| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ottaway: It does not say "or".
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that their proposal does not say "or". Indeed, one could vote yes, yes, and there would be a directly elected mayor and an assembly. But one could also vote yes, no, as many Conservatives wish--we disagree--and have a mayor and nobody else. That is apart from the Conservatives' amendment that would create a cabal of local government leaders who would hold the directly elected mayor to account. We shall debate later whether local government leaders should do that job.
The Liberal Democrats ask two simple questions. The first is the logical first question: "Do you want a democratic government for London--yes or no?" If the
answer is yes, a second question would be: "What sort of government do you want?" We do not think that it is beyond the wit of Londoners to understand or answer that question.
One choice is government on the Westminster model, in which the primus inter pares--the Prime Minister--is chosen from among the elected Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister is accountable to this place, and loses his or her authority if this place takes it away. That is the model proposed for the Scottish Parliament. The alternative has never been tried in this country--a separate election, so that, whatever the view of the assembly of the day, the directly elected mayor remains in office, at least potentially, for the whole term, irrespective of democratic support.
We believe that there should be two questions. It could be argued that there should be more, but the essential difference is between those who want only one and those who want more than one.
The debate is simple. To their credit, the Conservatives have tabled proposals for two questions. We have also put forward two questions--different from the Conservatives' questions. The Government propose one question. The principle of two questions--"Are you in favour of a London government?" and "Are you in favour of a directly elected mayor or a non-directly elected mayor form of government?"--is more important than the exact drafting of our amendment or any other. I ask hon. Members to vote for our amendment, without necessarily signing up to the specific wording. We need to establish the principle of two questions.
Mr. Hughes:
Let me just finish. I undertake to the right hon. Gentleman, who desperately wants to intervene again, that I am happy to negotiate with hon. Members from both sides to find the best wording for two questions that could establish whether people want London government and what sort of government they want.
That is detail, which can be sorted out before next Monday, when we conclude the Committee stage, between Committee and Report, or even between the consideration in this House and consideration in the other place. If we at least agree tonight that there should be two questions, we shall have made great progress, reflecting the differences of view in London, which will not otherwise be expressed.
Mr. Forth:
The hon. Gentleman has made the Committee a characteristically generous offer, which I am sure we all want to consider. Will he extend his generosity to an undertaking that it would be essential for the negotiating process that he envisages to provide for the questions--two or more, however many there may be--to allow Londoners to express a view on whether they want a mayor without an assembly, or an assembly without a mayor? That key option is missing from his formulation. If I want a mayor and no assembly, I cannot support his amendment.
Mr. Hughes:
That is a valid point. Some Conservatives have taken that position. I would rather have discussions that left that as an option. I am in favour of opening the options to the voters, not closing them. That must be
No proposal ever made by women and men is perfect. No Government get it right all the time. I accept that many Labour Members believe that their proposal is the best available, although some have a different view.
Mr. Forth:
There are not many of them here.
I know the pressure that Labour Members are under, but I ask them to vote for the amendment, not because they sign up to the words in detail, regarding them as unamendable, but on the basis that it would start a process of considering the options for more than one question. If we do that, we can start trying to find the best form of government. Even if some hon. Members do not want any form of London government, at least we have to give people the choice.
Mrs. Gorman:
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern to let Londoners have the biggest say. What level of turnout would he consider necessary to make the vote valid? We have already heard--
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants to get into that, because it has nothing to do with the amendments. There are other amendments on that. Perhaps the hon. Lady could intervene in those debates.
Mr. Hughes:
I was with you that time, Mr. Martin. I was about to tell the hon. Lady that amendments on that were coming up later, and we could debate the matter then, if she was patient. Some of my hon. Friends are particularly ready for that debate, which may come on Monday, so we have time to prepare ourselves.
One option is an assembly elected by the people under a fair process. That assembly would then elect its leader--the mayor--and the mayor would then choose the cabinet. That is what we want--just like the House of Commons. The alternative is a system that gives huge powers to the mayor, who has no necessary and direct accountability to the assembly.
I have given the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) one of my happily not extremely rare copies of our response, submitted in time to the Government, available to the wider public from Friday in Marsham street--sorry, from Eland house; that is a nicer building. It is also available to other hon. Members if they want it. It is called "Home Rule for London".
We set out clearly there our view that a cabinet headed by a mayor who is an assembly member provides the most responsive form of government--more responsive than a directly elected mayor. We are not saying that the idea of a directly elected mayor has no merit, but there are risks.
If one of my hon. Friends catches your eye later, Mr. Martin, I hope that we shall be able to elaborate on some of the risks.
Israel changed its voting system not many years ago. The Prime Minister is now directly elected, not elected by the Knesset. That is a model.
Mr. Livingstone:
It is bleeding awful.
Mr. Hughes:
The hon. Gentleman gives a characteristically succinct view. I have never heard the Israeli electoral system commended for giving stable government.
Mr. Leigh:
It is proportional.
Mr. Hughes:
It is a proportional system, with such a low threshold that the parties splinter all over the place. Many of us do not argue for that.
A few places in the world, including the United States, have directly elected mayors. The mayor of New York was re-elected recently. However, not only is it not common in Britain--it is also very rare in Europe. Ministers try to hide the fact, but very few places in Europe have directly elected mayors.
Mr. Hughes:
So nothing, other than the fact that it is an untried model. We believe that one reason why the rest of Europe has not gone down that road is that it gives too much power to one person and too little to the general body.
The powers of the mayor can be qualified. We propose that, if 90 per cent. of the assembly thought that the mayor had gone mad or was corrupt, they could vote him or her out. We also propose that, if 10 per cent. of the electorate of London thought that the mayor had clearly gone off the rails, they should be able to vote that mayor out. If the Government win the day and there is a directly elected mayor, we shall be keen to ensure a power of recall to deal with such problems.
There are also ways of unblocking logjams. If the assembly did not agree on a budget and the mayor took a different view, we propose that the mayor could call an election.
But these are not comfortable systems; they are systems that require the overturning of a huge constitutional boulder. It is surely more democratic that a whole load of us should be collectively responsible, and act collectively as people whom the electorate can influence. We are a collective assembly of elected representatives accountable to the people we serve.
Mr. Leigh:
I recall that there was not much interest in the GLC until the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) managed to liven it up a bit. The advantage of a directly elected mayor is that it would generate at least some interest in the process. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about a re-created GLC which would result only in one huge yawn from most of the people of London.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |