| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): It is called consultation.
Sir Norman Fowler: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman obviously has great difficulty in understanding that the Government should have consulted on their propositions before holding the referendum. The specific Act of Parliament is the only conclusive means of providing the necessary answers, but we will not have it, let alone the White Paper, before the referendum in May. The Minister said as much. There is no way that that Act will be ready then.
Mr. Raynsford: What about the White Paper?
Sir Norman Fowler: I should remind the Minister that the White Paper refers to the Government's proposals. I also remind him that we still work within a system according to which Parliament decides, not the Government--he might explain that to the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning.
The answer to the referendum could be affected directly by the answers that are eventually decided by Parliament, and it is clear that one question could lead to another. One such example is the proposal relating to the policing of London. The Government intend to set up a new police authority for the Metropolitan police. Everyone agrees that that is a profound change. The Home Secretary has been police authority since 1829 and, by definition, the system has lasted through a number of Labour Governments.
In the new proposed police authority, elected members will be in the majority, but they will not be the elected members of London's borough councils; they will be elected and selected from the new Greater London assembly. I suspect that before the public are expected to express a view on that, many people will want to know how local those elected representatives will be. If they were elected to the police authority according to a list system, they would simply be the choice of their respective parties. Many people might feel that no local link was provided under that new system. Many people may believe that members of an assembly elected according to a direct list or something like it would not have direct local links with the public. Presumably that link should be required. Given the importance that people attach to the Metropolitan police, and with the full facts before them, many people may vote against an assembly.
Mr. Wilshire:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that matters are even worse than he has described since according to the Green Paper, elected members of the
Sir Norman Fowler:
Yes. It is all very well for the Minister to laugh, but it is a matter of great importance to anyone who lives in London and is policed by the Metropolitan police.
The police authority for the Metropolitan police has lasted since 1829 and has been approved by every Labour Government of the century, bar this one, so there must be something to be said for it. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that the new elected members who will be in the majority on that new police authority will be drawn from the new Greater London authority.
Sir Norman Fowler:
No. I will not give way.
My first objection to the Bill is that referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to judge.
Ms Joan Ryan (Enfield, North):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Norman Fowler:
I have just said that I will not give way again.
Referendums should be held when people can view all the pros and cons, when the arguments in favour and against have been rigorously tested and when Parliament has had the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation. We know at least some of the intentions, but we do not know what the legislation will say when it is on the statute book; under any sensible referendum system, it is only at that stage that the public should be asked for their views.
The second objection is that, even by the Government's own standards, the Bill does not deserve support because it puts together two questions. On the ballot paper, there will be one and only one question about whether the public support an authority
The Government say that they want to know Londoners' views on how they should be governed, but, when it comes to it, the Government are not prepared to put those views to the test. The Minister, in his best handbag-swinging style, said that there is no alternative--that it would be inappropriate to put questions of that sort--but no one outside the Labour party believes that those questions cannot be asked. The Minister seems to be arguing that the mayor and the assembly are an inseparable package, like the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister without Portfolio. The trouble is that almost nobody outside the Government agrees with that proposition.
The Minister quoted the only newspaper that has come out on his side on this issue--the Evening Standard. He did not quote the shoal of newspapers that have come out against him. He did not quote The Times, which, under the headline "Double Talk", said:
Everyone knows that there are other options. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) supports at least one other option--actually, I think that he supports a series of options. Conservative Members favour a directly elected major, but we would have an assembly made up of London borough leaders--any mayor will have to work with the boroughs, so that must make sense. We reject the argument that such an arrangement will lead to conflict--indeed, we believe that the Government's plans have conflict built in at every stage, as well as layer after layer of local government.
Let us recall what the Government propose. They propose a directly elected mayor, a directly elected assembly, a regional development agency for London, a Government office for London and eventually 32 borough councils. That is not the end of it: under a Bill prepared by the Government that is to be introduced in another place as a private Member's Bill, there are to be permissive powers for directly elected executive borough mayors, so Hammersmith and Fulham--an area the Minister and I both know well--could have a directly elected mayor of its own.
One does not have to be a paid-up member of the Conservative party, or even the Liberal Democrats, to believe that such a structure is incredibly overlayered. If there is inbuilt conflict, it lies in such a system. There are indications that the Government are sensitive about the idea of a directly elected assembly, because they have changed the order in which mayor and assembly appear on the ballot paper by moving the elected assembly from first to second mention. I noted the Minister's remarks about the close attention paid to that matter.
Above all, under the Government plans there is a certainty of conflict between the directly elected assembly and the already elected borough councils. It will not take long for the assembly to tire of having a purely advisory and questioning role and it takes no great skill at forecasting to know what the next step will be: the members of the assembly will want greater powers and their justification will be that they are elected. I doubt very much, however, whether those powers will come from the Government--I remember from my days in government that Whitehall is notoriously jealous of its empire. It is far more likely that those powers will come from the boroughs, so, step by step, we will get nearer to the concept of the old Greater London council.
London faces the fundamental question of whether it wants to put its future increasingly in the hands of an intermediate regional assembly, or to strengthen the borough council system that is unquestionably and undoubtedly closest to the public. We should be aiming, not for a new elected assembly, but for a mayor working with the boroughs, which have local experience and a direct connection with their electors.
"made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly".
That goes not only to the heart of the Bill, but to the heart of the Government's approach.
"Two distinct issues require two different questions".
10 Nov 1997 : Column 600
He did not quote The Guardian, which can hardly be accused of being a Conservative-leaning paper--although I suppose anyone who is against the Government is accused of being Conservative-leaning. The Guardian asked why, if the Government are so sure of their case, they cannot put it to the people. Why can they not argue the case for a directly elected assembly if it is as self-evident as they appear to believe?
Mr. Raynsford:
The right hon. Gentleman mentions The Guardian; can he confirm that the following words appear in the same editorial?
"Mr Raynsford dismisses the Conservative suggestion that the mayor could answer to the current 33 London boroughs as a 'recipe for disaster'. Any mayor could simply buy off the boroughs by chucking goodies their way, bringing US-style pork-barrel politics to the capital. The minister is right".
Sir Norman Fowler:
That is the most extraordinary quotation, even by the Minister's standards, because whose words are followed by a dash and the words:
"but he should make that argument in a campaign."
The Minister has just shot himself in the foot. The Guardian makes the point that he is confident of his case, but is unable and unwilling to put it to the public. The newspaper, which is on his side, is saying as a friend--if the Minister is capable of accepting that anyone outside the Labour party can be a friend--that he should put his case to the public and let the public decide. To make an intervention like that, while relying on my not having the full quotation with me, brings the Minister pretty near the slippery methods of the used-car salesman.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |