| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Pickles: I must tell my hon. Friend that I am the bringer of bad news. Nothing in the Bill explains that. There is no duty on the Government to explain any of those important things before the people of London vote.
The people need to know whether powers will be taken from the boroughs. People within the London area come from distinct communities--that is where their roots are and where the power is. Before they are allowed to vote, that issue should be clear. We know that the strategic authority will have enormous powers on planning.The London boroughs will deal with only small considerations. Before people sign away the powers of the London boroughs, the consequences need to be explained in a White Paper or a draft Bill.
In reply to a question before the recess, the Minister for Transport in London suggested that the strategic authority might care to consider the finance of London Underground. I understand that that suggestion has been withdrawn, but most of the major decisions on London Underground will have been taken long before the assembly comes into being.
If we are to use referendums as part of our constitutional system, they should have legitimacy. If people are asked to take decisions without full knowledge, the legitimacy of the referendum is undermined. After all, on Second Reading many Labour Members seemed to think that the new strategic authority was to be a rebirth of the Greater London council. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) is shaking his head, but he should read the Second Reading debate. It is clear from that that a substantial proportion of Labour Members thought that the GLC was coming back.
We have the strange position in which Conservative Members are in general agreement with those on the Government Front Bench in that we both do not want to see the GLC come back. If Labour Members are so confused about the powers of the new strategic authority--they have had the benefit of reading their manifesto commitments--what chance does a member of the public have unless there is absolute disclosure? A system that treats the people as a rubber stamp treats them with cynical contempt.
Mr. Livingstone:
I did not intend to participate at this stage of the debate, as there are more important substantive matters to come but, having listened to so much appalling twaddle and knowing the Conservatives' record, I have been provoked.
It will come as no surprise when I say that I have disagreements with my party on some of the details of its proposals for a new government for London. However, it is a bit much for the Conservatives to complain that the proposals are ill thought out, given the method of consultation used for the abolition of the previous London government, when 98 per cent. of the responses to the consultation were opposed to abolition, and, on the basis of 2 per cent. support, the Conservative Government went ahead.
I recall that the entire exercise was not even agreed by the Cabinet. When the late beloved leaderene decided that she wanted to abolish regional government in London, she was told by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, who went on to become Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), that it was barmy and, after a study at the Department of the Environment, that it could not be done. His successor, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) gave the same advice in the month before Mrs. Thatcher, at a meeting drawing up the Tory manifesto, sidelined the Cabinet by putting the proposal in the manifesto, when the Cabinet had not agreed to it.
There was no discussion and no consultation. The only study done in the Department of the Environment said that the plan would not work and was barmy. Having won the election on that and being seized by a fit of manifestoitis, the Conservatives had no plans for abolition and no prospect of having any plans for the abolition of the council within the two years before the next Greater London council election. They needed emergency legislation to abolish the election. It was passed in the House and overturned in another place, and the Government were forced into a humiliating retreat. They knew that it would take them 18 months to work out how to do it. It was a nightmare.
The guilty men and women who voted for that nonsense back in 1983 are in no position to question the fact that Labour has had a consultation, and asked genuine
questions of Londoners. We shall, however imperfectly, put a question--or two, if I have my way--to the people of London next year, and detailed legislation will then be introduced. That is a much more structured approach than the nonsense that we had before.
Sir Paul Beresford:
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he had difficulty with some of the details. There were few details; there are few details. From past debates with him, I suspect that, after the referendum, he will have further arguments about the legislation, but it will be too late. Would he not prefer to allow the public to see more details beforehand? That would follow the position that he has taken over many years.
Mr. Livingstone:
Londoners clearly want an assembly or a government of some kind.
Sir Paul Beresford:
You do not know that.
Mr. Livingstone:
Every opinion poll for the past 10 years has shown that. The specific nature of such a body will require long and detailed legislation that will take the best part of a year. There is no prospect of that legislation being squeezed into the timetable for this Session. Therefore, if we waited for a referendum to consult Londoners, the plans would probably be put back to 2000, and we would not get a mayor before the next election. However imperfect the arrangements may be, at least they give Londoners a chance to elect an assembly and a mayor who will be in office before the year 2000.
Mr. Livingstone:
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way to hear the same point made again. If the Government's plans are agreed to, Londoners will at least be consulted.
There are serious points on which my party is split, and important amendments to consider. I would have hoped that, instead of time-wasting, the Committee could debate serious matters. Dare I ask whether a filibuster is looming? That would merely take time away from the serious consideration of important issues.
Mr. Wilkinson:
How refreshing it is to have the authentic voice of the Labour party in London participating in this important debate. I would not dream of referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) as appalling twaddle, but as usual his sense of history was rather colourful and not exactly scholastic.
It would be helpful for the Committee to focus more closely on amendments Nos. 13 and 14. Why are the Labour Government so keen that the referendum should be held on 7 May 1998? I suggest that they hope that the date will be useful for their election campaigns in the boroughs.
The record of Labour authorities in London is abysmal. The Government hope that there will be so much hype and such excitement about the issues of the referendum that their record will not come under the close scrutiny that it deserves. I can assure Ministers that, in my own borough of Hillingdon, it will. We have particular
problems relating to planning, for example, which the electors will want to address, as they did in the Uxbridge by-election. That may not be the case in other boroughs.
With regard to the length of time between the publication of the White Paper--or, as we insist, the publication of the Bill--and the referendum, there is much of great constitutional significance. The Liberals, as ever, are acting as the sweepers to the Labour team. They are happy with a two-month period between the White Paper and the referendum date.
Those of us who have been in the House for a while recognise that the White Paper process is a serious one which does not affect this House alone. It is a process of pre-legislative consultation which should encompass public opinion as a whole, interested bodies, industry, commerce and the City of London. The consultation must be meaningful. In the light of the representations made, many of the original proposals submitted must be reconsidered.
We are led to believe by Government spokesmen that if we are lucky, we will get the White Paper in the spring. That hardly allows time for the definitive proposals, which will be published only with the legislation, to be produced.
I would go further and say that the people of London should not be required to have a referendum on the future governance of London until the Bill is through both Houses, but I shall not quibble; amendment No. 14 is satisfactory, allowing one month between the publication of the Bill and the referendum date. I would have hoped that in a spirit of good will, the Government would allow the stages in this House--the Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading of the Bill--to be completed.
The trouble is that the Government regard the entire exercise as an attempt to seek popular approval in a referendum for a model of government--a prototype--which will be appropriate for the European elections. That is not spelt out in precise terms; nothing is. The Green Paper is the vaguest Green Paper that I have ever read.
By rights the Government should by this stage have presented the House with infinitely clearer proposals. There is no expectation that even by the early spring, when the White Paper is due to be published, they will have formulated their ideas clearly. One might have imagined that they would have done so by the election. Instead, it was an exercise in sloganeering about how wonderful an elected mayor and assembly would be. There was no effort to analyse the policy and spell it out, either in the election campaign or in the Green Paper.
As there has been such a policy vacuum, the people of London should at the very least have a month to consider in careful detail the precise proposals for which the Government will seek the approval of the electorate in the referendum.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |