing the London Learning and Skills

councillor’s right to be Councils).

consulted.

v. The powers, budgets and

ii. The Commission is keen to responsibilities of the London

develop ways to strengthen this Learning and Skills Councils

process of community should be brought into one

engagement and influence with structure, Skills London,

local policing, without the need accountable to the Mayor and

to invent new mechanisms or answerable to the London

new layers of bureaucracy. The Assembly. This should include

Commission believes that within all the London Development

the existing local government Agency’s existing skills

family there may be scope for responsibilities including

developing a more formal role Business Link. The targets and

for borough leaders with their budgets for the new body

borough commanders. This should be set regionally but

could mean that: aligned so as to contribute to the

delivery of the national

■ the Council executive be given framework.

the right to be consulted in the

process for appointing borough vi. We wish to support the

commanders; development of a London

Improvement Partnership to act

■ there could be formal powers to as a driver for more intensive

support borough Overview and joint working across the

Scrutiny Committees to support boroughs. This one-stop shop

engagement with local police would offer a range of services

teams; and to the boroughs in terms of



65

procurement and efficiency ix. We make a number of

matters, identifying and proposals for reviving local

supporting joint working, government, including:

commissioning and providing. It

would also have a role as ■ building up the commissioning

performance office for London role of the boroughs in health,

collecting and reporting on social services and education;

performance data. The London

Improvement Partnership would ■ building up the partnership role

also offer peer review to of the boroughs through their

improve local government management of strengthened

through peer pressure and a Local Strategic Partnerships

mechanism for intervening to and expanded Local Area

support improvement activity Agreements;

where there are poor

performing or failing services. ■ building up the leadership role

of the boroughs through the

vii. The technology now exists to setting of local strategies in the

provide a pan-London one-stop fields of economic regeneration,

reference point for local health and social services, skills

services. We believe that the and policing that feed in to the

benefits in terms of increasing Mayor’s pan-London strategies;

satisfaction with local service

delivery are such that one ■ building up the ability of the

phone number for all London’s boroughs to enhance the local

public services is something community through the piloting

that we would want the London of new local revenue options.

Improvement Partnership to

begin to develop as a matter of x. To strengthen the role of the

priority. local councillor, we believe that

there should be a statutory right

viii.GOL should be released from to be consulted by all service

the standard structure of the providers in the councillor’s

English Government Offices to ward, a public realm budget for

one reflecting London’s unique local grassroots projects and a

status in having elected regional package of professional

government. We believe that support.

GOL should be re-structured in

such a way that its main

functions are to offer secretariat

and briefing support to ministers

at ODPM, principally the

Minister for London.









66

ANNEX 2: Submission to the

ODPM review of the powers of the 2.3 Our final report “A New

Mayor and the London Assembly Settlement for London” builds on these

principles. It sets out in some detail

how we believe London’s governance

2. Introduction arrangements need to be streamlined

to increase public understanding of

2.1 The Commission on London public service delivery, and how a

Governance welcomes this number of powers and responsibilities

opportunity to present its response to should be devolved down to the local

the Government’s consultation on the and regional tiers of London

powers and responsibilities of the government to increase accountability,

Mayor and the London Assembly. local engagement and efficiency.



2.2 The Commission on London 2.4 As part of that new financial and

Governance is a cross-party body governance settlement, we believe

established in 2004 by the London there is scope for developing the roles

boroughs and the Greater London and responsibilities of the Mayor and

Authority to review London’s GLA. We fully support government

governance arrangements. Unlike proposals that devolve powers from

previous review bodies (the Royal the centre to more locally accountable

Commission of 1958-60, or the bodies such as the Mayor and the

Marshall review of 1978) the boroughs. We believe, further, that the

Commission has been set up by senior powers and responsibilities of the

politicians from across the political London Assembly need to be

spectrum and operates from a local as enhanced to provide effective

well as a pan-London perspective. challenge to the executive while

respecting the Mayor’s electoral

2.2 Our interim report “Capital Life”, mandate.

published in July 2005, set out the

case for London to have a governance 2.5 We believe that in order for

regime which: proposals from the government’s

review to lead to better quality public

■ gives Londoners a greater say services they must support closer

in their affairs; working and cooperation between the

different tiers of London government.

■ provides more accountability by

service providers to service Our response to the specific questions

users; set out in the consultation paper are as

follows:

■ provides greater efficiencies

whilst enhancing local

accountability; 3. The Government Office

for London

■ provides more discretion to

local authorities to tailor 3.1 We are disappointed that the

services to meet local needs; government’s consultation into the

and powers of the Mayor and the GLA do

not include recommendations to the

■ restores the link between voting HM Treasury review of Government

for improved services and Offices on the future role of the

paying for those services. Government Office for London (GOL).



67

resources across London to meet

3.2 In our final report we set out our greatest need. It would furthermore

considered view that GOL should be give London the clout it needs to

released from the standard structure of ensure it has access to the level of

the English Government Offices to one resources it needs to meet the

reflecting London’s unique status in challenges identified by government.

having elected regional government.

We believe that GOL should be re- 4.3 The government recognises the

structured in such a way that its main major labour market challenges faced

functions are to offer secretariat and by London. We believe that national

briefing support to ministers at ODPM, standards set by central government

principally the Minister for London. A should be the benchmark, which

transition team at GOL should help London would build on. Giving the

devolve down long running Mayor the budgets, and the

programmes such as the New Deal for responsibility, to deliver on the priorities

Communities or Neighbourhood of the London Regional Skills

Renewal Funding, and initiate and then Partnership would enhance account-

withdraw from schemes such as the ability and strengthen the strategic role

proposals for the extension of Local of the Mayoralty; this would also allow

Area Agreements across London. We for a greater degree of fine-tuning in

believe that it is now time to release policy to meet the distinctive

resources and end duplication. challenges faced by professionals

delivering learning and skills services

As a consequence of our proposed and give London a clear mechanism to

downsizing of GOL we would demonstrate its value-added in

anticipate that European funding for delivering these services.

2007-2013 should be devolved to the

GLA (Q34). 4.4 We believe that the powers,

budgets and responsibilities of the

4 Learning and Skills [Q4-7] London LSCs should be brought

into one structure, Skills London,

4.1 The Commission believes that accountable to the Mayor and

the government should adopt the answerable to the London

fourth option of its proposals, which Assembly, through the presentation

would devolve current Learning and of its annual report and regular

Skills Council (LSC) powers to the update meetings. This should include

Mayor. We accept that the Mayor all the LDA’s existing skills

should not take over the LSC’s responsibilities including Business

responsibility for the funding and Link. The targets and budgets for the

planning of 6th form provision. new body should be set regionally but

aligned so as to contribute to the

4.2 The establishment of five LSCs delivery of the national framework.

in 2001 appeared to be designed to

weaken the voice of London within a 4.5 The new functional body should

national framework. At a minimum, a have a board modelled along similar

single LSC with a sub-regional lines to that used for the London Fire

structure would be more effective, and Emergency Planning Authority

allowing easier coordination of working (LFEPA), which combines elected

partnerships to operate at the regional representatives from both local

and sub-regional level and with more government and the London Assembly.

efficiency, as it would allow some Specialist experience can be co-opted

greater degree of flexibility for moving in to support the elected members by



68

Mayoral appointment as required. 5.2 The existing collection and

4.6 As currently structured the disposal arrangements have been in

LSCs are too remote, fail to engage place for nearly 20 years. However,

effectively with local politicians and are the challenges that waste disposal

unable to respond flexibly to changing authorities face in the future are of a

local circumstances. Borough councils different order to those faced so far

have a vital role to play in feeding-in (there are new EU statutory targets, for

local intelligence as to the challenges, example) and it is timely to consider

needs and demands of the local whether more strategic arrangements

population, public sector employers may make these challenges easier to

and the business community. With the resolve.

powers, budgets and responsibilities of

the London LSCs being brought into a 5.3 The Commission heard from a

new regional body accountable to the number of leading experts in the field.

Mayor, the Local Strategic Partnership Many of them spoke of the need for

should be tasked with drawing up leadership and vision for managing

borough adult skills plans setting out waste collection and disposal across

local needs and demands. This will London. Some argued that “next to

begin to make the system more nothing” has happened in the past 20

obviously demand-driven. The LSPs years to tackle the issues facing the

could also monitor progress in the sector and that only a strategic

delivery of the skills and training London-wide body could undertake

development strategy across its these tasks. For example, we heard

borough. that London will need a further 100

facilities for re-cycling, yet only five

planning decisions have been reached

5. Waste Management and in this area in the past five years.

Waste Planning (Q16-24) Others argue that, before restructuring

the sector, what is needed is a clear

5.1 The Commission believes steer from central government:

that there are strong arguments to including a settled policy, clear route

consider changes to the current maps and adequate funding for local

arrangements for waste government to meet its targets.

management and waste planning.

Municipal solid waste in London is 5.4 The Mayor’s Policy Director for

currently collected by 33 separate the Environment set out arguments to

Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs) the Commission for a London Single

which are co-terminous with the Waste Authority (LSWA). Collection

boroughs and delivered to London’s would still be arranged by, and be

Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs) for accountable to, the boroughs and

treatment. Prior to its abolition on 31 there would need to be a separate

March 1986, the Greater London planning board to whom the waste

Council was the WDA for London. With authority would apply for planning

the abolition of the GLC, four federal permission. Key to his case is the

groupings of boroughs (funded by levy argument that such an authority could:

on the constituent boroughs) were

created, leaving twelve individual

boroughs that act as both collection

and disposal authorities.40

40 East London Waste Authority - Barking & Dagenham, Havering, Newham and Redbridge

North London Waste Authority - Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington and Waltham Forest.

Western Riverside Waste Authority - Hammersmith & Fulham, Lambeth, Wandsworth and Kensington & Chelsea.

West London Waste Authority - Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond.



69

■ deliver a more cost effective protection offered to the boroughs from

waste disposal regime; the possible imposition of a regime by

a Mayor which might have serious

■ create pan-London ‘sticks and financial consequences. There should

carrots’ to drive up re-cycling be some checks and balances on

rates; anything that involves the transfer of

resources directed by a person who

■ harness available funding does not collect them. Furthermore,

streams to raise the level of consideration must be given as to how

investment for needed to preserve links between collection

infrastructure; and and disposal functions to avoid

disputes at the margin.

■ promote a single awareness

campaign. 5.7 The Commission believes

that if the SWA were established its

5.5 Some members of the board should combine the

Commission expressly support the strengths of Mayoral leadership,

Mayoral proposals for a Single borough expertise and the pan-

Waste Authority (SWA) structured London perspective brought by

as a functional body. Others believe Assembly Members (Q19). A mixed

that there are a number of options, membership along the lines of LFEPA

which need to be assessed more with private and voluntary sector

thoroughly. In particular, many on participation as necessary would

the Commission support a so-called provide firm foundations for

Section 101 Committee with a full implementing an agreed London waste

role for the Mayor and embracing strategy. These arrangements would

his strategy. This option would avoid also need to ensure that the budget be

the separation of collection and open to scrutiny by the Assembly and

disposal into different tiers of local that the Assembly’s powers of

government and could be delivered summons in respect of functional

quickly as it avoids the need for bodies’ personnel and documentation

primary legislation. would apply.



5.6 In evidence to the Commission,

we heard a number of concerns 6. Culture, Media and Sport

expressed in opposition to the Mayor’s (Q25-27)

