| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The Conservative Government abolished London's council.
Mr. Ottaway: I shall come to that in a minute.
That success has been achieved not just since May; it is a success story of the past two decades--a Conservative success story. London is now one of the world's leading financial centres. Its theatres, cinemas, museums and art galleries and its venues for opera--we hope--and for dance and music are internationally acclaimed. Its universities are world class. The latest survey reveals that it maintains its leading position as the best city in Europe in which to locate a business.
Those hon. Members who spoke about the need to consider our transport systems should note that the same poll contained a supplementary question about transport, and business men voted London the easiest European city to travel around. We may think that it is bad, but the others are even worse. However, we share the Government's view that the time has come to reform and modernise our capital's system of government--to build on the tremendous success story and prosperity achieved during the Conservatives' time in government.
Labour Members have criticised us for changing our minds on this proposal. That is rich coming from the Labour party, which has changed its mind on every fundamental issue of the past two decades and a fair few since the general election. Let us hear no criticism from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg): as president of the National Union of Students, he advocated resistance to tuition fees, but he seems to have gone strangely silent on the subject. [Interruption.] We will be watching him.
Many hon. Members have argued that it was a mistake to abolish the Greater London council in 1986, but I am not one of those people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) rightly pointed out, to apologise presupposes that we want to return to the GLC. In paragraph 1.09 of the Green Paper, the Government state:
Mr. McDonnell:
An apology is required because the Conservative party was given the opportunity, by all parties on the GLC, by Londoners and by many London organisations, to reform the GLC instead of abolishing it. However, in a pig-headed way and showing a cowardly lack of interest in London, Conservative Members marched through the Division Lobbies to obey the diktat of the then Prime Minister. That is what the hon. Gentleman should apologise for.
Mr. Ottaway:
I do not lament the departure of the old GLC any more than the hon. Gentleman's own party does and I will not apologise for the abolition of what was a dinosaur running out of control.
We recognise that things have moved on since that time. I accept that 10 years is a long time in politics--the world has become a global village and we need a mayor to stride around the village square. However, Labour Members have to realise what the proposed authority will not do. Many hon. Members have referred to elected mayors in the United States and to the powers of the mayor of New York, but it is an illusion to believe that the success of the mayor of New York can be drawn down as an analogy with what is proposed for London. If Labour Members believe that our mayor will be able to solve problems in the same way as the mayor of New York has done, they have another think coming.
The mayor of New York's great success was his crackdown on crime. That was achieved by the introduction of a law banning squeegee merchants who were funding juvenile crime and the imposition of a sales tax to put extra policemen on the beat, who were then targeted at the worst areas. No such powers will be available to the mayor of London or to the assembly and it is illusory to think that they will. The hon. Member for Eltham brought the debate down to the level of road humps--the authority would decide which borough had road humps--and other hon. Members wanted the authority to deal with health and education, but that will not happen either.
The Bill will give London's 5 million voters the chance to vote in a referendum on the plans for a Greater London authority. The authority has two parts: first, a directly elected mayor and, secondly, a directly elected assembly. Two options, two proposals, two choices--so why are the Government introducing a Bill that offers only one question? Londoners now find themselves in an impossible position; the future government of their city is at stake, yet the Government continue to ignore the variety and depth of their cosmopolitan views. London is a city of villages--varied, colourful and, at times, awkward. It has the energy of New York, without the downside. It has many opinions and Londoners want their say. Two choices demand two questions. It is democratic, it is necessary and it is right. That is why the Conservatives are fighting for a two-question referendum--so that the people of London can be given the fullest possible opportunity to have their say about the sort of London government that they want.
I have been canvassing in my constituency and in the rest of London. I accept that there is wide support for a voice for London, but hardly anyone agrees with the detail of the Government's proposals. Indeed, most speeches this evening have disagreed with the detail.
Mr. Ottaway:
Yes, they have. The hon. Member for Ealing, North wanted the GLC back, even though the Green Paper was against that. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) wanted health and education to be run by the proposed authority. I could list many more examples.
By all means let us have a mayor for London; on that our parties can agree. He or she will be an ambassador for the city, a strong voice for its people, a champion of Londoners promoting London on the national and international stage. The mayor could push the capital's case on issues ranging from inward investment
to regeneration funding, and could bid for the World cup or the Olympic games. It is obvious to all of us who live and work in London that the capital's environmental problems are challenging. Together, we produce more than 12 million tonnes of rubbish and use more than 20 million tonnes of fuel a year. From rubbish to graffiti to recycling, the influence that a mayor would bring to bear on overseeing a new environmental strategy would be enormous.
The last thing that London--or the mayor--needs, however, is a directly elected assembly--the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). The assembly will generate an anti-borough culture; the boroughs are deeply concerned about its scope for interference in their activities. In the Green Paper there are no fewer than 15 diminutions of the boroughs' powers, and in part II of the Bill the Government seek authority to obtain advice on the assembly's electoral arrangements. The relevant clause does not specify the method of election, although the Minister dealt with that earlier today.
In his letter to The Times, the Minister argued that he intends to avoid the problem of assemblymen fighting for their own patches rather than the wider interests of London--
Mr. Ottaway:
I will not give way at this point.
Not even Scotland and Wales are breaking their constituency links in this manner. By maintaining that the assembly must think strategically and not take local views into account, the Minister is saying, in effect, "Vote us in; we need your votes, and then we don't want to hear from you."
Mr. Raynsford:
The purpose of my letter to The Times was to point out the deficiencies of the Conservative party's proposal that the mayor should not have a directly elected assembly to keep him or her accountable, but should instead have a committee made up of all 32 London borough leaders. I was pointing out, as did another correspondent in that newspaper the same day--someone expert in the American system--that The Times was wrong and that there was no American city that did not have an assembly to keep its mayor accountable. I also pointed out that the 32 borough leaders could not do so because they would be fighting for their own interests.
Mr. Ottaway:
Then the Minister let the cat out of the bag--he could not contain himself--and went even further. He said that he wanted the authority to think strategically--
Mr. Ottaway:
Fair enough; but he also said that he did not want the assemblymen to fight for their own patch. If so, I repeat: the Minister simply wants people's votes, but thereafter he does not want to hear any more from them.
I think that the Coulsdon bypass for Croydon is important, but no one in the assembly would fight for it. Who is to fight for it then--a Member of Parliament, a councillor? If so, what is the point of the authority?
Ms Hodge:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
"This is not an exercise in bringing back the Greater London Council",
so the Labour party does not want it back. That leaves only the Liberals and I am not sure that they want it back either. Who is urging the House to advocate a return to the GLC?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |