The Powers and Responsibilities of the Greater London Authority - Essay Example

The Powers and Responsibilities of the Greater London Authority In the year 1998, legislation was introduced with the aim of setting up the Greater London Authority (GLA). Pertaining to the setting up of the legislation, the government was doubtful about the viability of a comprehensively new structure of the government within the city of London. Hence, the power set-up for GLA was kept restricted. However, after a span of six years, the GLA strived for success through the incorporation of a model of ‘strong Mayor’. In the present scenario, the GLA is defined as that form of the government in which powers and responsibilities are bestowed through the Mayor and Assembly with the aim of addressing the challenges that are being faced by London. The various areas in which the GLA is held responsible are inclusive of transportation, policing, fire and salvage, growth and development and lastly strategic planning. The responsibilities of the GLA are not accounted for direct service provision but it operates with the help of functional bodies embedded under the scope of the GLA (London First, 2011). For dealing with transportation, the functional body Transport for London is held responsible. This body is bestowed with the responsibility of managing the system of transportation within the city of London. Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) is another functional body which is responsible for over viewing the provision of policing all around the city of London. The fire operation of London along with planning and controlling for emergency is carried out by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA). The growth and developmental activities all around the city of London is carried out by the London Development Agency (LDA). Along with these historical powers and responsibilities of the GLA, on November 30th, 2005, additional powers were proposed to be incorporated under the GLA. The review for the GLA powers and responsibilities gave rise to the inclusion of additional powers and responsibilities which included managing waste, housing, planning and learning along with skills (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London, 2005). 1. Literature Review Summarizing the Environmental Policies of the Mayor Johnson (2010) provided a positive feedback towards the decision that Mr. Boris Johnson (the Mayor) considered regarding the environmental issues but at the same time had also criticized the process through which the Mayor aimed to achieve his environmental goals. As per the policies of the Mayor, the target is to achieve 60% reduction in the city’s emission of CO2 by the year 2025. The Mayor stated estimation that 60 billion pounds would be required to be invested for attaining the targeted reduction in CO2 emission. However, the Mayor also intimated that he expect spending from the government in this regards up to an amount of 800 million pounds for introducing vehicles emitting low carbon by the year 2018. As regards to the expectations of the Mayor, the author estimated that the government would have to spend 193 million pounds by the year 2015 (Johnson, 2010). The policy of the Mayor was appreciated by the author on the grounds that it would generate contributions for the city in the form of job enhancement, security in terms of energy supply, reduction of fuel inefficiency and also improvement of the public’s heath. The author suggested that the Mayor can identify and implement other innovative ways for generating funds, e.g. working with the communities in order to generate cost-effective processes. The views of the author are absolutely buoyant as he suggested easier ways of generating funds than rushing and convincing the government for the funds. The Mayor’s notion is dependent upon the government’s move to a greater extent which can lower the pace of the achievement process of the environmental goals (Johnson, 2010). The policy of the Mayor, Mr. Boris Johnson aimed towards the environmental betterment has been condemned by critics and the critics’ viewpoints have been presented by Mulholland (2011) within his publication in the ‘Guardian’. The author stated that the threat of fine over London pertaining to the city’s air pollution amounting to 300 million pounds by the European Commission should be viewed as a ‘wake-up call’ for the Mayor, Mr. Johnson. The Mayor along with the government should take up immediate steps for cleaning up the air of London, as reiterated by the author. But contradict to this verse; the Mayor persevered that the policies undertaken in his environmental strategy would ensure that the threats of fine from European Union are deterred from London in the future. The notion of the critics based on which the author presented his points of view are absolute considering the short term needs of the city. The Mayor’s policies are fruitful considering the long term prospects of environmental efficiency. On the other hand, with reference to the threat of fine from the European Commission, the effectiveness of the Mayor’s strategies with concern to environment would be doubtful. Presenting supportive notions towards the author’s thinking about the Mayor’s strategic moves, it would be viable to mention that the Mayor should cohesively work with the government for introducing effective plans of actions immediately. It would be noteworthy to mention that the Mayor’s decision towards framing environmental policies based on his predecessors’ decision was seriously condemned by the opposition parties. This statement would strengthen the author’s point of view in this regard (Mulholland, 2011). Mulholland (2010) in his another article provided various facts based on which the Mayor’s policy towards environmental safeguarding was mentioned to be ‘not fit for purpose’ by the critics. On one side of the coin, it is, in fact certain that after being pressurized through the move of the European Commission, the Mayor initiated a number of favourable moves aimed at betterment of the air condition of London. But on the other side, critics have also criticized the moves of the Mayor on the ground that he has taken several late actions in the context of environmental protection of the city. According to a member of the Green Party of the London Assembly, Darren Johnson, the approaches of the Mayor has been delayed by 2 and a half years. Moreover, the plan that has been initiated after the long delay is even ‘half-baked’ as stated by Darren Johnson. Citing an example on the grounds of criticism, he cited the fact that the Mayor, at a certain point of time, eliminated the inspection of black cabs to be conducted on a half yearly basis. But due to the pressure, he has undertaken moves to reinstate this form the year 2013. The Mayor’s decisions had even been criticized by the Director of Clean Air in London, Simon Birkett (Mulholland, 2010). According to Mulholland (2010), the average concentration of NO2 will surpass the restriction amount by the year 2015. This will happen across around 45% of the entire area of London. Considering the critics’ grounds and putting self evaluation attribute, it would be worthwhile to mention that the criticisms cannot be accepted comprehensively. The Mayor already stated that the pure air target for London would be achievable if every entity within the city performs their respective responsibilities towards the environment. Thus the critics should also consider their own role within the society in addition to the considerations that they have put for critically evaluating the Mayor’s moves (Mulholland, 2010). In order to put light into the criticism on the Mayor’s approach for safeguarding the environment, points of views of Nichols (2011) have been cited in this section. The Mayor has been criticized on the basis that the available capital with the Mayor is just not enough to cope up with the target being set at initiating 200000 homes to be more energy efficient and also more water efficient by the year 2012 (Nichols, 2011). According to Murad Qureshi, the spokesperson for environment in Labour’s London Assembly, the Mayor’s decision had massively failed to achieve his set target during the year 2009. In response to his own promise of greening at least 200000 homes by his term-end, the Mayor could not even manage to take care of 100 homes throughout the last year i.e. 2010. The Mayor has been criticized on the fact that he was dishonest to the people of London during the past two years. Moreover the Mayor also fell short of achieving his target of bringing more than 350 hybrid buses on the roads of London by the end of the month of March 2011. This target has been revised and set for achievement of 300 of those buses by the end of December 2012. Taking into consideration, the various facts about failures of the Mayor, it was observed to be extremely essential that the Mayor should strive for attaining helping hands towards the achievement of environmental targets. Cohesive work of various communities of the city along with the governmental support would craft a green and pure London environment (Nichols, 2011). 2. Gap Analysis between Public Policy Initiative and General Practice among the Public A huge gap can be observed between the public policy initiatives and the prevalence of general practice among the public with regards to the safeguarding of London’s environment. The policy initiatives undertaken by the Mayor of London, Mr. Boris Johnson were comprehensively aimed at making the air of London cleaner. But the Mayor specifically signified the success of the initiatives only through cooperation of the public. The general people should have to instigate within themselves the general practices through which harmful emission of gases within the environment can be avoided (Sevier, 2010). The Mayor took strong initiatives towards the reduction of air pollution being created in the roads through measures such as power washing, application of dust suppressants, enforcing the public to prevent them from keeping their vehicles’ engine ‘on’ during traffic jams or in signals. In this context, instead of cooperating with the Mayor’s initiatives, the general public would perform certain activities that contravene the successful implementation of the initiatives. For example, the general public would use their vehicles all the time, even during travelling for short distances. They would unnecessarily set ‘on’ their vehicles’ engines in signals in order to save time. Due to the scarcity of enough time in their busy lives, they might not be able to take good care of their cars that gradually transforms into harmful objects for the environment creating excessive pollution and ultimately contributing to the immature deaths of human beings (Sevier, 2010). The public policy initiatives are also aimed at reduction of industrial pollution for the city of London. Industrial air pollution is a matter of concern as the dark smoke which comes out of the manufacturing industries and contains extremely harmful particles that directly causes impacts on the health condition of human beings. The communities concern about the fact has taken up several initiatives towards the reduction of pollution caused by industries (Environmental Protection UK, 2011). But the policy can only become successful if proper collaboration can be received both from the general public as well as that of the government. The gap identification between the public policy and practice among the public indicates that the citizens and even the government are increasingly becoming inclined towards the industrial and economic concerns of the city. In this respect, the initiative of the government to build up a third runway in the city along with the sixth terminal situated at Heathrow is the evidence of the fact that the government is more concerned about economic growth and industrialization than vigour and welfare of the local inhabitants (Vidal, 2010). The concerns of the Mayor accompanied with various supportive initiatives towards the betterment of the environment from the government would have changed the city’s scenario, had they been properly implemented. However the future can be observed to be bright hitherto in regards to the various positive initiatives of the Mayor of the city. Mayor’s concern accompanied with the initiatives of various communities working for the wellbeing of the environment would definitely reduce the gap identified between the policies and general public practices (Mulholland, 2010). 3. Survey of Opinions Concerning London’s Priorities and a Recently Announced Policy by the Mayor According to the Annual London Survey 2011 dealing with the opinions of the residents of London concerning their priorities, for the residents of London, the topmost priorities include training and education. Along with this priority, various other related issues such as creation of job and opportunities for the young generation has also evolved as priority for the residents of London, as stated within the survey report. Summarizing the findings of the opinions’ survey of the residents of London, the following issues have been identified. 77% of the residents of London are content with the fact that London is a good place to live. 46% of the residents of London believe that the most pleasant thing that makes living in London exciting is transport (Mayor of London, 2011). The fear of being attacked by criminals has been lessened among the residents of London and they have been observed to be not worried at all. The residents of London concern about waste management has also been observed in the survey of opinions. It is the belief of 24% of the residents of London that this environmental issue should be the one among the top priorities of the people. This is because waste management has an essential indication towards the betterment of the environment of the city. The priority of the residents of London concerned with the conservation of green spaces has considerably expanded from 8% to 23% in 2011 from the previous year. Another important concern of the residents of London was observed to be the regenerative advantages that the city can gather from hosting the Olympics during the year 2012. 30% of the residents of London believe that the most essential benefit of hosting the event would be the rejuvenation of the East London (Mayor of London, 2011). A recent initiative announced by the office of the Mayor during 10th of October 2011is that of the proposal for Olympic Park Legacy Corporation. The initiative was taken up from the Mayor’s office with the request for approving the proposal for setting up an area concerned with Mayoral development on the Olympic park and its adjacent areas. The proposal was also aimed at establishment of a Mayoral development area within the same region. The initiative of the Mayor was also aimed at requesting for permission for publishing the statement containing the proposals (Greater London Authority, 2011). 4. Conclusion From the discussion undertaken till now, both effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the GLA and the Mayor of London can be anticipated towards tackling important issues in relation to the environment. However, from the serious initiative of the Mayor during the past two years supported by various communities’ approaches, the concern of the discussion can be fairly transformed into the effectiveness of the GLA and Mayor of London. Putting in other words, the GLA and Mayor of London would definitely be effective in its policy implementation but only with the achievement of the desired level of cooperation from the general public. It was evident from the literature review section of this paper that the Mayor of London has became more concerned towards the environmental activities after being pressurized from the European Union. Thus the stricter norms of the European Union threatening with the imposition of fines accompanied by the instigated environmental concern within the Mayor would certainly bring about success for the city authorities in tackling environmental issues. Nonetheless, as also mentioned earlier, the cooperation of the general public is perhaps the most important attribute required to be achieved by the GLA and Mayor of London in order to become expansively effective. Additionally, it would be worth mentioning as concluding remark towards the effectiveness of the Mayor’s initiatives that along with striving out effectiveness in the long run, the Mayor should also concentrate towards the implementations of short run policies. The doubt of the critics towards success of the Mayor would also be eradicated through such consideration of the Mayor. Attainment of the critics’ support would also be relevant for generating effectiveness of the policies towards environmental safeguarding. 5. References Environmental Protection UK, 2011. Air Pollution Laws. Air Quality and Climate. [Online] Available at: http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/air-quality-and-climate/air-quality/laws/ [Accessed October 13, 2011]. Greater London Authority, 2011. Request for Mayoral Decision- MD899. Sites. [Online] Available at: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/MD889%20Mayor's%20post%20consultation%20statement%20(signed)%20PDF.pdf [Accessed October 13, 2011]. Johnson, D., 2010. Budget 2010: Invest in Boris Johnson's Green Policies. The Guardian. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/24/budget-2010-environment-boris-johnson [Accessed October 13, 2011]. London First, 2011. The Greater London Authority: The Government’s Proposals For Additional Powers and Responsibilities or the Mayor and Assembly – Consultation Paper. London First Submission. Mayor of London, 2011. Annual London Survey Research Report 2011. Sites. [Online] Available at: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Annual-London-Survey-2011.pdf [Accessed October 13, 2011]. Mulholland, H., 2011. Britain Fends Off Threat of £300m Fine Over London Air Pollution. The Guardian. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/11/britain-300m-fine-london-air-pollution [Accessed October 13, 2011]. Mulholland, H., 2010. Boris Johnson's Air Quality Measures 'Not Fit For Purpose'. The Guardian. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/14/london-black-cabs-electric [Accessed October 13, 2011]. Nichols, W., 2011. Mayor Boris Expected to Miss another Green Target. Business Green. [Online] Available at: http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2042574/Mayor-boris-expected-miss-green-target [Accessed October 13, 2011]. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London, 2005. The Greater London Authority: The Government’s Proposals for Additional Powers and Responsibilities for the Mayor and Assembly. A Consultation Paper. Sevier, L., 2010. How to Check the Air Quality in your Area. The Ecologist. [Online] Available at: http://www.theecologist.org/green_green_living/how_to/420926/how_to_check_the_air_quality_in_your_area.html [Accessed October 13, 2011]. Vidal, J., 2010. UK Air Pollution Causes 50,000 Early Deaths a Year, Say MPs. The Guardian. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/22/air-pollution-deaths [Accessed October 13, 2011]. Read More