---

4.8 pm

Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

"this House declines to give a Third Reading to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill because, while it looks ahead to the establishment of both a directly-elected Assembly and a directly-elected Mayor for London, it fails to provide the citizens of London with the opportunity to express their views separately on those two proposals."

It is worth saying that this is the first time for almost 10 years that a reasoned amendment has been selected for debate and vote on the Third Reading of a Government Bill. It is right that the amendment has been selected, because it goes to the heart of the debate that took place during the hours in Committee.

The Bill sets down two separate propositions: one for a directly elected assembly, and the other for a directly elected mayor. We believe that those two different propositions should be accompanied by two different questions in the referendum. The Liberal Democrats take a similar view. The Minister omitted to mention the fact that many Labour supporters also want that. Nevertheless, the Government have insisted that London will be allowed one question, and one question alone.

That issue was a continual theme of the Committee's deliberations. One of the most significant features of the Committee stage, which lasted for more than 12 hours, was that no Labour Back Bencher took part, with one exception: the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). During 12 hours of debate, precisely one Labour Back Bencher contributed. Let us take in what the hon. Gentleman had to say about having two questions.

Our consistent position has been that we support a directly elected mayor, but do not support a directly elected assembly. The hon. Gentleman, whom the Minister bracketed as a constitutional conservative--it is probably the first time that he has been bracketed as such--approaches the issue from a different direction, as he is opposed to a directly elected mayor. The view

26 Nov 1997 : Column 986

we have in common with him and with the Liberal Democrats is that there are two distinct issues, and that the two propositions can be separated.

I advise the Minister to study the hon. Gentleman's words. On 19 November, he said:

"We are not getting a single voice for London--we are getting two competing voices, locked into an institutionalised conflict."

They are not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Brent, East. He listened to the arguments of his hon. Friends on Second Reading, and read them all again in Hansard. It is a pity that I have to remind the Minister of what has gone on in the debate. The hon. Gentleman characterised his hon. Friends' arguments as "pretty weedy": those were his exact words. Who am I to argue with his description of his hon. Friends?

The hon. Gentleman also revealed that many people in the Greater London Labour party are unhappy with the Government's proposals, usually because they want an assembly but not a separately elected mayor. The hon. Gentleman did the House a great service by recalling a meeting to discuss the position that he had attended. He said:

"I went to what was called a consultation meeting of the Greater London Labour party, at which we discussed the proposal that appears in the Liberal Democrats' amendment. The Greater London Labour party assembled in conference and split into working groups to discuss whether we should have a separately elected mayor. The most crowded working group was the one that discussed the relationship between the mayor and the assembly. Nine out of the 10 speeches opposed the principle of a separately elected mayor, but we were told, 'You have got to have it because it was in the manifesto.'"

In the full conference, the hon. Member for Brent, East was denied a vote, about which he protested.

The hon. Gentleman was the only Labour Back Bencher who spoke in the 12 hours of Committee debate. He said to the Minister:

"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 London and an insult to their intelligence."--[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 400-403.]

That was the only speech from a Labour Back Bencher in Committee. The hon. Member for Brent, East speaks with all the authority of being the newest member of the Labour national executive.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House what majority the Government enjoyed when the issues were put to the vote?

Sir Norman Fowler: The point that the Minister is struggling to make is that the Government have a strong position in the House. I think that we know that. The Minister's intervention is revealing, and typifies everything he has said during our debates. His view is, "Don't bother us with the arguments, and don't bother us with the detail. We've got a majority, and we are going to push the Bill through." He is expressing that view not only to Conservative Members, but to Labour Members. He is saying, "We have got the majority and we are going to do what we want." He may have lobby fodder behind him; I remind him of how the hon. Member for Brent, East described his hon. Friends.

26 Nov 1997 : Column 987

I challenge anyone who has listened to our debates to come to the conclusion that the Government have in any way won the debate. Their replies have been a mixture of the pathetic and the hysterical, with the hysterical quite often coming from the Minister.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would not an impartial, objective observer of the proceedings of the past few days come to the conclusion that the total lack of vocal support for the Bill from Labour Members shows that they dare not be associated with what will probably be a disaster for the people of London?

Mr. Graham Allen (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): It will not be.

Sir Norman Fowler: The lack of support is very odd. I shall give way to the Whip if he wants to intervene. If he does not, I suggest that he pipes down and does not make remarks from a sedentary position, which is against the rules of the House. If he wishes me to give way, I shall gladly do so--although, from experience, I know that he does not normally have anything very sensible to say.

The hon. Member for Brent, East understates the case for a two-question referendum. The institutionalised conflict between the directly elected assembly and the directly elected mayor is not our only concern. We are also concerned about the inevitable conflict between the directly elected assembly and directly elected borough councillors. One result of the Bill is that the assembly will, step by step, claim more power from the boroughs. That is already a real concern in the boroughs, and it is not confined simply to Conservative councillors.

Mr. Raynsford: There are not many of them.

Sir Norman Fowler: There may not be as many as we should like, but the Minister should wait until next May.

Assembly members will claim that they are elected, and that they therefore have the right to power. I do not believe that it is remotely possible that an assembly that is elected to carry out strategic thinking, checking and little else will be happy and satisfied with that role. I can think of no elected assembly that would be happy with such a role.

Step by step and year by year, the assemblymen will seek further powers. It is clear from the Second Reading speeches of some Labour Members that they would like a return to something similar to the Greater London council. They think that it is a great pity that it was abolished, and would like it returned.

If more powers go to the elected assembly, as I predict they will, they will not come from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Like any other Department, it will be reluctant to the point of refusal to give up powers. The powers will come from the boroughs.

Hon. Members should remember the exact structure for London that they are being asked to approve in Bills that, regrettably, are coming before the House at different times. There will be a directly elected mayor, a directly elected assembly, a regional development agency appointed by the Department, a Government office for London, 32 borough councils, and, under another Bill that will probably be introduced in the House of Lords--the

26 Nov 1997 : Column 988

so-called local democracy innovations Bill--there is the prospect of directly elected borough mayors. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]

I do not know whether that noise could be characterised as cheering. I am not sure whether the Whip was clearing his throat or asking leave to go. If he wants to go, he may by all means do so. The local democracy innovations Bill will contain a proposal--not referred to during the debate--for directly elected borough mayors in addition to the mayor for London.

The Government are proposing layer after layer of administration and bureaucracy--a mixture of local government, central Government and appointed quango. The Minister chances his arm deploring quangos. The regional development agency will be the biggest quango ever to be appointed in this country.

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware that the regional development agency will be accountable and answerable to the strategic authority. It will not be a quango; it will be part of the democratic structure.

---