House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Jun 1992

Column 163

5 per cent. Conservative voters. There was a huge public outcry. Tenants did not want to be moved around at the whim of the local government and parliamentary boundary commissions and the commissions were forced to back down. However, they did not do so all the way but allowed the bulk of the estate to remain in Brent, shaving off bits of Brent all around--a small part from Brent, North ; more from Brent, South ; and some more from Brent, East. It is a wonder to behold because they have taken just enough to bring us below the point where we qualify for three seats. That is corruption.

A remarkable coincidence is that, in a borough where nobody has been arguing to change the borough boundary, the commission has changed virtually the entire borough boundary to try to reduce the population to the magic figure where we no longer qualify for three seats. It is down to within about 150 votes of it.

Mr. Bowis : The hon. Gentleman seems to be putting over his persecution complex, but little else. If what he says were true, why on earth would he want to support an amendment that delays changing the parliamentary boundaries until the local government boundary commission has brought in its new proposals?

Mr. Livingstone : I am telling the House what has happened and what I have seen with my own eyes when those normally Conservative barristers conduct the reviews. Sadly, that is part of the problem. I realise that not every barrister is a Conservative--some of my best friends are barristers-- but on any law of averages, if we rely on lawyers to conduct matters, we shall rely on people with no sympathy for the Labour party. The attack on Brent is bad. I oppose it not just on the ground that it will damage the Labour and Tory parties but because it is bad to sit down and ask, "How do we draw up the boundaries in London to benefit the Conservative party?", which is clearly what has been happening for years. We should ask how best we can benefit the people of London.

If we reduce Brent to two very large seats, we shall create seats with enormous numbers of problems to be represented by just two Members of Parliament. Each year, I handle some 4,000 constituency problems and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) does exactly the same. If we fuse the bulk of those two seats together, we shall create a seat which it is almost impossible for one Member to serve, unless the House of Commons gives those Labour Members who represent hard-pressed inner-city areas extra parliamentary support and research facilities.

Mr. Tony Banks : I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned that point because I raised precisely the same one yesterday on a previous amendment. If the boundary commissioners can take into account the geography of constituencies in rural areas and decide not to apply the quota, why cannot there be similar criteria for urban seats, such as those which my hon. Friend and I represent ? As I said yesterday, with 42,000 constituents in my borough, I have two or three times the weight of problems of Tory Members in rural areas with 90,000 constituents. No acknowledgement is made of that in this place. Perhaps the boundary commissioner should be allowed to recognise it.

Mr. Livingstone : Clearly, boundary commissioners cannot advise Parliament about the services and support provided to Members, but they should take account of the

Column 164

fact that, when they carve up boundaries, they create an intolerable concentration of problems in a small number of seats that are far too large. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, we are in a position to make special exemptions for seats that cover large areas with a distant and spread population, why cannot we do the same in areas of London with massive concentrations of social problems ? It shows that the boundary commission does not give a damn about the service provided to constituents caused by concentrating problems in a small number of parliamentary seats.

I hope that the amendment will be successful because I have not the slightest doubt that, were we not under the pressure of a parliamentary boundary review, the local government boundary commission would not have started fiddling with virtually every yard of the boundary of the borough of Brent, moving people backwards and forwards to remove one seat from Brent.

Another option was suggested. Westminster council, which is not normally a fan of mine--I do not normally agree with those people and consider them little better than grave robbers--came up with a proposal for the boundary commission to move a part of Westminster, North into my constituency. That was just waved aside because it would have made it impossible to get rid of one of the seats in Brent.

Let us not continue to pretend that this is an academic exercise. It is about a biased parliamentary boundary commission. Its bias is not overwhelming but is just enough to make the difference in a tight election. It is using that bias against the people of Brent and intervening for political reasons, ignoring natural communities and the vast burden of problems that exist in those areas. As a result, it is giving them far too few Members of Parliament. I was tipped off about that by someone working for the local government boundary commission, who said that a request had been received from the parliamentary boundary commission to reduce the size of Brent. That has been done to within 150 votes. The four additional Tory seats that were retained in London last time were not justified on the basis of population. They were given not to the areas with the greatest number of social problems but to areas on the periphery with nothing like that scale of problem.

Given the blatant fiddle which I have witnessed to prevent Hampstead becoming a much more winnable seat for Labour and creating an artificial constituency on two sides of Hampstead heath, and now the perverse fiddle of the boundaries of Brent, the time has come to do away with the parliamentary boundary commission. It would be much more honest if the House debated the matter, recognising that we are discussing the pursuit of power by a party that makes certain that the people conducting those reviews are largely its friends. They are people whom Conservative Members have met and with whom they have practised law decade after decade, and they are doing the business for the Tory party.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : I have no intention of supporting the amendment because it simply tries to put off decisions further. Nor do I propose to follow the example of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who seems to be playing a rent-a-quote tendency by maligning the boundary commissioners.

I wish to raise a subject that I raised on Second Reading with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home

Column 165

Secretary. It must be considered on the basis of the totality of London and the outer London boundary. The issue was raised by the local government commissioners in their overview which was produced in the middle of May. I forget the number of the document, but I am sure that the Ministers will know it.

The local government commissioners stressed the point that the Greater London boundary is now out of date and has been overtaken by the development of communities around the outskirts of London. The borough of Kingston, which I represent, is one such example. Kingston has spread from the township of Kingston, over the Greater London boundary into Surrey, and now the community of Kingston, with Long Ditton, Thames Ditton, Hinchley Wood and Claygate--all four form part of the borough of Elmbridge--are cohesive parts of the community that surrounds Kingston.

In the light of that development, three years ago the officers of Kingston council presented the local government boundary commission with facts and statistics to show the way in which development had taken place and the boundary had been overtaken. The local government boundary commissioners have accepted the points raised. In their overview they stated that, although they believed that they were not empowered to make considerable changes in their recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the points raised should be considered in the near future.

When will the boundary commission take into consideration the development which has created a community that now spreads over what we knew as the Greater London boundary before the Greater London council was abolished? There is no question but that that has also happened in other districts around the periphery of London, and it must surely be taken into account, or there will be confusion. As I have a constituency which touches on that district, I should be told what sort of steer can be given to the boundary commission. Should it consider those matters now, or should we continue in confusion for a number of years? I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate he will state that the parliamentary boundary commission will look seriously at the views expressed in the recent report of the local government boundary commission.

5.15 pm

Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich) : Any hon. Member who represents a London constituency--I am fortunate enough to have represented two London constituencies--will be well aware of the anomalies and problems and the need for a thorough review of the London boundaries. The facts are clear. We are conscious of the extent to which the majority of London constituencies fall below the numerical quota. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) rightly said, the caseload of most London Members is substantially greater than that of hon. Members for other parts of the country, which compensates for the smaller populations. We are conscious that the boundaries in London are often a historic feature, inherited over a long period, and do not always follow a logical pattern--they are there because they are there. When I first reviewed the constituency boundary and considered the western edge of Greenwich and its boundary with Lewisham, East and Deptford, I found it difficult to understand the logic. I was

Column 166

advised by someone who was in a better position than I to know the facts that the boundary was decided in the 1860s. I hesitate to use the word "gerrymandered" as the seat was then represented by William Ewart Gladstone, who I am sure would have regarded that as improper. However, I am assured that the boundary was adjusted in the interests of the Liberals at that time. It is a curious boundary, and there is no question about the need for a review and an adjustment. The boundary commission has been taking that entirely proper approach to the western boundary of the Greenwich parliamentary constituency and the Greenwich boroughs.

I and other London Members are concerned at the risk inherent in the ad hoc approach taken to the redefinition of London boundaries. That is evidenced in the way in which the possibility of constituencies crossing borough boundaries is not being debated from first principles. Discussion is not centring on what is right in terms of the relationship between the parliamentary constituency and the borough boundary--there is a strong argument for making a link between the two and preventing parliamentary constituencies from crossing borough boundaries.

The case is clear, but it is not being argued on its merits. It is being considered purely in terms of how to cope with boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham where the populations are falling drastically. Ad hoc decisions are being taken to try to avoid either creating a single constituency which represents about 100,000 people or, at the other extreme, maintaining two constituencies of only about 50,000 people. The issue of constituencies crossing borough boundaries is being considered, not from first principles, but on an ad hoc basis in an attempt to cobble together the best solution out of the current unsatisfactory framework.

Having looked at the report of the local government boundary commission I feel more worried about our proceeding within a tight timetable in which decisions will be prompted by the need for quick decisions rather than by the need to take a broad, strategic view of the appropriate boundaries for London as a whole, and the relationship between those borough boundaries and constituency boundaries. Let us consider how we would approach the problem if we were starting from first principles.

As the local government boundary commission stressed in its report, one would consider the boundaries of outer London and the limits of the metropolitan district. One would start--as it did--by identifying the existing problems. The present boundaries were defined long before the definition of current usages and other development patterns were clear. The report states :

"Many of the boundaries pre-date the establishment of London in its present form, and were not amended to follow modern features when the Greater London Council was created. More recent years have seen the construction of the M25 and associated development on the edge of London."

Those developments were not taken into account when the boundaries were drawn up.

It is hardly surprising that the report, published just a month ago, should end with a clear steer. It recognises that more radical action is needed than the commission has been able to recommend because of its limited remit. That is true not just in south-east London, about which I am concerned, but, as the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) highlighted, the same applies in south-west London. Those boundaries, and the definition of London

Column 167

boroughs and their surrounding districts, needs a more strategic review than was possible given the remit of the local government boundary commission.

Having considered the total exterior London boundary, I shall consider the boundaries of individual boroughs, where similar considerations apply. The report of the boundary commission makes it clear that there are wide variations and anomalies in the size of boroughs, which range from 118,000 to 258,000 residents in inner London and from 136,000 to 318,000 in outer London.

The report makes the following important point :

"There seems to be no clear rationale for the present number and size of the existing boroughs. The present arrangements for London government seem to be a compromise between two types of authority--on the one hand the boroughs are not truly strategic, while on the other hand they seem too large to represent local community loyalties given that there has been no provision for parishes in Greater London." Many of us working in inner- London areas know the strong sense of attachment that people still feel to their local communities and the sense of loss deriving from the fact that the local government boundaries introduced in the 1960s no longer allowed them the same sense of proximity and contact with their local authority. I frequently encounter people who feel that since the larger London borough of Greenwich was brought into existence, embracing Woolwich and Eltham, those in the former metropolitan area of Greenwich find the town hall now located in Woolwich more remote and do not enjoy the same degree of contact with it.

The boundary commission clearly hints that, despite its remit, it would have liked to deal with the issue more broadly and strategically and to consider the right local authority size, role and functions. Those difficult issues are not being properly considered, but they should be.

I am interested in the factors which relate to the boundaries of the borough of Greenwich. An important recommendation in the provisional boundary commission report suggests that the community of Thamesmead should be united with the borough, on the principle that communities should not generally be divided across boundaries. The recommendation makes a great deal of sense, but for a variety of reasons there was some local opposition to it. I suspect that there is a great deal of conservatism among electorates and a reluctance to move from one borough to another which can easily be stirred up by people who do not want boundaries to be rationalised. I hope that the logic of the recommendation will be reinforced when the boundary commission report finally appears. The whole of Thamesmead should be brought inside the borough boundary--a sensible arrangement.

Mr. David Evennett (Erith and Crayford) : As the Member whose borough covers Thamesmead, may I point out that the hon. Gentleman is overlooking the voice of the people? Conservative Members believe in what the people want, not in what looks good on a map or in what the bureaucrats may think is a good idea-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, West (Mr. Banks) is always vocal on these issues, but we are not discussing his part of London.

Column 168

The people of Thamesmead made their voice clear in a referendum : they do not want to be part of Greenwich. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not believe in listening to them.

Mr. Raynsford : On the contrary, listening to the people is an important exercise, but one should not be misled into thinking that a view held at one time is final or decisive. Electorates change their minds ; temporary factors may influence their decisions. That is why these issues should be dealt with in broad strategic terms, not in an ad hoc way. The poll tax, for instance, may at a given moment influence people to express a preference in a certain direction, but far more fundamental issues are at stake.

If the recommendation is confirmed and Thamesmead is united with Greenwich, that will influence the size of the borough and hence the number of constituencies. Other factors not relevant to the amendment also come into play--the extent to which the register is accurate, for example. There is a great deal of evidence that it is not. Future development proposals are germane to my constituency as well. The proposals for the development of the Greenwich peninsula are stalled because of the hiatus over the Jubilee line--a hiatus for which Conservative Members have a considerable responsibility. The key point is the need to avoid a rushed decision leading to ad hoc conclusions and unsatisfactory short-term answers. There should be a much broader long-term review of boundaries.

All the factors that I have mentioned suggest the case for a more rational and strategic approach than is likely to be adopted if the process is rushed. The amendment would allow the boundary commission to act on wider considerations, to take a broader view and to bear in mind long-term aspects. There is thus a great deal of merit in it. I ask the Committee to support it.

Mr. Tony Banks : As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, amendment No. 8 is a probing amendment designed to elicit from the Government their intentions in respect of London. I have heard hon. Members mutter from sedentary positions that there is no intention to change borough boundaries or the local government structure of London, but that view is not universally held in the Conservative party or in the Government--nor will it hold for the foreseeable future.

During the general election campaign, Ministers made a number of statements about the future local government structure of London. The then chairman of the Conservative party, Governor Chris Patten as we must now call him, said that there would be something in the Conservative manifesto on the subject. He hinted as much in an interview carried by the Evening Standard.

Then there was a proposal by the President of the Board of Trade--I believe he wants to be called El Cid--to the effect that he was in favour of directly elected mayors for London. There have been proposals to set up a new London forum made up of appointed business men--I stress the word "men". Lady Shirley Porter has suggested a Minister for London and a look at the question of London's boroughs. Clearly, a great deal is going on in the Conservative party. The state of flux in London is brought about by the uncertainty arising from the abolition of the Greater London council. It is hardly surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central should move

Column 169

an amendment suggesting that the boundary commissioners take that state of flux into account. We want to get it right this time. Conservative Members say that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and I have an axe to grind about the GLC, and we certainly have--we were both on it when it was abolished. But I believe in the old political dictum, "Don't get mad, get even," and that is what we intend to do--eventually. Unfortunately, we shall have to wait another four years before doing so.

The Confederation of British Industry, the London chamber of commerce, the London advisory planning committee and anyone else who takes a logical, disinterested and dispassionate look at London and the way it is governed-- I exclude the political hacks on the Conservative Benches--

Mr. Wilshire : Come off it.

Mr. Banks : We all know why the GLC was abolished : it was because that mad fool, that loony half-mad cretin, the former Prime Minister--I trust that I am not being unparliamentary in thus describing her--decided to abolish it. That was no way to deal with London.

Tomorrow morning I shall be on my way to Vilnius in Lithuania because I have been asked by the Council of Europe to look into whether that country is a fit and proper country to join the democratic family of nations in the Council of Europe. One of the problems put to me concerned the Lithuanian Government's disbanding of the Polish and Russian councils in the country. Apparently that is a threat to democarcy. It is easy for us to say that something should not have been done, but we have a Government--

5.30 pm

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. The hon. Member's remarks are interesting, but he should relate them more closely to the amendment.

Mr. Banks : I was about to do so when you intervened, Mr. Lofthouse. I was not setting out my itinerary merely for the sake of it. I was about to contend that what has happened in London with the abolition of the GLC is no worse and no better than what the Lithuanian Government have done. Indeed, that Government had excuses for what they did. After all, their country has only recently emerged from 50 years of Soviet domination. I see much similarity between the totalitarianism and the Stalinism that existed in the Soviet Union and that which was perpetrated on the United Kingdom by Mrs. Thatcher, or Lady Barking, as I understand she is to be called, when she takes up her new position in the other place.

Uncertainty has been created in London by the abolition of the GLC, and that is not surprising. You might have guessed, Mr. Lofthouse, that I am biased.

Dame Angela Rumbold : Never.

Mr. Banks : I admit to a certain tinge of bias when it comes to the GLC. Certain views have been expressed, however, by various bodies and if I am biased so are they. For example, in report No. 627 the boundary commission expressed several concerns about the structure of local government when setting out its conclusions. The commission stated :

Column 170

"The pattern of administration covering any one part of the capital is now so complicated, with many joint arrangements and functions taken on by both local government and non-local government bodies, that it is difficult to see how accountability could be improved without a fundamental reappraisal of the role of the borough in London's government."

Has the Minister paid any attention to that which is stated in the commission's report? Are the Government taking no account of the views that the commission expresses? If the Government are not listening to the views of electoral commissioners, are they similarly not listening to what is said by the local government boundary commission? These are things that we need to know. The commissioners need to know because they do not want to waste their time producing reports that the Government trash.

The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) represents an even smaller electorate than mine--so if I go, so does he. Many would say that the House of Commons would be well rid of us both. The hon. Gentleman said that there is confusion about what is London and what is the Greater London area, and that is precisely what the commission has said. There is uncertainty.

We should not be considering these issues in a piecemeal, party-political, partisan way. The way in which Mrs. Thatcher scrapped the GLC was undemocratic. I take as an example the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who I know is a big man in terms of his heart and his conscience. If he were strictly honest with us, as he is from time to time, he would admit that Mrs. Thatcher's approach was not the way to deal with London's local government structure. It was possible to present a case--my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East did so--for the abolition of the GLC. I disagreed violently with my hon. Friend at the time and the issue remains a bone of contention between us. Similarly, arguments could be advanced now for changing borough boundaries and the strategic government of London, but they should be presented only after calculated consideration by the parties following the findings of a Royal Commission, for example. Instead, Mrs. Thatcher wrote on the back of an envelope, "Scrap the GLC." She did so because she happened not to like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, myself, other members of the GLC and what the GLC was doing. That is not the way to treat local government structures.

If Conservative Members were truly democratic--I doubt whether there is any more than a thin veneer of democracy within the Conservative party--I believe that they would agree with me, but Conservative Members will go along with democracy so long as it serves their interests. As soon as it appears to go against those interests, democracy goes out of the window.

Mr. Bowis : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene to show the Committee my big heart and to say how much we shall miss him when his constituency disappears. Does he understand, however, that the measure that we are discussing has nothing to do with the reform of London's local government but everything to do with boundary proposals? We can return another day to consider boundary changes in London. Of course, I do not want to spoil the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Column 171

The First Deputy Chairman : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for trying to do my job, but I am capable of doing it myself.

Mr. Banks : Thank you, Mr. Lofthouse. I am capable of looking after myself, but I welcome what you say. I am speaking to the amendment, which seeks to make it clear that the commission may delay submitting its report to the Secretary of State until it is notified of the boundaries in London which are to be in operation until 12 June of the year 2000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said, it is a probing amendment. I have probed the hon. Member for Battersea--metaphorically, not literally, as he well knows--and he has been found wanting.

We are talking about London boundaries, and I do not really mind if borough boundaries are crossed. I accept that that might be necessary. I do not like the idea, but many of my hon. Friends say that if borough boundaries are crossed outside London there is no reason why they cannot be crossed inside the capital. I would not like it to happen in the context of trying to fix parliamentary constituencies. In other words, I would wish there to be more discussion. The crossing of boundaries causes confusion and I would not want to represent a community which straddled a borough boundary. The crossing of boundaries takes away the community element that we like to have in the relationship between Members and their constituents.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : I tend to agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. It might be interesting to know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)--I apologise for stemming his torrent of words--that the commissioners are "corrupt". If he agrees with that assertion, can it be backed with some evidence?

Mr. Banks : I did not make the assertion. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East is capable of looking after himself and substantiating his allegations. I know that he felt strongly about the matter and believed what he said to be true. If an hon. Member feels something to be true, he has the privilege of being able to speak his mind without fear or favour.

It is not necessary to believe in fifth-form conspiracy theories when we consider the role of the commissioners, but I believe that they very much share the Government's outlook. I would think that they are all part of the club. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East has said, conspiracy and corruption within our society is subtle. We do not have the open corruption that is to be found in other countries. Those who are involved here are far more subtle than that. The British ruling class has had so many generations of manipulating our society that it does not have to do it in an open and obvious way. Instead, it uses subtlety. Members of that class share the same value system. They went to the same schools, they are in the same chambers, and they are members of the same lodges. They go to the same clubs.

Mr. Livingstone : They go to bed with one another.

Mr. Banks : As my hon. Friend says, they go to bed with one another.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I thought that the chairman of the boundary commission was the Speaker of the day of this honourable

Column 172

House. Surely it is not possible to accuse the commission of being corrupt in any way without making the same accusation against its chairman. It is about time Labour Members stopped slurring past Speakers and the present Speaker.

The First Deputy Chairman : The hon. Member for Newham, North West (Mr. Banks) has been treating the Committee to one of his humorous performances. If that has resulted in any stain on Madam Speaker, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw.

Mr. Livingstone : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I referred mainly to the barristers who conduct the inquiry. I cast no aspersion on Madam Speaker.

Mr. Banks : I, too, was referring to the barristers, Mr. Lofthouse. Let us get that clear.

Mr. Porter : Further to the points of order, Mr. Lofthouse. If it is clear that Members of the House of Commons have gone insane, is there a method by which they can be stopped from speaking?

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to decide that.

Mr. Banks : I can assist the hon. Gentleman. We were talking about Madam Speaker, and under the mental health legislation the Speaker has the right to section any Member. Conservative Members should contemplate that carefully before making any further speeches. Let me pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) before he disappeared out of the Chamber after being unable to obtain any reaction to his last denunciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. No doubt he went to the Library to discover the role of Madam Speaker. But her position on the boundary commission is purely nominal ; it is not a working position.

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone far enough and I hope that he will now address his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Banks : Of course--I was just trying to give a rudimentary lesson in constitutional theory to the hon. Member for Eltham.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Is there not some truth in the suggestion of semi-secret proposals? Does my hon. Friend recall that, not long ago in this very Chamber, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), now the President of the Board of Trade, asked why we needed London boroughs? Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in London are not aware that under section 14(3)(d) and (e) of the Local Government Act 1992, which was supposed not to apply to London, the commission can recommend

"the abolition of a London borough and the distribution of its area among other London boroughs"?

I am sure that most London borough councillors are not aware of that. Certainly some Members of Parliament are not. That reinforces the case for some form of delay as set out in the amendment unless and until that matter has been addressed and concluded.

Mr. Banks : I agree with my hon. Friend. That is all part of the uncertainty argument that I put earlier. When Nicholas Ridley was Secretary of State for the

Column 173

Environment, he made it clear that he felt that boroughs should simply have an annual meeting with councillors getting together--in his words--over a good lunch, in order to decide which particular contracts were to be allocated to which particular--

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West) : Friends.

Mr. Banks : That was the unwritten part of what he was saying. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) emphasises the uncertainty that exists in London. As the parliamentary boundary commissioners are paying some heed to boundaries for the local government boroughs, it is obvious that they need to know in some detail what Government thinking is. I hope that eventually the Minister will give us an honest and open account of the current thinking within the Department of the Environment and the Home Office on the future structure of local government in London. I am not talking about now. The Minister can no doubt say that at the moment the Government have no plans to make any changes. I want to know what long-term thinking--assuming that that is not too much to expect from Cabinet deliberations--there is on local government structures. I cannot believe that nothing is happening. There have been too many representations from too many bodies to which the Conservative party pays heed to the effect that something needs to be done about London if it is to play its part as one of the major European capital cities and to retain its position as the financial centre of Europe, and that it must have some sort of direction, coherence and identity. The Corporation of the City of London is saying that, as are the commercial and business interests within the square mile.

It is not only Labour Members who need to know ; it is not only the boundary commissioners looking at parliamentary constituencies who need to know ; it is also the local government boundary commission. Everyone wants to know. It is therefore incumbent upon the Government to tell us.

Clarification of the Government's plan is particularly important as the local government boundary commission under Sir John Banham, which is due to take over from the present commission, has been given explicit power to make radical changes to the pattern of London boroughs. Section 14(3) of the Local Government Act 1992 allows the new commission to recommend the following changes :

"(d

(the constitution of a new London borough by the amalgamation of two or more London boroughs or by the aggregation of parts of London boroughs or by the separation of part of a London borough ;) (e

(the abolition of a London borough and the distribution of its area among other London boroughs.") That is explosive stuff--not my speech I hasten to add, but what I have just read out is explosive stuff. When the people of London get to know that there is the possibility of boroughs and boundaries disappearing and amalgamations taking place, they will want to know what part they are to play in those deliberations. The Minister owes it to the House to say what sort of democratic processes will be brought into play so that communities can discuss with which part of London or community they want to maintain links, or whether they want to go somewhere else.

Column 174

5.45 pm

What we have long missed in London is a proper discussion about London's local government. We do not want decisions made by Ministers on the run, as it were, or by Prime Ministers who take a particular dislike to figures or bodies, or by Conservatives who cannot now retreat from the face of Thatcherism because to do so would be like spitting on the previous Prime Minister's grave. They have done much stamping and spitting on her grave up to now, but I do not think that they want to go any further.

The people of London deserve something better than their local government structure being left to decisions made on the back of an envelope in the Cabinet from time to time, with various statements being made ex cathedra by Ministers and those who are now governor of Hong Kong or who have gone on to different positions in the Cabinet. London deserves to know. At least the amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to start the great debate on London that we want. I hope that he will show himself ready and able to meet the challenge. Go on !

Mr. Peter Lloyd : I was so diverted by the rehearsal of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for his visit to Vilnius that I did not notice that no other hon. Member had risen. I shall start with the hon. Gentleman because he finished on a rousing note. I shall not tell him the "Lloyd" plan for the future of London, but in a few moments I shall come to the Government's plans for the future of London.

The hon. Gentleman read from the Local Government Act 1992 the powers that the Local Government Commission will have to recommend the amalgamation and division of London boroughs. It certainly does have that power to recommend, just as I believe the local government boundary commission which it supersedes had.

But local government boundary commissions make their reports at intervals of 10 to 15 years, so the next report of the Local Government Commission after the one that is currently under way will probably not come forward until well into the next century. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) put most of his questions in a form that related to whether the Government had a secret agenda to change the structure of London's local government in the foreseeable future. Most of his complaints, however, seemed to relate to the rule in schedule 2 of the 1986 Act which precludes the crossing of borough boundaries by the parliamentary commission except in exceptional circumstances.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no such agenda. It is a matter for the Department of the Environment rather than for me, but in summary I can say that the Government have no plans to review the general structure of local government in London. They have no desire whatever to inflict another layer of bureaucracy on London which would create, not solve, problems. They have set up a special Cabinet sub- committee. That relates to some of the references made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West to plans for the future and various suggestions. The sub-committee is chaired by the Secretary of State for the Environment and has been set up to co-ordinate Government policy in London.

Column 175

It intends to establish a private sector London forum to promote London as a world centre of business, tourism, and culture. None of those changes and developments affects London local government structure or boundaries.

Mr. Tony Banks : What opportunities will Londoners and their representatives, such as local councils and the London Boroughs Association, have to discuss the future shape of the London forum? That is an important development, and many of us would like to be involved in the forum's creation and in selecting its members.

Mr. Lloyd : That question should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I am sure that he will take on board all good ideas--even those submitted by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. However, that has nothing to do with London local government structure or boundaries, which is the subject matter of the Bill and of amendment No. 8 in particular.

Mr. Darling : Is it not ironic that the Cabinet has established a special committee, but that matters affecting many other parts of the country will be considered by local councils? That is typical of the Government's approach to London and of their fear of its electorate. If there is to be no change, why did the 1986 Act allow the local government boundary commission to examine the constitution of new London boroughs and amalgamations, and so on?

If the Government do not intend to do anything about London, why as recently as earlier this year did they seek to amend the 1986 Act, which specifically enjoins the commission to consider such aspects--and presumably it would have the contemplation that Sir John Banham might recommend changes?

Next Section

Home Page