5B. Appendix A

Item 5, Appendix A Business Management and Administration Committee 28 April 2009 Transcript of Item 7: The Deputy Mayor, Government Relations Darren Johnson (Chair): What have been your key achievements in the past 12 months, Ian? Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): I think in terms of pushing forward the Mayor’s commitment to work in a more focused and constructive fashion with the London boroughs. In terms of London boroughs, I think - and Assembly Members who also serve on councils will be aware, but I will repeat it for the record – the 32 plus 1 with the City of London we have a unique governance structure in London. I think the debate around whether that governance structure is right or wrong, ie the existence of a strategic Mayor, is now past and they are big players; big leaders in their own right and deliver statutory services and optional extra services that are decided through the ballot box on a four year term. If you look at the Mayoral objectives and the objective we all want to achieve - Assembly Members, local councillors, council leaders, the Mayor and us as residents - for London and Londoners - because ultimately we are here to serve whether we are elected or we are lucky enough to be doing a job that I do - we need to work with them or we will not get those things delivered. They deliver for London. We need to recognise that within the piece before we get out the metaphorical bed in the morning. In terms of my job I think we have made a start on that. We have the first City Charter meeting this week and that - just for the record again - is about delivery. It will not be the Local Government Association (LGA) Compact or the Treaty of Versailles or any other wonderful tomes of paper but it is, shall we say, an experiment to see whether we can get together as an entity to deliver around some specific objectives for London across the political piece. GLA overseas offices: there was a healthy debate around whether they should stay, in what form they should continue or, indeed, whether they should close. Hopefully Members have seen my report on that; it was decided to keep them but radically different from the image and the job they were doing under the previous incumbent. That includes the Brussels office which is not LGA run but reports now directly into here whereas before there was a dotted line into this building. Proactive Government lobbying: I would like to go onto that if you ask me a similar question perhaps later in terms of where we go forward on that but that is important not just across the GLA and the GLA group but across the London piece, and I emphasise across the political divide as well, that we make the case for London and we make that in a positive and proactive fashion. I may repeat this later but the old argument about, “Well the north has nicked all our money can we have it back please?”, and reeling off a load of statistics is just not, I am afraid, a credible argument whoever wins the next General Election. I think that is it; so far. Thank you, Chair. 1 Darren Johnson (Chair): In terms of the way you have laid things out I suggest we focus our questions first around boroughs, then around international issues and then around government relations. Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): I am at your command. Darren Johnson (Chair): Before I bring other Members in just a quick question on borough relations. No one wants to see the Mayor and his advisers unnecessarily wanting to go out and pick a fight with the boroughs but sometimes there is a need to be tough and not simply roll over all the time. How have you been squaring that circle and have there been times when you have had to be quite tough and not necessarily give in to everything they want? Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Absolutely. I think I understand that more than most being Mr Thames Gateway Bridge opponent and being Mr Belvedere Incinerator opponent where I died in the ditch to forestall the previous incumbent and Transport for London (TfL) in terms of the Thames Gateway Bridge. I remember your views on that as well. However in the question of the Belvedere Incinerator I - and the Council I led at the time - joined with the previous Mayor, fiscally and morally, to put forward a petition for a judicial review. Brian Coleman (AM): A complete waste of public money that was. Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): Thank you, Councillor Coleman. Darren Johnson (Chair): I will bring you in in a minute, Brian. Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): But I think differences are actually healthy. I think the key to it is how you manage those differences. We live in a political environment. Though I am proscribed from carrying out certain political functions we live in a political environment with a small ‘p’ and we all are principled people I believe but we all want to achieve the desired effect; we want to do well for London. I think it is how you manage those differences. Also, I think, though it is an overused - perhaps Labour - buzzword openness honesty and transparency in how we manage finances and a straight answer to a straight question goes a long way. There will always be differences between boroughs and, being candid with Members of the Committee - as many Members and officers here know - it is not strictly always on party lines either; that is a far too simplification of the process than the arguments. So, in conclusion, Chair, I think that is open and healthy, I do not think it is necessarily a bad thing and I think the electorate, the people that we serve, expect that as well. But it is how you manage it. Darren Johnson (Chair): OK. Thanks. Brian Coleman (AM): I want to ask about the so-called London Congress. It started with the Compact and now it has progressed to a Congress. I think I heard Mr Clement say something about it was a way of delivering. How can it be a way of delivering? Is it not just another pointless talking shop and another pointless tier in London government? Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): No, I fundamentally disagree. If, Chair, I could -- 2 Brian Coleman (AM): What is it going to deliver? Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): If I can conclude, Chair, and then you can come back and try to kick my ankles in a second. In London we do suffer from too many pointless talking shops - present company excepted in this building. We do. I served on the London Community Safety Partnership when I was the Executive Member for Crime and Public Protection at London Councils - and what a fine title that is! Brian Coleman (AM): It was like watching paint dry. Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): It was like watching paint dry and you have obviously seen my quote! However, I had the honour of serving on the London Youth Crime Prevention Board which was chaired by a neutral Lord and that had a particular job of work; that had an end game and that had specific tasks and a specific remit to actually do certain pieces of work. It was very focused and it was very driven. Now my hope and aspiration for the Charter -- and it is an experiment and we are sucking it and seeing it and if it does not work then we will not do it. If it becomes a talking shop -- Brian Coleman (AM): I am sorry, Chair, I am a bit confused. What is the difference between a Charter and a Compact? Ian Clement (Deputy Mayor, Government Relations): If I can just finish. What we will do is we will meet this week, we will agree to discuss certain things and then those leaders, those big players in that room, will task the Delivery Board to actually go and do some pieces of work around two or three different strands that we can hopefully deliver together, that we agree on across the political divide and actually deliver for Londoners. The test will be whether it is successful or not - to answer Mr Coleman or Councillor Coleman. If at the end we can say three or four things that we have actually made a difference -- because you are right, the people out there do not give a monkey’s stuff about Wednesday [29 April 2009 – launch of City Charter] in reality. If you read the Local Government Chronicle it wets your whistle. If you do not read the Local Government Chronicle it does not. But if we can actually prove that we can deliver for London around those two or three things then we have done a good job. I will tell you why we need to do that; because if we want to argue for funding, if we want to protect the funding we have got, if we want London to be the leader out of this recession, if we want to demonstrate how we -- OK we may cross swords and row with each other and have political points of principle but if we can actually work together and deliver then we can demonstrate and articulate part of that case for London that we can work together, we can deliver for Londoners and we can lead London out of the recession and that is why not perhaps you should give us more power but also argue the case for not just keeping the funding we have got - because there is a risk there - but more strategic and targeted funding and we need to articulate argument no matter who is in 10 Downing Street, Chair.

Load more