proposals, which the government

should address: in particular, the fear 6.1 Commission members

that the Single Waste Authority (SWA) believe that government should

would not be in touch with local devolve down to the Mayor, in

requirements, perceptions and consultation with the ALG, the

feelings. The fear is that decisions appointment powers for Chairs and

could be imposed on local board members of London’s

communities in the name of what is cultural bodies; for example the

best for London regardless of genuine board of Arts Council - London,

local concerns and without an including the post of Chair. Closer

appropriate timescale for those working relations between, for

concerns to be properly aired. There example; the Arts Council, the ALG

could be cost implications associated and the boroughs could help avoid

with the Mayor’s decisions and for duplication, ensure a more equitable

which the Mayor would need to be distribution of support across the whole

responsible. There needs to be some of London and, by providing a



70

mechanism for combining funding 7.2 There are also significant gains

streams, create greater pools of to be made by bringing together

upfront capital to draw in private resources and capacity from across

sponsors. the GLA group to tackle often complex

health and social needs, for example

6.2 In developing the Mayor’s by combining transport, childcare and

Cultural Strategy the GLA should, as a health initiatives to support

matter of good practice, consult regeneration projects. There needs to

London cultural bodies. If it were a be a much closer working relationship

statutory strategy there would be a between the GLA’s London Health

requirement to consult and the Commission and any new single

Assembly would have an enhanced Strategic Health Authority (SHA)

oversight role. structure to avoid duplication of effort

and to ensure a clear direction of travel

6.3 The Mayor has created a for health commissioners and

London Cultural Consortium (LCC) providers in London.

and shown the benefits of elected

regional government becoming 7.3 We believe there are significant

actively involved in promoting and gains to be had in terms of

lobbying for the cultural sector. There transparency of operations and local

is a case for extending the Mayor’s accountability by the establishment of

powers to help bring greater cohesion a joint committee with the boroughs,

to a highly fragmented sector. As well which have the statutory powers for

as reducing ambiguity and overlap in health scrutiny, and co-opted

the present funding arrangements, this Assembly members to look at the work

would position cultural activities within of the new Strategic Health Authority in

the framework of broader social and London.

economic policies. The government

could as a minimum fund the

Mayor’s LCC, as it funds other 8. Enhanced checks and

regional cultural consortia. balances: the functional bodies

and the London Assembly (Q33,

34 & 38-42)

7. Public Health (Q28)

8.1 The Commission believes that

7.1 The GLA does not have any changes need to be made to the

direct policy powers in relation to functional bodies and the London

healthcare, but has a general duty Assembly in order to strengthen the

enshrined in the GLA Act to promote challenge and oversight of Mayoral

the health of Londoners and to take policies. The boards of the

into account the effect of his policies on functional bodies should be

their health. The Commission believes representative of London’s govern-

that there are significant efficiency ment as a whole. The Commission

gains to be realised from structural supports the principle that all

changes to the delivery of public health existing and new functional bodies

care in London. We believe that, should have a majority of elected

building on the work of the London representatives on their governing

Health Commission, there should be a body. This should include a balance

London Public Health strategy of Assembly members and borough

formally set by the Mayor at the start of representatives. The current LFEPA

his/her term of office, in consultation model has been put forward by

with the NHS in London. some as a preferred model.



71

8.2 The Commission believes that: changes will not significantly restrict

the Mayor’s ability to act in a decisive

■ boards combining borough and fashion.

Assembly members achieve a

mixture of local intelligence and 8.6 Other members of the

pan-London views vital to help Commission believe that more radical

steer pan-London services; change is required, with the

Assembly’s existing powers to amend

■ they provide a visible link to and present an alternative budget, with

local communities; and the agreement of two-thirds of its

members, to be extended to cover all

■ would further increase the the major policy areas in which the

transparency of, and strengthen Mayor presents his strategies. There

the links, between strategic would therefore be a ‘Second Reading’

planning and service delivery at debate on the principles of the strategy

the local level. and then consideration of the strategy

in plenary session or in committee. The

8.3 To this end the Commission Assembly would have the ability to

believes that political representatives, block the strategy given a two-thirds

other than the Mayor, should be able to majority. The Assembly would

sit on the TfL Board. (Q33) therefore evolve down the path of the

other devolved authorities developing

8.4 With regard to strengthening into a ‘quasi-legislative’ body. This

the Assembly’s role in policy would in effect give the Assembly the

development, Commission power to scrutinise the Mayor’s

members believe that the London spending plans before the

Assembly needs to have an commitments are made.

extension of its powers both to

strengthen the quality of the 8.7 With regard to strengthening

challenge to the Mayor and to the Assembly’s scrutiny role,

validate the Mayor’s assertion to be Commission members believe there

receptive to the views of all is a clear case in terms of improving

Londoners. accountability of service delivery

for an enhanced scrutiny role for the

8.5 Some Commission members Assembly for London-wide bodies

believe there should be more that are not accountable to the

meaningful opportunities for the Mayor (eg London Ambulance

Assembly to influence all the Mayor’s Service, London SHA, London

strategies, for instance via pre-scrutiny LSC). To operate effectively, the

or call-in powers similar to those Assembly would need powers to

exercised by local authority Overview summon representatives of the

and Scrutiny Committees. But such relevant organisations to discuss the

powers would stop short of creating a service under scrutiny and to require

new power of amendment of final draft them to produce documents requested

strategy documents. The need for the by the Assembly.

Mayor to consult with and gain the

approval of the Assembly will mean

that the political constituency that

supports his policy will be larger than it

has to be at present. The London

boroughs will feel more assured that

their concerns will be aired. These



72

ANNEX 3: Devolving GOL account for the high level of

funding streams government involvement. But

neighbourhood renewal is essentially a

local activity, which must be

1. HOUSING responsive to variations in local

circumstances. Transferring funding to

Funding Stream £270m boroughs would improve integration of

priorities with other borough-level

■ Housing Investment Programme regeneration and community

development activities. It might help

unlock some of the experiments in

neighbourhood governance that the

Recommendations Government is seeking. Eliminating

GOL’s involvement should generate

Widening of Mayor’s strategic role to efficiency savings - Neighbourhood

be accompanied by appropriate Management, for example, provides

checks and balances from the relatively modest Government funding

Assembly and the ALG. Mayor rather of £200,000-£350,000 per year to

than GOL to chair London Housing pathfinder schemes which GOL co-

Board. ordinates. London has five national

pathfinders, with GOL staff working in

three geographically-based teams to

2. COMMUNITY co-ordinate them.

REGENERATION AND

CAPACITY BUILDING

3. SUPPORT FOR THE YOUNG

Funding Streams £109m AND THOSE WITH

SPECIAL NEEDS

■ Neighbourhood Renewal Fund -

(ends 05/06) Funding Streams £80m



■ Community Chest ■ Connexions Grant Funding



■ Community Empowerment Fund ■ Positive Activities for Young

People

■ Community Learning Chest

■ Transforming Youth Work

■ Neighbourhood Management

Pathfinders ■ Special Educational

Needs/Disability Act

■ Neighbourhood Renewal

Capacity Building Fund

Recommendations



Recommendations Funding to go to boroughs.

Mayor/LDA to gain responsibility over

Funding to go to boroughs. These skills aspects. The youth green paper

funds had their origins in ideas flowing ‘Youth Matters’ proposes giving local

from the national strategy for authorities central responsibility for

neighbourhood renewal during the youth services. A range of existing

Government’s first term, which helps funds will be merged so that, according



73

to the green paper, “local authorities government regional offices. That is

working through children’s trusts can not the case in London. The Welsh

use the funding more flexibly to tackle European Funding Office, part of the

the needs of young people in a holistic Welsh Assembly Government, is

way”. Local authorities will be responsible for managing all aspects of

encouraged to retain the Connexions these funds in Wales and there is no

brand name, but this is a significant justification for London being treated

example of responsibility being differently. Integration with other LDA

returned from a quango to local regeneration and skills budgets would

government. The changes will go far maximise efficient use of the funds.

beyond careers advice and other

traditional youth service activities.

Local authorities will be expected to 5. REGENERATION

take the lead on issues such as

teenage pregnancies, drugs and youth

Funding Streams £55m

crime, creating links with existing

functions such as crime and disorder

■ New Deal for Communities.

reduction partnerships. The youth

green paper and the development of

■ Recommendation

children’s trusts provide powerful

opportunities to ensure that the

necessary funds are properly

channelled to local authorities. Recommendation



It cannot be disputed that the New

4. EU REGENERATION Deal for Communities (NDC) was set

FUNDING up as a long-term national government

scheme, hence GOL’s involvement.

Funding Streams £90m There are, however, no plans to extend

NDC beyond the original pilot schemes

■ European Structural Fund (ten of the 39 are in London). NDC

(Objective 3) areas cannot be treated permanently

as little islands, isolated from the

■ European Regional boroughs of which they form part. The

Development Fund (Objective 2) Government’s push on

neighbourhoods, allied to the well-

■ European Structural Fund publicised difficulties of some NDC

(Objective 2) schemes, creates a case for giving

boroughs control of funding. A London-

wide NDC unit (either LDA or ALG-led)

could be used to build lessons from the

schemes into future regeneration

Recommendations work.



Future EU funding to go to the

Mayor/LDA. These are the ultimate

examples of regional funds, awarded

by the EU to address regional social

and economic issues. In the other eight

English regions, which do not have

regional government, there may be

some logic to the involvement of



74

6. CRIME



Funding Streams £28m



■ Building Safer Communities

Fund



■ Basic Command Unit Fund



■ Street Crime Wardens



■ Home Office Directors’ Allocation

Fund



■ Neighbourhood Wardens









Recommendations



These are all crime/community safety

related funds, some of which are

currently being streamlined. London-

wide budgets should go to the

Mayor/MPA and local-level ones to the

boroughs. As well as improving co-

ordination with other initiatives, this

would help the Government’s drive for

greater local accountability of the

police service. Public interest in

policing is more likely to be achieved

by engaging people in practical

community safety activities than by

trying to get them to attend MPA

meetings. Many borough council

leaders would welcome more direct

involvement with their police borough

commanders, and direct control of

some specific local-level initiatives

would encourage that.









75

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



The Commission wishes to express its

thanks to a number of officers at the

Association of London Governance

and the Greater London Authority. In

particular, the support and input of the

Chief Executives Martin Pilgrim and

Anthony Mayer has been invaluable.

Christiane Jenkins and her fellow

Directors made telling contributions

and special thanks should go to

Richard Derecki’s team of Belinda

Simpson, Mital Shamji, Ross Jardine

and Kelly Rump. The Commission has

prospered through their efforts. We are

also grateful for media support from

Denise Malcolm and Suzanne

Stephenson. Alan Pike provided

sterling support throughout the course

of the Commission’s work.









76

Other formats and languages

For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version

of this document, please contact us at the address below:



Public Liaison Unit

Greater London Authority Telephone 020 7983 4100

City Hall Minicom 020 7983 4458

The Queen’s Walk www.london.gov.uk

London SE1 2AA



You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the

format and title of the publication you require.



If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please

phone the number or contact us at the address above.



Chinese Hindi









Vietnamese Bengali









Greek Urdu









Turkish Arabic









Punjabi Gujarati









City Hall www.london.gov.uk

The Queen’s Walk Enquiries 020 7983 4100

London SE1 2AA Minicom 020 7983 4458

MoL/Feb06/CS D&P V1

London Assembly

The London Assembly is the scrutiny arm of the Greater London

Authority (GLA). Its 25 Members hold the Mayor to account. Assembly

Members scrutinise his £9.6 billion spending plans and examine how he

is fulfilling his wide-ranging responsibilities towards services in London,

such as transport, policing and economic development. Empowered

by statute to carry out scrutinies – akin to House of Commons Select

Committees – the London Assembly also raises issues of importance

to Londoners. Assembly Members test those in charge of public, private

and voluntary sector agencies, highlighting any failures and proposing

solutions that will improve the lives of Londoners.





Association of London Government

The Association of London Government (ALG) is a voluntary umbrella

organisation for the 32 London boroughs and the Corporation of London.

It is committed to fighting for more resources for London and getting

the best possible deal for London’s 33 councils. Part think-tank and

part lobbying organisation, it also runs a range of services designed

to make life better for Londoners. It lobbies for more resources and

the best deal for the capital, taking a lead in the debate on key issues

affecting the capital. Most important, the ALG provides the London

boroughs with a single, powerful voice in negotiations with the

Government and other organisations in London.