DOCSLIB.ORG

Part 3: a Review of the Principal Local Government Institutions in London

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Part 3 A review of the principal local government institutions in London A complex web of local authorities, Government agencies and central Government departments governs London. While some of these bodies are ancient and have their origins in the middle ages, most of them were created in the 20th century. Most local authority public services, such as education and waste disposal, are provided through the London boroughs. A distinctive feature of local government in England is that councils can only do things if Parliament has legislated to give them the power to do so; over many years national Government has legislated to give local authorities duties that councils have to carry out. The result is that councils develop services and policies in response to the particular legislation under which they are operating. This can lead to dramatic contrasts in the character and range of services offered to the public. A good example is the contrast between education and community care. Education is a service universally provided and freely available. Where charges are made for adult services, such as evening classes, they tend to be light, with charging policies directed at including as many people as possible. In contrast, social care services such as home helps or day centres for older people will be made available on the basis of assessed need; users will be charged even when they have quite low levels of income because the legislation calls on local authorities’ social services departments to concentrate resources on those in greatest need and because since the 1948 National Assistance Act social care services have always been ‘means tested’. The Government Office for London (GOL) In 1996, Government offices were set up in the English regions to try to bring central government programmes affecting local communities closer to the public. The Government Office for London (GOL) covers ten Whitehall Departments, from Health and Education to Culture, Media and Sport. It is responsible for some £2.7 billion of expenditure in the capital and manages more than 40 separate programmes on behalf of central government departments. The GOL has come under criticism from a number of people who gave evidence to the report by the Commission on London Governance, A New Settlement for London, published in February 2006. One of the principal criticisms of the GOL is the suggestion that it operates under a conflict of interest. This arises, allegedly, from the fact that GOL has the A review of the principal local government institutions in London 31 role of representing London’s interests in central government departments while being the government’s agent in London. Since devolution in Scotland and Wales, the former central government departments responsible for policy in those territories have been scaled down and merged. Following the creation of the Greater London Authority some people have questioned whether the GOL should likewise be radically reduced in its scope – or even abolished. The Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority The Greater London Authority is the newest local government institution in London. The Greater London Authority Act was passed in 1999 and introduced the (for British local government) radical innovation of a directly-elected mayor with executive powers. Mr Ken Livingstone, Labour MP and former Labour leader of the Greater London Council, failed to be selected as the Labour Party’s candidate but stood as an independent and comfortably won election as London’s first mayor, taking office in 2001. Mr Livingstone was re-elected as mayor, on this occasion as the official Labour Party candidate, in May 2005. Traditionally, elections in England have been conducted on the basis of ‘first past the post’ or simple plurality. The electoral system for the mayor and for the assembly that scrutinises the mayor’s actions broke new ground by introducing a proportionate electoral system. The mayor is elected by single transferable vote. The Greater London Assembly, which is composed of 25 elected members, is elected by a system of proportional representation modelled on the German ‘additional member system’. There are 14 directly-elected members from territorial constituencies elected by simple plurality. A further 11 London- wide members, chosen from party lists, are elected to ensure rough proportionality between the number of votes cast for parties in the election and the number of elected members serving on the assembly. The Greater London Authority’s 25 members currently comprise: Nine Conservative Seven Labour Five Liberal Democrat Two Green Two Veritas/UKIP The mayor and the Greater London Assembly constitute the Greater London Authority. Each is a component part of the authority and neither has any independent existence. Action is taken on behalf of the authority by the mayor acting alone, by the mayor and assembly acting together, or by the assembly acting alone. The Greater London Authority is a strategic authority. The mayor’s role is to specify policy objectives and to formulate London-wide strategies. The assembly balances this by 32 A review of the principal local government institutions in London approving the mayor’s budget and scrutinising his policies. The principal executive power and authority lies with the mayor. The assembly has tried to develop coherent ways of developing and applying its scrutiny powers, but the fundamental feature of the new authority is the asymmetry of the relationship between the mayor and the assembly. The mayor has strategic powers over a wide range of services in London. The mayor sets out the plans and policies for: • Transport • Policing • Fire and emergency planning • Economic development • Urban regeneration and environment • Arts and culture • Strategic planning The GLA does not actually provide services directly to the public in these areas. This is the responsibility of the GLA’s four functional bodies and other public bodies in London. The mayor sets the budget for the GLA and the four functional bodies within the GLA. These are: • Transport for London (TfL) TfL provides the London Underground service, buses and river services, maintains London’s main roads and regulates London’s licensed taxi and private hire services. • Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) The MPA oversees the Metropolitan Police, who provide policing in London. • London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) The LFEPA provides community fire safety, legislative fire safety, fire and rescue emergency response, special services and emergency planning. • London Development Agency (LDA) The LDA works with business to sustain and improve London’s role as a business centre while increasing economic opportunity for all Londoners. The total budget for the GLA and the four functional bodies amounted to 4.7 billion in 2002-03. It was £7.5 billion in 2003-04, £8.9 billion in 2004-05 and £9.6 billion in 2005-06. The mayor appoints the boards of TfL and the LDA. The MPA and LFEPA are independent bodies, but the mayor appoints some members of the MPA following nominations by the London Assembly. The mayor also A review of the principal local government institutions in London 33 appoints the LFEPA following nominations by the London Assembly and London boroughs. The mayor appoints a London Assembly member as deputy mayor. The mayor works with a range of organisations, professionals and interest groups to develop widely-supported strategies and a shared vision for London’s development. The mayor also has control over the management of two of London’s most important public spaces, Trafalgar and Parliament Squares. The Mayor of London’s most distinctive policy to date has been the introduction of a congestion charge for using cars in central London during the day from Monday to Friday. It is the largest congestion charge zone of any city in the world and represented an audacious experiment in urban transport policy. The mayor intends to extend the geographical area covered by the congestion charge to include the Royal Borough in 2007. City of London – The Corporation of London The Corporation of London governs the City of London. It is the local authority for the square mile called simply ‘the City’ and home to London’s financial markets. At more than 800 years old, it is the oldest local authority in the England and its origins predate Parliament. In official parlance the City was London until the Local Government Act of 1888. It was the traditional home to London’s wholesale markets such as Billingsgate (fish) and Smithfield (meat). The freemen and liverymen of the City played an active part in the government of the City and in wider national political debate. They participated directly in the proceedings of the Court of Common Hall, which annually elected the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs and other officers. Until the 1830s the Corporation of London was the most popular, open and effective form of local government anywhere in Britain. In 1835 the Corporation of London was excluded from the scope of the Municipal Corporations Act, partly because it was perceived as well governed and partly because it supported the Lord Melbourne’s Whig Government. The perceived effectiveness of the Corporation changed rapidly in the middle of the 19th century as Britain’s great Victorian provincial cities developed their own local government arrangements. In 1837 the Municipal Corporations Commission, while recognising the good work of the Court of Common Council, condemned the franchise on which Freemen, Liverymen and Aldermen were elected and the way in which the ward system worked. By the middle of the 19th century the Corporation was regarded as archaic and ineffective. 34 A review of the principal local government institutions in London The City has lobbied carefully to have itself excluded from the great local government reforms that could have destroyed its independence and character. The Corporation of London looks as archaic today as it did to Charles Dickens.
Recommended publications
  • Philadelphia's Councilmanic Prerogative

    Philadelphia's Councilmanic Prerogative

    A report from July 2015 Philadelphia’s Councilmanic Prerogative How it works and why it matters Contents 1 Overview 3 Background 5 How prerogative has worked in Philadelphia 14 Prerogative and zoning 17 Analyzing prerogative’s reach 19 Prerogative in action 20 What happens in other cities 22 Conclusion 24 Endnotes About this report This report was produced by The Pew Charitable Trusts in partnership with PlanPhilly, a news website dedicated to covering design, planning, and development issues in Philadelphia. PlanPhilly is a project of WHYY and NewsWorks. The report was researched and written by journalists Patrick Kerkstra, Jared Brey, and Casey Thomas. It was edited by Matt Golas of PlanPhilly and Larry Eichel of Pew’s Philadelphia research initiative, as well as Elizabeth Lowe, Daniel LeDuc, Bernard Ohanian, and Carol Hutchinson of Pew. The report was designed by Kodi Seaton. Acknowledgments In producing this report, the authors interviewed more than two dozen officials from Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter’s administration, members of Philadelphia City Council and council staffers, for-profit and nonprofit developers in the city, neighborhood organization leaders, development consultants, academics, zoning lawyers, and lobbyists, all of whom spoke on the understanding that they would not be named. Research into the practices of other cities included interviews with about a dozen planning department staff members and veteran journalists in those cities. John Kromer, a housing and development consultant who served as Philadelphia’s director of housing from 1992 to 2001; Joseph P. McLaughlin Jr., director of the Institute of Public Affairs and the Center on Regional Politics at Temple University; and Kenneth Steif, a doctoral candidate in the City and Regional Planning Program at the University of Pennsylvania, were independent reviewers of this report.
  • A New Agreement for London

    A New Agreement for London

    Devolution Working Group A New Agreement for London September 2015 Devolution Working Group Darren Johnson (Chair) Green Len Duvall (Deputy Chair) Labour Andrew Boff Conservative Caroline Pidgeon MBE Liberal Democrat The Devolution Working Group The Fiscal Devolution Working Group was established by the GLA Oversight Committee in December 2013. In response to policy developments, at its meeting of 20 November 2014, the GLA Oversight Committee amended the title to the Devolution Working Group and agreed the following amended terms of reference: • To consider London’s case for further devolved services and taxes in the context of developments including the Scottish referendum and the devolved model of service provision announced for Manchester; • To progress the case for further devolution to London by developing practical solutions to unanswered questions including how additional powers and yield from any localised taxes could work in terms of the roles and responsibilities of GLA and London Boroughs; and • To develop draft position statements for the Assembly’s consideration on issues related to the potential further devolution of powers to London Government and any potential changes to governance arrangements within London Government and to take the lead in promoting the Assembly’s agreed views on these matters. Contact Richard Derecki Email: [email protected] Contact: 020 7983 4899 2 Contents Foreword ...................................................................................................................... 4
  • ALAVES - the Blessley History

    ALAVES - the Blessley History

    Section 7 ALAVES - The Blessley History Editor’s Note - 1 When Ken Blessley agreed to complete the ALAVES story it was decided by the new Local Authority Valuers Association that it would be printed, together with the first instalment, and circulated to members. Both parts have been printed unamended, the only liberty I have taken with the text has been to combine the appendices. As reprinting necessitated retyping any subsequent errors and omissions are my responsibility. Barry Searle, 1987 Editor’s Note - 2 As part of the preparation of “A Century Surveyed”, Ken Blessley’s tour de force has been revisited. The document has been converted into computer text and is reproduced herewith, albeit in a much smaller and condensed typeface in order to reduce the number of pages. Colin Bradford, 2009 may well be inaccuracies. These can, of course, be corrected if they are of any significance. The final version will, it is hoped, be carefully conserved in the records of the Association so that possibly some ALAVES - 1949-1986 future member may be prepared to carry out a similar exercise in perhaps ten years’ time. The circulation of the story is limited, largely because of expense, but also because of the lesser interest of the majority of the current membership in what happened all those years Kenneth Blessley ago. I have therefore, confined the distribution list to the present officers and committee members, past presidents, and others who have held office for a significant period. The story of the Association of Local Authority Valuers 1. HOW IT ALL BEGAN & Estate Surveyors, 1949-1986.
  • London Clerical Workers 1880-1914: the Search for Stability

    London Clerical Workers 1880-1914: the Search for Stability

    London Clerical Workers 1880-1914: The Search For Stability By Michael Heller (University College London, University of London) Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in July 2003 UMI Number: U602595 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U602595 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Contents Abstract............................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements........................................................................................... 4 Introduction................................................................................................ 5 Chapters: 1. A Definition of the Late Victorian and Edwardian London........ Clerk35 2. Work, Income, Promotion and Stability.................................................68 3. The Clerk, the Office and Work............................................................108 4. Attitudes of the Clerk towards Work.....................................................142
  • Jane Bigelow Fonds

    Jane Bigelow Fonds

    WESTERN ARCHIVES FINDING AID FOR Jane Bigelow fonds AFC 153 Preparation of this finding aid was made possible by funding received in 2016-17 through the Young Canada Works at Building Careers in Heritage Program, a component of the Youth Employment Strategy of the Department of Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada, which was administered by the Canadian Council of Archives. Archivist: Camilla Szczesniak Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Biographical Sketch/Administrative History 3 ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Scope
  • Children's 76

    Children's 76

    CHILDREN'S 76 this Committee agree to make provision in revenue estimates for continuing, on a proportionate basis, the financial aid at present being afforded by Middlesex County Council to the extent shown hereunder to the Voluntary Organisations respectively named, viz.: — £ The Middlesex Association for the Blind ... ... 150 approx. The Southern Regional Association for the Blind ... 49 approx. Middlesex and Surrey League for the Hard of Hearing ... 150 approx. 27. Appointment of Deputy Welfare Officer: RESOLVED: That the Com­ mittee note the appointment by the Establishment Committee (Appointments Sub-Committee) on 16th November, 1964, of Mr. Henry James Vagg to this post (Scales A/B). (The meeting dosed at 9.10 p.m.) c Chairman. CHILDREN'S COMMITTEE: 30th December, 1964. Present: Councillors Mrs. Nott Cock (in the Chair), Cohen, G. Da vies, Mrs. Edwards, Mrs. Haslam, Mrs. Rees, Rouse, Tackley and B. C. A. Turner. PART I.—RECOMMENDATIONS.—NIL. PART n.—MINUTES. 10. Minutes: RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30th September, 1964, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record. 11. Appointment of Children's Officer: RESOLVED: That the Committee re­ ceive the report of the Town Clerk that the London Borough of Harrow Appointments Sub-Committee on 16th November, 1964, appointed Miss C. L. J. S. Boag, at present Area Children's Officer Middlesex County Coun­ cil, to the post of Children's Officer in the Department of the Medical Officer of Health with effect from 1st April, 1965, at a salary in accordance with lettered Grades C/D.
  • London and Middlesex in the 1660S Introduction: the Early Modern

    London and Middlesex in the 1660S Introduction: the Early Modern

    London and Middlesex in the 1660s Introduction: The early modern metropolis first comes into sharp visual focus in the middle of the seventeenth century, for a number of reasons. Most obviously this is the period when Wenceslas Hollar was depicting the capital and its inhabitants, with views of Covent Garden, the Royal Exchange, London women, his great panoramic view from Milbank to Greenwich, and his vignettes of palaces and country-houses in the environs. His oblique birds-eye map- view of Drury Lane and Covent Garden around 1660 offers an extraordinary level of detail of the streetscape and architectural texture of the area, from great mansions to modest cottages, while the map of the burnt city he issued shortly after the Fire of 1666 preserves a record of the medieval street-plan, dotted with churches and public buildings, as well as giving a glimpse of the unburned areas.1 Although the Fire destroyed most of the historic core of London, the need to rebuild the burnt city generated numerous surveys, plans, and written accounts of individual properties, and stimulated the production of a new and large-scale map of the city in 1676.2 Late-seventeenth-century maps of London included more of the spreading suburbs, east and west, while outer Middlesex was covered in rather less detail by county maps such as that of 1667, published by Richard Blome [Fig. 5]. In addition to the visual representations of mid-seventeenth-century London, a wider range of documentary sources for the city and its people becomes available to the historian.
  • Local Government in London Had Always Been More Overtly Partisan Than in Other Parts of the Country but Now Things Became Much Worse

    Local Government in London Had Always Been More Overtly Partisan Than in Other Parts of the Country but Now Things Became Much Worse

    Part 2 The evolution of London Local Government For more than two centuries the practicalities of making effective governance arrangements for London have challenged Government and Parliament because of both the scale of the metropolis and the distinctive character, history and interests of the communities that make up the capital city. From its origins in the middle ages, the City of London enjoyed effective local government arrangements based on the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London and the famous livery companies and guilds of London’s merchants. The essential problem was that these capable governance arrangements were limited to the boundaries of the City of London – the historic square mile. Outside the City, local government was based on the Justices of the Peace and local vestries, analogous to parish or church boundaries. While some of these vestries in what had become central London carried out extensive local authority functions, the framework was not capable of governing a large city facing huge transport, housing and social challenges. The City accounted for less than a sixth of the total population of London in 1801 and less than a twentieth in 1851. The Corporation of London was adamant that it neither wanted to widen its boundaries to include the growing communities created by London’s expansion nor allow itself to be subsumed into a London-wide local authority created by an Act of Parliament. This, in many respects, is the heart of London’s governance challenge. The metropolis is too big to be managed by one authority, and local communities are adamant that they want their own local government arrangements for their part of London.
  • Report of the Visit by the Rt. Hon the Lord Mayor of London (Alderman Charles Bowman) to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates

    Report of the Visit by the Rt. Hon the Lord Mayor of London (Alderman Charles Bowman) to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates

    REPORT OF THE VISIT BY THE RT. HON THE LORD MAYOR OF LONDON (ALDERMAN CHARLES BOWMAN) TO SAUDI ARABIA AND THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 10th – 13th December 2017 SUMMARY 1. High-impact and successful first visit of the Mayoralty, with the Lord Mayor (LM) able to strengthen partnerships and offer current and future investors reassurance over Brexit and the future of the City. 2. The context in Saudi Arabia was the Crown Prince’s ambitious Vision 2030 plan for economic diversification and societal progress. LM visit aligned and choreographed with major HMG Vision 2030 engagement programme. Potential City role around capital markets, asset management and privatisation, feeding into future high level inward visits 3. United Arab Emirates (UAE) positioning itself as “Hong Kong to Saudi’s China”, but also as regional and global service centre. Focus in Abu Dhabi on Sovereign Wealth, capital markets and the Green Sukuk. In Dubai, Islamic Finance and the city’s role as a hub for global trade and finance. 4. Lady Mayoress (LMS) attending key groups who are supporting the encouragement of women’s inclusion in line with Saudi Vision 2030. LMS assisting the Embassy in UAE to develop its relationship with the granddaughter to the President. A potential for hosting her in the Summer in London at the Old Bailey to further the Embassy need to encourage links on justice. DETAIL 5. In a challenging programme, the LM and LMS visited Jeddah and Riyadh on 10-11 December and Abu Dhabi and Dubai on 12-13 December. The visits were well aligned with HMG, following on closely from the Prime Minister and Chancellor in Saudi Arabia and the Foreign Secretary in Abu Dhabi.
  • About the Lord Mayor's Show the Lord Mayor's Show This Year Is Celebrating Its 800Th Year with a Theme of Maritime Powerhous

    About the Lord Mayor's Show the Lord Mayor's Show This Year Is Celebrating Its 800Th Year with a Theme of Maritime Powerhous

    About the Lord Mayor’s Show The Lord Mayor’s Show this year is celebrating its 800th year with a theme of Maritime Powerhouse. The Lord Mayor’s show takes place on Saturday 14th November 2015 and Middlesex East County will be taking part. It is a prestigious parade which takes place in the City of London each year to celebrate the Lord Mayor’s loyalty to the Crown. About this pack This challenge pack has been designed for you to use with your Unit to celebrate the County’s involvement in the show this year. It can be used via a series of meetings or just one or two activities within a meeting. It is suitable for all sections and each activity can be adapted for different age groups. The pack is divided into four Themes: London Maritime Lord Mayor 800 We have also provided sub sections within the themes to help you use the pack with your existing programme content. In order to be awarded the challenge badge, you need to complete 8 challenges, two from each theme. Once you have completed enough challenges, please complete the badge request form at the back of this pack, indicating how many badges are needed. Enjoy! Creativity Traditions and Culture Make an unusual map of the procession route – could be 3D map made Find out who Gog & Magog are and make papier-mâché examples. Re-enact out of recyclables or a map as if on a board-game. (Appendix 1a) their story. (Appendix 1b) Make a collage or picture of a famous London Landmark.
  • Lawrason Act January 2014

    Lawrason Act January 2014

    The Lawrason Act January 2014 "THE LAWRASON ACT" Prepared for the Louisiana Municipal Association by Jerry J. Guillot INTRODUCTION Louisiana municipalities are governed by the Lawrason Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") except those municipalities governed by a special legislative charter or a home rule charter or plan of government. (R.S. 33:321) Prior to 1882, each municipality was incorporated by special legislative act which also set forth the municipal charter. In 1882, Act 49 was enacted, setting up a general method whereby any municipality might be incorporated. However this law allowed the body of a new municipality to draw up its municipal charter. Thus, between 1882 and 1898, each municipality enjoyed the right to draw up its own charter. In 1898, the Act was enacted. It set forth a general legislative charter for all municipalities created after its effective date, as well as for those created prior to its effective date which chose to accept its provisions. The intent of this law was to provide a uniform type of government for all municipalities in Louisiana. This fundamental municipal incorporation law currently governs some 248 villages, towns, and cities. The law is named after Judge Samuel McCutcheon Lawrason, a West Feliciana Parish lawyer born in 1852 in New Orleans. Educated in France, Spain, and West Virginia, he received his doctor of laws degree from the University of Louisiana in 1874 and opened his law practice that same year in New Orleans. He married and moved the following year to West Feliciana Parish, where he was elected parish judge. He later became a school board member, a member of the Louisiana State University's Board of Supervisors, a state senator (from 1896 to 1900 and again in 1920 to 1924), and vice president of the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1898.
  • Meetings, Agendas, and Minutes

    Meetings, Agendas, and Minutes

    ITEM CC1(b) OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL MINUTES of the meeting of the Extraordinary County Council held at County Hall on Tuesday 8 September 2009 commencing at 12.30 pm and finishing at 1.00 pm Present: Councillor TONY CRABBE – in the chair Councillors: Alyas Ahmed Timothy Hallchurch MBE Rodney Rose M Altaf-Khan Jenny Hannaby John Sanders Alan Armitage Steve Hayward Larry Sanders Lynda Atkins Mrs J Heathcoat Don Seale Marilyn Badcock Hilary Hibbert-Biles Bill Service Michael Badcock Ian Hudspeth Dave Sexon Roger Belson Ray Jelf Chip Sherwood Maurice Billington Peter Jones C H Shouler Norman Bolster Stewart Lilly Peter Skolar Ann Bonner Lorraine Lindsay-Gale Roz Smith Liz Brighouse Sandy Lovatt Val Smith Iain Brown Sajjad Hussain Malik Richard Stevens Nick Carter Kieron Mallon John Tanner Louise Chapman Charles Mathew Alan Thompson Jim Couchman Keith R Mitchell CBE Melinda Tilley Roy Darke David Nimmo-Smith Nicholas P Turner Arash Fatemian Neil Owen Carol Viney Jean Fooks Zoé Patrick Michael Waine Anthony Gearing Susanna Pressel David Wilmshurst Michael Gibbard G A Reynolds Patrick Greene David Robertson The Council considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting and decided as set out below. Except insofar as otherwise specified, the reasons for the decisions are contained in the agenda and reports, copies of which are attached to the signed Minutes. 82/09 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) CCNOV0309R020.doc CC1 – page 2 Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Fitzgerald O’Connor, Mrs Fulljames, Goddard, Godden, Handley, Harbour, Harvey, Hutchinson, Purse, Stratford, Strangwood and David Turner.