| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as it is unlikely that I shall have the chance to speak. Does he agree that the bottom line is that, if we discourage the electorate from voting, the system will have failed?
Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a very perceptive point. It is possible that the electors can achieve nothing by voting, as they will not be able to remove unpopular members of the strategic authority. That will erode confidence in the process of democracy generally and the strength of the strategic authority.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I did not expect to participate in the debate, but I am delighted to make a short, succinct speech. We are considering far-reaching, fundamental reforms. The House relies on democracy. If we discourage people from voting because the system is unappealing in one way or another, we shall do democracy in Britain no favours whatever.
I should like to comment on two issues: the system of proportional representation envisaged in the clause and whether the Local Government Commission or the boundary commission should decide the electoral areas.
I cannot understand the rush for proportional representation in the Scottish Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and in Europe. No doubt we shall have a referendum on whether we should have proportional representation for Westminster elections. Proportional representation does not produce fair votes; it simply encourages minorities. If the level pavement party managed to get enough votes in the London election,
it would be represented on the London assembly. I make that suggestion in jest, but it would be a one-issue party, when everyone on both sides of the Chamber should be concerned with the promotion of London. Unless we promote London to the wider world, what on earth is the point of the Bill? We are about promoting the excellence of London for tourism and trade and for the benefit of the general standard of living for the people of London. What on earth does encouraging minorities do for that?
I have only a few minutes left to speak--[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Obviously Labour Members are not enjoying my speech very much and that is because it hurts.
Mr. Pickles:
As we have to decide whether the boundary commission or the Local Government Commission should decide the electoral areas, let me remind my hon. Friend that sitting in the Chamber is a former member of the Local Government Commission, a potential candidate for the London mayor. I wonder whether we could tempt her to say which would be best--the Local Government Commission or the boundary commission.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
My hon. Friend raises a very good point. One wonders whether the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) will be acting the part of Elizabeth I, the Lord Mayor of London or whoever she might be when she stands for the post. My hon. Friend leads me down paths of temptation down which I should not be led.
The issue is whether we should use the Local Government Commission or the boundary commission. I attended the local boundary commission hearing when it was trying to pronounce on the Gloucestershire constituency boundaries. That hearing was conducted by an eminent lawyer. People from all interested parties in Gloucestershire gave views. That is the right forum in which to pronounce on boundaries--whether they be constituencies in London or wards that make up electoral areas in London.
I ask the Minister to treat the issue seriously. I hope that he will respond to it in detail, when I allow him to get to his feet. The Local Government Commission is concerned with the ethics and working of local government and how it should organise its administrative processes rather than the individual boundaries of wards or constituencies.
Ms Glenda Jackson:
I trust that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is not disappointed that it is a she and not a he who rises to respond.
The speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in support of the clause, was in the main complete. [Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] I regret that he is not in his place. [Hon. Members: "Here he is."] Just in time. He questioned whether the proposals in clause 7 should be best vested in the Local Government Commission and argued for such functions to be vested in the boundary commission. I well understood his argument.
There is disagreement between the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and the Government over the definition that the GLA is regional government.
We regard it as citywide government. Therefore, we believe that it is more appropriate that the Local Government Commission should engage in the functions, should it be necessary. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the whole basis of the clause is entirely dependent on the people of London voting yes in the referendum.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
The hon. Lady was right; I made it into the Chamber just on time. I am interested in, but slightly concerned by, the comment--which is right in itself--that she has just made. The GLA would be citywide government. My understanding of Labour party policy is that the GLA is also regional government and was intended to be the first of a series of regional governments. If the hon. Lady is now saying that the GLA will not be regional government, her right hon. and hon. Friends and other Members will be surprised to hear it.
Ms Jackson:
I can only repeat that it has always been our presentation, representation, perception and indeed commitment that the GLA represents citywide government. The hon. Gentleman may be confusing two issues. Clearly the Government have considered the possibility of regional government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are engaged in consultation on the regional development agencies. I repeat that it is our perception that the people of London will be best served--if they vote yes in the referendum--by the Local Government Commission.
The contributions from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Cotswold were obfuscatory to the extent that, if mine were a less charitable nature, I would think that it was deliberate. However, I have a charitable nature and I am prepared to believe that the obfuscatory nature of their contributions was because they simply do not understand clause 7. It may be helpful to the Committee if I define the purpose of the clause.
Clause 7 confers new functions on the Local Government Commission for England, requiring it--at the direction of the Secretary of State--to prepare a report in respect of electoral areas for any elected assembly established after the referendum. That is an important point. The powers given to the Secretary of State under the clause to direct the commission will not be used--I emphasise that point--until there has been an affirmative vote in the referendum, by which stage the Government will have published a White Paper setting out direct proposals. We will make clear our proposals for the election method and the constituencies.
Clause 7 requires the commission, at the direction of the Secretary of State, to prepare a report recommending the electoral areas into which Greater London should be divided for the purpose of electing the members of any assembly established following the referendum, the number of members who should be elected for each electoral area and the name by which each electoral area should be known. It also requires that any direction made by the Secretary of State must specify the total number of electoral areas and the total number of members for which the recommendations in the Commission's report must provide. That is a sensible provision which is designed to
speed the process of establishing the GLA after an affirmative vote in the referendum. Conservative Members have made no case and offered no argument for its removal.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington):
I will comment briefly on the clause. The commission will be established with agreed terms of reference and objectives. It will then deliberate and report back. The Secretary of State may not like the recommendations that the commission makes, but would it be democratic to overrule those recommendations as clause 9 would allow?
What would be the Secretary of State's purpose in overriding the commission's recommendations? Can the Minister explain in what circumstances the Secretary of State might see fit to direct the commission to review its findings? Could those circumstances include political expediency or convenience? It is because we have doubts about the purpose of clause 9 that we cannot support it, but--given the late hour--we will not push the issue any further. We will recommend that it is considered in greater detail in another place.
Mr. Raynsford:
The clause enables the Secretary of State, when a report has been submitted under clause 8, to direct the commission to review the recommendations made in the report, and to submit a further report making revised recommendations. It is a fail-safe provision, designed to ensure that the Local Government Commission can be asked to look again at its recommendations or any part of its recommendations, once it has delivered its report.
The provision is well precedented. [Interruption.] Before Conservative Members start crowing, let me remind them that it takes as its model section 15(6) of the Local Government Act 1992, which was used more than once by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment in the previous Administration.
Circumstances in which such a provision might come into play could include when the commission had changed its mind so much between the draft and final reports that people locally felt that they had not been given sufficient opportunity to comment on the substance of what the commission was proposing in its final report. Alternatively, representations might be made to the Secretary of State on publication of the final report of such importance that they justified the commission being asked to reconsider what it had recommended.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |