Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: Devolution and exiting the EU, HC 484
Tuesday 26 June 2018
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 26 June 2018.
Members present: Sir Bernard Jenkin (Chair); Ronnie Cowan; Kelvin Hopkins; Mr David Jones; David Morris.
Questions 850 - 894
Witnesses
I: Rt Hon Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London.
Witness: Rt Hon Sadiq Khan.
Q850 Chair: Can I welcome our witness to this final evidence session on devolution and exiting the EU? Could I ask our witness to identify himself for the record, please?
Sadiq Khan: My name is Sadiq Khan. I am the Mayor of London.
Q851 Chair: Thank you very much for being with us today. I do not know to what extent you have followed our inquiry. We are interested not just in how leaving the EU is affecting the legislative settlements between the United Kingdom Parliament and Government and the devolved parts of the United Kingdom, but also where England fits into the jigsaw.
The legislative and executive devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over the past 20 years has developed and increased, but in some respects London has had the longest experience of devolution of one sort or another in England. To what extent do you feel that the same respect has been given to London as to other parts of the United Kingdom?
Sadiq Khan: First, can I thank you and the Committee for the inquiry that you are conducting? I have read with interest the evidence given by other colleagues, Metro Mayors around the country and others whom you have heard evidence from.
My view is actually that the devolution journey has not progressed as fast as I would have liked, in relation not just to London but to England. There is, to use the phrase, a democratic deficit as far as England is concerned. You will remember the history. When Labour won the general election in 1997 there was a referendum in London to have a Mayor. The GLC had been abolished in the mid‑1980s. Londoners voted overwhelmingly for a Mayor. There was an Act of Parliament—the GLA Act—and I am now the third Mayor.
We are still 17 or 18 years old, so we have some experience. The progress down the devolution road has not been as fast as I would have liked. We have powers over most of most of transport, policing, the fire service, strategic planning and some housing, but it is the gift of the Government to give grants in relation to resources and powers as well.
If you compared London to, for example, New York and Tokyo, who are our comparators, we get to spend 7% of taxes raised in London; that is London government, councils and the Mayor. In New York it is 50%; in Tokyo it is more than 70%. If you compare us to other global cities, we are far more reliant upon central Government grants. If you look at Scotland and Wales, and their fiscal devolution, they have autonomy over the NHS, crime—by and large in Scotland, less so in Wales—and it is a frustration in London.
London’s population, by the way—you will realise this, Chair—is 9 million, more than Scotland and Wales combined, and just shy of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales combined. Our economic output is, roughly speaking, a quarter of our country’s economic output. Roughly speaking, a third of the country’s growth comes from London.
I genuinely think that we could do even better with more devolution to London. I do not just mean to the Mayor, by the way, but to the 33 councils as well. I work very closely with the 33 councils—32 plus the City of London—because it cannot be seen as a “power grab” by City Hall. It has to be devolution in the real sense of the word, with councillors and councils getting powers as well.
Q852 Chair: Would the powers and functions you exercise better be described as decentralisation rather than devolution?
Sadiq Khan: That is a really good question. It is not semantics, by the way. The frustration that previous Mayors and I have is that we have to go to Government and lobby for things, and it is in the gift of the Government to sometimes decentralise things from Whitehall out to City Hall and the councils.
There has been some devolution. To give credit where it is due, most of transport is now run by Transport for London. It has been devolved. Buses, tubes, London Overground and trams—not quite the suburban lines—have been devolved to us. Police and fire have mostly been devolved to us, with budgets, powers and resources, and there have been Acts of Parliament: the GLA Act and the legislation in relation to the police and crime commissioners.
In relation to some of the other things that we have, they have been via understandings that we have had with the Government, with MOUs—memoranda of understanding. On adult education, we will be responsible for post‑19, frankly speaking because the Department for Education has decided that the time is right. That is not legislation; the Government could change their mind and it would be returned back to central. There are other examples that I could give you around skills.
It is a combination of both. If you look at mature democracies, there is far more devolution rather than decentralisation. I distinguish the two: where there is devolution there are powers that usually follow an Act of Parliament, proper resources and proper autonomy, whereas decentralisation is things leaving Whitehall and going out to parts of London or parts of the country.
Q853 Chair: How would you describe the landscape of how England is governed?
Sadiq Khan: I agree there is a democratic deficit. When I speak to the Metro Mayors of Manchester, West Midlands, Tees Valley, West of England, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, or Liverpool, I feel their frustration. There are different paces that we are going at. We are 17 years ahead of the others. A resident of Hounslow feels as disillusioned and frustrated by decisions taken as does a resident of Hull. There is a disconnect between Whitehall and residents around the country. I genuinely believe this. I am not saying this because I am currently the Mayor of London, but I think City Hall and local councils are more in touch with their residents than civil servants in Whitehall. When I speak to colleagues around the world, Mayors of other cities—Paris, New York, Tokyo, Berlin and Barcelona—I look with envy at the powers that their Mayors have, compared and contrasted with me.
I understand, by the way, the reasons why people feel frustrated around the country, and we have to recognise that there is a big democratic deficit. This feeds into an anti‑London animus, because everyone assumes—wrongly, in my view—that London gets everything and the Manchesters, Liverpools, Sheffields, Leedses, Hulls, Burnleys and Lutons miss out. This is not good for anybody, but they also confuse anti‑London with anti‑Whitehall. That is a plague on all our houses because all of us who are democrats want citizens to feel active participants in our democracy.
Q854 Chair: You seem to be saying conflicting things. On the one hand, Westminster is very distant, but what evidence is there that you or your London Assembly members are any more loved by and felt to be in touch with the guy in Hounslow whom you are talking about?
Sadiq Khan: The test would be the impact of our policies. I will give you one example. Westminster civil servants in DWP are responsible for a work programme to get the long‑term unemployed back into work. It was not very successful. DWP decided to devolve that to us. City Hall, the Assembly and the Mayor devised a programme with councils, because councils know their communities better than even I do. Lo and behold, the rates of success for long‑term unemployed were far better than previously in London, from a centralised position. That leads, hopefully, to people being less unhappy with central Government and all the rest of it.
I can give you other examples in relation to work we are doing to get a skills agenda going in relation to adult education. We are now getting employers to talk to education providers and young people, so rather than FE colleges being rewarded by the number of certificates given, we are now making sure that the employers who complain about there not being people with the skills they need are speaking to the providers to devise syllabuses so that when people do the courses they are match‑fit to start a job. There are other examples I can give you in relation to satisfaction of Londoners.
The same goes for others. Speak to Andy Street in the West Midlands, Andy Burnham in Manchester, Steve Rotheram in Liverpool, Ben Houchen in Tees Valley or James Palmer in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. They would, I suspect, argue—not because they are necessarily individually brilliant; none of us is—that we are more in touch with our residents than, with the greatest respect, civil servants in Whitehall are.
Q855 David Morris: You have made a strong economic argument for devolution. What further powers and funding do you think should be devolved to London? Would London, and England more widely, benefit from devolution more akin to that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in this region? How do you see the development of devolution?
Sadiq Khan: David, you will have experienced this in your own patch, and I certainly felt it in London. During the Scottish referendum campaign a number of English men and women were saying, “Hold on a second. I am not criticising Scotland, but they can do this, this and this. Why can we not?” That is because of the frustration at the powers Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have. I am not saying that they should not have those powers.
The biggest one is fiscal devolution. I will give you one simple example around fiscal devolution. For council tax, business rates and stamp duty, Scotland and Wales can decide how that money is spent themselves. They decide what the level should be and how it is spent. That gives them huge credibility with the community. Rather than people in Whitehall deciding how it is spent, they can decide how it is spent. That fiscal devolution is really important.
Compare and contrast London and the regions. If I say London is bad compared to New York, Paris and Berlin, the cities, towns and regions around England are even worse in relation to lack of powers over their destiny.
Council tax is decided by central Government. Business rates go to central Government, by and large. Central Government decide business rates. We can keep for one year the growth in business rates, and we are going to use that for growth. Stamp duty goes to central Government. If we had some autonomy over those taxes—what rates they are, how they are collected and how they are spent—that would be a big difference.
The second thing—and you must see this around England—is the frustration around infrastructure. You will have the colleagues in the north complaining about the lack of infrastructure and transport in the north‑west and the north‑east. The same goes for London. Our population is growing every year. We are currently approaching 9 million, 10 million by 2030, and we are going only one way.
That is actually a good sign, when a city has people coming to it. It shows that it is attractive. We have to plan for that growth. Decisions around Crossrail 2 and extending the tram and the Tube are decisions that I cannot fund myself because I do not have the tax‑raising powers to do so. Those are just some examples of the powers that I suspect the regions would like.
The final thing is around skills. It is really important, particularly post-Brexit, that we skill up our own residents to have the skills for the jobs that will be required to be done. I would argue, for example, that the Mayors of London, Manchester, Liverpool and West Midlands know the employers far better than the course providers talking to DFE. We have to be nimble enough to make sure that we train up our local residents to have the skills for the jobs of tomorrow. That could be in the construction sector, the tech sector or the creative sector.
Q856 David Morris: What do you see as the impediments to greater devolution, as opposed to decentralisation across the UK?
Sadiq Khan: It needs the will of Parliament. By and large, we need primary legislation. At the moment the situation is that we will negotiate bilaterally with Ministers and have a memorandum of understanding. We have agreed with the Government—credit where it is due—some memorandums of understanding for some devolution around skills. We have some around business rates retention and health, but all these are because of discussions that we have with the Secretary of State. They then have to persuade Treasury and there is the ding‑dong between Treasury and Secretaries of State. Then, sometimes, we get the agreements. They are one, two and three‑year programmes.
What we want is for this Parliament to decide that there needs to be devolution. There then needs to be Acts of Parliament or secondary legislation for that to be effected, and Parliament needs to be comfortable giving these powers and resources to cities, towns and regions across the country.
To be fair, David Cameron and George Osborne are seen, not just in hindsight but in real time, as passionate believers in devolving power out of Parliament. Some of that is recognition of some of the lessons from the Scottish referendum.
In turn, one of the Labour Governments, 1997 to 2001, were real believers in devolution. At the moment we have slowed down the pace, and all of us would like to see an acceleration. If the Metro Mayors are going to be seen as a success, they need to have the powers and resources to show residents why Metro Mayors are a good thing.
Q857 Mr Jones: Developing that discussion, the principle of subsidiarity is well understood in the European Union context. To what extent should subsidiarity become a clearer feature of the British constitutional settlement after we have left the European Union?
Sadiq Khan: I would like to see double subsidiarity. On one level, Government and others have been arguing for that for some time, in relation to Brussels and bringing things back to our country. I think we should go a step further—from Whitehall down to cities, towns and regions. It becomes a necessity.
If you speak to—and I know you do—those people who voted to leave the European Union, some of them voted out of frustration that decisions were being taken so distantly and far away, and there was no real connection with their lives. I would argue that when you speak to residents, not just in parts of England or parts of Wales but also in parts of London, they also feel a disconnect between decisions taken—putting aside Brussels; even in Whitehall—and their everyday lives.
This necessitates from Parliament—and that is why the work that you are doing is so important—a consideration of how we get British voters and residents more respectful and signed up to democracy and the levers they have as individual citizens.
There is an opportunity in relation to Parliament having powers and resources brought back from Brussels dispersed across England and Wales; that is really, really important. Scotland and Northern Ireland are a different discussion, but we cannot ignore the opportunity provided by the Metro Mayors. You now have eight Metro Mayors. Fortuitously there are four Labour and four Tory, so it is not partisan party politics. The eight Metro Mayors have, I suspect, more in common with each other than us in our national parties, because we understand our cities, their rhythms and frustrations, but also the opportunities as well. I would hope when you write your report that you consider the opportunity of what I call double subsidiarity.
Q858 Mr Jones: How far should that progress? At what level should it stop? Taking it to its greatest extent, do you see it empowering community councils and parish councils?
Sadiq Khan: We have some examples of funds that we give and we ask communities to match‑fund them. It leads to crowdsourcing, funding and participation of ordinary residents. By the way, it turns them into active citizens, because if I say to you in the local community, “We are willing to give you £10,000 for a community facility if you can raise the other £10,000,” you then talk to your neighbours and friends, and try to raise the money. You talk to local businesses to get the money. There are opportunities there.
Obviously there are some things that, because of economies of scale, you cannot devolve down completely. For example, you could have a ward deciding on what the local priorities for the local police should be, but I am not sure that you would want a London policing model decided by ward. What we have done in policing, as a good example, is that there are priorities across London for policing—and you can imagine what they are—but we also say separately to boroughs, “You can choose three priorities.” Different boroughs have different ones. Some boroughs will choose antisocial behaviour. Other boroughs will choose residential burglary.
That leaves us some control over what the police are doing, but you need a combination of national, regional, sub‑regional and local, and it is horses for courses. Skills have been a good example. We have recently said to London course providers that we have a big deficit in British construction workers, so we will quality‑mark construction academies so that we know that they are a good standard. Across London we have construction academies and we are not going to build new colleges, but we are going to badge them up: “If you are a college in south London and you are good enough, you are now part of the Mayor’s Construction Academy”.
It would be unrealistic for every community to have one of these, but there should be one near to you so that if you want to work in construction you can go to that. There are other examples that we can give where it makes sense to be localised, but it also makes sense being sub‑regional rather than regional. It is different horses for different courses.
Q859 Chair: David Lidington recommended that we accept a policy of incrementalism in terms of the development of governance in England in the separate parts. What do you think of that approach?
Sadiq Khan: I am not sure what the reason for the delay is. I understand the “suck it and see” approach, by the way. Let me give you an example where I can see why it makes sense. If you are a Secretary of State and you are being asked by a Mayor or a region to give some of your powers and resources away to them, I can understand the reluctance, because there comes a stage where there is very little left for you to do as a Secretary of State, because it has all been devolved away. I would not want that to be the reason for incrementalism.
I can understand why you want to suck it and see. I will give you an example around adult education. What the Government are doing around adult education is actually quite bold. They are saying to me, the Mayor of London, “I am going to give you the budget that we spend on adult education for London and you work with partners to see if you can spend it better than I have been spending it.” That is quite a risk because that could be a disaster, but it shows a confidence in the democratically elected Mayor, the Assembly and the London boroughs, which we should commend.
In some areas I think the Government can move much faster—around skills, transport, the apprenticeship levy and housing. In other areas I can understand why the Government may want an incremental approach. Again, it is a case‑by‑case basis. What we found is that some Departments are excellent. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government clearly believes in devolution. I suspect that, because it works with councillors and local government, it has good experience. There are other Departments that I would not want to use incrementalism as an excuse to delay devolving powers away because of their reluctance. DFE was known in the past as a Department that is not keen but, to give it credit, it has moved on adult education.
I would like the Government to move on the apprenticeship levy. Who knows communities better in relation to how the apprenticeship levy should be spent: councils, Mayors and those in communities, or people in Whitehall deciding how we spend this apprenticeship levy? That should be devolved away as well.
Chair: That is a point that has been made by one or two of your fellow Mayors.
Q860 Ronnie Cowan: As you point out, the Greater London Authority has a population of 8.9 million. Combined, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland is something like 10.4 million. Do you feel that you have the powers in London to represent London in the same way as the devolved powers are representative of the devolved areas?
Sadiq Khan: No.
Q861 Ronnie Cowan: What would you need?
Sadiq Khan: Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones are the two that we have been in contact with the most. Putting aside the constitutional stuff—the JMC and the powers they have in relation to, for example, even the deal done with the European Union—the big thing is that they have proper devolution in relation to, as I mentioned before, fiscal devolution: the ability to decide what the rate of taxation should be and how it is spent. I look with envy at the powers that they have in relation to infrastructure. The powers they have in relation to the health service are very impressive.
Those are the powers that we want Parliament to give us. I will give you an example of where we have tried to be innovative. When the team of Theresa May and David Davis embarked on the current Brexit negotiations, they agreed, rightly in my view, for the JMC to meet regularly with the relevant First Ministers to discuss the progress of Brexit. I asked to be around the table as well, bearing in mind how important London is to our wellbeing. If London does well, the country benefits. It is really important for London to do well out of the Brexit deal. To give credit to David Davis, he said, “Look, constitutionally you cannot really be in the JMC because London is not a nation like Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. What I am willing to do is meet you regularly for you to raise points to me about your concerns, aspirations and what you want me to do, and I will be candid with you in relation to what we are doing.”
To give David Davis credit, some of the things that the Government have done, I would like to think, have been done because he has taken on board some of the things we have raised in these bilaterals that I have had with him.
Q862 Ronnie Cowan: How often have you met with David Davis or his representatives?
Sadiq Khan: Regularly. My officials meet with his officials and Government officials very regularly. I most recently met with David Davis last week. We have another meeting due in the next six weeks.
Q863 Ronnie Cowan: What does “regularly” mean?
Sadiq Khan: Once every two months.
Q864 Ronnie Cowan: That is probably more than the JMC has met.
Sadiq Khan: Which is why, probably, the idea from David Davis was a good one.
Q865 Ronnie Cowan: It seems that you got a better deal than Nicola Sturgeon got.
Sadiq Khan: We will have to see. You may well say that. I could not possibly comment. The point is that it is important for the Government to meet the elected Mayor of London because the deal that the Government do has to be a good deal that needs to take on board our concerns. At the last meeting, for example, Ronnie, we discussed security, making sure that when it comes to us leaving the EU all the things that we have now in relation to security are taken on board by the Government. At a previous meeting we discussed concerns around life sciences, and we had another meeting around the cultural sector.
Ronnie Cowan: Those are relevant across the UK.
Sadiq Khan: Yes. The point I was making, Ronnie, is that it is a good example of innovation. Even though there is no legislation or requirement for the Government to meet the Mayor of London as there is in relation to the JMC, we have been flexible to make sure that we can meet the needs of London by these regular meetings.
I will try to give you an example. We have lots of shortcomings in relation to London versus Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The flexibility and nimbleness of having Mayors means that we can box and cox, and get other ways to have access to the Government because, obviously, they are making decisions that affect the wellbeing, jobs, growth and prosperity of London, which has a knock‑on impact on our country as well.
Q866 Ronnie Cowan: You mentioned the NHS. I am surprised, because you are on the doorstep of Whitehall. What was the UK Government not doing that you think you can do as the Mayor of London for the NHS?
Sadiq Khan: I believe in a national health service. Nobody wants a fragmentation of the NHS. What I would not want to see is a London, Manchester or Liverpool health service, but there are a number of issues in London that are causing big problems relative to London, such as decisions about which hospitals and A&Es to close down, decisions around recruitment and retention of staff, and issues around housing, particularly for low‑paid staff such as nurses and others working in the NHS. Social care is a big issue, particularly for councils. You will be aware that it is a statutory service and most councils are worried that the only things that they will be able to fund in the future are the statutory services like social care.
You will know the connection between social care and health, and the concerns around the disconnect. We have a big problem in London around young Londoners with mental health issues and concerns around CAMHS having services cut and closing down.
I have no influence or say over all these things, but they are decisions taken by the Secretary of State after advice from civil servants. It is an example where, if London had more influence, we could make sure that the services provided in London more meet the needs of Londoners, rather than, again, civil servants in Whitehall making decisions that are disconnected with the impact on patients and others in London.
In Scotland, of course, the Scottish Government are responsible for the health service in Scotland in relation to revenue raised, how it is spent, privatisation and other decisions taken. Another example where I look with envy at Scotland is around business rates. You decide on the reliefs given to childcare providers and others. We have none of that autonomy in London. For example, a small business in London that is struggling with the revaluation around business rates has to appeal. There is a massive backlog, with the Valuation Office, of appeals—again, not devolved to London—whereas in Scotland you have control of that, which leads, hopefully, to small businesses, charities and childcare providers being more in tune with the Scottish Government than I suspect London small businesses, childcare providers and others are with the British Government.
Q867 Ronnie Cowan: Did that come about because the UK Government, in their role as the Government of England, are looking at England in the round and not the distinct needs of individual regions?
Sadiq Khan: I think so. The phrase “democratic deficit” comes from the fact that when you look at Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland they have Assemblies or Parliaments that can do a lot and have powers devolved.
You will be aware that in the late-’90s a referendum was lost around the north-east regional assembly, and Government then stepped back from devolving more powers away. That has led to frustration around England but also across London as well, because devolution, rather than decentralisation, to London has stopped in relation to the pace made, so there is a frustration across England. When I meet the Metro Mayors I feel the frustration and we share the frustration.
The Chair referred to the Metro Mayors all agreeing around the apprenticeship levy. That is because we discovered that not only do we have no autonomy over the apprenticeship levy, but actually there is £1.3 billion of unspent apprenticeship levy sitting in bank accounts, and we are saying to the Government, “Hold on a second, we eight Metro Mayors know how we would use that money in our respective areas. Let us spend that money.” That frustration is felt in a whole host of issues, from transport to skills, housing, fiscal devolution, business rates, council tax and stamp duty as well.
Q868 Ronnie Cowan: When the regions become stronger, does that benefit London? Likewise, when London becomes stronger does it benefit the other regions?
Sadiq Khan: If the other regions become stronger, we benefit. If we become stronger, they benefit. The mistake colleagues around the country make is believing that this is a zero‑sum game. I genuinely believe that if Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and the West Midlands become stronger and have more power devolved to them, it makes the country better and we will prosper. The way that I have described it is that I am not asking for a bigger slice of the UK cake. I am saying, “Give us more control of the slice we have. Because we will do better, the whole cake will do well.” The same goes for different regions across England and Wales.
I support Andy Street, Andy Burnham, Ben Houchen, James Palmer and the Metro Mayors across England who I have connections with in their bid for more devolution to their cities and regions. There should be Transport for the North, with real powers, in the same way as Transport for London has real powers, imperfect as we are.
It is not a threat to London. We have a symbiotic relationship. The mistake that London politicians make is, in an arrogant way, assuming that the country needs us. We need the country to do well as much as they need us to do well. It is a partnership approach. The same goes, by the way, for Scotland. Edinburgh is as reliant on the service industries as London is. Something like 90% of the Edinburgh economy is based on the service industries. Ours is 90% as well. Edinburgh needs a good deal with the EU just like London does. Leeds is 90% based on the service sector, and Birmingham is 82%, so we have a lot in common. The new electric taxis that are being made for London have been made in the West Midlands. The new trains that are being made for the Deep Tube contract will be made across England. The new buses that we have are going to be made in Northern Ireland.
Q869 Ronnie Cowan: Where is the resistance coming from? Who is stopping these powers being devolved out?
Sadiq Khan: I look in reluctance at the Chair, but it is the Government. The Government need to have the dynamism.
Q870 Ronnie Cowan: Why?
Sadiq Khan: The Government need to be persuaded that it is in their interest for devolution to exponentially accelerate. The reason for the reluctance with these is nobody likes to give powers away. If I have been promoted to become Secretary of State at a reshuffle, my job is not to give my powers away, because I have just been made a Secretary of State. That is the reluctance.
Q871 Ronnie Cowan: If it is for the benefit of the United Kingdom then surely that is exactly what you should be doing.
Sadiq Khan: Exactly. That is why David’s point about the subsidiarity is really important. This could be a way to lead to better decisions being taken, but also to turn residents across the country into being active citizens and being more confident about the process there is in Westminster.
There is a disconnect across the country. If you were to ask people, whether it is in constituencies in the south of England, in Kelvin’s patch, or whether it is in the north of England, across England they would feel disconnected to decisions taken by people in Whitehall about their future. Making those decisions close to the source leads to more confidence in punters and more satisfaction with politicians generally. I would hope that the report that this Committee prepares will be saying to the Government to devolve quicker.
Q872 Ronnie Cowan: You mentioned earlier you had had talks with David Davis and his team. After Brexit, are you going to see the powers that are currently held at the EU level come to you?
Sadiq Khan: Let me tell you one example of the powers that we currently have. A deal done in the noughties by the previous Government and the previous, previous Mayor means that actually when it comes to EU funds, the European Structural and Investment Fund, for example, it is roughly speaking £1.3 billion over a seven‑year period. Since the mid‑noughties, how that money is spent is decided by a team in City Hall working with the LEP. It is not decided by Brussels or Whitehall. It is decided by City Hall with the LEP and that has carried on from Ken to Boris to myself.
Once we have left the European Union what would be a retrograde step is if, for example, those sums of money around the European Structural and Investment Fund were to be part of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, because that is going to Whitehall rather than staying in City Hall. That is one example of some nervousness we have.
Q873 Ronnie Cowan: Is that the plan?
Sadiq Khan: At the moment, to be fair, the Government are consulting on the plan on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. We have made submissions to the relevant Secretary of State. When the Green Paper is published we will respond to the Green Paper. We would be very unhappy if the money London receives was going to a UK pot, although we do believe that it is actually important for the Government to continue to make sure that we get similar sums of money going forward.
Each seven‑year period is roughly speaking £1.3 billion. Those who campaigned for us to leave the EU would argue that this is actually money coming back—that we put the money in and some of it comes back. My argument would be that in the future we would hope to see more of this money, not just for London but for regions across the country as well.
Q874 Ronnie Cowan: I am going to play devil’s advocate. I agree with what you are saying. We probably should be devolved into regions. It certainly will engage communities and people will become more active in politics, which is always a healthy thing, but as part of the devolution settlement for Scotland, when we took on more powers, we had to give up MPs in a trade‑off. London has 73 MPs. Can you see that as part of the deal?
Sadiq Khan: It has gone down. It used to be more in the past.
Ronnie Cowan: It has gone down in Scotland as well. We used to have 70; it has gone down to 59 and it is going to go down again.
Sadiq Khan: We have 73 MPs and a population of 9 million. There are some constituencies where there are more than 80,000 constituents, and some with 70,000, and those are the people on the register. I speak as a former MP in London, and there are lots of people we help who are not on the register, in relation to immigration cases or people who for whatever reason have not decided to go on to the electoral register. I have not met a London Member of Parliament from any party who is not working extremely hard to serve their constituents.
Ronnie Cowan: I am taking this as a no.
Sadiq Khan: The point is this, Ronnie: with respect, the population of Scotland is 5 million. Take Aberdeen: Aberdeen is a city that is smaller than one of our boroughs.
Q875 Ronnie Cowan: It may be a different conversation, but a lot of those constituencies are so diverse and vast; it is not simply the number of people but the areas you cover as well. Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is like the size of Wales, and that has one MP. There are different arguments on it. A lot of rural MPs across the United Kingdom will look at London seats and be quite jealous of the fact that they can cover the entire constituency physically just by jumping in a bus or a car, whereas in those rural areas it is a completely different kettle of fish. It is an overnight stop, quite often, if you are doing the Western Isles or Orkney and Shetland.
Sadiq Khan: Sure. I invite you to come to one of our constituencies and meet the diversity of constituents that we have to help on a daily basis. There are issues around deprivation, languages issues and complex issues raised by constituents.
I am not sure if the answer is to reduce the number of Members of Parliament. I know there have been moves from the Government to reduce overall the number of Members of Parliament. That would be a retrograde step for the simple reason that, unlike other countries, the system we have is constituent and Member of Parliament. If you are saying that there are more tiers of politicians helping individuals, that is a discussion worth having. Generally speaking, the MPs in London—the 73 that we have—cover a multitude of issues in their constituencies and I would be against reducing the number of MPs. We have 32 boroughs, 73 MPs, 2,000 councillors, complex issues in London and the population is growing. There is actually an argument for us to have more MPs, not fewer, because our population is going one way and it is really important that we recognise that.
Q876 Kelvin Hopkins: Good morning, Sadiq. It is good to see you. You have touched on my first question already, but I wonder if you want to be a bit more specific or expand. We have heard that there is a tendency in Whitehall, especially in big Departments, to hold on to power and be cautious of decentralising power. Could you perhaps enlarge a little on your experience of Departments?
Sadiq Khan: Let me give you some examples. I am nervous to name and shame because I try to have good relations with all Secretaries of State and their officials and staff. Let us take the praise for granted and we are trying to turn imperfections to perfections. That is the spirit of the answer to your question.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—the old DCLG—is excellent. Sajid Javid and now James Brokenshire understand the importance of devolution and are advocates. We see them as our advocates. You can call them shop stewards or whatever you want to call them. They get it.
Treasury blows hot and cold. I have very good relations with the Chancellor. We lobbied him last year and had an MOU around piloting business rates retention and growth. He was originally not warm to the idea but has agreed to have a pilot for a year, which is grown‑up politics in relation to incrementalism, as the Chair talked about.
We have been very frustrated by other Departments. DFE took a lot of work to get adult education off the ground. We think they can go much further. They should devolve 16-to-19-year-olds’ skills training. It is really important because of Brexit but also because you will have met constituents who want to have the skills and do the jobs, and are hardworking, but there is a disconnect between the courses we can provide and the apprenticeships and stuff.
We think DFE can go much further on the apprenticeship levy. We also think that in the 21st century there needs to be careers advice throughout your life, not just when you are 16, 14 or 15. We are frustrated about the lack of devolution in those areas from DFE.
In terms of the Department of Health, again, Jeremy Hunt deserves credit for a “suck it and see” approach. We have now a memorandum of understanding in relation to some issues around health in London. It is not as far as I would like to see, but where it is of particular use is in relation to surplus NHS land that we want to use. Rather than selling it off to the highest bidder, can we use the proceeds of surplus NHS land to improve clinical needs but also build affordable homes, particularly for those who work in the NHS? That is really important in London.
The MOJ was frustrating in relation to concerns around the care provided to victims. Some of it is devolved to London; some of it is not. The court service is not devolved. To give David Gauke credit, although his civil servants were resistant, he himself saw the benefit and has agreed to do that from April next year.
We are frustrated about some of the probation services. The probation privatisation has been a mess. Literally we are speaking to probation workers and those in the CJS who are frustrated about the lack of rehabilitation and about some of these contracts given out. That is an example where we think we would commission better than the MOJ, but the contracts are tied up. There is frustration around that.
Around the Home Office, we are very concerned about the lack of resource for our policing. The previous Home Secretary refused to accept the point. To give the new Home Secretary credit, Sajid Javid has accepted now there is a link between resources and the services provided. Again we are going to see whether we are able to lobby him.
I could go on with different Departments and stuff. The key for us is the point the Chair raised about decentralisation versus devolution. What we would like to see is a message from No. 10, after this Committee has reported, which says to Government, “Do you know what? The direction of travel must be devolution, away from central Government to cities and regions across the country,” so rather than a piecemeal approach where I have to try to lobby each Secretary of State individually and then they persuade Treasury and then there is huge delay, a recognition that devolution is good and there would be an acceptance, and then we decide how that rolls out across the country.
My biggest frustration is transport. A deal was done between the previous Secretary of State, Patrick McLoughlin, and the previous Mayor, Boris Johnson, to devolve commuter trains to London. That is not us running them; that is us being in charge of the contract. We have seen with other parts of transport, the London Overground being a good example, where a service that was one of the worst in the country went to being one of the best, not because we nationalised it but because we were closer to the private contractor and the concessionary model, and we could hold them to account.
If you speak to anybody who uses Southern, Southeastern and South Western—forget the recent GTR stuff—they have cancellations, delays and they pay huge fares. The previous Mayor and previous Secretary of State agreed that those would be devolved to TfL. I am still very frustrated that this Secretary of State did a U‑turn on that decision, and I think it is a missed opportunity because TfL would have done a much better job of holding them to account, would have had a different sort of franchise system or concessionary system, and there would have been a better system there.
Again, we live in hope that the Secretary of State changes his mind and is persuaded with sense. This is not, by the way, in the sense of party politics or ideological. I give Boris Johnson credit for some of the things that he did as Mayor in relation to improving the services, because he had TfL. That is the big thing about the question asked by David Jones about subsidiarity. I genuinely think that decisions taken by those nearer the coal face just tend to be better. It does not matter whether you are Tory, Labour or another party, because you know the community and the services, but you can also hold to account the private sector as well.
Q877 Kelvin Hopkins: My second question, again, you have touched on a bit already. Which of the powers and functions that will return to the UK from the EU post-Brexit could be more effectively administered at the local level?
Sadiq Khan: A whole host of things. Skills is the biggest example. At the moment what happens is that we give money into the EU European Structural and Investment Fund and then the money comes back and, as I said, we get £1.3 billion, roughly speaking, to spend. That is a good example where you could cut out the middle person, in fact. It could come straight to us and we could make sure that we spend that locally on skills.
We are doing two pieces of work now. We have a Skills for Londoners project where we are skilling up youngsters, particularly in deprived parts of London. People forget, by the way, that within London there are pockets of huge deprivation. We are skilling them up for the jobs that are being created around tech—that is really important—the creative sector and construction as well.
We are also doing good work around the long‑term unemployed, giving them the skills they need to get back into work as well. That is one example. We could do huge progress there in relation to skills.
The other big concern I have is around air quality. The way that the law works now in relation to air quality is the EU sets standards, there is a watchdog, and they can bring proceedings against a country if we are not meeting their quality standards. You will be aware of recent court cases brought by ClientEarth and others using EU legislation. Michael Gove, as Secretary of State, has moved hugely in relation to the Government’s response to air quality, to the extent that he attended last week a summit that I organised with Mayors and leaders from across the country, where this is an opportunity for us to have UK legislation in a new clean air Act, which would have a UK independent watchdog with legislation that would make sure we improved the quality of air within the UK, but also have tools to use against the private sector.
I will give you an example. In Germany and in the USA, Volkswagen and others had to pay massive fines because of the clean air legislation in the US and Germany. The clean air Act that Michael Gove has talked about gives us the opportunity to have equally strong legislation here, which means that when we leave the European Union we, as a country, can have the best environmental safeguards in the world.
Q878 Chair: How much would you like to take control of the airports and runway capacity policy for London?
Sadiq Khan: This is a good example of frustration that the Government do not appear to be listening to what Londoners are saying here.
By the way, can I say this? I accept that there is a need for increased air capacity in the south-east of England. I think you have to be very careful when you impose on London the answer to a national issue. I appreciate that we are a capital city. My frustration, which is shared by not just Londoners but council leaders and others, including the previous Mayor, is that there are alternatives that are not being considered by the Government. We are deeply frustrated by the decision taken last night and deeply frustrated that the course that would have been quicker and cheaper, and would have led to nowhere near the air quality and noise pollution problems, has been ignored by the Government, and that they have embarked on a route—forgive the pun—that they did not need to, which will lead to delays, air quality getting worse and all sorts of problems around noise pollution. It is deeply frustrating.
Q879 Kelvin Hopkins: I absolutely share your views on Heathrow. I voted and spoke accordingly last night, but that is another story.
My next question is on European structural and investment funds, which are currently an important source of funding for local government. These will be replaced in the short term, as you know, by the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. What are the important considerations for how this funding is allocated?
Sadiq Khan: It is really important that what you do not have is one set of bureaucrats replaced by another set of bureaucrats, now Whitehall. It is really important that these moneys are devolved to the cities and regions to decide how they are best spent. As far as London is concerned—this is another example of us being ahead of other cities and regions in the country—Ken Livingstone and the previous Labour Government agreed that City Hall would decide how the money is spent. Boris Johnson and the successor Government followed that through. We need that to carry on, going forward.
In the previous two rounds there has been, roughly speaking, £1.3 billion over seven years. Obviously we want it to be a similar amount, if not more. Manchester gets £100 million. You would have to make sure that no city or region lost out. From what some colleagues are saying, it could lead to more moneys in relation to cities and regions, because obviously rather than moneys going to Brussels then coming back, it will go straight from Whitehall to cities and regions across the country.
By the way, I genuinely think Mayors—it does not matter whether they are a Labour Metro Mayor or a Tory Metro Mayor—know their communities far better than civil servants in Whitehall. I say this as somebody who admires the civil service. We actually know our communities far better.
Q880 Kelvin Hopkins: A pound-for-pound replacement in the first instance would seem to be fair, possibly with some additionally from the budget bonus that is coming back.
Sadiq Khan: If the argument was to actually cut out the middle person and we subsidise other parts of Europe—put aside the merits and demerits of the argument—it must follow through that there would be more moneys in the future than there are now. The key thing, though, Kelvin, is for that not to lead to bad decisions being taken. There has to be devolution of powers and resources outside of Whitehall. The reassurance the Government need is about the money being spent properly, and we have given that reassurance in London because we have a LEP made up of business people, councillors, myself and the Deputy Mayor, given good advice by officials in relation to where the best money is spent. We are also in touch with small businesses and communities across London. I challenge you to tell me of an example where the relevant Metro Mayors do not know their communities across England better than civil servants in Whitehall.
Q881 Kelvin Hopkins: Do you mean funding for London in general, as well as specific allocations?
Sadiq Khan: It has to be. This is the point Ronnie asked about: does the success of other parts of England come at a cost to London? No, it really does not. We have to have that confidence. The way to make our country less unequal is not to make London poorer. The way to make our country less unequal is to make other parts of our country richer and wealthier. All the evidence I have seen around the world is that devolution is the route to making areas do better, but it also leads to more satisfaction of citizens in those parts of the country. I would argue that somebody living in Hounslow is as disillusioned with some of the decisions taken by Whitehall as somebody living in Hull.
Q882 Kelvin Hopkins: Are you concerned that the Government have caveated their promise to honour existing funding by saying it will be honoured “if they are good value for money and in line with domestic strategic priorities”. Does it look as if they are trying to grab back control of that?
Sadiq Khan: I would hope that they are not talking about London because I hope that they would be pleased that we are providing value for money and are of strategic benefit to our country as well.
I just make this point: all the evidence is that London’s population will grow to 9 million very soon, and we are going to go to 10 million by 2030, 11 million by 2050. We have to plan for that growth. Actually, when I speak to city Mayors, Presidents and Prime Ministers from around the world, the London brand is still very, very strong. One of the things that we have been keen to do is to make sure those around the world see that we are still a great place for investment, for you to come and start business, and for you to expand your business. Our part of the deal is going to be making sure that we have the pipeline of talent that we have always had, and our structural strengths will still be there: a great legal system and the ecosystem we have—our proximity to Parliament, tourist attractions, cultural attractions and restaurants. It is really important that we keep that ecosystem. Part of that is making sure that the next generation of talent is coming through, which is why us having control and a say on this is very, very important.
Q883 Kelvin Hopkins: You do not want to see political tests applied to these funds by central Government?
Sadiq Khan: I hope that they would not, Kelvin. To be fair—and I say this speaking to you directly and other colleagues—if you are somebody who campaigned to leave the EU, it is in your interest for this to succeed, because you want to be proved right. Why would you want to do anything that makes it more difficult for you to be proved right?
My response to you is that I genuinely believe that decisions taken nearer the coalface are better decisions. I do not think that a Government have any credit by playing party politics with these decisions, so giving more power to a Tory or a Labour Mayor because they are from your political party. You will recall that Ken Livingstone, the first Mayor, had as many differences with the Labour Government as someone from another party would have done. When Boris first became Mayor there was a Labour Government. I remember being a Transport Minister but working collegiately with Boris Johnson, because I recognised that he was the Mayor and you have to work with the Mayor who is elected.
Similarly I will not criticise this Government for playing party politics with me. I have access to David Davis and other members of the Government. They do not play games because I am a Labour Mayor—most of them do not play games because I am a Labour Mayor—and that is because they are mature and sensible, but I want to extend that on and say, “Do you know what? The devolution genie is out of the bottle now.” We have enough examples of how devolution works well; Ronnie would refer to Scotland, I would refer to London and David may refer to Wales. If the evidence is that devolution works, why not have more of it?
Q884 Kelvin Hopkins: I just have a comment to conclude now: Ken was exactly right on the PPP on the Tube, which failed dramatically, and TfL were behind him but he was overruled.
Sadiq Khan: Let me tell you a funny story, Kelvin. Ken was proved right on PPP. Boris Johnson, a Conservative Mayor, nationalised some of the travel system in London. He brought back in some of these private contracts. Why did Boris Johnson do it? Not because he is pro nationalising things, but because he saw, as the Mayor of London, that on a pragmatic basis what was going on did not make sense. He brought it back in. That is my point about, as the Mayor of London, he was far closer to the consequences of those contracts than, with respect, a civil servant from DFT.
Chair: Can I just point out that Her Majesty’s Official Opposition opposed the PPP at the time, in the guise of myself, as shadow Transport Secretary, because we could see there was no risk transfer. It was a barking mad proposal.
Q885 Mr Jones: Continuing on the issue of funding, you mentioned of course that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland now have their own tax‑raising powers, but they are also funded through the Barnett formula. How does this compare with the way that London is funded?
Sadiq Khan: You will be aware that there is huge concern about the Barnett formula being outdated. I appreciate the promises made during the Scottish referendum, so I do not want to go over those in relation to the Barnett formula, but we need a system that looks at needs, deprivation and population, and the concern I have, David, is that people wrongly assume that there is no poverty or deprivation in London. The Barnett formula does not recognise these sorts of thing.
Our population is not simply 9 million, by the way; we have each day, roughly speaking, 1.5 million additional people coming to our city—tourists, visitors, those who commute because they work in London—and the Barnett formula does not recognise any of those issues. I appreciate the promises made in relation to the Scottish referendum, but there needs to be some consideration about the Barnett formula being well out of date and in need of change in relation to where we go going forward.
Q886 Mr Jones: Everybody recognises that the Barnett formula is due for replacement. The big issue is that no one can agree how to replace it. How should it be changed to make it more equitable?
Sadiq Khan: A funding formula needs to recognise three things that are essential. Population is very important, the needs of a city or region are very important and deprivation is very important. Those are the three key things I would want to see as a basic in any new formula going forward, or an adjustment in relation to Barnett.
I appreciate the historical reasons why we have an emotional attachment, as politicians, to Barnett, but when I referred to the democratic deficit—and you will remember this as well—during the Scottish referendum campaign there was an unhappiness—I do not want to use the word “anger”—about how people in England felt about the disconnect that we had with our Parliament in funding cities and regions across England. With respect, we have still not rectified that, and the referendum was in 2015. Three years on we are no further forward in that deficit being sorted out. Yes, we have added Metro Mayors, but not one of them is satisfied with the power or resources he has.
Q887 Mr Jones: You say that a new formula should reflect needs and the issue of deprivation. How do you distinguish between needs and deprivation?
Sadiq Khan: Let me give you an example. We have needs because we are a growing city in relation to housing, health and infrastructure. That is different from deprivation. We have pockets of London—Tower Hamlets is a good example—where there is huge deprivation; there are wards within a borough with huge deprivation. The indices need to reflect the deprivation within communities.
By the way, not every part of our country is growing. London is. That is why you will recognise in relation to needs that different parts of the country have different needs. That has to be recognised in a formula when it comes to central Government giving funding to cities and regions.
Q888 Mr Jones: What particular needs do you recognise in London, for example?
Sadiq Khan: I will give you some examples of big needs. Because our population is growing—again, I welcome this—infrastructure is very important. There is nothing wrong with growth, but you have to plan for the growth. Each day in London there are 5 million journeys on public transport. That is more than all the journeys in the country put together.
When colleagues in the north understandably complain about not receiving enough money for transport compared to London, the context is that we have more journeys in London than across the entire country put together. They are full up. I travelled here by Tube. Rush hour is not simply between 7 am and 10 am. It now extends throughout the day because of the population. We need to start now planning for new infrastructure. The middle part of Crossrail 1 will open in December 2018, and all of it in December 2019. That will increase our public transport capacity by 10%. We now need to start working on Crossrail 2. Crossrail 1 is east to west. We now need to work out Crossrail 2, which is south‑west to north‑east.
We need to think about where there is capacity in London for more homes—good-quality, high‑density homes. Generally speaking, there are some brownfield sites in the east of London, so we need to have infrastructure before housing. Also in the south there is potential; we need to extend the trams there.
The Government have something called the Housing Infrastructure Fund. We need to make sure that infrastructure is used to free up houses that we need in London.
The Government say, by the way, that we need, roughly speaking, 70,000 homes per year in London. We say that that is broadly right; we say 66,000, but broadly speaking that is right. We need 70,000 homes per year according to the Government. We built, roughly speaking, 30,000 to 35,000 homes per year in London over the last 20 to 30 years. That is not a party‑political point; it is just that those are the numbers. We need a step change. A good example is the work Oliver Letwin is doing in relation to saying, “Why are there permissions granted but not homes being built?” Our needs are more homes in London—good-quality, high‑density homes. It can be done.
Some of it is decontaminated brownfield sites, some of it is infrastructure, but it is also social infrastructure: we need more GP practices. We talked about devolution of the NHS. When it comes to planning, a big issue is where these GP practices, primary care centres and hospitals go. We should be building new hospitals rather than closing down those that we have.
Those are just some examples. Another big example is jobs. We have managed, in the last two years, to have the likes of Google, Apple, Snapchat, Facebook and Amazon come to London and announce expansion in London. Digital jobs have gone up by 34% in London. I want us to be the tech capital of the world, but it would be heart-breaking if these jobs are created but Londoners do not have the skills to get them. We need to skill up our youngsters to have the jobs that are being created in London.
That is an example of the needs that we have in relation to growth. There is also the challenge that 1 million Londoners are EU citizens. We have seen in the recent past them being anxious and uncertain about their future, and we need to make sure that we give them certainty.
The final point in relation to our needs is this: 40% of UK exports to the EU are in the service industry, and 90% of our economy in London is the service sector. I welcome the Government announcing that there should be a backstop agreement in relation to frictionless trade for goods, but it needs to extend to frictionless trade for services as well, because if we do not reach an agreement on goods and services by the end of the transition and there is a danger of falling off the cliff edge, it is not simply trades in goods that we should worry about; it is also trades in services. The City of London, who are not bellicose or used to hyperbole, have said that they worry about 10,000 jobs being lost. That is a conservative estimate. We cannot afford to have a situation where, after the transition period, we fall off the cliff edge in relation to trades in services.
Mr Jones: I will avoid being drawn into that argument.
Q889 Chair: Can I just ask about the Joint Ministerial Council and its offshoots? This is the attempt to create a dialogue between the four Governments of the United Kingdom—three at the moment. What relationship should the Metro Mayors have to the JMC when it is settling things like agriculture, environmental policy and fisheries? Fisheries are not a big issue for London, but what about other matters?
Sadiq Khan: It is difficult to argue why England is not represented on the JMC. There is a discussion about how you decide who the English representatives are, but it is difficult to explain. Ronnie asked the question about my meetings with David Davis; we have managed to carve that out, but I am not England. I represent the capital of England.
There is a lacuna there in relation to the representation of England when it comes to JMC. I would argue that Metro Mayors represent a vast, huge proportion of England’s population. For example, with the meeting that we had last week with Michael Gove, the Mayors and leaders we had in that room represented 20 million people across the country. You cannot ignore Metro Mayors. They represent a big constituency and they have a role to play, and the Government should be considering a way of accommodating English needs, whether it is the fourth representative on the JMC or another group.
Q890 Chair: The UK Government already represent England. They govern England. One could argue that the momentum of the UK Government is so dominated by England that England is already over‑represented on the JMC.
Sadiq Khan: Is that right, though, Chair? Let me give you an example. We can think of an example where the Scottish Government would be arguing for Scotland, and their points may be different from the points that they would make if they were arguing for the UK. Similarly if you are a Minister in the UK Government, you are arguing on behalf of the UK Government. There must be examples, similarly, where the interests of England may be different from the interests of the UK Government. I do not mean in a fisticuffs way, but it is not unreasonable to ask for an advocate to argue your corner, which is what we do not have at the moment.
Q891 Chair: I absolutely share the view. I am merely putting the counterbalance that, if you are Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, to have more English representation on the JMC would seem to be unbalancing it even further.
Sadiq Khan: Again, with respect, our population is 50 million versus 10 million. You and I could argue that we should have five or six in representation. I am not saying that, by the way, because the constitutional settlement means that we should recognise that, as the bigger nation state, we should make sure that we do not abuse the power that we potentially have.
My point is that if you live in Luton, Hounslow, Burnley, Manchester or Liverpool, who is your person around the JMC arguing on behalf of your needs? I do not criticise the Scottish or Welsh Governments, or the Northern Irish representatives, arguing on behalf of their constituencies. My point is, who is the English person doing that for us?
Q892 Chair: You have referred in this evidence session to some of the common interests you have with other parts of the United Kingdom, including Edinburgh, for example, on services, in terms of the commonality you have with Edinburgh: that 90% of economic activity is dominated by services. How can you and the other Metro Mayors build that sense of common interest across the whole of the United Kingdom through these inter‑governmental structures?
Sadiq Khan: We are doing that, but it is being done informally. First, it is lovely to have seven colleagues to talk to in the staff meeting. It really does make a difference because you can bounce ideas, chew the cud and have officials sharing stories, tactics and strategy in relation to negotiating with the Government. We have met on three occasions already, once in London, once in Birmingham and once in Liverpool. We are planning to meet in Bristol very soon.
We have decided to not simply have the eight Metro Mayors. At the next meeting in Bristol, we are also going to organise a meeting with leaders of other cities—core cities, if you like—in other parts of the country, as an informal dialogue to try to encourage best practice and innovation. The idea with Bristol is to get businesses to come to Bristol and for us to help each other in relation to regional growth as well. There is no formal set-up for the core cities and Metro Mayors, but we are trying to get this relationship going.
As somebody who has 17 or 18 years of experience, like London has, we have a responsibility to share that experience with other parts of the country. We are, for example, talking to the West Midlands in relation to TfL helping them in relation to transport. Again, this is a symbiotic relationship. It is in our interest for other cities and regions to progress speedily in relation to devolution. There is a separate discussion about the Government giving us more powers and resources, but it bodes well going forward.
The good news is that genuinely, Chair, we put aside any party differences at the door and we realise that we have so much more in common in relation to our experiences as Mayors. I will give you one example. A Metro Mayor is able to get a meeting with leaders of other cities and nations, even, or chief executives to invest in their region because there is a symbolic leader they have. Andy Burnham, Andy Street or Steven Rotheram—whoever it may be—is invited to things and can get people in, which is a really important role. One of the things that we can do is help them in relation to making sure it is not all London‑focused, because it is in our interest for Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Leeds to do well as well.
Q893 Chair: Andy Burnham recommended that there should be some kind of committee of the English regions. What do you think of that?
Sadiq Khan: I would not be against the idea. I cannot think of a good reason not to. The key thing is to make sure that the Government are hearing what our needs and aspirations are, but also for us to meet regularly. I am not sure if that by itself will answer the democratic deficit point. The frustration that the Metro Mayors and I have is that it is almost like we are sometimes treated like a voluntary group going to the Government with a begging bowl, and we want to move away from that to have a relationship where the Government realise that any big decision they take should have Metro Mayors around the table, because it affects our communities as well, on whatever area.
Q894 Chair: You have complained about the slowness of the Government to respond to the demand for greater decentralisation. Why do you and your fellow Metro Mayors not just get together and form something called whatever you like? We have an unwritten constitution; things tend to happen spontaneously and then become a permanent feature of the landscape.
Sadiq Khan: It is funny because at the last meeting we set up the Metro 8 or M8. That has already happened in relation to the Metro 8 setting up. We have already made joint submissions to the Government on skills, for example, and I agree with other parts of the M8 in relation to devolution around transport and stuff, and you will see more of that in relation to us working together as a team. I do not mean us versus the Government, necessarily, but as part of the approach to persuading the Government why certain things should happen. The real test will be if we are able to agree on, for example, a joint submission to the Chancellor in advance of the Budget or the next CSR. That is the sort of evolution that you would want to see happen almost by osmosis.
My point to you, Chair, is actually that what should happen is more structured devolution from the Government. It cannot simply be powers; there must be resources following the powers. One of the concerns we have is about cost-shunting, where we are given the responsibilities but not the resources. Some cynics may argue that that means that we get the blame if things go wrong, but not the resources to make sure that things go right. We have to avoid that.
Chair: We will consider as we draft our report whether and how we might support you and your colleagues in this effort. Thank you very much for being with us today. I hope you have found it useful to ventilate these issues. We found it very useful.
Sadiq Khan: Thank you. I am very grateful.