| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that we have published a Green Paper to consult people, and we are allowing time for their responses to be considered.
Mr. Ottaway: Sixty-one questions--that is one heck of a consultation document. Is the Minister saying that the proposals in his manifesto were not thought out before the election? How can a Bill be drafted for the future government of a whole country, such as Wales, in less time than it takes to produce a draft Bill for a strategic authority?
The Government will not even give an undertaking not to change the White Paper proposals in the Bill. They are saying to London, "We are not publishing the White Paper until just a few weeks before the referendum. We will give you hardly any time to digest it and ponder its consequences. We, the Labour party, will fight the referendum on the slogan, 'A Voice for London', and you may or may not get what you voted for." That is new Labour's version of "Blind Date", and this is the "Blind Date" Bill. People can choose, but they do not know what they will get. Londoners deserve better.
We want two questions, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said. We want Londoners to say yes or no to a mayor and yes or no to a directly elected assembly as currently proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) pointed out that a single take-it-or-leave-it question is inadequate.
One of the more amusing aspects of the Chancellor's statement yesterday was how many times his spin doctors had inserted the buzz word "fairness". He repeated it several times, but the Minister tonight--I listened carefully, because I thought I might be able to make the point--did not use the word once in his speech. He knows how unfair his proposals are. Above all, they are an insult to the enthusiasm that Londoners have displayed for reform of some kind.
The Minister has repeatedly made the point--somewhat smugly--that it is the votes that count. He knows that he has lost the argument on two questions in our debates, but he has enough Lobby fodder behind him to carry the day.
Does the Minister really have support for his policies? He emphatically argued that more than 50 per cent. of Londoners had voted for the Labour party manifesto proposals for London, until we pointed out that he did not get 50 per cent. of the vote. The majority of Londoners did not support his proposals.
I challenged the Minister to say that the 1.6 million Labour voters of May would turn out next May. His head, which normally bobs around genially, froze solid, because he was not sure that they would.
The Minister then claimed that the Association of London Government supports his proposals. We checked our records, and found that that is not true, either. At least half of London's boroughs want a two-question referendum.
Mr. Raynsford:
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the ALG has supported the Government's position, and that that is the evidence that the ALG has submitted? Perhaps he has not read it and if not, I suggest that he does.
Mr. Ottaway:
I repeat what I said. At least half the boroughs represented on the ALG want a two-question referendum. That is the truth of the matter. The Minister does not have the support of the London boroughs for his opposition to a two-question referendum, which is the basis for our reasoned amendment.
Mr. Tony Colman (Putney):
I have a copy, as has my hon. Friend the Minister, of the ALG's submission. It clearly states that the ALG welcomes the directly elected mayor and assembly for London. In the minutes--we seem to be keen on minutes tonight--the Labour group on the ALG, which is some 23 boroughs out of the 32, is recorded as totally in favour. It is also clearly minuted that the Conservatives, obviously whipped, are in favour only of the mayor, and the Liberal Democrats, obviously whipped, are in favour only of the assembly. That is the truth.
Mr. Ottaway:
After that short speech, I will go through the list of the London boroughs that are in favour of a two-question referendum. I shall do it slowly, in case the hon. Gentleman wishes to write the names down and go round to Old Queen street and check them. The boroughs are Barnet, Brent, Bromley, Hackney, Harrow--[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not like what he is hearing. The list continues with Havering, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Redbridge, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Bexley and Westminster.
Mr. Hill:
Liberal Democrat and Tory boroughs.
Mr. Ottaway:
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that no thought is allowed in London other than the Labour party's? Is he saying that the only voice from the Association of London Government allowed to be heard
When the Minister discovered that he had lost both arguments, he said that London's Labour party supported his proposals. Today we heard the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) quoting at length from the report of the London Labour meeting. He presented what he read as the latest revelation, but in fact it was the report that I quoted from on Monday.
We checked out the report on that famous meeting, and we found that people voted against the proposals by a ratio of 8:1, despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) to prevent such a vote from being taken. He was trying to rewrite history.
Mr. Fitzpatrick:
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the reports are a gross exaggeration. The only figure quoted is something like 8:1, but there were more than 300 delegates at the meeting. The vast majority of the people at that consultative seminar were wholly in agreement with the Government's policy, and the formal submission put forward by the Labour party in London was fully in support of the proposals.
Mr. Ottaway:
How would the hon. Gentleman know, when he did not allow a vote to find out what the members present thought? He will have to discuss the matter with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). [Interruption.] He was there. The hon. Member for Harrow, East was there, too, and so was the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman)--and here are the minutes. They say that London Labour rejected the mayor. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that he cannot even claim the support of his own party.
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson):
There can rarely have been a Third Reading so dominated by the Labour party. I do not refer exclusively to the contributions by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends the Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) all spoke with passion and conviction, and with information gleaned from listening to what the people of London are saying to them about the Government's proposals for a Greater London authority.
We were also privileged to hear paraded through the Chamber the unnamed thousands who make up the Greater London Labour party. They were paraded, in the main, by Members representing the Conservative party, and they joined us by means of representations made by those hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) even brought them in via the internet. That seemed to me to show just how
open the Labour party is. It publishes on the internet, available for all who wish to see it, the way in which debate is conducted within our party.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) began by saying that he and his party had held a consistent position on a government for London. I must point out that the position was consistent until 2 May. Before then, the Conservative party had campaigned assiduously and virulently against the idea of restoring a democratic voice for London, but after 2 May we saw it begin to make a move in our direction.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suffer from a desperate lack of argument and conviction. Again, the Labour party was strongly represented in the bulk of his speech, which was devoted to re-quoting what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said on Second Reading.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |