| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hughes: It is not word for word, but I do not want to quibble. My point is that there is a simple proposal from Labour party members in London, and if we cannot supply, or Ministers cannot accept, an answer from here, Londoners will understand that there are two issues at stake: do they want an elected assembly, and do they want a mayor? Those are easy concepts. We can add the word "separately" in the ballot paper, as Ministers have done. There need be only two questions.
Mr. Raynsford: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that that makes impossible the permutation suggested in Committee by his party, asking people whether they want the mayor to be elected as a member of the assembly?
Mr. Hughes: I accept that we suggested that, because I wanted to be absolutely explicit, but the Minister himself said that one need not put everything--how many members, what voting system and so on--in the question. The two propositions I cited do not do that. It is pretty obvious that someone will lead an assembly once it is elected.
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Really?
Mr. Hughes: The Minister may have been to an assembly in her party, but I have never been to one in mine, at which someone has not been in charge.
This place has someone in charge, as does the other place. The reality is that someone will be in charge. If there is only one person in charge--whether called the leader or the mayor--that person is the boss. That is the system in Paris, in Barcelona and in every other major European city apart from Rome.
I shall abridge the last part of my narrative. The workshop that considered the proposals for mayor voted indicatively 10 to one against direct elections--not because of a lack of belief in democracy.
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town):
The Opposition parties are portraying the Greater London Labour party's consultative conference on our proposals for an elected mayor and assembly somewhat inconsistently. It is claimed that an overwhelming majority at the conference were against the proposals, but the hon. Gentleman can take my word for it that only 16 respondents out of more than 300 people there were against the proposals. The reason why there were so few supportive Labour party comments was that we had explained the legislation, and most people who turned up at the consultative conference felt at ease with the Government's proposals.
Mr. Hughes:
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to that interpretation, but I am aware of just two sets of statistics. The people who "voted" at this non-voting conference appeared to be against the Government proposals by a majority of nine or 10 to one; and a majority of those who sent representative submissions to the Government's review also appeared to be against. It is of course true that many Members of all parties have not spoken on the issue.
I am not arguing that the Government are necessarily wrong. I am not trying to win the argument. I am simply saying that we need two questions, so that the people can decide. The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town must at least accept that the electorate have some interest in this matter and a right to vote on it.
My party has said that there should be an electoral convention--an idea that was defeated the other evening. It need not be done by statute; we can go away and try to sort out an electoral system by agreement. What is good enough for Scotland may be good enough for London, too. It is above all vital that the proposals in their final form should allow for a properly elected democratic body for London.
The Minister for Transport in London has been honourable enough to accept that there must be a system of fairness for all voters. There must also be natural constituencies and genuine voter choice. I am encouraged to learn that the Home Secretary, in last night's debate on the European elections, accepted the argument for some voter choice in the European context. That makes it impossible to argue against the idea for London.
Finally, I want to pray in aid some remarks by the Electoral Reform Society, a body which admittedly holds its own view. Its arguments are nevertheless good and succinct. It wants the alternative vote system for the mayoral election. Some people call that the single transferable vote, but let us not bother with semantics at this stage.
Outside the Chamber, I shall seek to persuade colleagues on both sides of the House that we might be able to do that to good effect. If we do, we might be able to persuade people to feel included. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) plans to speak later on that subject.
Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North):
I am delighted to speak in the debate. Having listened to and read through the debate in Committee, I remain convinced that the Bill will give Londoners what they want and that the argument for an integrated and balanced package of mayor and assembly is absolutely right.
We have heard many speeches about the issue of the questions. I am baffled because despite Opposition Members' claims to be united on the subject of the two questions that they want asked, at least four questions have been put forward by Opposition Members this afternoon. In addition, I understand that the opposition debate in London has now moved on to consider incorporating the question of whether a directly elected
mayor should be scrutinised by a board comprising the 32 boroughs. That means a minimum of three questions on that issue alone.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) seemed to imply that the media were focusing on the issue of whether there should be two questions. Frankly, as one who has been following closely the debate in the London media, I cannot remember seeing more than--
Mr. Pickles:
It would have been easier for the hon. Lady to follow and contribute to the debate if she had attended the Committee stage.
Ms Buck:
I attended the Committee for at least part of the debate and I read it all in Hansard, so that is not entirely fair.
I was speaking about the alleged media fixation on the number of questions. I do not recollect having noticed a great deal of media concern on that issue--in fact, what comes through most clearly in media discussion of London government is the absolute importance of coherence and effectiveness. That is right and proper and coincides with the Government's position--a balanced package consisting of mayor and assembly.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the debate within the Labour party. I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) that the overwhelming view within the Labour party is one of support for the policies on which we campaigned during the general election and which we sold to voters on the doorstep. It is specious to try to build an opposition from 16 representations. Yes, there was a debate in the Labour party--which is right and proper, especially in the case of a new, important constitutional development. In the circumstances, I would have been horrified if a debate had not taken place. Of course some people are uncommitted, and I am happy with that, but the overwhelming view in the party is support for the proposal.
The clear message that has emerged is that Londoners want a London authority. There is no great buzzing debate out there about how its different components should interact, but people want it to work and want it to be effective.
In Committee, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who shares with me representation of the borough of Westminster, mocked me--I hope kindly--for claiming an over-enthusiasm among Londoners for this debate. He said that the issue was never raised by any of his constituents south of the Westway and that I was claiming that it was the number one issue on the doorstep. Although it would be unfair to claim that on the No. 31 bus they talk of little else, it is nonsense to say that the need for a London authority is not an issue of concern and interest to Londoners.
"The alternative vote avoids the problems of both first-past-the-post and the second ballot system by allowing voters to number candidates in order of preference. There is no need for tactical voting. The vast majority of Londoners would have no problems in casting a preferential vote."
26 Nov 1997 : Column 996
We agree with the society's recommendation for the election of the mayor.
If the assembly is to be elected separately, the Electoral Reform Society--it happens to be based in my constituency but its remit obviously goes wider than that--suggests:
"The single transferable vote is the ideal system for use in multi-member districts. It enables the electorate to cast preferential votes and the result is typically highly proportional, in terms of party votes as well increasing representation for women and ethnic minorities. Of all the systems usually considered for use in the United Kingdom STV provides the greatest degree of voter choice. For these reasons, the Society recommends that the single transferable vote in multi-member districts be used to elect the London Assembly."
The society ends by saying:
"It is important that a system is used for electing the assembly which allows for all opinions to be fairly represented. Any system which tends to lead to domination by a single party would be wholly unacceptable for electing the assembly. Using a system which produces proportional representation of the people helps to meet the democratic, inclusive, consensual and representative criteria."
I put it to the House that there are other ways of arriving at natural constituencies that reflect the natural communities we all represent--different communities, in all senses. The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town clearly represents the east end and does so proudly, and others of us represent other parts of the city. It is possible to take the Kent parts, the Surrey parts, the Essex parts, the Middlesex parts and the old inner-London parts, and so find five or six natural communities.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |