Letter: A government that Londoners can call their own

Sir: The report by the Institute for Metropolitan Studies (6 July) is a welcome contribution to the debate on the government of London. But the debate has moved beyond 'whether or not to revive the elephantine GLC'. Discussion about a new authority for London has centred around proposals such as that of the Labour Party before the general election for a streamlined authority with a small secretariat and membership. Labour also proposed proportional representation to achieve a more consensual make-up.

The Government's plans are twofold. Neither meets the challenge presented by serious students of London, such as the academic authors of this new report. The Government has a secretive ministerial subcommittee, whose final decisions (if any) will be all that enter the public domain. There will also be a forum of a dozen business people with a brief of promoting the capital.

The subcommittee may have power but little accountability. The forum's purpose is purely promotional. I cannot see how businesses can attract inward investment when they have no control over planning applications, relevant training and appropriate housing opportunities.

Meanwhile, we can already see the consequences of there being no London government. The European Central Bank seems set for Bonn, following the Government's half-hearted embrace of London's case; and County Hall, an eminently suitable home for the London School of Economics, has been left unused or half- empty for six years, facing the prospect of becoming yet another hotel complex.

London's transport, strategic planning and environment need to be developed coherently. We need to promote our city in Europe. But to do these things we need a real elected voice, as Londoners have said whenever they are asked about the subject. I hope John Major treats what the IMS and others are saying with the seriousness they deserve.

Yours faithfully,

MARGARET HODGE

Chair

Association of

London Authorities

London, SW1

6 July