Clause 18
Greater London Authority Bill
2:00 pm
Bob Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)
Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. O’Hara. I understand, of course, that no system will be perfect. We are not asking for that, but what I am saying and what is, I fear, overwhelmingly the experience of members of the London assembly is that there is a systemic failure in Transport for London, which stems from the culture of the organisation. I regret to have to say that. There are individual officers who are excellent and I have had good experiences, but there has been such a number of unsatisfactory experiences that I have a real concern about the culture of the organisation. That brings me back to my point that that is based on one that has some advantages in terms of driving forward a business plan—I accept that—but does not have the advantage that comes from those who serve on the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, as a classic example, and increasingly in the Metropolitan Police Authority as well. I am referring to the need to interact with elected representatives and their constituents. That is where the failure is and where the culture, accountability and transparency would be improved by going down to the LFEPA model.
I had nearly finished my comments this morning. I was just making the point that there is an issue about Transport for London’s failure to consult on network roadworks, which affect the public, but that there is a broader problem, too.
I regret that there are many instances of similar failures on borough roads. For example, as I was saying in this morning’s sitting, TFL disburses money to the boroughs to carry out local schemes. There is no problem with that; but there is often a feeling among the boroughs that the funding terms and conditions, which are frequently controversial at borough level, present them with a fait accompli.
Works as straightforward as road widening or the installation of a pelican crossing should ordinarily be dealt with without the need for the Member of Parliament or the assembly member to rectify communication problems. They should be dealt with by a local ward councillor taking up a constituent’s concern with the appropriate officers and sorting it out. Repeatedly, and repeatedly is the problem, that does not happen. When a matter is resolved, it seems to be dependent on the good will of individual officers, some of whom come from borough backgrounds, rather than on a TFL system that inculcates into the body the need to consult and to take on board the views of elected representatives.
I regret that there is a feeling among TFL management that they are answerable solely to the Mayor, and that if they are driving forward the Mayor’s policy, everything else is subordinate. That is not a satisfactory way of doing business or of delivering those works, and that is the major failure. The funding is important to London boroughs, but although they can negotiate individually with TFL, at management level they have no collective voice on the policies that underpin the terms and conditions of their funding. They should have a voice, and the LFEPA model would enable it.
That is the thrust of my point. Many of us have many other examples: from major schemes to the siting of bus stops, many of us have postbags full of consultation problems that could be solved if there were a different ethos in the organisation. The new clause would not only produce that ethos, but enable London transport policy to move forward on the basis of a much more effective partnership between the Mayor and the boroughs. Both must deliver transport policy in London, and the structure of LFEPA would enshrine that partnership more effectively.