| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raynsford: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman was not listening. He was keen to intervene, but not so keen to listen. My point is that the people of London--the private sector and the business community--all try to do their best despite the amateurish government framework. We know that the business community is committed to London and to our proposals. If the right hon. Gentleman reflected on the matter, he would realise that the Government speak for business in Britain, and his party is increasingly seen as an anti-business party.
Londoners were not convinced. They saw the result of years of strategic neglect: no one to speak up for London nationally and internationally, decaying infrastructure, traffic chaos, worsening air quality, unacceptable levels of crime and a growing division between the rich and poor. They saw what was wrong and demanded the opportunity to put things right. That is why they gave such massive support to the Labour party in the general election, delivering in London the highest swing to Labour in the entire country. That is why we have also received overwhelming public support for the proposals published in our Green Paper
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster):
I am sure that the Minister will agree that a whole series of factors could be attributed to the differential swing, including the fact that, in London, there was a large differential swing against the Labour party in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Mr. Raynsford:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for one of his customary interventions in debates on London. I look forward to many more. I remind him, as one of the few survivors representing his party in London, that the swing was an overwhelming and decisive one, which took Labour into a large part of the capital city that had not previously been represented by Labour Members. Areas such as Wimbledon, Romford and Finchley now all benefit from Labour representation--and that is very good indeed for London.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raynsford:
No, I have given way twice. I ask the hon. Gentleman to linger a little. I will give way to him in due course.
Londoners saw what was wrong and demanded the opportunity to put things right. That is why we received overwhelming public support for the proposals published in our Green Paper, and that is why I believe that Londoners will endorse our proposals in a referendum on 7 May.
It is not only the residents of London who are calling out for a mayor and an assembly for the capital. The business community has put its considerable weight behind our proposals. It is not surprising because we share the same goals: a desire for soundly based and steady economic growth, involving and benefiting the whole community; improved living standards; and a better
quality of life for all. That cannot be done in a political vacuum. There is a need for real leadership and proper accountability.
The business community recognises that if London is to continue to be a leading world city, it needs a champion--someone with the authority to speak up on its behalf at home and abroad. There is much that such a champion needs to do. London needs to compete with other world cities--such as New York, Tokyo and Paris--for its economic survival. It needs to compete for investment, for visitors, for prestige. If anyone thinks that a London Olympic bid would stand a chance of success without strong civic leadership driving it forward, they have only to look at the history of the past 11 years.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
The hon. Gentleman rightly spoke about the importance of greater accountability to the people of London. How will that be achieved, as accountability to most people means accountability for money spent? There is no clear proposal for the assembly's tax, revenue or impost-raising powers--or, rather, for the budget to be raised by the mayor and approved by the assembly. Without that vital clarification, how on earth can accountability be achieved?
Mr. Raynsford:
The hon. Gentleman questions accountability. I have always believed that it resulted from the democratic process, in which people stand for election because they believe that they have a contribution to make in terms of political and financial objectives. The people will ultimately judge their performance. That is the model which we are proposing. The Greater London authority will have powers concerning substantial sums of revenue that are currently discharged by other bodies--either central Government or other groupings. There will be a responsibility for finance, and democratic accountability will ensure that that finance is well used and prudently spent.
Only an elected city leader will have the necessary mandate to take on the kind of role required to ensure that London can advocate its case internationally and against increasing competition from other world cities. Only an elected city leader will have the necessary mandate to bring all of London together in support.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
The Minister knows that this is one of the most controversial areas of the Government's proposals and that the leader in very nearly every European capital city is chosen from its assembly, not elected separately. Does he accept that there are very strong arguments--even if he might have been persuaded not to agree with them--that a directly elected mayor is a more dangerous political animal and less democratic than one chosen by a democratic assembly, as in this Parliament?
Mr. Raynsford:
No, I do not. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman suggests that an indirect election is more democratic than a direct election. I have been studying very carefully patterns in other countries, including other European countries. One of the visits that I made was to talk to the mayor of Cologne, with whom I discussed why his city has decided to change its procedure from one of indirect election to direct election. If the hon. Gentleman studies trends throughout the world, he will see that that
Mr. Simon Hughes
indicated dissent.
Mr. Raynsford:
I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question; he does not like the answer.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
As there is a huge debate about the question of an elected mayor, is not there a case for a separate question in the referendum, so that people can vote on an elected authority for London, which will be strongly supported by all, and on a directly elected mayor who is less accountable if he or she is not answerable to an assembly?
Mr. Raynsford:
As my hon. Friend has probably anticipated, I intend to cover that subject later in my speech. I hope that he will bear with me, because I will deal thoroughly with it later.
It is not just in the international arena that there is a role for the new authority. We need to improve the competitiveness of local businesses--whether small, medium or large--on which the London economy depends, and we need to tackle poverty and deprivation. Alongside the success stories, London has some of the highest unemployment and most deprived communities in Britain, cheek by jowl with some of the richest areas in Europe.
We need a new authority able to reach out to all London's communities and all London's diverse cultural and ethnic groups to help all participate in London's increasingly competitive economy. That is the basis for our proposal for a new Greater London authority and that is why the new authority will have a key role to play in ensuring that transport is improved and congestion tackled; in helping to regenerate the rundown parts of our city; in fighting crime; in promoting partnership of relevant interests to tackle these problems; and in making London a better place for Londoners.
We said in our manifesto:
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire):
I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been generous with his time. He confidently asserted that the people and businesses of London want both an elected mayor and an elected assembly. If he is so confident of that, why will he not ask them separate questions?
Mr. Raynsford:
The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening when I replied to my hon. Friend the
"Londonwide responsibility for its own government is urgently required. We will make it happen."
Within just three months of taking office, we published a Green Paper setting out for consultation our proposals for a new Greater London authority. That consultation has generated more than 1,200 responses from all parts of the capital. All the responses are being read, and the views of Londoners and London organisations are being taken into account in working out our detailed proposals. We are studying the detail, but already it is clear that the consultation responses strongly support our proposals.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |