House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Nov 1997 (pt 13)

Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield): The debate so far has been unsatisfactory because the Government have refused to move on any of their propositions and, in particular, on allowing two questions in the referendum. Outside the Government, there are very few people who support having only one question.

The Minister often accuses me of never quoting the London Evening Standard. I am happy to break that record by quoting this evening's edition, which contains an article with the unpromising--for the Minister--headline:

"Blair faces revolt over London mayor".

24 Nov 1997 : Column 660

The article states:

"Tony Blair today faced a grassroots revolt from his party activists over the Government's plans for a 'Voice of London' directly-elected mayor and assembly to run the capital.

Mr. Blair was hit by criticism of his one-question referendum next May. Many Labour branches and trade unions urge a rethink to allow at least two questions to establish if Londoners want both an assembly and a figurehead mayor brought in from outside its ranks . . . The submissions made to the Government about its plans also include a demand--from Mr. Raynsford's own Greenwich constituency local government committee--for the new assembly to be given tax-raising powers. Another from Ms Jackson's Hampstead and Highgate expresses 'considerable unease about the . . . role of the mayor' and calls for separate questions."

There is a consensus that there are two issues. [Interruption.] I can establish it in even greater detail if the House wishes. Should we have a directly elected mayor and should we have a directly elected assembly? The Conservative party's view is clear. We support a directly elected mayor, but we do not favour a directly elected assembly, and therefore want two questions in the referendum. In that, we are supported by a host of newspapers which, for some reason, the Minister never wishes me to quote against him, such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph.

The Liberal Democrats take a different view on the policy but we are at one in wanting more than one question. Some Labour Back Benchers also take a different view on the policy. It is significant that in this debate we have heard only one Back-Bench speech from a Labour Member. Even with the Minister's renowned optimism in claiming support, he could not claim that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was exactly coming out in support of his line.

In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Brent, East told us that he

"went to what was called a consultation meeting of the Greater London Labour party"

at which

"Nine out of the 10 speeches opposed the principle of a separately elected mayor". The hon. Gentleman continued:

"If we are prepared to trust Londoners, we would have a debate in which Ministers could marshall 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.'" He added:

"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."--[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 403.] Even with the Minister's sunny disposition, he may find it a wee bit difficult to claim that that was a declaration of undying support for his cause.

5.15 pm

Even more significantly, there are others who support the Government's proposals--though not many, to judge from tonight's speeches. The Guardian came out in favour of them. However, in a now famous--or should it be infamous--omission, the Minister did not quote its statement that while it certainly was in favour of what he

24 Nov 1997 : Column 661

was saying he should make the argument in a campaign. The point is that not only opponents but supporters of the Government's position want two questions.

The matter reveals an amazing lack of confidence. In its manifesto, the Labour party said that the purpose of its referendum was to confirm public demand. How can public demand be confirmed if the public are not allowed to express their view? The Government hope that support for a mayor will pull through the more unpopular idea of an elected assembly. Whether I am right or wrong, I believe that that proposition should be put to the test. It is the Government who have decided to hold the referendum, so they should follow the logic of their decision and allow two questions. Let London and Londoners decide, because that is the way that they wish to do it. As it stands, clause 1 is unsatisfactory and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: First, Sir Alan, I apologise for not using your new title when I spoke last Wednesday. Your elevation had temporarily escaped me.

Like the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), we believe that clause 1 should be deleted. That would allow the Bill to proceed, but we could perfectly properly go back to the matter on Report to get a first clause in proper form. We hope that the House will shortly vote to delete the clause, but I wish to amplify the reasons that I gave last week and expand on the references made by the Conservative spokesman.

Last Wednesday, under some pressure from the Opposition, the Minister conceded--for which we were grateful--that the responses to the consultation should be made available. Diligent as ever, my team went and knocked on the door of the library in Marsham street at the appointed hour of 1 pm on Friday afternoon. They were admitted and, in the four hours available to them before the library closed, they went through the responses. As a result, the world now knows the weight of the Labour party opposition to the Government's submission. I have photocopies of the relevant documents which gave rise to today's story in the Evening Standard.

It is clear from the first published analysis of the replies to the Government's consultative Green Paper on London Government that the Government's views and those of many London Labour Members of Parliament are poles apart. There is now clear evidence of widespread Labour opposition to a directly elected mayor, as well as support for a referendum with more than one question.

As we heard last Wednesday, the Government have not listened to the views of their Back Benchers, the Opposition or people outside. Perhaps the extent to which those views are in the public domain will mean that they will be taken seriously into account. I hope that they will, because if Labour Back Benchers are unhappy, they should be in a position to influence the Government.

Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister is suggesting either that Labour Back Benchers are not unhappy or that they are in no position to influence the Government. I would put money on the latter.

24 Nov 1997 : Column 662

I wish to cite the evidence which, to me, is unambiguous. I will start with the Minister's own constituency. The Greenwich Labour party local government committee wrote on 18 October 1997:

"Our Committee discussed the consultation paper . . . Votes were taken on a number of issues which arose during the discussion, and I was asked to pass to you our views on these issues."

Interestingly, the letter was not addressed to the Minister, but to "The London Debate"--a cover-all title. It may have been embarrassing for the committee to write to its constituency Member of Parliament on this issue.

The third item on the agenda of the Greenwich committee was:

"The assembly should have tax-raising powers".

The first item was:

"The principle of 'equal opportunities' should be paramount in the new structure, and this should in particular apply to candidates for mayor and for the assembly."

No one is arguing about that. The second item was:

"There should be a limit on the time any one person should hold the office of mayor."

There is no great dispute about that.

The Greenwich local government committee argued specifically for tax-varying powers and suggested that the authority should have some responsibility for health in London--a suggestion which the Government have studiously ignored. My party would wish to go further than the Greenwich committee.

The Islington, South and Finsbury constituency Labour party--the constituency of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport--asked for:

"Strategic overview of health provision, and community care and long-term care"--

something for which my party has long argued. It added:

"The Mayor/Chair/Leader should be elected from amongst its membership."

It cannot be clearer than that. The constituency party also felt that the GLA

"should have the power to precept."

I shall return to that matter.

The London Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform produced a well-argued letter, saying:

"Strong feelings of disquiet were expressed that Londoners have not been consulted at all about whether they want a directly, and separately, elected Mayor for London.

A directly elected Mayor, and separately from the assembly that s/he will represent, makes it highly likely that there will differences in the policy that they want to enact . . . We should be very wary of introducing such a system here."

The letter argues that Londoners have not had an opportunity to indicate how they want the devolved powers to be implemented:

"Even with a longer consultation period the Green Paper does not ask for input regarding the mayor and whether a separate election is desirable".

The Belsize and Adelaide branch of the Hampstead and Highgate Labour party--the constituency of the Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)--produced a relatively long submission, which said:

"We appreciate that a referendum on whether to have a London Authority with a directly elected mayor was promised in the election manifesto. It would therefore be wrong to go back on this.

24 Nov 1997 : Column 663

However, our own discussions have shown that many of those who support a Greater London Authority do not wish to go so far outside the British tradition as to support the idea of a directly elected mayor--which does have some dangers of landing us--

this is reminiscent of the speech by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) the other day--

"with inexperienced and unsuitable mayors promoted by skilled advertising campaigns."

What a surprise. The submission continued:

"This outcome is not exactly unknown in America!"

It went on to make the case for a two-question referendum.

The Brent Labour party--which covers not only the constituency of the hon. Member for Brent, East, but that of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)--said: