Lunar Society Lecture: Adonis on the case for an elected mayor

In this extended excerpt from his Lunar Society Annual Lecture, Lord Adonis sets out his vision of a Mayor for Birmingham:

The city needs to raise its game significantly in terms of leadership, performance and strategy.  I don’t put this down to individuals so much as to the system, in particular the failure to follow London a decade ago in creating a Mayor able to provide stronger leadership.

I can immediately hear the riposte that London is different because the Greater London Authority is a strategic authority, responsible for transport, policing and economic development, and there are the 32 boroughs underneath with the responsibilities of Birmingham city council.

Of course, no two cities are alike, but I wouldn’t allow the contrast to be explained away so easily.  London has been an undoubted success in the last ten years – both at Mayoral and borough levels, and the two are integrally connected.  As for Birmingham, as the largest single-tier local authority in Europe with a £4bn annual budget, Birmingham with a Mayor could have the best of both worlds: an authority which, because of its size and reach, is the de facto strategic leader for the region, able to significantly influence what it does not control – including transport, policing and economic development – while also possessing the advantage of direct responsibility for key public services, notably schooling, which are critical to the city’s future prosperity.

Instead, the city council has had something of the worst of both worlds.  Weak strategic leadership and, at best, average improvement in the public services under its direct control.  
 
Take education, which I know only too well from constant interaction with the city council.  Secondary school standards in the city are now, at last, approaching – although they are still below – the national average.  But promoting big reforms to transform secondary education in the city has been like pulling teeth.  I cannot tell you how much agitation, and how many difficult meetings, it took to persuade the city council – particularly the children’s services department, censured by Ofsted three years ago – to engage half seriously in the academies programme, which by harnessing the dynamic energy of outstanding education, voluntary and business sector sponsors is transforming school standards in so many disadvantaged communities nationwide.  And this despite the fact that huge investment was on offer.

That’s just academies.  I won’t venture into child protection and children’s social services, where simply providing an adequate service, let alone engaging in transformational change, has proved beyond the city.
    
All this comes down to leadership and strategy. Indeed, the failure to establish a Mayor a decade ago was itself a failure of political leadership on the part of the City Council – because, as you know, the city’s electorate voted for a Mayor in a postal referendum with a respectable turnout, but the voters divided between two mayoral options and the council refused to establish the office, although Albert Bore, then Leader of the Council, was in favour.

It is hard to be an effective leader if people do not know who you are.  Do you know anyone who can’t name the Mayor of London?  I barely ever meet anyone outside Birmingham who can name the Leader of Birmingham.  

What difference could Mayoral leadership make?  I have already spoken about jobs and education.  Let me tell you also about my experience as Secretary of State for Transport.  I can say with absolute certainty that London would not have got and kept Crossrail without Ken and Boris.  It was a hugely difficult and complex deal, pushed forward at every stage by the two Mayors using their formal powers, political authority and persuasive and media skills to the full, involving not just the Treasury, the DfT, the GLA, the City of London Corporation and the boroughs, but also the private sector in partnership with the Mayor because of the necessity for large private sector contributions and the highly innovative business rate supplement.

Under the government’s Localism Bill, Birmingham has the opportunity to start the mayoral process with a city-wide referendum in 14 months time.  If Birmingham votes yes, there will be a Mayor with the first election taking place in May 2013; there is no scope this time for the Council to stand in the way.  It is good to see that candidates are already coming forward, and starting to set out their stalls.  Birmingham needs an open, intense debate about its future, and the Mayoral election provides the opportunity not only for that debate but for action to follow if a Mayor is elected on a clear mandate for change.
There are other issues to be considered in Birmingham’s governance.  Does the City Council really need 120 members – 20 more than the United States Senate?  Parliamentary constituencies in the Commons don’t each have three representatives – if they did, the House of Commons would have 1,900 members.

Then there is the relationship of Birmingham’s government to the city’s new Local Enterprise Partnership, to the Integrated Transport Authority Centro, and to the new Police and Crime Commissioner to be elected in May 2012.  All these relationships are important, sensitive and problematic.  I would just make one general point.  If you have a strong, effective Mayor, his or her ability to influence and drive the interests of the city – indeed, to secure a strategy where in key respects they appear to be lacking not only for Birmingham but for West Midlands as a whole – will be all the greater.