| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raynsford: The most striking thing about that consultation was that the then Government did not choose to ask the people of London whether there was a need for a strategic authority for London, despite which 30 per cent. of respondents said that they wanted a strategic
authority for London. That showed Londoners' response to the bogus attempt at consultation by the previous Government.
We have said clearly that we are consulting the people of London and we will lay before them the full details of the Government's proposals in a White Paper. We will also ensure that every household in London receives a neutral and factual summary of the White Paper, setting out the proposals on which they will be asked to vote, as well as other initiatives, to ensure that everyone knows what the issues are.
Mr. Pickles:
Give us the date.
Mr. Raynsford:
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come to that. He is terribly impatient. I assure him that I will give him the answer that he is looking for. We intend to publish the White Paper--[Interruption.] If Conservative Members could restrain themselves, they might be interested in this. We intend to publish the White Paper during or before the week commencing 23 March.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) asked whether the definition of spring was within that period. He made the point that spring technically begins on 21 March. Therefore, we intend to publish the White Paper at the earliest opportunity in the spring. That will allow six weeks for the issues to be considered fully by the people of London, before they vote in the referendum on 7 May.
Mr. Wilkinson:
The Minister is making a point of great importance in announcing that, some six weeks before the referendum day, the electorate of London--every household--will receive a copy of the White Paper. Will the Government facilitate the issue of literature to the contrary? For example, will the no campaign--if such a campaign materialises--have freepost facilities?
Mr. Raynsford:
I have said that we will publish a factual and neutral summary of the proposals. There will be no public funding for either a yes campaign or a no campaign. The Government will set out the options and invite the people of London to make a choice. That is the right and proper course for the Government to follow.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) talked about the merits of publishing legislation and giving a period of perhaps a month for people to consider it before they voted in a referendum. Legislation is of necessity often very technical. The Bill to give effect to our proposals on London will inevitably involve many technical provisions. The idea that the electorate of London should have one month to absorb highly technical legislation, while the concept of giving people six weeks to digest a White Paper expressed in clear English is rejected, shows a curious sense of how to ensure the best possible public consultation.
Mr. Ottaway:
Will the Minister give an undertaking that there will be no changes between publication of the White Paper and the First Reading of the Bill--that there will be no changes between the detail of the White Paper and that in the Bill?
Mr. Raynsford:
Of course I cannot give that undertaking because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the
We are holding the referendum on 7 May deliberately to gain the benefits from combining the poll with local government elections. That will result in a considerable saving in public expenditure, which I would have thought all hon. Members would welcome. Separating the referendum date from the local election day would probably result in additional public expenditure of some £2 million to £3 million and could reduce voter turnout. That is not in the interests of democracy or of economy, and the Government do not intend to propose that.
As for the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon, South, I cannot believe that he is suggesting that the interests of democratic choice are best served by asking the people of London to scrutinise a Bill with 100 or more clauses.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings):
The Minister wants the referendum to be held on the same day as local elections. Is that because he fears the possibility of a derisory turnout in the referendum, thus removing the mandate to act? I am mindful of course of the experience in Wales. To support what I have said, may I tell him that I was in Greenwich this morning discussing the matter? Not only had no one to whom I spoke heard of the Minister, but no one had heard of these proposals.
Mr. Raynsford:
It was a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has only just arrived in the Chamber and clearly did not listen when I spelled out the obvious financial advantages. Before he says anything more, I advise him that he does not appear to have honoured the normal parliamentary courtesy of giving a Member of Parliament notice that he is visiting his constituency.
We propose that Londoners will have the chance to scrutinise clear and comprehensive proposals in the White Paper. It will then be for Parliament to scrutinise legislation, taking account of the content of the White Paper and the verdict of the people of London. People who suggest that the referendum should take place after Parliament has completed consideration of a Bill support a strange constitutional concept that would make the House subordinate to a referendum. Our referendum will precede parliamentary consideration. This House will have the final say. That is right and proper, and in accordance with the constitution of this country.
Mr. Pickles:
I want to press the Minister on a couple of important points. He said that he will produce the White Paper in the early part of March. Is he giving an undertaking that the Government's preferred position on important matters--who pays, where the powers come from, the respective roles of the mayor and the strategic authority--will be explicitly laid out for the people of London?
Mr. Raynsford:
I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, who obviously has not been following the Government's statements, that the decisions will be
Sir Paul Beresford:
A few other considerations have been mentioned in the debate, the key ones being the source of the financing and the Government's suggestion that the new authority and mayor will be more efficient. Will the Minister explain how they will be more efficient?
Mr. Raynsford:
The White Paper will spell out what the Green Paper showed--winding up the complex and undemocratic raft of quangos left by the previous Government and creating a more streamlined and coherent administration will achieve significant savings and ensure that the objective we have spelled out in the Green Paper is met. We do not envisage its resulting in an increase in public expenditure. That is not what we are interested in; we are interested in good, efficient administration that will ensure that Londoners themselves have a democratic say in how their city is governed. We want them to have the prospect of an efficient authority delivering the services that Londoners want.
The proposal favoured by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is close to our proposal. He wants a reasonable period for consideration of the White Paper proposals before the vote. We are not far apart. We believe that six weeks is adequate; he would like it to be two months. If it had been possible to complete all the work necessary within that time, we would have wanted to do so. However, we are working to a tight time scale and we want to provide a full opportunity to consider and discuss all the relevant issues with all the interested parties.
The hon. Gentleman obviously recognises the difficulties, because his amendment specifically exempts the electoral arrangements from the requirement of two months' notice. I hope that, having received that assurance, he will feel that he does not need to press his amendment.
7 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |