| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Buck: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be better if Westminster banned particular cars on a Wednesday and Camden banned them on a Thursday? That would be the consequence of devolving that strategic matter to individual boroughs.
Mr. Pickles: It would be absurd to close Camden--although it might have been sensible to do something like that in Greenwich. In the debate about a strategic authority versus a mayor, we must appreciate that a mayor would be in the best position to liaise with the various London boroughs--and, more important, with the Government. We cannot simply cut off central London without recognising that that will have an enormous effect on the rest of the country.
It is possible to restrict traffic in Greenwich without causing knock-on effects throughout the country--although, given some lines of communication, even that might prove difficult. However, it would be impossible to cut off traffic in the inner-London area, in those boroughs to which I have referred, without causing enormous knock-on effects. A strategic authority would contribute nothing to solving that problem: it would simply take powers from individual boroughs.
We acknowledge that London needs a mayor--the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North gave many reasons in support of that proposition--but no proper case has been made in favour of a strategic authority. Perhaps such a case could be made, but Labour Members have declined to argue for it in this Chamber. That is why we have put down a reasoned amendment this evening: we believe that the people of London deserve some kind of choice.
The Minister for London and Construction made a very interesting speech. He said on Monday--and he repeated it today--that the Government are not dogmatic about the single-vote issue. I welcome that attitude; it is an important matter. The Minister said that, if two questions can be formulated, the Government will consider them. The argument about whether we should have a mayor or a strategic authority is a matter of public and political debate. According to normal conventions in this country, when the politicians argue, the people decide. By offering a single question in the referendum, the people will not have the opportunity to decide.
Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East):
I was present for much of the Second Reading debate and I witnessed, or subsequently read, the proceedings in Committee. Opposition Members made some useful and positive contributions regarding several of the issues before us. However, with the greatest respect, I have to say that the speech by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) does not belong in that category. I do not know where most of his comments came from; I did not understand his speech at all.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire):
That is your problem.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better.
Mr. McNulty:
I raised three key points on Second Reading--to which some Opposition Members responded productively and positively in Committee--regarding the scrutiny functions of the GLA, the inclusivity of the mayor in the assembly and the relationship between the two, and what I called on Second Reading the architecture of governance in London. I make no apologies for starting with that issue. It has not been addressed in the House--although the Committee sought to consider the matter.
There is a fundamental flaw in much of the approach from the Opposition parties in their reasoned amendments: their belief that more than one proposal is on the table, and that more than one proposal for London was in our manifesto. There was not. There was one. It was, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir. N. Fowler) called it, a proposal for a system of government. That is exactly what was in our manifesto, and it will be tested in the full light of more fleshed-out details when the White Paper is issued next March.
We cannot issue a White Paper that says perhaps this, perhaps that, perhaps the other; one that fully takes into account the three, four or five permutations and all their subsequent administrative consequences, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister, and then say to people, "Here is a whole list of things on which to vote in the May referendum." We are offering an interlocking system of governance for London. As my hon. Friend the
Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said, it includes the relationship between the boroughs, the GLA, the mayor and central Government.
As I said on Second Reading, there is a job to be done by all London Members, and by everyone in the Chamber who is concerned for the governance of London, in working out how the four key elements interlock. If the White Paper starts to address that in March, the argument in the reasoned amendments--that our proposal is flawed because we are offering two proposals rolled into one, when we should be offering two proposals and two questions--falls. We are offering one interlocking, overarching view of the map, if one likes, of governance for London.
As an ex-leader of a Labour group, I say to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that we shall fight tooth and nail in Harrow, with colleagues, if the assembly wants an inch of powers that properly and rightly belong at borough level. That would be the concerted view and voice of every single Labour council leader in London, whether in power or opposition. It is not a mea culpa or some Pauline conversion. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North was entirely right that, 11 years on, lessons have been learned, and what is now with the boroughs by and large stays with them. This is, perhaps, offensive to some Opposition Members, but it is subsidiarity writ large. At that end much of it is tied up.
A consequence of the autocratic abolition of the GLC is that, in terms of that end of London government, it has probably sorted things out, and many of the powers that should be at borough level are there and should stay there. All that we are doing is putting in place the second and crucial element--democratisation, instead of all the strategic powers and services in quangos.
Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South):
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Green Paper has no fewer than 10 points under which powers will be taken away from the boroughs and given to the authority?
Mr. McNulty:
That is entirely a matter for debate. Equally, any number of the 61 questions can, by implication, give further powers back to the boroughs. "You pay your money and take your choice." That is the whole purpose of a consultation paper. Whatever happens on Third Reading or in another place--not necessarily in terms of electoral convention or the other matters suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)--it behoves everyone in the House to take the White Paper very seriously so that we, collectively, can come up with a proper form of strategic governance for London.
Mr. Pickles:
Do I take it then that the hon. Gentleman's bold declaration to fight tooth and nail for borough power lasted exactly five minutes, until my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) pointed out that powers will be lost? What is happening? Why does not the hon. Gentleman stand up for his borough?
Mr. McNulty:
When the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar intervened during my speech on Second Reading, I said:
When I first rose to speak, I almost felt like declaring myself as Tony McNulty, the Member for Harrow, East, vocal wing of the terracotta army. The notion that somehow all London's Members of Parliament are scurrying away and dare not be associated with the proposal is abject nonsense. We can all play--I wish that all sides would refrain from it--the silly little game that says because only three Liberal Democrats are in the Chamber, they cannot be taking this seriously, or because only three Back Benchers from London are in the Chamber, they cannot be taking this seriously. That is childish, wholly unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate.
"I hope that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed that intervention. I will not give way to him again if that is the best that he can do."--[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 617.]
I repeat that now. I thought that I responded to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) in a very reasoned fashion. What the hon. Gentleman just said was entirely unnecessary.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |