| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Livingstone: I take it into account, but I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I demolish it. There is a better turnout for the election of American mayors because they have real powers. American mayors run the police force and the health service in their local areas. That is a major job. In terms of their spending impact on the general public, mayors spend more than the governor or the President. If we created an assembly for London without a mayor and we gave it those major powers, I bet our turnouts would be much higher. People would say the members of the assembly were responsible for tackling crime in London. If the assembly were given the power, it would get the turnout.
The average American I have bumped into is never deeply consumed by the structures of government, and I have never been involved in any great debates on my holidays there about the wonders of the American structure of government. The Americans get involved in mayoral elections because mayors have real power. We have a low turnout in Britain because councils are now bound hand and foot by central Government. Councils are given budgets and left to decide what to cut, and that is why interest in local elections is declining.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
The turnout for the American presidential election, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is normally about 50 per cent. I argue that that is because all the personality, all the money and all the personal campaigning do not persuade people about policies and real commitments. When it is merely a question of failed individuals fighting each other, the election becomes a turn-off not a turn-on.
Mr. Livingstone:
I find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman's comments. Anything that increases the
Mr. Leigh:
What was the turnout in the last GLC election?
Mr. Livingstone:
The turnout was 44 per cent., which is not dramatically worse than the figures for mayoral elections. Mind you, Andrew McIntosh had a wonderful personality.
The Minister for London and Construction is the man responsible for steering this great constitutional change through the House. I thought that I could rely on him, with his sharp and dry mind, to focus on the real arguments. Certainly his Second Reading speech contained some interesting points. In answer to an intervention from the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) he said:
Earlier in the Minister's speech, I found the kernel of the Government's ideological support for their position. The Minister managed to get it down to two sentences--new Labour, very concise. We must remember that the Minister had built up to this point and all the way through his speech he kept saying that he was coming to it. He said:
There has been no debate in the Labour party. I went to what was called a consultation meeting of the Greater London Labour party, at which we discussed the proposal that appears in the Liberal Democrats' amendment. The Greater London Labour party assembled in conference and split into working groups to discuss whether we should have a separately elected mayor. The most crowded working group was the one that discussed the relationship between the mayor and the assembly. Nine
out of the 10 speeches opposed the principle of a separately elected mayor, but we were told, "You have got to have it because it was in the manifesto."
No one can mobilise any more arguments for it than the Minister can. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) referred to Labour's new legions as the terracotta army. That is unfair, because when you get close you can hear them all mumbling, "Its in the manifesto, it's in the manifesto." It's being in the manifesto does not justify a major constitutional change. I would like some more substance before we launch into a new method of government for which we have no background and which, looking at America, does not seem to be more effective.
As I have said, the Minister repeated his arguments in his article "A New Mayor for a New Millennium", but the reality is that the case has not been made. Recently, an opinion poll showed, for the first time, that a majority of Londoners were more in favour of a mayor than of an assembly. A head of steam is building up, engineered by the media, but the argument did not persuade the Greater London Labour party delegates who sat and discussed it. We sat in the working group and we proposed a vote on the matter. We were told that we could not have a vote, but demand was overwhelming. The result was nine to one against a separately elected mayor.
When the working party reported to the conference, we were forbidden to have a vote. That is not very democratic, when people are being consulted. Why could we not have a vote? Because those in charge knew that the Labour party leadership would face the embarrassment of the Greater London Labour party rejecting its proposal by nine to one. It is an absolute scandal that policy can be created like that. The policy has not arisen as a result of any detailed consultation with Labour party members in the House or in London.
Before the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)--he is a dear friend and I love him deeply--had to come along and browbeat the London Labour Members of Parliament and then went off to browbeat the London borough leaders who were meeting in caucus. He said that we had to go along with the policy because the leader wanted it and we did not want a big upset before the election. The party has gone along with the policy because we do not want to rock the boat, but before we vote for a system that no one has been able to persuade us will work, we should rock the boat.
I shall rock the boat a little more and say that we should trust Londoners. The Liberal Democrats' proposal would give Londoners a clear choice. If we were prepared to trust Londoners, we would have a debate in which Ministers could marshal their arguments and we could challenge them. If Ministers could persuade Londoners, Ministers would get their way, but they do not trust Londoners, which is why they will not be given a choice. Londoners will be told, "Take it or leave it." That is insulting to Londoners. We have just had a referendum in Scotland and we allowed the people to have two votes to decide about tax policy, but Londoners can have only one option.
Londoners are told that they cannot have the assembly without the mayor. Why not? Is it because we are frightened that we might re-create the GLC? Is that the fear of Ministers as much as it is the fear of the
Conservatives? I am not ashamed of the role of the GLC. The record of county hall under the GLC and the London county council shows huge achievements for London. I do not expect everyone to agree with that, but we should not deny Londoners the chance to decide what system of government they want. I am deeply ashamed of the way my party has proceeded tonight, because it is an offence to Londoners and an insult to their intelligence.
Mr. Pickles:
It is a great pleasure to follow that speech from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), not least because he tackled some serious questions and managed to do so in an amusing way. The truth of his comments about the inability of the House and the people of London to address an important constitutional change will make Labour Members feel deeply ashamed when they read Hansard in years to come.
The debate is encapsulated in a couple of sentences spoken by the Minister for Transport in London, on Second Reading. She said:
Why cannot we have two questions? I believe that there is a case for a mayor for London, who could act as a catalyst, as do mayors in other cities. I do not believe that a strategic authority is necessary. The difference between the Minister and me is that I am prepared to argue the point in public and I am prepared to allow the people of London to decide--to pass judgment on whether I am right or the Minister is right.
The hon. Member for Brent, East said that Scotland could cope with two questions, so why cannot the people of London cope with two questions? We have had an opportunity to have a good look at the Labour manifesto. If the hon. Gentleman consults it again, he will see that Scotland and in London are dealt with on exactly the same basis. There is no suggestion in the manifesto that there will be two questions for Scotland and only one question on a Greater London authority.
We were promised on Second Reading that we would be given cogent arguments to demonstrate why it would be impossible to have a mayor without a strategic authority. None came. All we got was the strange mantra, "We won the election. We have a big majority. Our Back Benchers will support us, because if they do not, they will be thrown out of the parliamentary party and deselected. Therefore, we are right."
A large majority does not remove the obligation to explain and to justify one's actions. The mere fact that there are more Labour Members than Opposition Members does not release the Minister from giving us a reason for the Government's position.
We are faced with three propositions: a proposition from Conservative Members that we should have a directly elected mayor; a proposition from the Liberal Democrats that we should have a strategic authority, from which a mayor might be elected; and a proposition from Labour Members that we should have both.
I do not suggest that we are right and everyone else is wrong; I suggest that we have an arguable case that deserves to be put to the people of London. Why be so hesitant? If the Government are so convinced by the arguments and so sure that our proposition will not work, let the people of London decide. It is not such a difficult issue.
Ultimately, Parliament decides in a democratic society. If we start to have referendums regularly--I am not entirely against the idea of referendums and I am attracted by some of what I have seen in the United States, in circumstances where there is a series of propositions to be decided--we must give the public a right to arrive at a judgment. If we do not ask a clear question, we will not get a clear result. The process is worthless unless the people have a right to decide.
People can vote yes in the referendum if they are in favour of a mayor, if they are in favour of a strategic authority or if they are in favour of both. They can vote no only if they are opposed to all three propositions.
We heard quotations from the Minister about the views of Londoners and about opinion polls and focus groups. He told us that the Government had looked into the matter carefully. We are used to seeing sham polls during election campaigns, suggesting that certain candidates have more support than others. It is likely that the polling organisations have begun to examine in detail the questions that they ask.
We know that the Minister has given much thought to the questions. He said on Second Reading, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman):
"go to New York, to see how that city has tackled the crime problem".--[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 592.]
The crime rate has gone down in New York because the mayor has hired 7,000 new police officers. The crime rate could be brought down in London if another 7,000 police officers were hired. I hope that that comment from the Minister means that he will give the new, powerful mayor the power to raise taxes to hire extra police officers to make an impact. That is the logic of his argument.
"A mayor alone, without an assembly, would wield too much power. An assembly alone, without a mayor, would not give London the focus and leadership that it so desperately needs."--[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 590.]
Is that the Government's justification for their proposal? I am prepared to give way to the Minister if he cares to intervene with some more reasons, but I fear that that is it--because that was what was in our manifesto. The Minister obviously thinks that it is an important point because it was repeated word for word in his article in The House Magazine this week, but we have been sold on a gimmick. Such gimmickry has dominated so much of the politics of the Labour party in the past few years. An idea hatches in Millbank tower, is passed up through the spin doctors, goes down well with a focus group in Chipping Sodbury, and suddenly we are all committed to the damn thing.
"This Government were elected on a manifesto promise to bring back democratic government to our capital. With the approval of the people of London, that is what we shall undoubtedly do."--[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 670.]
The hard truth is that that is exactly what the people of London will not get an opportunity to decide, because it has already been decided, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) observed, by the terracotta army saying, "It is in the manifesto."
"The question is one on which we have taken considerable advice, and we have tried to ensure that it is framed so as to be as comprehensible as possible to the widest range of Londoners. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there can be confusion with the framing of questions, and if the electorate are not clear there will not be a satisfactory outcome."--[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 593.]
The phrase "not . . . a satisfactory outcome" is rather ominous and sinister. The Minister is saying, in effect, that the Government are prepared to put a question to Londoners provided that Londoners say yes, but the Government are not prepared to put a question that allows the possibility of Londoners saying no.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |