---

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): It was a pleasure earlier this evening to listen to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who made a powerful case against a directly elected mayor. It is a shame that the Labour party's illiberal standing orders do not allow him to join us, the Liberal Democrats, in the Lobby when the Division takes place. The hon. Gentleman would be welcome there.

I shall explain why we, the Liberal Democrats, wish to argue for a two-question referendum so as to allow the people of London to choose the form of government that will govern them. I shall explain why we believe that we should trust the people of London to make that choice.

The hon. Member for Brent, East said that the arguments for a directly elected mayor are very weak. The arguments for a one-question referendum are even weaker. The Government have justified offering only a one-question referendum--a take-it-or-leave-it referendum--by saying that they have a mandate as a result of the general election. They have elaborated on that on Second Reading and on other occasions. They say that the Labour party's election manifesto was a package and that it has to be presented as a whole. That is the package of the mayor, the assembly and the referendum.

Let us examine that argument. Elsewhere in the Labour party's manifesto, there are other packages. How are the Government matching up in putting those into practice? They will tell us that they had a mandate to ban tobacco advertising. That was to apply, for example, to cricket, darts and formula one motor racing. The Government have unpacked that mandate and promise and broken them. It seems that they felt fairly happy in doing so.

Why cannot the Government unpackage the London proposals? Why cannot they revisit the Labour party's manifesto and say that the mandate is flexible? The Government should take care when they rely on the mandate argument. Indeed, mandate arguments are often flawed; they are devices behind which Governments can hide. Parties that believe that a majority in the House gives them a mandate for detailed policy proposals are, in my view, guilty of arrogance.

I accept that a mandate was achieved for the principle of democratic governance for London. My colleagues and I put that to the electorate and together we certainly achieved a large majority for the proposal. That was not in any way a mandate for a directly elected mayor.

It is surprising that the Government have not learned from their lessons when in Opposition. The previous Government abolished the Greater London council on the basis of one line in the Conservative party's manifesto in the 1983 general election. There are many other examples of the previous Government driving incredibly unpopular policies through the House on the basis that they had a mandate.

We all know that, when voters go into polling booths, the vast majority of them have not read every word or sentence in our parties' manifestos. It is dangerous and

19 Nov 1997 : Column 407

arrogant to suggest that a vote on one day gives a party when in Government a mandate to implement all of its policies with every i and every t. It is a question of trust. If the Government showed that they were prepared to put trust in the people, they would legitimise the principle of democratic government in London to a far greater extent.

The history of government in London shows how unstable it has been. There have been many structures of government over the past 100 years. We started with the London county council. We heard earlier, in an intervention from the hon. Member for Brent, East, that, 10 years after the then Tory Government created the LCC, they were trying to get rid of it. Eventually, it was abolished, to be replaced by the GLC, which in turn was abolished. It is important that, in introducing a new London government, we ensure that it has much greater legitimacy than its predecessors so that we do not continue chopping and changing and reinventing the wheel every two or three decades.

The only way in which we shall achieve full legitimacy for the new London government is by giving the voters a choice. That choice will strengthen the future London government so that another Government presiding in this place 20 or 30 years down the line will not feel so able to abolish or reform London government or to gerrymander the results of elections for that government.

I do not understand why the Government lack confidence in these matters.

Mr. Raynsford: We do not.

Mr. Davey: If that is so, they should accept the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Surely the point of a referendum is to introduce a much more detailed mandate on a policy proposal. Why not let the voters come to decisions on all aspects of the Government's policy proposals and not merely on the package as a whole? Let the Government unpack their proposals and give the people of London a proper chance to register their voice. What would the people decide if the options were open to them? The answer is that we do not know.

On the basis of the amendments, three potential options would be open to the people. We do not know for which they would opt but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that they would not support the Government's current proposal. They would not back the proposed US-style system of a separately elected mayor and assembly. I feel that, as the details of the Government's proposals are more widely known, support for them will decrease.

The problem with a directly elected mayor is that one person can never represent the range of views that are contained in a city such as London--a city with such a varied range of cultures, such a wide variety of socio-economic groups, and, indeed, voting patterns. With debate, with choice, I believe that people would see that problem.

A separately elected mayor with a separate mandate from that of the assembly can never be fully accountable to it. He or she would always be able to point to his or her separate mandate and ignore the views of the assembly. Vast powers would be placed in the hands of one person, who could be held to account only every four years. Such a concentration of power causes genuine

19 Nov 1997 : Column 408

concern as the details of the Government's proposals are more widely debated. That is why one question is not enough. A take-it-or-leave-it question is characteristic of eastern Europe before the wall came down--a sort of Albanian referendum, or, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) argued earlier, a rubber stamp referendum. It does not offer choice.

8.45 pm

It is even more astonishing that, after widespread consultation, the Government are still sticking to their one-question proposal. We have not yet had the chance to read the replies to the consultation; we shall do so with great interest. When we have spoken informally to people who replied to the consultation, they have expressed concerns about the mayor, as have many London local authorities and London-wide organisations, for example London Youth Matters. They believe that an all-powerful mayor would leave them stranded from the democratic process, because they might not have access to his or her office, where all the power would be concentrated.

The Green Paper gives some idea of how powerful the mayor will be. We are told that the mayor will set the strategic objective for London; that he or she will have certain powers of appointment; that he or she will speak up for London, increase competitiveness, attract investment and push forward major civic projects. We are told in particular that he or she will propose budgetary and strategic plans. The fact that huge financial power will be in one individual's hands sets a very worrying precedent.

The Spice Girls might not have been quite so popular over the past few months--

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): Who?

Mr. Davey: The Spice Girls. I believe that my hon. Friend had not heard of the Spice Girls until very recently.

If the Spice Girls suddenly became more popular, perhaps Baby Spice or Mel B would stand for election. The huge budget for the whole of our capital could be decided and plans could be put forward by Mel B, and the assembly would not have the power to ensure that she spent the money wisely. Surely it makes much more sense that the assembly has power over the budget.

I hope that the Government will think again and allow a two-question referendum in the form that we propose. If they have enough faith in their arguments, they will, and Londoners will respect them for it. However, if the Government continue to distrust the people of London to choose the form of government most appropriate for them, they risk setting up a constitutional structure of conflict and insecurity, one that may not stand the test of time and one that could potentially be a disaster.

I urge Ministers to use the referendum to get a real mandate for democratic government for London and give the new authority real and lasting legitimacy.

Mr. Forth: The debate has surely illustrated--better than anything that one could have anticipated--the hazards of referendums as a mechanism for policy making. To those who are sceptical about referendums, that comes as no surprise but, even to the enthusiasts, for this way of seeking political decisions, it should have

19 Nov 1997 : Column 409

become pretty obvious by now that, at least, it is unsatisfactory, and, at worst, it can be very dangerous. We need only glance at the amendment paper and note the wording of the proposals that have been set before the Committee to gather very quickly that all this has the potential to go very wrong.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a very generous offer earlier, but, on reflection, I am not sure how it can be followed through. I think that the hon. Gentleman was saying that, although his wording might not be ideal, if we could go along with it--or something like it--we could all chat among ourselves afterwards and, in some way, return to the matter later. I doubt that that is the case in procedural terms, but it shows that, even after giving all the thought that I suspect the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends gave to the matter, and even after they came up with the rather convoluted formula that is offered to us in the amendment, the hon. Gentleman--albeit in a spirit of flexibility--is saying, "Well, if that does not ask quite the right question, I would be prepared to talk about something that does." In fact, as the hon. Gentleman conceded to me at the time, his question fails to offer a key option to the people of London--an option that must surely be available to them.

---