| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I was laughing.
Mr. Forth: The junior Minister says that she was laughing. She laughed just at the point where I referred to the vivid account by the hon. Member for Brent, East of the Labour party's internal workings. If that does not confirm better than anything else his fears about the way in which his party is working, I do not know what does.
I leave that for Labour Members to work out, except to say that it is now on the record that his concerns, which he expressed with great sincerity, have been brushed off with artificial giggling and laughing by the Government Front-Bench team. That sums up perhaps better than anything the attitude with which Ministers came into the debate, which contrasts vividly with the attitudes of Opposition Members, both Conservative and Liberal Democrat, throughout the debate. I regret that. This is a sad day for London and for the legislation.
I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will think that Opposition Members' comments are worth contemplating, will reflect carefully on what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has suggested as a possible way forward, and will at last realise that the proposals will be materially improved if he allows that crucial flexibility that is suggested by the amendments.
Mr. Wilkinson:
We have been privileged to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East(Mr. Livingstone). Many of us suspected that there was a
There is a facile tendency, which many hon. Members have exposed, to believe that, if the capital city has a directly elected mayor, somehow, he will be a Dick Whittington figure and the capital's streets will again be paved with gold. It could be--we hope that it will if the people of London decide that we should have a directly elected mayor--that he will be a positive force to encourage investment and industrial and commercial regeneration of our capital city, which is already vibrant and buoyant, thanks to a successfully managed economy. However, the crucial effectiveness of his role will depend on his relationship with the assembly, because the authority is a single entity in the Government's eyes and it is the authority for which the Government are seeking approval in the question that Londoners will have to answer on 7 May.
It is noteworthy that the Government are asking a question that requests approval of their proposal for a Greater London authority, whereas the shadow Secretary of State and other Conservative Members are putting two essentially open questions of principle to the electorate. We ask:
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I should have preferred a third and crucial question--the question uppermost in most Londoners' minds--to be posed: "Do you wish the assembly to have revenue--raising powers?" However, my hon. Friends are wise to ask the question, "Do you wish for a directly elected assembly?" as the electorate will understand that such an authority implicitly must have revenue-raising powers.
Although the Green Paper is almost entirely in interrogative mode and begs many more questions than it answers, at least one thing is plain--that the mayor will set a budget. I can well comprehend why the Government do not wish to ask two questions in the referendum. If Londoners know anything, it is that an assembly will accrete powers to itself and will have ambitions. Its members, especially if they have no territorial or constituency responsibilities, will feel no compunction about asking for more revenue, because they will be
directly responsible to no one--or only to the upper hierarchy of the Labour party, as we were told by the hon. Member for Brent, East. There will be no built-in mechanism for economy, cost control or effective scrutiny. The mechanism that is so essential to budgetary management is wholly absent from the Government's proposals.
No one knows how the assembly will provide revenues for the mayor or what will happen if the mayor has over-arching ambitions--and he may have, as the post seems to be attracting some of the biggest egos in the country. It is a recipe for conflict, confusion and, ultimately, expensive chaos. It would have been so much better if the Government had had the honesty to recognise that what was provided for the electors in Scotland in their referendum should, at the very least, be provided for the electors in Greater London--two questions. The electors may want the mayor but not the assembly, or vice versa. They should have that choice.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
My hon. Friends have said that one of the jobs of the mayor will be to promote London as the capital city and to attract investment to it. I presume that, with the sort of person that we are likely to get as mayor of our capital city--a big ego and big expectations--that will involve travelling abroad, which will cost money. There are clearly revenue implications. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who, as an outer- London Member, has great knowledge of London, be prepared to speculate on the cost of selling London abroad?
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. Perhaps hon. Members could talk about the amendments rather than going wide of them.
Mr. Wilkinson:
It is tempting to speculate, but I will stick to the amendments.
We are also considering the Liberal Democrat amendment which would include among the questions asked:
In the eyes of the Government and of prospective candidates, the post of mayor attracts such interest because of the capital city's special nature. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, the post will attract globe trotters. It will also, appropriately, require much hospitality to be shown to visiting delegations.
Although I appreciate the good will of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in suggesting that there should be consultation, I do not think that his formulation is the right one. The consultations should be based on amendment Nos 18 and 19, which have been tabled by the shadow Secretary of State and other Conservative Members.
To ask the London electorate in a pre-legislative referendum,
Mr. Leigh:
A Committee stage is an opportunity to give short speeches. I take issue with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and think that, in this place, if one can reduce an argument to one or two sentences, it is all to the good. After two and a quarter hours of debate, I shall endeavour to make such a speech.
I was wrong, 12 years ago, when I was allowed, under the Conservative party's standing orders, to rebel over the future of the Greater London Council. I felt passionately about the issue, having worked as a young man in the GLC, having served on the GLC and having served as a borough councillor. I felt that what my party did then was wrong, because I felt that we were denying a voice to London. A landmark in my effortless rise in the Tory party was that, on many occasions, I rebelled on that issue.
I know now that I was wrong about the issue. Among the public in Greater London, there simply was not sufficient interest in the GLC. When the GLC was under Conservative control--let alone Labour control--it was, like the Department of Trade and Industry, an organisation in search of a role. That was the problem faced by the hon. Member for Brent, East--who had to develop all sorts of alternative roles and life styles for the GLC, which thereby lost the confidence of Londoners. The GLC had run out of time, and I was wrong to stand up for its future. I was right, however, to say that London needed a voice.
The Conservative party has now come up with the right solution, because there is a limit to Londoners' enthusiasm for another tier of government. Hon. Members may dismiss a mayoralty as a personality cult, but local government in London requires a mayoral election. It will generate real enthusiasm and regenerate interest in the problem. There is not enough business to do to sustain borough councils, a new assembly, a mayor and a Government--the whole lot.
I may be entirely wrong in saying that there is insufficient enthusiasm. Perhaps there is a role for an assembly, and perhaps all the arguments that we have heard will ensure that an assembly clips a mayor's powers. Ultimately, however--after two and a half hours of debate--I do not think that the Government can deny the choice of the people of London. The people will decide--trust them. Trust them to decide whether to have a mayor and an assembly, a mayor alone, or perhaps only an assembly. Why deny the people their choice?
"Are you in favour of a directly elected mayor for Greater London?"
We are asking whether they believe that the concept of a directly elected mayor is, of itself, beneficial for our capital city. Likewise, we ask:
"Are you in favour of a directly elected assembly for Greater London?"
All that the Government propose is that the electorate should accept hook, line and sinker the Government's proposals, which, as we have heard, remain almost entirely unclear.
"Q1. Are you in favour of regional government for London"?
Londoners are proud because they are the residents of our capital city. The do not consider it to be a region--it is the heart of the nation. It is where the decisions are made that govern the United Kingdom. They will think that the amendment is condescending in the extreme.
"Are you in favour of the government's proposals",
when those proposals are not yet clear--they cannot be clear until the legislation has been passed by the House and the other place--is asking those electors to sign a blank cheque. They should be asked to approve clear and specific questions. Ideally perhaps, they should be asked three questions, but two questions, as proposed by Conservative Members, would be entirely satisfactory.
9.15 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |