| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raynsford: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, will he make it clear whether he is advocating two questions in the referendum or more? The way in which he has presented the case for the Liberal Democrats' reasoned amendment implies questions on four issues: mayor; assembly; mayor and assembly; and tax-raising powers. Is he advocating all four?
Mr. Hughes: I do not want to delay the House with a long answer. We want two questions, each allowing the answers yes or no. The first is whether there should be directly elected regional government for London. The second is whether, in addition to an assembly, there
should be a directly elected mayor. Other matters can be debated in the Bill next year. I hope that the Committee will agree to two questions. If we do not, I sincerely hope that the other place does. If it does, I hope that the Government then at last accept that it is better to trust the people than to trust the Government.5.56 pm
Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East): If other parties amend the Government's legislation in the other place, we should turn that amendment over in this place and go to the people with the mandate that we secured on 1 May. I find it absurd to rely on unelected people in the other place to pursue supposedly democratic means. That is the background to much of the debate.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) mentioned the police, but did not refer to the response to the consultation from the Metropolitan police, which says:
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) broke down the Welsh vote, saying that it accorded roughly to a majority of 175 in every Welsh constituency. Any number of his former colleagues, who are no longer here, would kill for a majority of 175. He should not be so sniffy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) waited and waited to make his maiden speech. Despite the cajoling, it was well worth waiting for. I am sure that we shall hear considerably more from him.
I do not like the sanctimonious approach and pomposity of minority parties which, having been trounced in the general election, not least in London, try to preach to us about democracy. We said clearly in the manifesto that we would proceed to a referendum on the elected mayor and the assembly--
Mr. Simon Hughes:
Not in the manifesto.
Mr. McNulty:
Indeed, we did. We put our proposals to the people of London on 1 May and secured record support in London for our troubles. Now we are told by the Conservatives, "We want a mayor, but no assembly. We got only 1 million votes compared to Labour's almost 2 million, but that does not matter six months on. That is democratic." We are told by the Liberal Democrats, "We want an assembly, but not a mayor. We got only 600,000 votes compared to Labour's almost 2 million in London, but that does not matter six months on."
It is cant and hypocrisy for the Opposition to talk about democracy. We have had silly little asides from the south-west London colony of Opposition Members about arrogance. The arrogance is for Opposition Members to try to turn over the mandate we secured barely six months ago, which is of substance and matters.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
I want to put one matter on the record. I have a copy of the Labour manifesto in front of
Mr. McNulty:
In all the subsequent discussions throughout the campaign, especially in London, we said clearly that the mayor and the assembly were a single package. The proposals were not a pick-and-mix, a portfolio or ones that people could take some of and not the rest. Far from the proposals being timid, they are radical and previously unheard of in this country, as my hon. Friends have said. Putting the package--not the detail--to the people on 1 May and saying that we would hold a referendum on it, far from being insulting or timid, gives the people of London a voice, far more than would be the case under the Opposition's proposals.
The Leader of the Opposition is acting like a lemming on Europe. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield proved that he was willing to sacrifice his lemmings--what remains of the London Conservative Members--by objecting to our proposals. The proposals were in the manifesto and were clearly attached to a referendum. Everyone knows the extent of the London vote. The two issues are not distinct and were always put together as a package.
The White Paper will be published and there will be greater discussion and debate on the detail between now and the referendum in May. I hope that, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, the Conservatives will engage fully in the debate on the detail and the relationship between the assorted bodies in London when the Bill has been passed. The legislation must be seen in the context of the mandate that we secured on 1 May.
The proposals are supported--there are, of course, minority positions--by the Association of London Government. I accept that the association does not unanimously support the Government's proposals on the specific questions, but it supports the broad sweep. The proposals are also welcomed by the police and the business community in London.
Mr. Pickles:
The hon. Gentleman cannot say that there is broad agreement except on the number of questions. Half the borough leaders want two questions and the majority of the people of London want two questions. What is the hon. Gentleman frightened of? Is he frightened of giving the people of London a choice? The people of London will have no choice and he is treating them as if he is a dictator in a banana republic.
Mr. McNulty:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed that intervention. I will not give way to him again if that is the best he can do.
I was referring to the Association of London Government response, which says:
Mr. McNulty:
My hon. Friend is entirely right. It also seems that, in some quarters, there is a little difficulty with coming to terms with the results in London last May.
Aside from the point raised about the number of questions, many of the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey were appropriate. They were, however, appropriate not to a debate on this Bill, but to discussions once the White Paper is out. I have some concerns, not least about the architecture of London governance after the Greater London assembly and the mayor are in place, about including people and about a strategic scrutiny role for the assembly.
Once we move away from questions about how many questions to the future of London's governance, we can discuss, together with appropriate bodies in London, the interlocking relationship between the boroughs, the Greater London assembly, the mayor and central Government. We must try to get real transparency and clarity in those relationships.
I do not see the creation of an elected mayor and a Greater London assembly as a recipe for conflict, and most of the points made on that have been cliches. People may believe that if they say them often enough, they will gain some substance and meaning. Similarly, we are told that a mayor will open things up to corruption. Why should that be the case any more than it is the case with the leader of a council in whom so much is vested? It does not follow. We are told--these views are offered as truths--that a mayor and an authority together are a recipe for conflict and corruption. That does not figure.
Sooner rather than later, however, there must be a real understanding of the relationship between central Government and local government in London, and of how the GLA and the mayor will fit in between. Some of those who have expressed concern about the matter may have a point. If there is conflict, it will not be enough for the mayor to say, "I am directly elected, I have 5 million votes behind me and I outweigh the Greater London assembly and the London boroughs." That would not be appropriate, any more than it is appropriate for incompetent chief executives to hide behind elected councillors or for local councillors to use their democratic mandate as an excuse for failures, shortcomings and irresponsibility.
Although the democratic mandate affords Members of Parliament, councillors and, eventually, the London mayor rights and responsibilities, it does not make them fireproof and it does not make them anything other than democratically elected people who will be held to account by the people. Too many people hide behind the notion of a democratic mandate to hide their shortcomings and wrong-doings. If we do not get the architecture right, we may be in difficulties, but I believe that it will emerge as the process evolves.
It is the responsibility of all London Members, together with the London boroughs, central Government, the mayor and the new assembly to work out the relationships. No matter whether one has separate questions on the mayor and the assembly or a combined question, those relationships cannot be dealt with when discussing referendum legislation. By definition, they will have to evolve and it is important that discussions begin sooner rather than later.
"The Metropolitan Police Service welcomes the prospect of a Mayor, an elected assembly for London and the consequent formation of a properly constituted police authority."
Like most, if not all, agencies, as well as the business community, the police welcome our proposals. I do not understand what the fuss is about.
"The minority parties . . . favour different models for . . . governance . . . and would wish the ballot paper to contain separate questions on the Mayor and the Assembly."
10 Nov 1997 : Column 618
It is right that the ALG should reflect those views. Happily, the majority on the ALG did not accept those views and, later tonight, the majority in this House will not accept those views.
Ms Hodge:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's obsession about whether there should be one or two questions simply reflects their unease with the fact that the vast majority of Londoners support our proposals? They do not want to admit that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |