| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raynsford: Once again, we have had a long debate, in the course of which we have heard a great deal of posturing from the Opposition about the nature of democratic choice as exercised through a referendum. Let me remind the Opposition that had they been in power, there would be no referendum. There would be no debate tonight about whether there should be one vote, two votes, three votes or more; there would be no votes because the Conservatives made it clear in their election manifesto that they saw no need for a mayor or an assembly or any change in London government. They were complacent and backward-looking. They totally failed to read the mood of the public in London and realise how London had been damaged by the abolition of the GLC and the lack of a strategic authority; justifiably, they paid a serious price in the election.
Now, of course, the Opposition have changed their minds. They realised that they were left behind and they have started to adapt their policies. They accept that there may be a case for a mayor, but they have not yet come around to agreeing the need for an assembly. That is why we are hearing so much posturing from the Opposition who are simply trying to justify their partial conversion on the road to London, not Damascus.
Sir Norman Fowler:
The Minister refers to posturing by the Conservative party. Can he refer me to any Back-Bench speech that has supported his position?
Mr. Raynsford:
Can the right hon. Gentleman refer to any speech by a Back-Bench Labour Member other than that by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? That is a pretty thin argument. The right hon. Gentleman has to refer to only one person to try to imply something. That is absolutely in character. The right hon. Gentleman loves to use selective quotations and to massage the figures to support his case. He gave us a good example of that earlier when talking about newspapers. It was pretty rich. He gave the impression that all the press were in favour of his proposition.
The right hon. Gentleman has an interest in a newspaper that is published in the Birmingham area. Could he imagine a debate about the future of Birmingham in which he did not refer to the views of the local newspaper? Today, however, he managed to give the impression that all the media and the press were on his side, yet he conveniently forgot to mention at any point the views of London's newspaper, the Evening Standard. He did not do so because he knows perfectly well that the Evening Standard has rubbished his party's position.
The Evening Standard made it quite clear that the Conservative proposition for a mayor with an assembly made up of the borough leaders would not work and was impractical and that there should be a single vote based on the Government's proposal. The Evening Standard is right and, as so often, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the amendments, as they go to the heart of our proposals for a Greater London authority. Londoners will be given the
opportunity to vote on a clear proposal--whether or not to establish a Greater London authority made up of an elected mayor and an elected assembly. We shall make sure that the package that we put to Londoners is one that works and enables the new authority to get on with the real business at hand--addressing Londoners' needs and aspirations.
The mayor and the assembly are not separable. An authority without a directly elected mayor would be a very different organisation--one not qualified to give London the clear leadership that it needs. A mayor without an elected assembly to hold him or her to account would be too powerful and unaccountable. No one really believes that a part-time forum of borough leaders would ever have the time or the capacity to constitute an adequate check or balance. Frankly, the people of London should not be conned by the proposition from the Conservative party, which was opposed to any elected body to represent the interests of London.
Sir Norman Fowler:
Just say, for the sake of argument, that the hon. Gentleman is right. Why cannot he have the courage to put the proposition to the public of London?
Mr. Raynsford:
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I said a moment ago. We are putting a proposition to the people of London which his party would never have put to them. There would have been no questions if his party had won the election--not one vote, not two votes, not three votes, not four votes, but no votes. The Conservative party took away from Londoners the right to have their own strategic authority. It allowed Londoners no say. It is sheer hypocrisy to try to make such a fuss.
Mr. Raynsford:
I shall give way to the more civilised hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
Mr. Hughes:
I am quite prepared to accept that the Minister has been persuaded of the Government's view. The Government are entitled to put that view. The Minister has still not said why, if Londoners have a different view, the Government's view is better and the people's view is worse. Why not ask Londoners whether they agree with the Government?
Mr. Raynsford:
We have been consulting pretty intensively with Londoners and listening rather carefully to the views expressed. The most authoritative opinion poll--the one conducted by London Weekend Television, the Evening Standard and ICM Research in October--showed that 82 per cent. of those expressing an opinion were in favour of the Government's proposition of a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly. We are going to put precisely that to the test.
Let us consider for a moment arguments for more than one question. What would more than one question achieve? What would a second, third or fourth question
say? Inevitably, the question arises which issues ought to be put. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said in a generous--and perhaps misguided--moment that he would be prepared to waive the Liberal Democrat amendment in favour of whichever two propositions appeared to command the most support as a result of the consultation. I must tell him that the consultation has revealed an enormously varied series of priorities.
There are people who are most concerned about electoral systems; there are people who are most concerned about the financing of the authority; there are people who are most concerned about the relationship between the mayor and the assembly; there are people who are most concerned about the powers of the authority.
The consideration of such responses could only result in the kind of process that has led the London borough of Wandsworth to a curious proposition on the form of the questions. Wandsworth has submitted proposals to us, which suggest not just one, not just two, not just three, but four questions. However, the questions are phrased in such a way that they actually imply about seven or eight questions. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said on Second Reading that, if one analyses the questions closely enough, one sees 11 separate questions.
Mr. Pickles:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raynsford:
No, I am not giving way. I am answering a question arising from a previous intervention.
The suggestion that one should have 11 questions in a referendum is simply fatuous, and not one that we as a Government could seriously entertain.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
I accept that all sorts of issues will be priorities for respondents to the consultation. The point that I am putting to the Minister is not that our view, the Conservatives' view or the view of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is necessarily the best alternative. One could even allow the two most popular views in the consultation on the question of the structure of London government. The issue is not what are the alternatives but whether we give voters the choice.
Mr. Raynsford:
If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he will inevitably recognise that even his party and the Conservatives cannot agree on the formulation of wording to achieve that effect. In practice, the Liberal Democrats' amendment would make it impossible for Conservative Members to vote for what I understand to be their preference: a mayor without an assembly. There is no way under the formulation proposed by the Liberal Democrats in which that preference could be expressed. So we have perfect evidence of why it is impossible to do justice to the myriad views that people are expressing through the form of a notional second question. There is not a notional second question. There is a series of possible second, third and fourth--and many more--questions.
Mr. Raynsford:
The right hon. Gentleman says no, but--
Sir Norman Fowler:
On his proposed ballot paper, the Minister will ask the public whether they approve of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. Those are two questions. If the Liberal Democrats agreed with us that those should be the two questions, would the Government accept that?
9.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |