| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea): My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has quite rightly emphasised that the devil is in the detail. I realise that the Minister probably has some arguments in reserve that he will deploy when winding up. He will probably cite the lack of time, the fact that some of the details have to be settled with reference to other parties and the need for consultation--all the usual flannel with which his officials will brief him.
However, one question relates directly to the date: it is absolutely fundamental and, unless it is answered, all our discussions are almost valueless because they are taking place in a vacuum. That question is: what is the cost of what is being proposed? It is totally unjust for the people of this city to be invited to vote on a matter, of which they may or may not approve in principle, without their decision being related to what it will cost them.
The scheme has been talked up with descriptions of what powers will be given to the mayor and what benefits will accrue from having a mayor and assembly, but at the back of all that hype is colossal expenditure. My hon.
Friend the Member for Croydon, South listed various sources from which revenue might be derived, but even if every single one were milked for revenue, there would still not be enough at the disposal of the new bodies to meet the grandiose claims made for them.
It is said that they will deal with traffic congestion, get rid of pollution and impose a green regime across the inner city and there are many other wild ideas--often touted by the Evening Standard, which has behaved in an extraordinarily irresponsible manner in respect of this whole topic from start to finish. If there is to be any realism in the fulfilment of those pledges, a colossal sum of money will be involved. That sum has to be drawn from somewhere and it will be drawn from the people of London. We all understand the Chancellor's pledge that the overall level of taxation will not be raised, and we know that we can trust his word. Therefore, the money will have to be raised locally.
There will probably be some hypothecation--at least, we hope there will. Will there? Perhaps the Minister can answer that question--it would be original and inventive of him to do so. If Londoners are to be asked to contribute an enormous sum of money--which they will be, through various indirect taxes and a huge loading on their council tax--it would be useful for them to see in advance some indication of how that would be hypothecated.
Such things can easily be calculated, at least in general terms, and it would be possible to put them in good time--even sticking to the existing date--so that those who are to vote in the referendum can carry such considerations in the forefront of their mind. I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee that he is going to ensure that that happens.
Mr. Pickles:
I imagine that the Minister must now be feeling a little embarrassed, having told us on Second Reading that he had received 1,200 responses. I put out a regular newsletter to my constituents--33,000 households. I do not get 1,200 responses back, but I get a number of responses that approaches 1,000. A figure so low is a sign that one should consult the people about one's proposals--the people are waiting to read the proposals before making a significant contribution.
I have noticed the Minister nodding while my hon. Friends raised their points, as if to say, "Yes, I have the answer to that," "We know what we are going to do there," and "Don't worry, everything will be sorted out." If that is the case, what is the Minister scared of? Why does he not produce the Bill or his White Paper? Let us have the information so that the debate can be properly worked out.
Referendums are not usual in our constitutional system. We have had a series of them, but they might best be described as a means of getting the Government off the hook. Generally speaking, with the exception of the two referendums in Scotland and Wales, they have been held against a background of a known position. Previously, the only referendums we had experienced had been on small local issues such as whether or not the pubs should open in Wales.
Mr. Gerald Howarth:
On the issue of the referendums on Scotland and Wales--serious matters for the kingdom--does my hon. Friend accept that the no White Paper has yet been forthcoming on the detail? As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)
Mr. Pickles:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nothing in the Bill would force the Government to do anything. They need not do a single thing from the time that the Bill becomes an Act until the time of the referendum. As my hon. Friends have said, it is important that, before we make such important decisions, the full facts must be known. After all, we shall be faced with a question at the referendum where it will be possible, no matter what one's view are and unless one is violently opposed to both a mayor and an assembly, to vote yes.
This may be the first of many referendums, so it is important to get the ground rules right. Before the people are asked to express a view in the referendum, we must ensure that the consultation is real and complete. We know that, at this referendum, substantial parts of the Metropolitan police area will be disenfranchised. Therefore, even if the full facts are known, some of the people who will be affected by policing decisions will not have an opportunity to vote.
The Government have a duty to explain. If they intend to use referendums as a constitutional device--if they are to become a regular feature--they should not be used as a cynical and sinister way of trying to increase the number of people who vote in local government elections. The Government should explain to the people exactly what they are being asked to endorse.
If we are to move forward in a process of "trust the people", those people have a right to complete disclosure. After all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, the devil is in the detail. The Minister's position is now like that of the red queen in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". The Government are saying, "Never mind about the evidence or what the people think, let us have a judgment now." The only answer given by Labour Members is to say that they had a large majority on Second Reading.
Mr. Gerald Howarth:
Is my hon. Friend as astonished as me to see so many Conservative Members present, anxious to debate these matters, while the Government Benches are virtually empty? Labour Members are not prepared to ask their Government for details about the financial consequences of the Bill. The Government are relying on the Lobby fodder who voted for the Bill on Second Reading. They have now been told to go home and not trouble this Committee.
Mr. Pickles:
That is an important point, which I was about to mention. We are in danger of treating the citizens of London like Labour Members of Parliament. The view seems to be, "We do not care what they think or what they do as long as they turn up." The public should receive more respect from the Chamber than the Government Chief Whip offers to his Back Benchers.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pickles:
A Labour Member. How nice to see him.
Mr. Corbyn:
I could not help but hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the alleged lack of Labour
Mr. Pickles:
I think that the--
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not allow himself to be led down that route. I should remind him that the amendments are tightly drawn. Some of the issues that he is covering now will be dealt with in later amendments.
Mr. Pickles:
Of course, Mr. Lord. My only response to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is to say that we saw how he voted on Second Reading.
Before people reach a decision they have a right to full disclosure. They need to know what the mayor will do and what powers he will have. They need to know whether an elected assembly will take powers away from the boroughs. The Minister for Local Government and Housing has talked to the Local Government Association and explained that there will be a tight settlement. We know that money will go away from London. We need to know whether additional money will go away from London because of the cost of the new assembly.
Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs):
May I ask my hon. Friend what information people will have before the referendum on the future of the City of London Corporation? I think that the public believe that this is all about electing a new Lord Mayor of London and something that will take over the corporation. It is of major financial importance to know whether revenues from property rates will accrue to the new organisation or stay as they are. Central to knowing what one is voting for is knowing how the new arrangements will interact with the City.
5.45 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |