Elected mayor and authority would need real powers to end weak government in London

The report finds that government in the capital is weak and fragmented. Key decisions are taken by a patchwork of borough joint committees or else by Whitehall-appointed boards and agencies with no direct accountability to voters.

The authors, Tony Travers and George Jones of the London School of Economics, note that there has been consistent poll support among Londoners for an elected authority and for an elected mayor. They conclude that it is difficult to see why voters should forever be denied.

The report commends the active part that John Gummer, the Environment Secretary, has played as 'Minister for London', but suggests that refusal to consider any kind of elected authority for the capital risks being judged undemocratic and out of touch with public opinion.

But it goes on to warn Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders that their differing proposals for London-wide government are unlikely to succeed unless the new institutions can be sure of adequate political and financial powers. They point out that neither party has produced a fully-worked-out model for establishing either an elected authority or mayor.

Detailed decisions about the taxation powers for a London authority and the range of services it controlled would prove crucial. So would the precise arrangements for dividing power between and elected authority and a mayor - regardless of whether the mayor was chosen by councillors or was directly-elected by London's voters.

Reviewing changes since they last reported on the options for London government six years ago, the authors find that:

• boroughs acting together in partnerships and committees have expanded their role in London-wide government;
• there has been no reduction in the number of government-appointed boards and agencies responsible for services in the capital;
• the Government Office for London, created in 1994, has improved the way that London interests are represented within Whitehall, but has too narrow a remit to form the basis for an effective regional authority.

The study uses the example of the capital's chronic traffic problems to argue that the existing system is too fragmented to deliver effective government. Responsibility for different aspects of traffic management falls variously between the Department of Transport, the Highways Agency, the 32 boroughs and City of London, a government-appointed Traffic Director, the Metropolitan Police, the Government Office for London and privatised utilities who have the right to dig up roads.

The report argues that the effect of all these agencies dabbling in control of London's roads is far less than the sum of its parts and that promising initiatives such as bus priority and cycle route schemes have been thwarted by a lack of governmental power.

Examining the ways in which a tier of London-wide government could be re-introduced, the authors suggest that some services such as policing, fire and public transport could continue to be run by separate boards, but with their members appointed by the new elected authority and/or mayor.

Tony Travers said: "Reform of London government is no cure all. But it could strengthen a system that is currently very weak. The jungle of borough joint committees, appointed boards, government departments and partnerships is ripe for rationalisation."

He added: "An elected mayor working with an elected authority would give London a far higher political profile. Long-term success would, however, depend on whether those in central government were prepared to allow it the power and resources to change one of the world's great cities for the better."