| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Norman Fowler: Oh, part of the democratic structure. Will it be an elected body?
Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be confusing roles. He is supposed to be delivering a speech. The Conservatives know only too well about appointed bodies, because they created so many quangos, joint boards and unelected bodies during their period in office--bodies that we are replacing with democratic accountability.
Sir Norman Fowler: I think that the answer was no. The Minister knows that it will not be an elected or democratic body. He also knows that he is in all kinds of trouble in different parts of the country on the issue.
The one action that Londoners could take would be to vote against one of the layers, but they are being offered no choice on that. The Minister says that it is difficult to ask two questions. I have listened to every variation of his replies to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and me on that. I find his arguments extraordinary, even after hearing them three times. Sometimes they have changed, or they have been peppered with vague assurances that were then withdrawn.
We should ask two questions on the basis of the Government's two propositions to ascertain the support for a directly elected mayor and for a directly elected assembly. The Minister says that that is no good, because the Government might be beaten. His objection is that he might lose the referendum. Indeed, the Government may be beaten. We may end up with a mayor, but no directly elected assembly. Conceivably--although I think it doubtful--it could be vice versa. The risk of being beaten is implicit in a referendum. There is not a great deal of point in a referendum unless there is some risk of being beaten.
With this referendum, future action can clearly be guided by the vote. As we have pointed out, this is a pre-legislative referendum. No Bill will be ready when the referendum is held. No Bill will have been drafted when the referendum is held. If the people of London
voted against a directly elected assembly, the Government would have an opportunity to think again about the legislation.
There is a formidable coalition behind a two-question referendum. The Conservative party backs it, the Liberal Democrats back it, and more than half the London boroughs have backed it in the different votes that they have had. As I have pointed out, many Labour Members back it as well.
It is true that very few house-trained Labour Members who sit obediently behind the Minister back two questions, but other more independent spirits back the prospect. The tragedy is--I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, East for explaining it--that Labour Members are prevented from voting against the proposal. According to the hon. Gentleman's account, doing so would be an offence against Labour party standing orders, and they would be debarred from being Labour party candidates in future.
Mr. Raynsford
indicated dissent.
Sir Norman Fowler:
Those are not my words. The Minister may become indignant about them, but they are the words of the hon. Member for Brent, East. We do not expect a great deal of Labour support in the Lobby, for the very reason he set out.
Outside the House, there is little doubt about how the public feel. The vast majority of the press support two questions.
Mr. Keith Hill (Streatham):
What?
Sir Norman Fowler:
You know--newspapers; the things that one reads each morning, such as The Times. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not read such things. It is probably safer for him not to do so, but merely take instructions straight from his bleeper without being confused by facts.
Although the Minister admitted that The Times, The Daily Telegraph and a range of other newspapers are not with him, he asked, "What about the Evening Standard?" We told him about hostile news stories, but he said: "No, no. Not the news stories--the editorials." Max Hastings, the editor of the Evening Standard, whom I respect a great deal--we used to report together in Northern Ireland a long time ago--must be delighted with the authority that the Minister has given him.
I wonder how far the Minister follows the editor of the Evening Standard, and whether, on Friday when the House votes on the Bill on fox hunting, he will be standing four square behind him and the Evening Standard leaders, which are consistently opposed to what the Minister and most Labour Members appear to support.
I shall cite the one newspaper that the Minister has so far prayed in aid, albeit in a deeply misleading way--The Guardian. We all remember the quotation that he gave and the bit that he left out. The Guardian--there is no accounting for taste--thinks that the Minister's policy is correct. It also says that the policy should be put to the test.
The point that The Guardian made in the little bit of the sentence that unfortunately and unhappily the Minister did not read out--I am sure that it was a complete oversight on his part--was that, even if he is correct, he should make his argument in a campaign.
The Guardian actually said:
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
This debate, coming as it does so shortly after the Committee stage, is like the third reading of marriage banns in church, when that still happened. Two votes or not two votes--that is the question. Two voices for London, or not two voices for London--that is the issue.
The Liberal Democrats have made their position clear. We support a referendum on whether London should have its own government, and we will vote for that. We support the idea that the referendum should be on 7 May next year, on the same day as the local elections, and we have voted for that. We support the idea of a Greater London authority that is secure and long-standing and that delivers strategic services across the metropolitan area, and we shall vote for that. However, as the Minister for London and Construction and the Opposition spokesman know, after that, views on what is only a limited Bill begin to diverge.
The Government believe that there should be one question. The rest of us say there should be more than one. Should there be an assembly? Most people say yes, although the Tories say no with a qualification. Should the mayor be part of the assembly? Our party says yes and many Labour Members say yes, but the Conservatives--who are paradoxically in agreement with the Government--say no.
Should the mayor be separate from the assembly? The Government say yes, but most of their supporters appear to say no, the Conservatives say no, we say no and so do many others. Only a very few people argue--and even then with qualifications--that we should have a mayor but not an elected assembly. However, that is the position of those on the Conservative Front Bench.
The Minister may think that those permutations mean that we need five questions. I shall show him shortly, and from a source that he may find a little surprising, that two questions are a possible option.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading, and we voted for it because it was selected by
Madam Speaker. We voted for it not because we were against the Bill, but because we wanted the Bill to be right. The Clerks tell me--I obviously asked the same question as the right hon. Gentleman--that it is unusual, but "Erskine May" allows it, to have a reasoned amendment on Third Reading. The argument for that is stronger because we have not had a Report stage. I expect that there will be a vote on that, and my hon. Friends and I will vote for the reasoned amendment, making it clear that we still do not think that the Bill is right.
Interestingly, two things have emerged between the vote on the first reasoned amendment and that on the second, which will take place tonight. First--the Minister admitted as much on Monday and confirmed it at the Dispatch Box today--the Government are not implacably, dogmatically or theologically opposed to the idea of more than one question. It is a matter of pragmatism.
I hope that, after the other place has debated the Bill and it comes back to us, even if those who say, as I do, that there should be more than one question, do not win the day, the Government will reconsider the question put by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), which suggested a slight technical change that would bring about a significant improvement in the one question. If we are to ask about direct elections both for the mayor and for the assembly, for the sake of clarity it should be expressly that which appears on the ballot paper. I have seen and heard no reason for objecting to that.
We are encouraged that we are entering on the Bill's third stage in the House, and shall move towards its next stage in the other place, with at least the possibility of more than one question remaining open.
"the Government's package deal allows no room for those who want a mayor but no assembly . . . or those who want an assembly but no mayor . . . We subscribe to neither view. But to deny them any expression on the ballot seems peculiar. After all, the whole point of a referendum is to allow all the people their say."
That has been our case throughout.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |