| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: Even a casual perusal of the clause would lead the Committee to conclude that it is either a bit of a tease or deliberately obscure. The very first word of the clause, "If", leaves us in some doubt about the Government's intentions. We might expect their intentions to be somewhat clearer at this stage, the Green Paper notwithstanding. [Interruption.] We are immediately confronted with the possibility that--[Interruption.]
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Only one Member should be addressing the Chamber. We cannot have conversations in the Chamber.
Mr. Forth: We are left with the possibility that the Secretary of State may direct the Local Government Commission, or he may not. I assume that it is plausible that the Secretary of State may not give such a direction, in which case would we be entitled to make certain assumptions about the way in which the matter would proceed? Presumably, given the indication we have already had of the sort of numbers involved in the assembly, it would not be unreasonable to assume one member per borough. That is a straightforward and workable assumption. From that would flow the further assumption that it would be one member per borough elected on a first-past-the-post system, which would be clear and well understood by Londoners. It would be a straightforward approach. Matters then become more complicated because, as I read the clause--the Minister will clarify this in due course--if the Secretary of State were to decide to give a direction to the Local Government Commission, that would lead to the provisions in subsection (1)(a). I am genuinely intrigued because that ties the Secretary of State's hands and, therefore, those of the Local Government Commission. It refers to "showing the electoral areas"--that is plural--
- "into which it recommends that Greater London should be divided".
That appears to preclude the possibility of London being one area for the purpose of the election. One distinct possibility being considered by those who are more in favour of proportional representation than I am is that
- London would be a single area with a single list from which the electorate could choose its members, but the clause clearly says "areas". That is quite a strong hint from the Government that they are precluding the possibility of one approach that could be taken under a system of proportional representation.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but that seems an odd approach if the Government genuinely have an open mind. If they decide not to go down the straightforward route that I would prefer of one member per borough, first past the post--which is easily understood, something to which Londoners could readily relate, and would give the size of assembly that the Government have said that they would prefer--surely the Secretary of State would want to direct the commission to look at a number of other ways of organising the election. But there is the problem of the wording as one of the ways that could be pursued will not be allowed, if I read the Bill correctly. Of course, we all know that it is hazardous for an hon. Member to read and interpret a Bill, but we must do it to elucidate the Government's intentions.
The clause then refers--it is now more logical--to the number of areas and members and directs the commission to state
"the name by which it recommends that each such electoral area should be known."
As I have already said, if we stuck to the straightforward traditional approach, that would not be a requirement because the areas would be the familiar boroughs. That would be elegant and straightforward. If we give some artificial name to areas, we must immediately ask what sort of relationship voters in London would feel they had with the areas cobbled together by the commission under the direction of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. There is potential confusion from the attempt to group boroughs into the sort of areas that underlie the wording in the clause. Presumably, one of the options hinted at in the clause, if I read it correctly, is that the electoral areas could be the existing European Parliament constituencies, which gives the possibility of 10 areas for London. We are then in a little difficulty: would the number of members of the assembly divide neatly by 10 or would there be variable numbers per area? Would there be sufficient members in each of the 10 areas to give meaning to anything other than a first-past-the-post system?
Mr. Pickles: If my hon. Friend is right and the number of members will not be divisible by 10, and if a system other than first past the post is used, how will electors be able to get rid of someone elected to the assembly who they feel has let them down?
Mr. Forth: That is a valid and searching question--it is typical of my hon. Friend--but it is not one which I feel
obliged to answer as I am not defending such a method of election. The Committee must explore the possibilities that lie within clause 7. It is striking that there is almost infinite cause for confusion and very little hope of clarity emerging from the process described in the clause. Perhaps Ministers have some as yet unrevealed desire and well worked-out plan up their sleeve--having undergone the sham process of issuing a Green Paper--but they will not say. Perhaps they will say to the commission, "This is what we want to do." If so, Ministers might do us all a favour, shortening events considerably--I am trying to be helpful--by telling us what is in their minds, short-circuiting all the anguish that I am going through right now. Worse than Ministers having a well thought-out, predetermined plan would be if--heaven forfend--they had not a clue of what they would do about electoral arrangements and were groping through a fog of confusion, hoping that the Local Government Commission will get them off the hook. That would not do. Depending on the nature of the directions given by the Secretary of State on whether my analysis of that key word "areas", in the plural, ties the commission's hands--as I suggest that it will--and on whether it is likely that the number of assembly members that Ministers have suggested they would prefer fits in with the number of European constituencies, or with some other formulation that I have not yet been able to devise myself, we shall have in London under the proposals a satisfactory system that makes sense to Londoners and induces them to vote, providing some accountability and identifiability of electors with representatives, or we shall not.
Mr. Lansley: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is proceeding on the basis that the commission, under the direction that it will be given, is to divide the total number of members into the electoral areas? What if Ministers plan to have an additional member election system for the assembly, by which a number of assembly members will be elected on an all-London basis while others will be elected on a constituency basis? How will the commission interpret the Government's intentions when the direction in the Bill seems simply to assume that the total number of members will be divided into the number of electoral areas?
Mr. Forth: Undoubtedly, we shall shortly receive an answer to that question--although, if I were my hon. Friend, I would not hold my breath. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has led me very neatly to the next subsection, which provides that the direction will specify both the number of electoral areas and the total number of members. Such a direction will leave to the hapless commission the job of making sense of the electoral system that will be devised--which must make sense not only in representative terms, by representing the people of London, but in the nature of the assembly itself. He has very perceptively asked whether one can make sense of an alternative member system, for example, in a system consisting of such a relatively small assembly and a relatively small number of members. There is a real danger that Ministers have painted themselves into a corner by having predetermined a smallish assembly for an area as enormous as London.
By the by, is it not interesting that Scotland, which has fewer people than Greater London, will be given an assembly with, from memory, 170 members? That size of assembly is deemed necessary properly to represent the people of Scotland; yet it is thought that Londoners--with the huge variety of views and circumstances in London--will be represented properly by a very small assembly. That question has not yet been answered.
Sir Paul Beresford: I take my right hon. Friend's point about the Government painting themselves into a corner but, as he pointed out, the clause begins with the little word "If", and the Bill later states that if the Government do not like the report, they can throw it back and start again.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |