REFERENDUM

HC Deb 11 February 1998 vol 306 cc425-520

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 8, after ("prescribe,") insert ("but not less than eight weeks after publication of a Bill providing for the establishment of a Greater London Authority and the election of a mayor for Greater London,")

7.1 pm

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

I am disappointed that the Bill has had to return to the House. Let me make one point crystal clear: the amendments carried in another place are wrecking amendments. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have revealed their true colours. They are embarrassed to admit their open opposition to the Government's plans for a new Greater London authority comprising a directly elected mayor and a separately elected assembly, because they know that this measure is hugely popular with the people of London.

Instead, they have done their utmost to wreck the Bill and delay the referendum. Most disreputably, they have depended on the votes of hereditary peers—who have never had to face an election—to carry amendments that threaten to delay or disrupt the Government's plans to restore democratic citywide government to the people of London.

Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)

Does the Minister acknowledge that any hereditary peer can stand, and be elected, in a local government election?

Mr. Raynsford

I entirely accept that any hereditary peer can stand and vote in local government elections. However, they cannot stand in an election for national Government, and have not done so. They owe their positions in the other place not to any electoral process, but to heredity.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

Does the Minister acknowledge that peers are allowed to stand for election to the European Parliament, as many have done? That must be stated.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point. The fact that hereditary peers sit in the other place is solely because of an accident of birth—in some cases, a rather disreputable accident of birth. They may be able to stand in other elections, but their place in Parliament—and their entitlement to pass amendments that wreck the Government's manifesto pledges—owes nothing to the process of election.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)

I am sure that the Minister does not want to mislead the House, so he will have looked at the voting lists from the upper House. The majority of people voting are not hereditary peers, but life peers, including many Labour Front Benchers who were put there by the Prime Minister. Is the hon. Gentleman authorised to attack those people so disgracefully?

Mr. Raynsford

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that question, as I can now give him the precise voting figures in the two relevant Divisions. That will make my point, and he may regret making that intervention.

On 13 January, in the Division on the first amendment, 128 peers were content with the amendment, of whom 63 were life peers and 65 were hereditary peers. Of those not content—in other words, those who supported the Government—there were 122, of whom 101 were life peers and 21 were hereditary peers. Therefore, excluding the hereditary peers, the Government would have had a majority of 38, and the Bill would not have been amended.

The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) makes the point for me, and, if he wants, I shall give him the voting figures from the second Division. On 29 January, when a second wrecking amendment was made on Report, 111 peers voted content, of whom 52 were life peers and 59 were hereditary peers. The not contents—those who supported the Government line—totalled 104, of whom 90 were life peers and only 14 were hereditary peers.

Again, if the vote had been decided by those people who were there as a result of something other than the right of heredity, there would have been no question of the outcome—the Government's position would have been supported. The Opposition triumphed only through the votes of the hereditary peers, and the Liberal Democrats in particular should be ashamed of relying on hereditary, unelected peers.

Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)

Will the Minister tell us the full voting strength of the Labour peers in the House of Lords, and why they were unable to vote at full strength in supporting the Government?

Mr. Raynsford

I am delighted to answer the right hon. Gentleman's point; it will enable me to remind him of the strange antics that occurred in the other place after the first vote.

The Conservative Chief Whip looked embarrassed that the Opposition had won, and expressed concern that they had won a Division that they did not intend to win. The Conservative party had to camouflage that, and pretended, most extraordinarily, that the victory was entirely owing to the Government's failure to muster all their supporters. Has anyone ever heard a more fatuous story? The Conservative party won the vote that it did not intend to win and then blamed the other side. What ridiculous nonsense—it says much about the Opposition.

Sir Norman Fowler

The Minister skirts around the issue wonderfully, but will he now answer the question? Is it not the case that his side did not turn up? He should get on with the debate rather than make all these rather pathetic excuses for the fact that the Government lost.

Mr. Raynsford

As the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, 101 life peers voted for the Government and only 63 voted for the Opposition, which shows that the Government had a true majority among those people who were there other than through heredity. He says that I linger on this issue, but he should be talking to the hon. Member for South Dorset, who raised the issue—I was simply answering his question. The fact that the Opposition find it embarrassing to hear us answering their questions shows how confused they are.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)

I am amazed tonight, as I have been over the past few weeks, that the Government think that that is a strong point. If they were a radical Government, they would have done something about hereditary peers in their first Queen's Speech, and not have dilly-dallied for so long.

Moreover, some of us resent the idea that Prime Ministers send people to legislate as much as we resent the idea that people should legislate because of their birth. The Bill is about whether decisions should be made by elected representatives or by 10 Downing street. Liberal Democrats would rather the decisions were made in the House of Commons than in 10 Downing street. The life peers were put in the other place by 10 Downing street, not by the elected representatives of the people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. Before the Minister responds to that, let me say that it is now time that we returned to the amendment.

Mr. Raynsford

I will be happy, Mr. Lord, to return to the amendments, but I cannot fail to note the way in which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) enjoys so much the result of the votes in the other place in which his party depended on the hereditary peers to carry amendments it supported—particularly when he himself told this House that he did not agree with one of those propositions. His own party in the other place took a different view—that is typical of the Liberal Democrats. They do not know what they are saying.

Mr. Simon Hughes

That is untrue.

Mr. Raynsford

I remind the hon. Gentleman what he said on 19 November: The Liberal Democrats take a different view from that of the Conservative party. We are not arguing that it is possible to produce the Bill before we have the referendum".—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 383.] His counterpart in the other place had an entirely different point of view in the debate in the other House.

I have dealt with that sufficiently, and I shall continue with the matters that you, Mr. Lord, would like me to focus on. Inevitably, the first amendment passed in the other place would delay the referendum. It would simply not be possible to draft a Bill—a massive undertaking—for publication at least eight weeks in advance of the referendum, scheduled for 7 May. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey agreed with that two months ago. He has probably forgotten that, such is the strange way in which the Liberal Democrats operate.

We are committed to setting out the Government's proposals in clear terms. We will do that in the White Paper, as we have always said. We will make this available to the people of London, but we could not prepare a full Bill covering every aspect in advance of 7 May. Delaying the referendum would add £2 million to £3 million to the cost, as we would no longer be able to make savings by combining the referendum with the local elections on 7 May. That would be a needless waste of public money. If Opposition Members vote in support of the amendment, they must recognise that they are revealing that they are spendthrift with public money, and are prepared to contemplate wasting £2 million to £3 million.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley)

The other side of the coin is that the Government are proposing to create a Greater London authority and a mayor; a system that they will wish to last for some considerable time—decades, perhaps 100 years. Surely a little more time to produce a draft Bill so that the people of London know what they are voting for is far more rational and a better use of public money than the Government's rushed proposals.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman obviously does not know the timetable and the consultation that the Government have been through. We published our proposals in our manifesto less than a year ago. We then published a Green Paper in July which was circulated widely, and we published a summary version to ensure the widest possible availability of information about our proposals. I have spoken at a huge number of meetings involving organisations all around London. We have canvassed the views of Londoners and listened carefully to their responses. We are now framing proposals which will be made available to the people of London in a White Paper. That White Paper—

Sir Paul Beresford

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford

No: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question. If he bears with me, he will hear the answer.

The White Paper will set out in clear language the Government's proposals—all the details. A summary version will be made available and circulated to every household in London. By that means, we will provide in clear English an explanation of the Government's proposals to help the people of London to reach an informed judgment. If the hon. Gentleman really believes that presenting a Bill—written, of necessity, in legal language—will help the process, I have to tell him that he is living on another planet.

Sir Paul Beresford

Under the previous Government, the Labour party was delighted when, on occasion, draft Bills were published. The thinking behind that was to provide not the broad outline, but the details. Having lived under the GLC—whatever its political complexion—as a member of a borough council, I can say that it was important to be able to examine the details. The details will be the key to the relationship between the GLA, the mayor and the boroughs.

7.15 pm

Mr. Raynsford

I have given a clear undertaking to the hon. Gentleman and to the House on many occasions that we will publish the full details in a White Paper written in clear English.

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the kind of language which is, of necessity, used in legislation of this type. I quote from the London Government Act 1963, which brought into being the GLC and the structure of the London boroughs. Clause 4 states: Subject to any provision to the contrary effect made by, or by any instrument made under, this Act or any other Act passed during the same session as this Act (and in particular any provision conferring functions on the Greater London Council), and without prejudice to any express provision so made, the provisions of this section (being provisions designed to confer on the councils of London boroughs as respects their boroughs and on the Common Council as respects the City the functions exercisable by the councils of county boroughs as respects their boroughs or by the existing London county council as respects the metropolitan boroughs or, as the case may be, the City) shall have effect as from 1st April 1965 as respects any enactment (hereafter in this section referred to as an 'existing enactment') contained in any public general Act passed before this Act or in any other such Act passed during the same session as this Act. That was simply one clause. I honestly challenge the hon. Gentleman to tell me how publication of such material is likely to improve the debate about points of principle which will be clearly set out in the White Paper.

Sir Paul Beresford

I recognise the complexity, and I did so when I was a borough councillor—although, in my profession, I can count to 32 and not much further, because I run out of teeth to count on. The local authorities are deadly concerned about this, and will be employing lawyers to look at and translate the measure to give them the ifs, ands and buts. They will have an influence on the voting public. Their opinion will be listened to, so the Bill would be of use to them.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman, as always, is wrong. He entirely fails to understand that the Government have consulted in detail about this issue. We have prepared a consultation paper, and we have consulted widely among the people of London. We are committed to publishing a White Paper and to circulating to every household in London a summary version outlining all the details in the Government's proposals. It is truly ludicrous of the hon. Gentleman to cast any doubt on the Government's commitment to consult and to provide information to the people of London. We have made it clear that we are committed to informing people—that is part of our programme.

A requirement to publish a Bill before the referendum would mean unnecessary complications, and would delay the referendum. It would add to the costs of the referendum, and would do little to assist Londoners in assessing the substance of our proposals. In pressing the amendment, the Opposition are seeking to deny the people of London the opportunity to vote on their future.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the amendment is that it is not even consistent with the other amendment carried in the other place. The other amendment proposes to establish a two-question referendum, and would transform the referendum from being a test of assent to a given proposition into a very different consultative exercise on different options. If a Bill had to be published setting out the separate options—as implied by the second amendment—that would add to the complexity of the Bill and the time required to draft it.

The amendments pull in completely opposite directions. One supposedly seeks greater certainty about what is on offer; the other deliberately introduces uncertainty by seeking to test opinion on different options. Together, they are designed to destroy a clearly set out commitment by the Government in our manifesto to implement proposals for a directly elected authority for London, which should comprise two separately elected elements—a mayor and an assembly—and to test that proposition with the people of London.

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

The Minister will recall Labour's manifesto better than I do, but I do not recall that it specified a particular manner of consultation or form in which the electorate of London were to be consulted about the proposals.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman questions our commitment to testing the opinion of Londoners. We have said clearly that we will test the opinion of Londoners, and we will do so in the most sensible and cost-effective way, at a time when the people of London are already going to the polls. In that way, there will be no need to organise a separate referendum on another occasion at the extra cost of £2 million to £3 million. The hon. Gentleman obviously cannot recognise the need for economy and the common sense of holding a referendum on the same date as the borough council elections.

Mr. Ian Bruce

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raynsford

No. I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman, and I am about to conclude. The amendments seek to undermine and destroy a clear Government manifesto commitment. They are wrecking amendments, and I have no hesitation in urging the House to reverse them.

Sir Norman Fowler

The Minister has spoken for some time on the amendment. I do not object to that, because it is an important subject. He made much of the position of the House of Lords, the unelected hereditary peers and their impertinence in intervening in the debate. I notice that Labour Members were not quite so free with their condemnation when the House of Lords defeated Mr. Murdoch on the issue of his press empire and competition. According to others in the press, some Labour Members may take advantage of that amendment at a later stage.

Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham)

Name them.

Sir Norman Fowler

I would be delighted to name them, but the Labour Whip is probably better placed to do so.

The Minister must accept that a second chamber will, from time to time, say no, and will allow the Government the opportunity to think again. That is not a constitutional challenge, but the entirely legitimate role of a second chamber. The trouble with the Government is that they are not prepared to consider any arguments used against them, even when they are clearly in the wrong. That was clear from the passage of the Bill through the House, let alone its progress in the other place.

Mr. Ian Bruce

My right hon. Friend has been a Member of the House longer than I have, and experienced the 18 years of the previous Conservative Government. Does he remember any condemnation from the Labour party of the House of Lords defeating or amending any clause when we were in government?

Sir Norman Fowler

My hon. Friend makes a good point. When Labour was in opposition, it took every opportunity afforded by any dissent in the House of Lords.

In the case of the amendment, there is no reason why anyone should talk of constitutional threats. The Government lost by 118 votes to 122 votes at 3.45 in the afternoon. They could have won, but they failed to get their vote out. They did not get the support of their side. For example, where was Lord Hattersley, who had only recently been made a working peer? I could hazard a guess.

I am told by those who know in the other place that 52 Labour peers failed to vote, including three Ministers. If that is so, the Minister should ask the forgiveness of the House. The real problem, which the Minister touched on, was that the Government expected the Liberal Democrats to support them. [Interruption.] Well, expectations are free, but—to give the Minister his due—there was some substance in that expectation.

When the issue at the heart of the amendment—the need to publish the Bill before the referendum—was debated in Committee in the House, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that he was opposed to it. He said: The Liberal Democrats take a different view from that of the Conservative party. We are not arguing that it is possible to produce the Bill before we have the referendum".—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 383.]

However, when the issue was discussed by the Lords, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Baroness Hamwee, said that, ideally, the referendum would take place after a Bill had passed through both Houses of Parliament. She said that she did not intend to argue for that to happen, but she proposed an amendment that would have meant that the Bill would have at least been published before the referendum. It was in that state of total indecision that the Liberal Democrats bravely decided to abstain. The result was that the Government lost the vote. That is the true history of the proceedings.

The significance of the Government's defeat goes wider. Although it has not been announced, representatives of the Liberal Democrats and Ministers of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions form a small committee on local government. The plot gets thicker.

Thus, on Thursday 15 January, the second meeting of that committee took place. I understand that it was attended, from the Liberal Democrats, by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who had chosen that dark room in which to lie down and take the tablets—as he was once famously directed to do by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).

On the other side of the table was the Minister for London and Construction, supported by three civil servants. Unsurprisingly, the Minister was miffed. He pointed out that, in the Commons, the Liberal Democrats had not supported an amendment seeking the publication of a Bill before the referendum, but that in the Lords they had abstained on the issue, leading to the Government's defeat. The defence offered to that charge by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was that the Liberal Democrats had not expected the amendment to be passed, and that was why they had abstained. They got it wrong.

Far from the success of the amendment being a constitutional issue of real importance, it was nothing of the sort. It was a Government cock-up. They were let down by their Liberal Democrat allies, and nothing could be less surprising. The Liberal Democrats are in danger of giving indecision a bad name.

Even more curious is their role in opposition. Periodically, they burst from cover proclaiming that they are the real Opposition, normally on the basis of the number of written questions that they have tabled. Most hon. Members would not regard that as the acid test. We now find that the Liberal Democrats are in cosy discussions with the Government all the time. In his relationship with the Government, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, far from being the Lloyd George of the first world war, is more like the Marshal Main of the second world war.

Lady Hamwee had more sense than the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. That may not be difficult, but it is worthy of some attention, because she was right when she said that, ideally, a referendum should take place after a Bill covering the substantive proposals had been thoroughly scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that the Minister himself will confirm that that is precisely the case that we have made throughout.

The Government have chosen to hold a referendum. That is their choice. It follows that the referendum should be held only when the electorate are in the best position to judge. It should be held when the people know exactly what they will get. Therefore, it should be held after the legislation has been debated and decided on by Parliament. If we are to have referendums, that is how the Conservatives believe they should be approached.

The Government cannot even claim that the referendum is a permanent part of their approach to local government. They have decided on a referendum for London, but they have not done so for the so-called executive mayors of whom the Government have made so much in the past few days. There will be no referendum for executive mayors if they are proposed in Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool or any other town or borough, because the legislation does not allow for it.

Where do the provisions that the Government have been making so much of, such as executive mayors and cabinets, come from? Ironically, they do not come from the Government. It is not Government legislation, but a private Member's Bill, introduced by one of his Lordships in the House of Lords. That is the Bill that the Government are relying on, and they trumpet that it is going to be a revolutionary change to local government. They say that provisions for a referendum would unacceptably increase the size of the Bill.

Mr. Raynsford

rose—

Sir Norman Fowler

I have with me the Deputy Prime Minister's response to that, and that, as I understand it, is the Government's case.

7.30 pm

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman was rather churlish about the Bill being proposed in the other place by Lord Hunt. Does he accept that it was reasonable for a Government interested in encouraging democratic innovation in local government to build on the recommendations of the all-party group chaired by Lord Hunt, which received the support of all parties in the upper House, and to accept the Bill that he drafted based on the recommendations as a sensible basis for continuing? Is that not a good and sensible way for any Government interested in reform to proceed?

Sir Norman Fowler

No, I would not accept that. Something as profound—that is not my view but that of the Minister—as the proposals to reform local government should be in a Government Bill. The Government should take it through. It should go through Committee and have proper scrutiny.

Perhaps the Minister for Transport in London will tell us what that proper scrutiny will be. With a private Member's Bill coming from the Lords, it is anything but clear what scrutiny there will be. We are dealing with profound changes. There will be executive mayors in boroughs, cabinets and inner cabinets. There is no provision for a referendum. I want the hon. Lady to give some idea what scrutiny the House of Commons will be able to give that legislation. We are not prepared to nod it through on a Friday afternoon, if that is what the Minister for London and Construction thinks.

Ideally, a referendum should follow the passing of legislation. It is only then that Parliament will have decided on the position. A White Paper is no more than a statement of intent. Much of the devil will be in the Bill's detail. I stress that the amendment that the Lords passed did not ask for the legislation to be passed before a referendum took place. All it asked for was for the Bill to be published. It is a very modest proposition, but one that would have value for the public.

The Government have promised a White Paper, but we do not know how much detail it will include. The Green Paper is little more than a series of generalisations, together with no fewer than 62 questions to the public. We do not know whether all those questions will be answered in the White Paper.

Will we have enough information on the proposed electoral system? What will be the position on constituencies? What will be the exact functions of the new assembly and mayor? Will the police authority for the Metropolitan police have a majority of elected members from the new Greater London Authority? What will be the exact pay of the mayor and assembly members? Should assembly members be paid at all?

Those issues will doubtless be dealt with generally, and in some cases particularly, in the White Paper but anyone with experience of dealing with legislation in this House knows that there is a vast difference between a White Paper and a published Bill in which one can see all the details.

Mr. Raynsford

I want to help the hon. Gentleman. Rather than having him continue to ask such questions at considerable length, I remind him of our earlier debates, in which I gave clear undertakings that we will publish a full White Paper setting out in detail the Government's conclusions on the issues that he raised.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a great discourtesy to the House for the Minister to keep referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) as "the hon. Member"? The Minister has been here long enough. Surely he could learn the distinction between honourable and right honourable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is normal to obey the courtesies. I am sure that it was only an oversight on the Minister's part.

Mr. Raynsford

I regret that, in the course of my intervention, I failed to observe the normal courtesy. It was in no way disrespectful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), but a result of my wish to concentrate on the key point that I was making.

The Government have already given clear undertakings that the White Paper will set out in detail and in plain English all the key issues about structures, powers, the method of election and the operation of the Greater London authority that the people of London will need to know about to reach a judgment. Is that not a sensible way to proceed?

Sir Norman Fowler

No. It is better than the Green Paper, but the devil is in the detail. One must see the Bill. Everyone understands that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It is a pity. I know that it is terribly unfashionable for Ministers to want to be held to account, but that is the only way that we can hold people to account. It is the only way for proper scrutiny to take place so that the public can make a judgment.

Mr. Raynsford

rose—

Sir Norman Fowler

I will give way again, but, as he realises, the Minister is extending the debate.

Mr. Raynsford

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way for the third time, which will be the last time that I seek to intervene. If he believes that the path he outlines is the essential way forward, why did his Government, when it abolished the Greater London council, not publish any Bill in advance of abolition or allow any opportunity for the people of London to express their view through a referendum?

Sir Norman Fowler

We have had this debate, and answered that point, before. We told the Minister about our manifesto commitment, the White Paper and the paving Bill. We also told him how it was evident to everyone apart from him and the Minister for Transport in London that, not only was there public resentment about the fact that the GLC was not working, but that the other metropolitan authorities were also not working.

The Minister must remember that the other authorities, such as mine in the west midlands, were abolished at the same time. As a constituency Member, I had precisely two letters of complaint about the abolition of the West Midlands county council, both from people who worked for it

Sir Paul Beresford

Does my right hon. Friend remember the appreciation of the Labour party in opposition when the previous Government managed to publish draft bills? Labour now denies that it was able to clarify problems because of that.

Sir Norman Fowler

The point is made. The Minister understands it, although he cannot give any answers on it.

Mr. Ian Bruce

I am trying desperately to find where the Bill says that the Minister will produce a White Paper. He has given assurances, but if they mean anything, they should be in this Bill. A draft Bill on the authority would be even better.

Sir Norman Fowler

Absolutely, but I accept the Minister's assurances that he will provide a White Paper.

We will doubtless be given generalised answers to some of our questions in the White Paper, but anyone with any interest in the matter wants to see the detail, the exact provisions, of what the Government propose. At present, the House and the public do not know what the provisions will be. Even would-be contenders for the job of mayor, such as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), do not know.

I do not want to be critical of the hon. Lady. We are very anxious that she should be Labour's candidate for mayor. We will give her all the help we can in that respect. If she can take with her the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), we would have the dream ticket. The point I put is that the White Paper will not provide the answers.

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is especially important to see the text of a Bill that has constitutional implications? Constitution-making is a legal process. To see intentions in the White Paper is one thing, but to see the structure within which conflicts are to be resolved in legal terms is doubly important in constitution-making.

Sir Norman Fowler

Absolutely. My hon. Friend, with his experience, is correct.

The amendment was a thoroughly sensible change for the House of Lords to make. If the Government had wanted to defeat it, they should have mobilised their voting strength. It cuts no ice now to complain about constitutional challenges. That is absurd, and it is recognised as absurd. The second chamber should not simply rubber-stamp without alteration every piece of legislation that comes from this House.

There is a case of real substance in the amendment. If there is to be a referendum, the public are entitled to the maximum amount of detailed information on which to make up their minds. So far, all that we have been offered is a Green Paper that asks 61 questions. We have now been given the promise of a White Paper that will give some generalised replies; but the acid test must be the published Bill itself.

The Government have decreed that the referendum will take place before the legislation comes to the House. We disagree with that as a matter of principle, but the very least that the Government can do is to publish the Bill in good time for the referendum, so that the public know what the position is and can decide.

Mr. Wilkinson

We have heard a wide-ranging speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who has demolished the Government's case. I believe that Labour peers stayed away deliberately. I can understand Lord Hattersley not getting to the Division Lobby by 3.45 of an afternoon, but the other 51 ought to have been there. Of course, it suited the Government very well that they should not be, and it suited their Liberal collaborators as well, inasmuch as those parties wish to discredit the other place and find some rationale for their programme to abolish hereditary peerages.

The peers have done their job well. I shall seek to explain why. First, unlike the Minister for London and Construction, I believe that the additional cost of holding the referendum at a more appropriate time, after publication of the Bill, would be money extremely well spent because the electors of London would have time to judge the legislative proposals. If the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield were heeded, the Bill would have been passed by Parliament before the referendum, and the voters would know exactly what they would have to pay for. They would not be required to endorse a blank cheque, as they are under the Government's proposals. We are all well aware that a White Paper is binding on no one. The chances are that, when the Bill emerges from both Houses of Parliament, it will be very different in content and prescription from what the White Paper originally suggested.

The Government claim that they will save the people of London £2 million in May, but the people of London could be saved hundreds of millions of pounds if they were allowed to make a proper, informed judgment on the legislative proposals enacted by Parliament.

7.45 pm

Mr. Ian Bruce

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting his speech. I have just been to the Vote Office to get a copy of the consultation document on local democracy and community leadership in England, which I understand was published a few days ago. Copies were probably sent to our colleagues in London. Unfortunately, there are no copies of the document in the Vote Office now. The Vote Office has asked the Department responsible to rush copies over, but they have not arrived. Is it in order for the House to debate a matter to which a document is highly relevant when the document is not available and the Department has failed to produce it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that the debate can continue without the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Sir Norman Fowler

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We accept your ruling, but can it be stated explicitly so that Ministers understand that the document has not been made available to hon. Members. I had to get in touch with the Deputy Prime Minister's office to get a copy. That is no way to treat the House of Commons. [Interruption.] If Ministers wish to display the arrogance that the Minister for Transport in London is displaying now, that is fine, but documents relevant to a debate on local government should be available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

As I understand it, the document does not relate directly to the matter before the House.

Mr. Wilkinson

The Government's proposals to ignore the Lords amendment put the people of London in double jeopardy. The campaign over the referendum will draw people's attention away from the key issue in London—how boroughs are governed. In the Evening Standard tonight there is an article about a social services inspectorate report. The headline is "New storm over abuse of children in care". It relates to Hillingdon borough council, a Labour-controlled council. It is clearly in dereliction of its duty to the children in care in that borough. The referendum campaign will be conducted during the borough election campaign. The electors of my borough will wish to focus on such local issues without distractions. The same will be the case in Hackney, where similar problems pertain, and in other boroughs where Labour has been in control.

The people of London will not have any time between 23 March, when the White Paper is to be published, and 7 May. As the Minister is well aware, that is the May holiday period. Many people will be away. It is just not right that proposals of such significance for London's future and potentially so costly to people should be so cursorily examined. If Parliament could go into the real details, as my right hon. Friend suggests, through the legislative procedures of both Houses, we could find out what the people of London would have to pay for. The White Paper may, for example, say in general terms how the Government hope that the Greater London authority will be financed, but the sums to be raised and the financial prescriptions will have to be laid out in the financial schedules of the legislation.

The Minister for Transport in London has an intense personal interest in these matters. One would have thought that the hon. Lady, who is such a keen potential candidate for mayor, would seek to have those matters brought before Londoners—but no. As with so many of the Government's proposals, the proposals are long on generality and short on detail, long on rhetoric and very short on practicalities. The people of London deserve better.

The voting system is of intense importance. My constituents live in Hillingdon, an outer London borough with particular problems associated with the green belt and London airport, and it is essential that there should be an electoral system that represents their local interests. Should the assembly be formed, there should be a borough representative on it. That may not be what transpires. I am sure that my constituents would vote for an assembly only if they knew and could be guaranteed that a form of representation would exist which secured their local interests in that authority.

All we know from the leaks from Peter Kellner in the Evening Standard and so on is that it is likely that there will be 14 elected members for all of London, and another 11 on a list. We can be no more certain of that, even if it is confirmed in the White Paper, unless it is also confirmed in a Bill passed by Parliament.

Mr. Ian Bruce

I am sure that the Minister for London and Construction would have kept the commitment to the House if the Government had simply published one copy of the White Paper, even if they then did not bother to send it to anyone else. Tonight's behaviour is typical of the Government. They have said that they have produced a Green Paper, but it is not available to all hon. Members, and is probably not even available to Labour Members, who have not sought to intervene in the debate. Surely we should get a commitment from the Government to make sure that the information is available.

Mr. Wilkinson

My hon. Friend is technically right.

Mr. Raynsford

It is only right that the House should be reminded that I gave a clear undertaking earlier in the debate—and I am sorry if the hon. Member for South Dorset, (Mr. Bruce) did not hear—that we would not just be publishing a White Paper, but circulating a summary version of it to every household in London.

Mr. Wilkinson

I am glad of that important clarification, although it does not resolve the issue at the heart of the debate. I welcome the Minister's confirmation of his previous announcement, however.

Mr. Lansley

My hon. Friend has referred to the electoral arrangements. I wonder whether he has noticed that the White Paper will almost certainly be published before the point at which, under the Bill, the Local Government Commission provides advice on those arrangements, whereas, necessarily, the Bill, when published, will have to implement that advice from the Local Government Commission. There is a difference of substance between the White Paper and the Bill on the question of the electoral arrangements.

Mr. Wilkinson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for raising that extremely important point. It may seem a detail to the Minister, who is chatting away to the prospective mayoral candidate from Hampstead and Highgate, but my hon. Friend has raised a matter of crucial importance. It demonstrates the way in which democracy is being defrauded in London.

The Minister said that the Government's proposal to overturn their lordships amendment was good for democracy and for common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has demolished the democracy argument, and I cannot see how it makes sense to press ahead with a referendum to confirm the proposals for a Greater London authority without the genuine endorsement of the electorate of London for those proposals.

Surely the Government want their proposals to endure and do not want them to be subsequently changed by successor Governments. Surely the Minister does not want a Greater London council abolition mark II to be inflicted on the Greater London authority. I imagine not. He would be much more likely to get the proposals right if the people of London were able to make a fully informed judgment of their validity.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has mentioned the electoral system, which is germane to the argument. All we know about it—and again our source is Mr. Kellner, who has a good entree into Labour circles—is that there will be different systems for the mayoralty and for the assembly. We need this to be confirmed in legislation because, if the people of London are only to be offered one question, they will need to understand whether the assembly will have authority based upon an electoral system with which they agree for the election of both political personalities. They do not just want to be offered some conjectural or hypothetical proposition in a White Paper, which is subject to subsequent change. They want to know about the electoral system that the Government intend to propose. It is a matter of intense significance to the people of London, as is the question of the constituencies.

Without being too parochial, it is important to know in legislation the actual pattern of the constituencies. Will Hillingdon be one constituency with Harrow, Ealing or Hounslow, all of which are different, distinct communities, with different interests? The answer is of immense importance. It is no good for a White Paper just to say that there will be large constituencies combining five parliamentary constituencies or something of that kind, and for the boundary commissioners to be given the job of creating those constituencies. The people of London need to know much more precisely what geographical area their assemblymen will represent. Those are matters of intense interest.

The Government may say that the timing is inappropriate, but that is manifest nonsense, as are all their other arguments. The Government could still introduce the necessary Bill in the Queen's Speech for the next Session and allow it to be published, as the amendment suggests, eight weeks before a referendum. It could be perfectly possible to publish the White Paper on 23 March, giving the spring and the summer for a full consultation process and a debate on the White Paper in the House, followed by the publication of the Bill. It would be perfectly possible to do that in good time for a referendum in the autumn or thereabouts.

I do not accept any of the arguments that the Government have put to us and to the people of London. The people of London are being defrauded of their democratic entitlement to know exactly what are the legislative proposals that they will be called on to endorse in a referendum. It is all very well for the Government to use this issue as another means of mocking the democratic validity and judgment of the other place. In this particular case, their lordships House has done the people of London a signal service and it is thoroughly improper for the Government to pretend otherwise.

Mr. John Horam (Orpington)

The Minister for London and Construction was remarkably partisan when he attempted to persuade the House to reject the amendment from another place. That was a pity, especially as it contrasted strikingly with the even-handed approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). The Minister was partisan and somewhat petulant in his rejection of, and his constant interventions on, the reasonable and strongly democratic arguments made from the Conservative Benches.

We are debating something that is fundamental to London, to democracy and to the constitution. I should have thought that, given the history of London democracy and control, the Minister, of all people, with his concerns, would have wanted to foster at least some areas of consensus. There are areas of consensus—for example, regarding the mayor. Nevertheless, in my view, the hon. Gentleman went out of his way to present his objections to the Lords amendment in a particularly partisan and petulant way. I regret that. He would have had the House more on his side if he had been much more even-handed and fair in his approach to our arguments.

8 pm

Mr. Ian Bruce

Has my hon. Friend noticed that Conservative Members keep being called to speak and that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are having difficulty in finding any Labour Member to support the Government's arguments? Is it not strange to see a Government Whip, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), sitting among those silent Labour Members, ensuring that they do not intervene? Perhaps that tells us what Back Benchers really think of democracy and what their Ministers are trying to get up to.

Mr. Horam

Perhaps the Government Whip is having difficulty in persuading his hon. Friends to speak in the debate.

Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East)

It is too early.

Mr. Horam

Perhaps they have very little to say. Perhaps they should say something. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can persuade them—

Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North)

Thinking of rejoining us, are you?

Mr. Horam

Oh, no.

The Minister's argument was twofold. First, he said that the Lords amendment was a "wrecking" amendment. Secondly, he said that we should be "ashamed" of supporting the Lords amendment. That is complete nonsense. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Far too many remarks are being bandied about the Chamber from both sides. I plead with Members now to listen in silence to the hon. Gentleman who is on his feet.

Mr. Horam

Both the charges that have been levelled against us are bogus. The Minister has been in the House long enough to know that "wrecking amendment" is a specific term, normally used of an amendment that is intended to get a Bill abandoned or sidetracked. It is not a question of inserting into a Bill a provision about the timetabling another Bill. Lords amendment No. 1 is in no sense a wrecking amendment. It would not even wreck the timetable of the Government's proposals or the critical path along which they must pass.

As the Minister knows, we could hold a referendum later in the year. It need not be held on 7 May; it could be held in June, July or August.

Mr. Raynsford

It costs money.

Mr. Horam

From a sedentary position, the Minister says that it costs money. But let us establish that the amendment is in no sense a wrecking amendment, and that the Minister's remarks were extravagant and went over the top. It is not meant in any sense to be a wrecking amendment. We do not mean to wreck the Bill; we merely mean, in a more democratic and more sensible way, to give the people of London the opportunity to express their views about a very important matter which could determine the government of London for years, indeed decades, to come.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet)

If the Minister is going to use the argument that it would save money to hold a referendum on the day of the London borough elections on 7 May, may I point out that he could equally save money by not holding a referendum? The Government have chosen to hold a referendum, and it is better to get the details into the public domain, so that the people of London can make an informed choice in the referendum.

Mr. Horam

My hon. Friend is quite right.

The second argument that the Minister used was that the amendment would cost money. It is amazing for the Labour party to level at the Conservatives the charge that we are spendthrift—that was the word used. It is suggested that we are needlessly wasting Government money. In fact, about £2 million to £3 million is involved.

Why are the Government holding the referendum on 7 May? They are doing so because they wish to conceal the spending record of Labour councils in London. [Laughter.] Absolutely. In the current financial year, the average Labour council is spending at a rate 61 per cent. higher than the average Conservative council. I am citing figures for the whole country. The position in London, where we have these vastly expensive, practically bankrupt councils, must be even worse.

By accusing others of wanting to spend an extra £2 million to £3 million, the Government are trying to conceal the fact that Labour councils are recklessly spending millions and millions of pounds of council tax payer's and taxpayer's money. This is a subject for debate. My hon. Friend who spoke last, my hon. Friend the Member for—

Mr. Gerald Howarth

Ruislip-Northwood.

Mr. Horam

My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made the point that the people of London, in their boroughs, need to focus on the real issues; and the real issues are the comparative spending levels of Conservative councils and Labour councils.

I am sorry to say that the Liberals are in the same boat. The average Liberal council costs 44 per cent. more than a Conservative council. That shows the extent to which the Liberals are tarred with the same brush. That is the real issue that Londoners should be allowed to debate and focus on, not the ridiculous amount of £2 million to £3 million to hold a referendum on a separate date, when we could focus on the real issues.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) said in one or two interventions, the real issue is that the Government are showing their lack of trust in parliamentarians and the people of London. There is a difference between a White Paper and a Bill. Hon. Members of long standing have seen the difference between a White Paper and a Bill. I do not make a partisan point here. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do.''] As a parliamentarian, I have often regretted the difference between a White Paper that has been brought to the House and a subsequent Bill. It is a fact of life, and we can no more trust the Government then we could any previous Government, Labour or Conservative, not to amend the detail of a Bill following a perfectly faithful representation in the House of what is in the White Paper.

The Minister tries to have it both ways by saying that the White Paper will have all the detail, but if it has all the details, he can publish the Bill. If it has all the details, there is no problem in publishing a Bill in due course. So he is really—

Mr. Ian Bruce

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will allow me to make this point. On Friday 30 January, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) had published a great deal of information about the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill that he was introducing to the House. The Bill was not published until almost the day before it was debated, and we noticed that all the road traffic targets had been taken out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think we should deal with the Bill before the House.

Mr. Horam

I entirely agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The problem is that the Government are ignoring the very sensible and experienced views of Parliament in this respect. All Governments have changed Bills, sometimes as a consequence of genuine representations, and in some cases because they have got it wrong in a White Paper and wish to make amendments when the Bill is published. Quite apart from that, many details come up in the course of drafting legislation suitable for the House of Commons, which necessitate changes in the detail of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield is right about that. Prudence is wise in that respect. It is a pity, from the viewpoint, once again, of parliamentary rectitude and common sense, that we are taking this path.

If I may say so, as a London Member, who represents a constituency on the very edge of London, in Bromley, I have a particular concern—[Laughter.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) is laughing about. [HON. MEMBERS: "But we do."] I am not surprised about that.

I wish that Orpington was not a part of London. Many of my constituents wish that we were still part of Kent. Perhaps there should be a third question in the referendum, in addition to the two that we are advocating, so that some of us could request to secede from London as we have it now. That would be very popular among my constituents.

In Orpington, being part of the borough of Bromley, which is obviously at the edge of London, we have specific anxieties about this approach, which we would wish to have aired. Many details that appear to be unsettled as yet—issues that worry councillors and other constituents in my area—would be resolved by the full publication of a Bill.

Take transport. The mayor will apparently be able to take action to implement Londonwide strategies, including transport policy. The role of the assembly will be to scrutinise the activities of other publicly funded London organisations, presumably including transport organisations. We should not forget the London development agency. That curious body is the third leg of that strange stool.

Mr. Lansley

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a particular difficulty in that the White Paper will be published in the week beginning 23 March but the Government's White Paper on integrated transport policy is not expected until late May or early June? The London Chamber of Commerce told us today that transport is the most important issue for business, yet the transport White Paper will be followed by the Bill and then the referendum.

Mr. Horam

The fact is that policy is evolving in many areas, including transport and health. A recent White Paper on health in London set out new proposals for allocating health expenditure in the capital. Those proposals must be stitched in with the Government's other proposals for London government. We must think more carefully about transport and health issues.

It is not simply that we have been promised an integrated transport policy in the near future, or that the London development agency, the mayor and the assembly have an interest in these matters, but the Government also have an interest.

Take, for example, the recent events concerning the channel tunnel rail link. I do not criticise the Government for what has happened; they followed their policy and they are now allowing various parties to come forward within 30 days to offer alternative proposals that may allow the project to succeed. I hope that it will succeed. Railtrack has produced an alternative proposal, which was canvassed widely in the press recently, whereby the project will be changed so that the link ends at the boundaries of London and proceeds on the old track. I am wholly hostile to that proposal, which misses the point of the original idea of a separate channel tunnel rail link.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must return to the amendment in hand.

Mr. Horam

I shall certainly apprehend your reasonable comments most carefully, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not pursue that point, but I believe that the Government should consider it carefully.

The three bodies proposed by the Government's legislation as well as the Government have responsibilities in this area. Policy is evolving in many fields, and health and transport have been mentioned. I think that it is right for the Government to give the House and the Opposition parties an opportunity to say what they think. The people of London should also have an idea of what the total package will be at the end of the day. At present, the policy is being revealed in dribs and drabs—in some cases via a White Paper, in others via a statement and, in this case, via a Bill before Parliament. That is extremely unsatisfactory. I hope that the Government will consider the matter more carefully and allow the amendment to stand.

Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam)

While listening to the opening of the debate earlier this evening, I was rather struck by the mock rage expressed at what had occurred in the other place on the two amendments. I was reminded of the debate in this place during early stages of the Bill when the Minister at the Dispatch Box challenged the Liberal Democrats and the Opposition to come up with a two-question referendum that worked. As that has happened, it is hardly surprising that the legislation should return to this place.

It is hardly our fault if we rise to the challenge offered by the Minister and deliver on it in another place. We are here tonight because of that challenge. We would not need to be here if the Minister had allowed a similar amendment when the Bill was last before the House. The Liberal Democrats will take no criticism from the Minister about the importance of the role of the House of Lords. It is important that the points that we raised in the House are pursued and debated in another place.

It has been interesting to watch and listen to the debate. Until now, Opposition Members have bobbed up and down as though they had pins on their seats, and Government Members have appeared to be "Blutacked" to their seats. I look forward to hearing from Government Back Benchers whether they have questions for the Government on how the Greater London authority will work in practice. [Interruption.] As Labour Members remain stuck to their seat, they are willing to make only sedentary comments. Having wound them up, I shall now progress to other matters that may not make them any happier.

8.15 pm

In a few months, the people of London will be asked to decide on the future of government in our city. Most Londoners want a citywide authority to tackle the challenges facing any world city. However, the debate about how the new government will work has barely begun. So far, it has been hijacked by debate about the personalities involved—even tonight, we have heard about the personalities who may be candidates in the election for mayor. Londoners face the prospect of two more years of debate about who governs London rather than how London will be governed—style over substance. However, the substance matters, and the Government must start to provide some answers to important questions.

The Liberal Democrats have sought at every stage of the Bill's passage to push the Government on two fronts. First, we want the Government to be more explicit about how their model of two in one—mayor and assembly in one authority—will work. Secondly, we have asked the Government to be more open about the final shape of London government. The Government should listen and let the people decide.

The Liberal Democrat position has been set out clearly: we oppose having a directly elected mayor. However, we have never sought to halt the passage of the Bill or to wreck it. We want to see a referendum accompanied by genuine debate about what form of government is right for the capital. We do not believe that power should be concentrated in the hands of one person: we prefer a cabinet model with an executive that is drawn from, and accountable to, the assembly.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman seems to be taking a little time to come to the point of the amendment. Does he support the view expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 19 November? He said: We are not arguing that it is possible to produce the Bill before we have the referendum".—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 383.] Does the hon. Gentleman support the view expressed by Baroness Hamwee in another place? She suggested that the Bill should be published at least six weeks before the date of the referendum".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 941.] The hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to explain his position.

Mr. Burstow

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I hope that he will at least acknowledge that the subjects I am addressing are germane to the debate about London government—a characteristic that was lacking in other contributions. My remarks will address his question directly, and I shall turn to them in my own good time.

I was about to say that the Lords amendment before the House is one of two that were debated. One was moved by my colleague Baroness Hamwee and the other was moved by Lord Bowness. As a result of the laxity of Labour Whips in another place, the second amendment was passed. Baroness Hamwee's amendment was intended to probe the Government's willingness to be more open about their proposals and how they would work.

During the debate—I have read the transcript, as I am sure the Minister has—the Minister replying to the debate on the amendment moved by Baroness Hamwee offered an assurance that there would be time to debate the White Paper in both Houses before the referendum. On that basis, my colleague withdrew the amendment. That is a perfectly reasonable position to adopt in Committee in the other place. It often happens in Committee in this place. It is hardly the fault of Liberal Democrats here or in the other place that Labour Whips in the other place were unable to get their act together and put seven more Labour peers through the Lobby to defeat the Conservatives.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) did not press his amendment and was assured by the Minister that the White Paper would be published in the week beginning 23 March, which would have allowed six or seven weeks for public debate before the referendum. We wanted a little longer than that, but we decided that the additional two weeks for which we were campaigning was not a large enough issue to prevent us from supporting the Government and we did not press amendments.

Neither the offer of a debate nor the commitment to publish the White Paper six weeks before the referendum is as much as we would like. However, they are improvements and that is why we reject the Lords amendment and shall vote against it. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have sought to improve it and to encourage debate about the future governance of London. We are not trying to wreck the Bill. The Lords amendment would require the Government to publish the detailed Bill in advance of the referendum. That would have the consequences that Ministers have suggested, and that is why we do not support it.

The Government should practise what they preach. Some hon. Members seem to have been unable to obtain from the Vote Office the consultation paper that was issued on Monday by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is entitled "Modernising Local Government" and contains many fine words about the value and importance of consultation in shaping policy. When Labour embarked on its road to the manifesto process, its paper "A Voice for London" stated: we aren't saying, 'This is it. Take it or leave it.' We have our ideas. But we recognise other people have good ideas too. It's really important that we get things right—that we come up with a London-wide authority that really works and really makes things better. I agree, and that is why we want Londoners to be able to make an informed decision on 7 May. Electoral arrangements for the mayor and the assembly, which hon. Members have mentioned, their role and functions, where the GLA's powers will come from—will they be hoovered up from local government or drawn rather like teeth from Whitehall?—are important issues. In addition, we want to find out, and many people outside want to understand, how gridlock will be avoided.

Funding is an increasingly important issue. In an otherwise uncritical paper which was published by the Association of London Government last week, entitled "A Tale of Two Cities, the government of New York: Lessons for London", the authors Tony Travers and Gerry Stokes wrote—

Mr. McNulty

It is Stoker.

Mr. Burstow

I defer to the hon. Gentleman. That is the only occasion on which I will defer to him.

The authors of that document state: The greatest doubts about the proposals for London remain around its fiscal and financial capacity. The Mayor of London will have much more than the Mayor of New York to look to higher levels of government for funding. The relationship between the Albany—capital of the state—and New York is not always comfortable. The proposed new arrangements for London may prove even more difficult for Whitehall given that the funding regime may give the Mayor little option but to look to central government for increased resources, backed by the votes of some 5 million Londoners. Those are the words of independent assessors who generally support the Government's proposals. The disease that local government has at the moment—lack of financial independence—will afflict the GLA and without that independence everything else becomes secondary. That is why we say that London's budget must be for Londoners. The GLA must be as free as possible from interference.

Mr. McNulty

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burstow

The Blutack has been removed.

Mr. McNulty

Many thanks for deferring to me again. I do not mean to trouble you, but if you could possibly go back to your—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but will he please use the correct parliamentary language?

Mr. McNulty

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could get back to the amendment.

On 26 November, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said: 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."—[Official Report, 26 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 990.] That is a perfectly reasonable position, but it does not bear comparison with the action of Liberal Democrats in the other place. If they had supported that position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is turning into a speech.

Mr. Burstow

The hon. Gentleman should make his own speech rather than seeking to contribute by way of an intervention. His question to me was answered when I replied earlier to an intervention by the Minister. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that, perhaps he will take the opportunity to read and reflect on my speech in Hansard. If he does that, he will be happy to accept that I have dealt with the point and demonstrated that the debate in the other place on the amendment that was moved by my noble Friend the Baroness Hamwee enabled the issue to be discussed.

We secured an assurance from the Minister in the other place that there would be an opportunity for both Houses to debate the White Paper before the referendum. We sought that assurance, and when we received it we withdrew our amendment. It is hardly our fault if Labour Whips in the other place could not get their act together to deliver an additional seven votes to defeat the Conservatives. No amount of protest will dispose of that.

Mr. Hughes

I shall deal fully with the question by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). In support of my hon. Friend, I can offer a quotation from my noble Friend the Baroness Hamwee. It is at column 941 and she says—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to quote from speeches by anyone in the other House other than Ministers.

Mr. Hughes

In that case, I shall refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that my noble Friend made it absolutely clear that we did not wish to delay the referendum, but that the Government were seeking to provide a second-best solution. It is there in black and white, and it will completely reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Burstow

Labour Members can obtain copies of the Lords Hansard. The hon. Member for Harrow, East has a copy with him and he will know that my response to his intervention was correct.

Mr. McNulty

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burstow

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman just once more.

Mr. McNulty

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. My point was not about Baroness Hamwee's amendment but about the subsequent one. Logically, and in keeping with what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said in this place, you would have voted against that. I do not want to hear any silly little noises about us getting our act together. Your logical and reasonable position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman really must learn proper parliamentary language.

Mr. Burstow

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman expounding on that issue when he makes a speech later.

At the heart of the two amendments, one of which we shall not support, is the extent to which the Government are willing to be candid with the people of London about their detailed proposals. That is why we want the referendum in the form that is proposed by the Bill. We do not accept that a detailed Bill needs to be published, but we want to be sure that there is more than adequate time for the White Paper to be debated.

Progress so far on the debate about the GLA is rather like a candlelit dinner, at which there is a warm glow but not enough light for the diners to see what they are eating. Most Londoners feel positive about the proposal. They desire a new form of government for London but much unseen detail will prove harder for Londoners to swallow. Throughout the Bill's passage, Liberal Democrats have adopted a constructive approach. We have no doubt that London needs a strategic authority that is capable of leading the capital. The Government's aim should be to establish that new authority with as broad a base as possible. We think that that broad-based support is best achieved by an open debate about the precise form of government that Londoners—

Mr. Lansley

I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's comments on the Liberal Democrat position. Am I right to think that you believe that it is impossible to publish the Bill before a referendum on 7 May but that your—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The remarks I made earlier to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) apply to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lansley

I am falling into error, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour not to do so again.

Am I right in thinking that the Liberal Democrats believe that it is impossible to have publication of the Bill before the 7 May referendum, but that they took the view in the other place that to have the White Paper and the Bill together would be preferable? If the referendum were to take place on a later date, that would be possible.

8.30 pm

Mr. Burstow

If the referendum were to take place on a later date, that might prove possible, but we are committed to the idea that the referendum should take place on 7 May. Our position has been that the White Paper is enough. That is what we are proposing and it is what we supported when the Bill was considered in the House earlier. That is the position that we will stick to tonight.

We believe that the onus is on the Government to secure broad-based support. The best way to do that is through a full debate, not just in this place but in London as a whole. That is why the earlier the White Paper can be published, the better. The opportunity for a debate on the White Paper before the referendum is vital. I hope that we will hear some words of assurance from the Minister that the House will have an opportunity to debate the White Paper before the referendum. That is crucial.

If we do not have that debate, the people of London will not be as well informed as they could be, and hon. Members will feel let down by the Government. They have made much of consultation, especially recently with the publication of their consultation document.

We will be supporting the Government in voting against the Lords amendment and we will be supporting the amendment that was passed in the other place in respect of the two-vote referendum. With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will talk about that later.

Mr. Lansley

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is ironic that the Minister, although not his hon. Friends, should decry the intervention of the House of Lords in seeking to amend the Bill. We are told that he does that in the cause of democracy. As I understand it, in this place democracy is served not simply by voting, but by debate followed by a vote. Now that the Bill has returned to this House and it is our responsibility to debate the amendments, the Minister—he presented his case—is unsupported in debate by any arguments from his hon. Friends. It is only democratic if, when we vote, we do so on the basis of a debate. A debate entails the presentation of arguments on both sides. I hope that I will be pleasantly surprised by the presentation of arguments in support of the Minister. If not, one will be forced to wonder whether such arguments exist.

We do not want to debate the merits or otherwise of the other place having an opportunity to amend the Bill. However, with this amendment they have asked us to look again at a particular issue. It is clear that some of the best arguments in favour of the amendment would stand up to good examination, which takes us beyond the consideration that took place in Committee. There is merit in thinking again in this House and responding positively to the way in which the Lords have amended the Bill.

Labour Members might wonder why a Member representing South Cambridgeshire should take such an interest in Greater London matters. They will know that I did so during our earlier consideration of the Bill. I do so because many of my constituents work in London.

Also, I believe that there is some precedent in the way in which we deal with these matters in London—in the establishment of a tier of regional government—and the way in which the Government might choose to dispose of the issues relating to regional government elsewhere in the country. I would be loth to allow the Government to proceed in a certain way in relation to London and then do the same in relation to other regions when we might discover that the consultative procedures were not as democratic or open as they might be.

Many people in my constituency attach great importance to the governance of London. They believe that the way in which our capital city is governed should be important to hon. Members throughout the country. The same is true—I will not prolong this thought—of the debates on Scotland and Wales. In those debates, the participation of hon. Members from outside Scotland and Wales has been distinguished and important. It is the responsibility of all hon. Members to care about the constitution of this country. That is certainly true when we venture down the path of referendums.

The first best solution, which is not now available, would be to have a referendum only after the Bill has been debated in this place. The electorate of London would then be able to examine the Bill, as amended and debated in the House. We all know that amendments can be accepted during debates. I know from my experience on the Committee considering the National Minimum Wage Bill that amendments can be made. During the past week in that Committee, the Government found that the Bill was wrong-headed. They had to do a U-turn and amend it.

We seek another U-turn from the Government. They have done it before, and some of their U-turns have been embarrassing. It would not be a great embarrassment to the Minister if he were to change his mind. I suspect that he might secure some approval, not just in the House but in the media of London, if he were to say that there is an opportunity for publication of the Bill before the referendum. The media would think that a good thing.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) made clear, the purpose of the amendment is not to wreck the Bill. It is straightforward. It would mean one of two things. First, in pursuance of their intention to have a referendum on 7 May, the Government would have to publish the Bill in the week beginning 9 March—if my calculation is correct. I am sure that, when the Minister for Transport in London replies to the debate, she will say that it is impossible for Ministers to publish the Bill in that week. Although they may know all the details of the White Paper and be proceeding down the path towards publication, she will probably say that to translate those provisions into the detailed drafting necessary for the construction of legislation is too lengthy a process.

I understand that. I have been a member of a Bill team in a Government Department, and I remember the process by which one submits instructions to counsel, and the debate between officials and parliamentary counsel. However, the Minister should not take too much comfort from that thought, because it illustrates one of the most important points. The process of iteration between the Government, as they explain their intentions, and parliamentary counsel, as they try to implement those intentions, is precisely the point at which contradictions, difficulties, conflicts of interest, and questions about how those problems are to be legally resolved, are exposed.

Sometimes, in the exposure of those conflicts and questions, some of the most important aspects of drafting and of the subsequent legislation are uncovered. To proceed on the basis that the White Paper and statement of intentions are sufficient is palpably wrong. I imagine that, in time, as happens with constitution-making legislation generally, instructions to parliamentary counsel on the Bill's structure will expose exactly the questions and details that the White Paper has not dealt with.

Mr. Horam

My hon. Friend has been helpful. He has been a member of a Bill team, which is an interesting experience. Has he ever known a Bill to remain unchanged from the beginning of such a procedure to the end?

Mr. Lansley

In my personal experience, a Bill has never remained unchanged. It would be stretching a point to say that the principles of a Bill changed completely from those that were set out in the original instructions to counsel, but, in many of their details, Bills were changed.

Ministers have an advantage over us in that they have read the White Paper, but, when we read it and find out how many of the 61 questions it answers, we shall probably find out most of the principles that the Government wish subsequently to put into the legislation. However, most of the debate will take place not on those principles, but on their detailed application.

I leap ahead slightly to something that I was going to say later. For example, the resolution of conflict between the mayor and the assembly is precisely the issue on which legislation will have to be specific. We have made that point in other debates on the Bill. When we make a constitution, it is not sufficient to say, "People will work together in partnership." I am sure that the word "partnership" will appear regularly in the White Paper. It will be clear that the Government's intention is that the elected mayor will propose policies and nominations for appointments, and set out the way in which London's strategy is to proceed. It will say that that will be the subject of scrutiny by the assembly and, where the mayor and assembly disagree, that all will be resolved in a spirit of partnership.

Let us be clear: it does not always work like that. If it did, legislation and the constitution would probably be of little purpose. The purpose of the constitution, like the purpose of politics often, is to resolve conflicts. That is why we have Standing Orders and a structure to our debates. The same will be true in relation to the authority as represented by its two component parts: the mayor and the assembly. When they are in conflict, how will those conflicts be resolved? That will not be in the White Paper. I will gladly give way to the Minister if he can give me a categorical assurance that the White Paper will tell us the manner in which, in all circumstances, conflicts of principle, issue or interest between the mayor and assembly will be resolved. The White Paper will not do that. We will not find out how those conflicts will be resolved until we have the legislation.

The amendment could have one of two effects. One is that Ministers would have to publish the Bill before 7 May. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) told us that it was not possible to publish the Bill before 7 May. For the sake of argument, let us assume that he is right. What does that mean? It means—I hope that the Liberal Democrats will agree with us—that, for the Bill to be published before the referendum, that referendum has to take place at a later stage.

In an earlier debate, the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) were wrong. Both said that to hold the referendum after 7 May would delay the implementation of the policy. There is no reason why that should be true. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was clear about the matter. It is possible to publish the White Paper in March and the legislation in the summer, to have a referendum in September and to present the Bill to the House in November. There is no reason why the timetable for the implementation of the Government's manifesto commitment should not proceed to its finality as planned.

Sir Sydney Chapman

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government explicitly accept that the referendum might have to be held on a date later than 7 May—as clause 1 specifically provides?

8.45 pm

Mr. Lansley

I am delighted that my hon. Friend made that point, because I had planned on asking the Minister that very question. The Minister might like to intervene now or to reply later to that point. Why—except in contemplation of a date later than 7 May—does the Bill explicitly provide that a later date may be prescribed?

Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know only too well that Ministers will always take powers that they have no intention of exercising. Undoubtedly, that provision in clause 1 will be one of those instances. Although the provision is clearly stated in the Bill, hon. Members are being told not only that Ministers have no intention of holding the referendum on a later date but that the House should not even contemplate the possibility of doing so. If the Bill contains the provision, it is perfectly valid for the House to take advantage of it, and to pass an amendment making it clear that we contemplate circumstances in which that power will be used to hold the referendum at a later date.

Sir Paul Beresford

The Government's key excuse for not pursuing the course described by my hon. Friend is the need to save money. Those of us who lived in a London borough under the Greater London council will remember some terrible and horrendously expensive conflicts—primarily because of legal fees—between the GLC and the boroughs. My hon. Friend has already mentioned conflict between the mayor and the assembly, but there is an even greater likelihood of very expensive debate and conflict between the authority and lower levels of government. If the legislation were introduced so that it could be examined and debated before the referendum, there would be an opportunity not only for it to be straightened out but for the people of London to see the potential expense and themselves to send the Government back to rethink it.

Mr. Lansley

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which helpfully brings me to my next point. I shall not dwell on the point that he has made, because hon. Members from London constituencies, by reference to their own and neighbouring boroughs, may more readily be willing to do so.

The basic question is: why are Ministers resisting Lords amendment No. 1? One reason is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington said, they devoutly wish that the referendum should be held on the same day as local government elections. Consequently, Ministers would be able to obscure the record of Labour-controlled local authorities. They could present jam tomorrow—a strategic vision and all will be well—for London, obscuring the absence of good value for money in Labour-controlled London local government. It is an old trick. If things do not work out today, make an even more grandiose promise for the future. That is how the Labour Government are approaching the referendum.

Ministers talk about the £2 million that would be lost by holding the referendum on a different day. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states that the referendum will cost £5 million if it is held on a day other than 7 May, and £3 million if it is held on 7 May.

I shall mention, for one last time in this debate, the Standing Committee considering the National Minimum Wage Bill—which has taken up a lot of my time, although we have learned a thing or two. Only yesterday, £2 million of public expenditure—for publicity on the minimum wage—was described as very little money. The Government recommended the sum of £2 million and said that it was nothing; the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) described it as a trivial sum.

Curiously, yesterday in Committee, £2 million was described as a trivial sum and was of no importance to Labour Members; today, it is a sum that we should not exceed in establishing sound democracy.

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that £2 million spent in establishing a potentially enormously expensive body pales into insignificance compared with possible future sums.

Mr. Lansley

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not have to speculate about that. Ministers tell us that £2 million is to be saved. As we shall debate later, from Ministers' point of view, it is certain that, if there is to be an authority, it has to include an assembly.

The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill states that the cost involved in the establishment of the authority is £20 million, let alone any additional public expenditure that may be required subsequently. It would be interesting if Ministers told us what proportion of that £20 million was attributable to the cost of establishing the office of the mayor, as distinct from the cost of establishing the assembly.

Ministers will correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that the greater part of that £20 million will be attributable to the cost of establishing the assembly rather than the office of the mayor. If that is so, the electors of London might be on to a good thing by virtue of the amendment. It is not for me to judge, but if the electors of London were, by virtue of subsequent debates, able to choose not to have an assembly, although they had a mayor, and were to do so in the context of a referendum that took place at a later stage, because this amendment required that to happen, and if they saw the conflicts that might arise, and, instead of a directly elected assembly, had a nominated assembly from the boroughs that was better able appropriately to scrutinise the mayor and so on, it might be altogether cheaper than having a separately elected assembly. The greater part of the £20 million might thus be saved by the spending of an extra £2 million on the election itself.

Mr. Ian Bruce

I think that my hon. Friend is being sucked into the argument used by the Minister to defend not having an election later than May because it would cost £2 million extra. Surely he knows that, in the consultation paper on local democracy, which we have not yet seen, but have read about in the newspapers, the Minister for Local Government and Housing is pressing to have elections not once every four years but every year. Page 15 of the Green Paper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. The debate is going wide of the amendment.

Mr. Lansley

I freely acknowledge that the amendment would probably mean that the referendum would take place not on 7 May but later in the year at additional expense—but what price democracy? In other circumstances, which we are not debating now, Ministers would be willing to accept that the cost of democracy often rests on the need to pay for elections. There is nothing remarkable about that.

If it is resolved that it is necessary to consult the electorate of London, it is not unreasonable that we should first determine the most appropriate, legitimate and effective way to engage in that consultation, and then pay for it. It is wrong to say that we will first decide the cheapest way to consult the electors of London and do it that way, even though it might be less effective and less democratic. I am surprised that, so soon after taking office, Ministers should have pursued quite such a democracy-constraining approach—I put it no more strongly than that.

We need to emphasise the differences between a Bill and a White Paper. The implication of the Minister's opening remarks was, in effect, that all would be revealed in the White Paper and that we did not need to see the Bill because the difference was essentially a matter of legalism. I assume that the Minister thinks that, although the public are competent to read the White Paper—indeed, the Minister may assume that the great majority of people will read the summary of the White Paper that is to be delivered through their letter box—they are somehow not competent to read the Bill itself and extract something from it. None the less, we shall leave that on one side.

There is a big difference between a Bill and a White Paper. I shall give only one example, but it is an important one—the issue of electoral arrangements. I am sensitive to the issue, as one who was born and lived in "Essex" London. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) talks about "Kent" London and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) could tell us about "Middlesex" London. There is a deep sensitivity that goes to the heart of the Bill about the extent to which the authority, and particularly the assembly, will be able to represent the different parts of London. Hon. Members on both sides have acknowledged that London is not an homogenous entity, but a set of villages that come together to make one great city.

The electoral arrangements are key. If the electoral arrangements for the assembly do not take account of this issue, the voters in the referendum will ask whether there should be an elected assembly. We shall debate later whether they should have two questions. The fact that they should know the electoral arrangements hangs on the amendment. If the referendum is delayed—not the final Bill or its implementation, but the referendum—there will be scope for the Local Government Commission, under part II of the Bill, to present its advice to the Government during the spring and early summer, in time for it to be reflected in the eventual Bill. That would make it an important basis on which judgments could be made in the referendum.

In the absence of such advice, the White Paper will not fulfil the Minister's intention of setting the issues out and ensuring that we all know what the system will look like.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that we could have the same problems as we had for Scotland? The White Paper for Scotland promised that enterprise would be a devolved issue. In the Bill, it turns out that it will be dealt with primarily by the Department of Trade and Industry. The White Paper for Scotland suggested that Scottish Ministers would be able to represent the United Kingdom in Europe, putting forward the Scottish viewpoint. The Bill says that they will merely assist Ministers in European representation, which is a far less strong provision. Does my hon. Friend agree that only when we see the Bill will we have chapter and verse?

Mr. Lansley

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In the London context, the separation of powers and the relationship between superior and other bodies—between the boroughs, the assembly and the authority—will be very significant. To reiterate the point that I made when intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, no power will be more significant than that over transport policy, which is critical for those in London and those who live beyond the confines of Greater London.

Not until we see the White Paper on the integrated transport policy—I am sure that the Minister for Transport in London could tell us more about that—will we know the context in which the relative powers of the boroughs, the assembly and central Government, including the continuing role of the regional office of government, will be clearly delineated.

The White Paper, which is to be published in the week beginning 23 March, may well leave some questions unanswered on transport. The Government will tell us that we shall find out more when the White Paper on integrated transport is published. That will not arrive before 7 May. When the voters of London have to make their decision, questions will still be unanswered on the issue that may be central to their perception of what the mayor has to achieve. This is a question not just of powers, but of how those powers will be used. If Ministers can tell us that we will see all the details on transport policy for London in the White Paper in the week beginning 23 March, we would be very happy to hear it. However, I feel confident that Ministers will not be able to do so.

The amendment's effect could be positive; it is not a wrecking amendment. It is perfectly possible for the Government to achieve their intentions through a better procedure. Consultation with Londoners would be better, knowledge gained by the electorate before they take part in the referendum would be more complete, and the House would be better able to be advised by the referendum if we proceeded down the path predicated in the amendment.

9 pm

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)

I was unsure about whether I wanted to speak in this debate, but something that I heard earlier made me extremely angry and want to make a brief speech.

The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who has left the Chamber, no doubt to put himself out of his misery, said that democracy had been defrauded. Baroness Thatcher defrauded democracy when she abolished the Greater London council simply because she wanted to get rid of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mr. Lansley

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge

No, I will not. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for long enough.

Baroness Thatcher did not of course succeed in getting rid—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady should listen to me. I should like her to speak to the amendment.

Dr. Tonge

I am going to speak to the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Will the hon. Lady please have a seat? It is not a matter of what she is going to do but of what she must do: speak to the amendment.

Dr. Tonge

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your instruction. I wish that you had been present earlier to instruct other hon. Members.

If Baroness Thatcher had consulted "Considerations on Representative Government" by John Stuart Mill, she would have read: In a really equal democracy, every or any section will be represented not disproportionately, proportionately". She could have dealt with the Greater London council had she introduced proportional representation.

The Government have promised us a White Paper, which is supported by all Government Departments. I have heard that said many times in the Chamber. We have also been told that an explanatory leaflet will be sent to every household. We even have some sort of proportional representation—although not the sort of which I would approve. Nevertheless, we are getting there.

Mr. Brooke

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge

No, I shall not give way.

Conservative Members insist on talking about a Bill as if it will save the nation. The general public are not interested in a Bill. They want Government ideas to be explained to them, and they want to get on with it.

Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge

No, I will not, because I am just about to finish my speech.

London is deteriorating while we all sit around arguing about how many angels one can fit on the head of a pin. It is time that we got on with it, had the referendum and restored proper government to London.

Mr. McNulty

Inadvertently, I have slipped up twice by referring to people other than your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as "you"—although not while you were in the Chair. I shall endeavour not to do so again.

It is interesting to follow a Liberal Democrat, because the point that I was trying to develop earlier concerned their quite illogical behaviour in another place. I fully accept the point about Baroness Hamwee. She tabled a little probing amendment to see whether, given the timetable that we were dealing with, it was possible to have the Bill published then. That is fine. She duly probed, and then withdrew. The fact that the Liberals did not then support the Government's position in getting the referendum for 7 May—something that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others have talked about ad nauseam in this place—defies belief.

That charge was not answered in any way, shape or form by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey or by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). The only logical position for the Liberals to take on the amendment in the upper House would have been to support the Government, given that they have said, rightly, that the referendum should take place on 7 May. I am pleased to hear that they will support the Government tonight in defeating the Lords amendment but, as ever with Liberal Democrats, that is probably too little, too late to reconcile themselves.

By way of a slight digression, I must tell the House that—I am pretty sure that I have the time and date right—I almost voted in the Division in which the Government were defeated in the House of Lords. I was near where the green carpet becomes red, and I could not find the place I was looking for; it was some Committee Room or other. I got stuck down a narrow little corridor, wondered why it was so narrow, and discovered that it was the Lords Lobby.

Then the bell went off, and some kindly employee of the upper House locked the door in front of me. I was panic-stricken, rushed to the other end and just got out of what I now know to be the Lobby in which the Opposition were voting. I think, but cannot swear to the fact, that that was the very occasion on which the Government were defeated.

My friends in the Whips Office have subsequently told me that rather than panicking, I should have stayed there. Had I done so, the entire vote would have been void and perhaps we would not be here discussing the Lords amendment now. We live and learn.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The hon. Gentleman could have been more discreet had he been there during the second vote when the Government were defeated. As he will be aware, some of his colleagues were with us on that occasion and he could have slipped through unnoticed. He would have been entirely welcome.

Mr. McNulty

That was an entirely unnecessary and nasty point, which introduces partisan politics into the House when we are trying not to be partisan. Dreadful.

I have listened to Opposition Members, and although we may joke about how touching it is to see people representing Dorset and Cambridgeshire taking an interest, I entirely accept that what happens to the governance of the capital city is a matter for all English Members of Parliament, if not for all United Kingdom Members. In saying that, I shall probably offend people from Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, so I apologise in advance, but the capital city of the United Kingdom is London. Yes, we can have fun with the idea of those Members contributing, but everyone can and should have his or her say.

I am astonished to hear about the mystical properties that are now attributed to a Bill, as though a Bill were entirely immutable and cast in stone—HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the gist of what Opposition Members have been saying. Apparently White Papers can be changed completely, willy-nilly, but Bills are cast in stone.

That is not the case. [Interruption.] With respect to the sedentary gestures by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), she has not been here for much of the debate.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest)

I have been here for the whole debate, except the first three minutes, and I have heard almost every word of it. I should not have been making gestures from a sedentary position; I should have asked the hon. Gentleman to give way so that I could point out to him that the contrary of what he is saying is the case. A White Paper remains as it is published for ever more, but a Bill is a document that starts a process in the House whereby it is subject to scrutiny. As was said earlier this evening, almost no Bill has ever remained unchanged.

Mr. McNulty

That is a pretty way of putting it, but it entirely confirms my point, rather than the contrary. If the hon. Lady has been here after all, I apologise. I do not know how I could have missed her when she is dressed in such colours, but while I have been here, I do not remember seeing her. Perhaps that is because she has been sitting nice and quietly, unlike some of her colleagues.

We are committed to holding the referendum and to publishing the White Paper in March, as was said on Second and Third Reading. It is the responsibility of every single Member of Parliament and every party to ensure that, in those ensuing six weeks, there is the fullest and most detailed debate.

The principal Opposition party may well have some difficulty with pre-legislative referendums, and that is entirely fair and reasonable, but it should not try to hide with smoke and mirrors the fact that the amendment is essentially a wrecking amendment. Baroness Hamwee and others in the other place deserve an ever-so-slight slap on the wrist for not going through the Lobby when the amendment was made.

It was interesting and not, I suspect, atypical, that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is a north-west London colleague to whom I speak often, should have discerned a conspiracy to make the demise of the House of Lords a reality. He suggested that, somehow, we managed to leave my noble Friend Lord Hattersley at lunch and others busy in various places, and deliberately contrived to lose the vote, merely to reinforce our argument for reform of the upper Chamber.

Nothing could be further from the truth. To begin with, our argument is democratic and needs no strengthening. As and when the relevant legislation is passed, the Lords will have had their day. The point was completely irrelevant.

Another conspiracy theory was advanced, although I am afraid that I have forgotten who advanced it. It was suggested that the rush to hold the referendum on 7 May was intended to hide the disgraceful performance of London Labour councils.

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge)

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for every Member of Parliament, in the six weeks between the publication of the White Paper and the date of the referendum, to explain that document fully to his electorate. Surely we shall not have time in that period to expose all the problems that we have in our respective boroughs with Labour councils. If we concentrate on the White Paper and the referendum, how will we be able to concentrate on the local elections?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We really must concentrate on the amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) will not respond to that intervention.

Mr. McNulty

Many thanks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was developing my point within the context of a point made specifically on the amendment, concerning whether the referendum should be held on 7 May or delayed to allow for the publication of a Bill. That is entirely within the terms of the amendment.

I say to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), and to every other hon. Member, that, if party organisations in London find themselves overtaxed by campaigning both on the Greater London assembly and mayor and on the borough elections, perhaps they should not be fighting either campaign in the first place. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is an even newer Member than I am—there are not many of whom that can be said—his argument is absolute nonsense.

Now that we finally have the Liberals on side—it was nice of them to make up their mind in the end—I hope that the amendment will be soundly defeated. It is a wrecking amendment: I fully accept Conservative Members' aversion—this year—to pre-legislative referendums, but they should not try to dress it up. We know why your colleagues in the upper House mistakenly won the vote, and we shall be doing them a great favour by defeating it tonight. Perhaps, in the spirit of getting your colleagues in the other place out of a deep hole—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that I do not have any colleagues in the other place.

Mr. McNulty

In the spirit, I should have said, of getting their colleagues in the other place out of the extremely deep and embarrassing hole into which they put themselves by winning the vote, I urge all Opposition Members to join us in the Lobby tonight. Then, perhaps, we can get on with what I think that we will all agree are more substantive amendments: Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3, on the two questions.

The amendment should be defeated. It is a nasty little wrecking amendment and its supporters should be ashamed of themselves.

9.15 pm

Mr. Brooke

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on having spoken. Labour Members have been absent from this debate, as they were absent for most of the remaining stages of the Bill in November. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) referred to the various elements of London. I make it clear that I speak for London London.

On the morrow of the amendment that we are debating tonight, the Prime Minister—alluding to the hereditary peers' vote—said not once but twice that the House of Lords was seeking to stop people voting in the referendum "on 8 May". I stress 8 May, which, being the day after the day originally selected—and thus no longer the day of the local government elections—suggested that the Government were already on the way to conceding the amendment.

On 13 January in the Lords, the Minister for Roads referred to this as a wrecking amendment. The Minister in this House did the same this evening. The hon. Member for Harrow, East has just done the same. If this is a wrecking amendment, I have to say that the Bill is a very frail craft. I had an aunt once. The brother of somebody who worked for her went into the Navy. On inquiry, it turned out that he was serving in HMS Abominable. My aunt constructed an entire class of warships; HMS Intolerable, HMS Impossible, HMS Unspeakable. If this is a wrecking amendment, the Bill is patently HMS Insubstantial.

The Minister seemed to take mild offence that his Bill had been scathed during its passage. The great Claud Cockburn went to see his tutor at the end of his time at Oxford. His tutor said, "Up to now, Cockburn, your life has been punctuated by examinations, but from here on out you have a clear run through to the grave." I have to tell the Minister that Bills are subjected to examinations, and his has been. He will recall that, in the debate on the government of London last June, I referred to the great Sam Rayburn's remark that the three wisest words in the English language were "wait a minute". I said it in the context of the concept of a mayor, which my party subsequently espoused. I say in passing that I make no complaint about that.

The mayor is a continental and American model. For this country, our approach should be pragmatic and empiricist, against the philosophies which apply elsewhere. I am delighted to hear that the Government are supporting Lord Hunt's Bill, which is itself pragmatic and empiricist in terms of those experiments. The principle applies to the debate on the Bill before we finally pass it.

Local government goes back a long way in the history of my constituency. There have been Lord Mayors of London for at least eight centuries. The franchise was so generous in Westminster in the 18th century that, when the Reform Bill was passed in 1832, the electorate actually fell. I realise that new Labour regards these as the events of pre-history—happily defined once as a cross between Sir Rider Haggard's "She" and Sir Leonard Woolley's "Ur", but the past does illumine the future and it is highly important that we should so regard it.

I had no idea of the drama played out at the Lords Committee, described for us by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), but I have some familiarity with the way in which the Liberal Democrats vote. When I was a pairing Whip, they once voted for a Bill at Second Reading and against on Third Reading, which gave me some rather nasty moments. My right hon. Friend referred to indecision. Clearly, the events in the Lords were played out on the battlements of Elsinore, and it sounds as though this debate is being played out there, too.

I am familiar also with Governments being defeated in the Lords. I was the Whip on the Education (No. 2) Bill 1980—the first Lords defeat suffered by my noble friend Lady Thatcher's Administration. It was a remarkable event because Christopher Price—the then Labour Member for Lewisham, West—persuaded Rab Butler to lead the opposition to the Bill. He remained convinced throughout the episode, and thereafter, that Rab had throughout believed him to be a Conservative Member of Parliament.

On 13 January, the Government clearly had confidence that all was well. Only one person spoke on behalf of the Government and that was the Minister. Had anybody else been brought in, there would have been ample time to drum up the remaining seven votes by which the Government failed to win.

On the substance of the argument, in the Lords the Minister said The requirement to publish a Bill before the referendum would mean unnecessary complication and delay. People have waited far too long happily to tolerate further delay."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 944.]

The Government have not shown much previous evidence of hurrying in the context of this legislation. The Scottish and Welsh Bills made much faster progress. The Minister will recall the exchanges that he and I had about the clever chaps working away on the Bill, because we had not heard much about it before, but all that was evidence that time did not much matter to the Government in the early stages.

The Minister said in the House—I have not yet found the column reference, which is a discourtesy on my part—that the Bill was hugely popular with the people. In the Paviours Arms in my constituency, they talk of nothing else. The possibility of delay, even to the Prime Minister's chosen date of 8 May, excites them passionately.

I have never fully understood the Government's enthusiasm to run the risk of holding the referendum—here I am touching on the speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)—alongside the local government elections, and I am certain that the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield at the start of the debate are unfounded. It has always seemed to me unduly disrespectful to candidates in the local government elections in April to run a referendum debate in tandem—it certainly did not happen in the cases of the Scottish or Welsh Bills—especially given that the Government are anxious, as the other documents that they published this week made clear, to raise the profile of, and public confidence in, local government at large.

As for the £2 million to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire referred, I once asked Alan Lennox-Boyd, a little over 40 years ago, why he had taken a particular decision on Cyprus two years later than necessary. He replied that two years was but a hiccup in history. I do not suggest for a moment that £2 million is a bagatelle, but the government of this great city has a weight and importance far greater than £2 million, and that should not be a decisive factor in determining the timetable if waiting a minute, to go back to Speaker Sam Rayburn, can produce a better and more thoughtful result.

Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster)

There are many reasons for rejecting the amendment. Primarily, it is a delaying tactic. That is obviously the primary political reason for its having been supported and passed in the other place. It is therefore ironic that Conservative Members should use supposedly democratic grounds for supporting it in this House this evening.

The argument does not hold water. The views that Labour Members have advanced for some time for an assembly and a mayor have been well aired. They were aired in the run-up to the general election and at the election proper. They were aired in general terms in the Green Paper on the governance of London. In my borough of Havering, I joined my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) at a public meeting, which was well advertised locally, when our proposals were put to members of the public and discussed. The purpose of the meeting was also to encourage debate and contributions to the consultation process.

The debates in this House and in the other place have been well reported and debated throughout London in the run-up to the election in May. If hon. Members look in the Evening Standard and other newspapers, they will see that those issues are debated almost every day. The firm undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Minister to publish a White Paper setting out his proposals in full at least six weeks before the referendum is more than sufficient. Londoners will have all the information they require to reach an informed decision on 7 May.

The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said that it was inappropriate to use the same day for the referendum and the local elections. I put the opposite view. It is appropriate because, on that day, Londoners' attention will be focused on the division between the powers of the London boroughs and the distinct strategic functions that the Greater London assembly will have when it is set up. That is appropriate for the debate on local democracy, regionally and locally. Londoners want a strategic authority. They want a voice for London and democratic accountability. They want the Government to deliver our manifesto commitment of a referendum in May.

The amendment would inevitably mean delay because of the time it would take the parliamentary draftsman to prepare complicated multi-clause, multi-schedule legislation. Contrary to what Conservative Members have said, a White Paper would be more appropriate than a draft Bill, which would almost certainly require amendment through the legislative process. It follows that the amendment should be rejected.

Mrs. Laing

My constituents in Epping Forest are not residents of London, so I suppose that I am speaking for Essex London, as has been suggested. They are, however, much affected by what happens in London, because the prosperity of my constituency depends greatly on the prosperity of the City of London, where many of them work. They are proud to be in Essex, but their concerns about London are my concerns. That is why I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in a discussion that so seriously affects London.

My constituents wonder what the proposed new tier of government will do for them. The Minister for Transport in London has been very patient in recent months in listening to my many pleas to her about the future of London Underground. I would not dream of doing that this evening, as it would be out of order. My constituents wonder how this great piece of legislation will in any way improve their lives. I am sure that the constituents of my hon. Friends feel the same, no matter what is discussed in the local hostelry of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).

The Government have a habit of breaking promises about referendums. We have had assurances from Ministers that the referendum on London would be taken after the Bill on the matter was published. I am sure that it is a complete coincidence, but I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Scotland has suddenly appeared on the Government Front Bench. It seems that, every time I speak, I make some point about Scotland and he is normally here. I am amazed that he is here when we are discussing London, when I am about to make a point about Scotland.

Mr. Ian Bruce

It may be that Ministers have asked him to explain to them why the referendums for Scotland and Wales had to be held on a different day from local election day but the London referendum must be held on the same day.

Mrs. Laing

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point; that may be so. I hoped that the Secretary of State for Scotland had appeared because he saw my name on the annunciator and thought that there must be something concerning Scotland going on in the Chamber.

The Prime Minister gave an undertaking last year that the referendums on Scotland and Wales would take place after Bills were published on the government of Scotland and Wales. Now we find another, similar U-turn. Ministers have said that the Bill will be published first and then later we discover—the Minister is shaking his head.

Mr. Raynsford

We have never given any such undertaking. The Government have always said emphatically that we would publish a White Paper before the referendum, but there was never any question that a Bill would be published before the referendum.

9.30 pm

Mrs. Laing

I take the Minister's point, but it does not lessen the argument. To ask the voters to vote in a referendum on a matter of importance without the full facts of the matter before them is no less bad now in the case of London than it was in the case of Scotland and Wales.

Sir Sydney Chapman

My hon. Friend has made a fair point. Those of us who have been in the House many years know that it is rare that an Act of Parliament is exactly the same as the Bill first introduced into the House. It is even more rare that a White Paper is reflected in a Bill. The longer I am here, the more I think—to adapt an adage—that White Papers seem like bikinis: what they reveal may be interesting, but what they conceal is vital.

Mrs. Laing

I thank my hon. Friend for that brilliantly illustrated point. It is certainly true. [Interruption.] Labour Members disagree. My hon. Friend's point about bikinis is certainly true. They cannot possibly disagree with it. My hon. Friend's point about the difference between White Papers and Bills is also true.

On scrutinising the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill, we are discovering that there are differences between the implications of the White Paper and what the Bill says. I do not for one moment dispute the Government's right to make certain detailed changes between publishing a White Paper and publishing a Bill. The point is that the people are being asked to vote not on the Bill which will come before the House and the information contained in it, not on the points which will become law, but on the White Paper, which is merely an expression of intention.

We all know what is paved with good intentions. That is certainly what happened in the case of the Bills on Scotland and Wales before the referendums. It is exactly what is happening now.

What is wrong with giving the electorate more information on which to make up their minds how they will vote in a referendum? What are the Government trying to keep back? If one is trying to improve the democratic process and make democracy more relevant to people, is it not important to give them all the information they need before they exercise their democratic right to vote?

I note that Baroness Hayman said in another place that a Bill was a highly complex piece of legislation. She said that a Bill would be drafted in a highly technical style. Her implication was that what she called the ordinary voters of London would have a chance of understanding a White Paper, but that they would not understand a Bill. Well, I have news for the Government, many of the ordinary voters of London are lawyers, and they understand Bills.[Interruption.] Labour Members cannot possibly disagree with that assertion.

Mr. Gerald Howarth

My hon. Friend's constituents and mine are perfectly capable of assessing the intricacies of technical Bills, but, even more importantly, the commentators, whose job it is to convey such things to the public, will be able to assess the intricacies of the Bill. They will be able to tell the public just where the Bill differs in key material effects from those good intentions to which my hon. Friend referred which are contained in the White Paper.

Mrs. Laing

I thank my hon. Friend for so eloquently making the point that I was about to make.

Mr. Howarth

I am sorry.

Mrs. Laing

No, there is no need for an apology: my hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

Sir Paul Beresford

There is a third group to consider, to which I referred in an earlier intervention. All those standing at the borough council elections, which will be held at the same time, will generally have received advice on the Bill, if it is published by then, and will understand it with the assistance of the lawyers who are provided by local authorities. They will be deeply concerned, because they will be directly affected by the new authority.

Mrs. Laing

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Such points all add to the argument that can only lead to us assume that there is something that the Government have to hide from the potential voters of London. If they have nothing to hide, why do they not simple publish the Bill?

We all know how long it takes to put a Bill together—my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) explained it eloquently. If the Secretary of State for Scotland can put together his extremely complex Scotland Bill in a short time, why cannot the Government also publish the relevant Bill for the proposed London authority? They could have done so in a shorter time than it took to publish the Scotland Bill, because it is bound to be shorter and less complex than that legislation.

Also at stake is the very principle of having a referendum in the first place. I believe that a pre-legislative referendum is even more dangerous than a post-legislative referendum, because the former goes even further in negating the responsibility of Parliament. In fact, it represents a further negation of the sovereignty of this place.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson)

That is the first time we have heard that.

Mrs. Laing

I am surprised to learn that I have made any point that has not been made before, given that this has been a long debate tonight.

I accept that, very occasionally, there is a case for having a referendum as part of our legislative process on a point of huge constitutional importance, but I submit that this is not such an occasion. It merely shows that the Government do not have the courage of their convictions. They want to have a referendum without giving the people who are to vote all the information that they need to make an informed choice about how to vote because, as we have seen so often with this new Government, they are more concerned—almost entirely concerned—with the public relations aspects of their actions and with their image. They have hardly dared to take a step without consulting the focus groups and opinion polls. Now we find that, again and again, they cannot act without consulting through a referendum of some kind. However, it is not a valuable referendum; it will not give people a true choice, because they will not have the information on which to make that true choice.

We have heard very little about who will vote in the referendum, with or without the information that they would have if there were a Bill before them. My constituents will not have the chance to vote, and neither will constituents of most hon. Members in the Chamber who live in other parts of the United Kingdom. The boundaries will be narrow, yet people who are not citizens of the United Kingdom will have an opportunity to vote, because, in London, many people who are householders and have the chance to vote in London local elections are not even citizens of the United Kingdom.

Once again, as they did with Scotland and Wales, the Government are taking a step that affects not a narrow part of our society, not a small number of people in the United Kingdom. They are taking a step which, because it affects our great capital city, affects everyone in the United Kingdom; yet the only people who will have a chance to vote are those who have a right to vote in London. It is not fair. It is the wrong way to conduct business. The referendum—

Mr. Gerald Howarth

Is it not the case that, if the referendum is held on 7 May, nothing can happen until the legislation has passed through the House? So the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) completely misled the House in suggesting that, if the referendum were not held on 7 May, the whole process would be delayed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the process of delay lies in the hands of the Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry; I was distracted for a moment. I thought that the hon. Gentleman mentioned someone misleading the House. No one would do that. Would that be the case?

Mr. Howarth

I am so sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that she inadvertently may have misled the House, but—

Dr. Tonge

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Let us get this settled. The hon. Gentleman should just withdraw that remark. It tidies things up.

Mr. Howarth

Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do withdraw the imputation. I just think she was wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Now that we have got that out of the way, we have had an intervention, so the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) should speak.

Mrs. Laing

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to conclude. I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has once again so eloquently made. Because the basis of the referendum is so weak, its result will hardly be worth paying attention to. It is not fair to ask people to go to the polls and take a decision when they do not have the full facts. The referendum will not bring increased democracy to people; it will be an abuse of the democratic process because it distorts that democratic process for the sake of the image of the present Government.

Mr. Ottaway

We have had an especially interesting debate tonight. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who has graced us—honoured us—with his presence, has looked in, and smirks at the suggestion.

It has been suggested by a number of Labour Members, mainly in interventions, and by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) in a speech, that Lords amendment No. 1 is a wrecking amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, if it is a wrecking amendment, it is a very insubstantial one. The definition of a wrecking amendment is an amendment that would make the Bill ineffective if it were accepted. This amendment does not make the Bill ineffective; it merely adds a little bit of democracy to the process. It is spurious to claim that it is a wrecking amendment.

We are addressing the principle of open government. We are not asking the Government to do anything extraordinary or unusual or anything that would cause them embarrassment—although I suppose that passing the amendment might have that effect. We are asking the Government to be fair to the people of London. Our request is not unreasonable: we are seeking clarity so that the people may exercise their judgment in a manner consistent with open government—something that Labour Members lecture us is a matter of principle.

9.45 pm

If the Bill is passed unamended, we shall be seeking the approval of the people of Greater London for a Government proposal that has little form or substance. They will be invited to vote for an idea, not a proposal. It is highly unsatisfactory to seek the views of the public in a referendum without offering the details of what is proposed. There is a case—although it is not covered by the amendment—for arguing that the Bill should be enacted before the referendum is held so that the people of London may see beforehand what the House has decided.

If a Member of Parliament were to walk into a car showroom to buy the latest model and the salesman said, "I'm sorry, we don't have a car in stock, but here is a glossy brochure that gives a detailed description of the car," he would be right to be wary. The interpretation of the wording, the photography and the presentation of the document reflect the perspective of those who want to sell the goods. Wise people would want to see the car before they bought it. They would want to view it from their own perspective; they would not want to be bamboozled by glitz and media presentation.

That is the nub of the argument tonight. The Government claim that Londoners need to see only a White Paper—the equivalent of the car showroom brochure—before making up their minds in a referendum. The Government cannot promise what final version of events will appear in the Bill. Nevertheless, they ask us to trust them.

Mr. Gerald Howarth

Would my hon. Friend be prepared to buy such a car on the basis of the prospectus if he were dealing with a reputable dealer? In this case, the dealer is thoroughly disreputable.

Mr. Ottaway

My hon. Friend makes my point for me. I would certainly buy a used car from him, but I cannot say the same for some Labour Members.

The Government claim that there are no devils in the detail. However, their argument is flawed. The Government have said repeatedly that they will play a neutral role in the referendum campaign. As they produced the policy, the Government are incapable of being neutral. That is understandable. The Government want everybody to say yes, and they will produce only publicity and material that sets out the positive side and the benefits of their arguments. It is only logical, and the temptation to do that will be irresistible.

In the latter part of last year, the London desk in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions produced a document about the London referendum publicity campaign. That campaign will have a pretty glitzy run—what is more, the taxpayers will pay for it all. The document says that, before March 1998, we shall see the logo for the London vote. An internet site and a helpline will then be established. Stands will be set up in shopping centres and then, glory be, there will be a referendum bus. All of that will happen before the White Paper is published, let alone any other details. Lord only knows what Government supporters will say as they trundle around.

Following the launch on 23 March, we shall have the White Paper and a White Paper leaflet. Most revealing of all is the advertising to back up the White Paper. This is the first that the House has heard about an advertising campaign. In Committee, the Minister said that a leaflet would be published. He continued: We will also ensure that every household in London receives a neutral and factual summary of the White Paper, setting out the proposals on which they will be asked to vote, as well as other initiatives, to ensure that everyone knows what the issues are … There will be no public funding for either a yes campaign or a no campaign."—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c.378–9.] That flies in the face of the memo.

The Minister shakes his head. Page 3 of the memo states: We are currently in the process of appointing an advertising agency. That was in December. The memo continues: The campaign will have a value of about £750k over the two financial years. The most revealing part is what follows: This spend is part of the total cost of the referendum of no more than £3m.

There we have it, and it is getting perilously close to dubious practice. There was no mention of this matter when the Bill went through this House. Every impression was given that the £3 million that was covered by the financial effects of the Bill was the cost of running a referendum, and it was said that, if it was not held on 7 May, it would cost £5 million. Now we discover that £750,000 of that £3 million is to be spent on an advertising campaign. The Minister has said that the extra £2 million for delaying the referendum could not be afforded, but £750,000 is going on an advertising campaign which is effectively a state-funded yes campaign.

Mr. Raynsford

I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his last remark. The Government have made it quite clear that we have a responsibility to make available factual and neutral information about the White Paper and the referendum. There is no question of any Government money for a yes campaign, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his scurrilous allegation.

Mr. Ottaway

If there were to be a neutral campaign, the Minister would stick to the words that he used in Committee on 19 November, when he said that there would be a single leaflet. A £750,000 advertising campaign does not draw attention to but backs up the White Paper. It is impossible for that to be a neutral campaign. It seems to be a flagrant breach of the Minister's undertaking that no public funds will be used, because such funds are clearly being used. They are being provided under the terms of the Bill and the money is being spent without any hon. Member being aware of the proposal until now.

This is a disclosure of a massive state-funded yes campaign. There is no kidding: the campaign will focus on improving the turnout. It supports the Government's proposals and it is the nearest that there can be to a state-managed hijack of public funds.

Mr. Raynsford

Two minutes ago I repeated a clear undertaking that there would be no public money to support a yes campaign and I asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his scurrilous allegation that there would be one. He did not do that and he has exacerbated the problem by repeating his allegation. That is a gross discourtesy to the House and shows the scurrilous way in which the hon. Gentleman is operating. He is failing to withdraw when he has been revealed as peddling untruths.

Mr. Ottaway

The first time that the House knew that £750,000 was to be spent on an advertising campaign in support of the Government's proposals was when I revealed it this evening. The Minister may say that he said "other measures" in Committee. He was covering up a blatant abuse concerning the use of public funding.

Mr. Wilkinson

My hon. Friend makes a most important point that has transformed the debate. Lam sure it has been a revelation to Londoners and the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could easily have obviated this expenditure by doing the honest thing and publishing the Bill, which contains the genuine proposals? That would be better than having to produce blurb to try to put flesh on the skeleton proposals in the White Paper.

Mr. Ottaway

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are urging the House to support the Lord's amendment.

The Government say that their publicity campaign is to be neutral and that it will focus on ensuring that people are aware of the Government's proposals and of their right to vote on them. That is not the point. The point is that this is their gloss on the Government's proposals. The Government are saying that the proposals are a good thing and the money is supporting their argument that they are a good thing. In truth, one cannot write a proposal and put it forward in a neutral way. There we have it. The Government are spending £750,000 on an advertising campaign in support of the glossy brochures—there is no chance to look at the car one is buying.

It is just such an approach that leads us to believe that, in the interests of fairness, justice and democracy, the detailed proposals for London set out in the Bill should be made available to the Government.

The most spurious argument of all is that of delay. The Government may say that to publish the Bill—

Mr. Ian Bruce

Only recently we have seen the narrow vote on the Welsh assembly, which took place on the basis of a White Paper and is now being seen as spurious. The assembly will not be in Cardiff where it was supposed to be. Surely we want to see what is really going to happen, not what the gloss is.

Mr. Ottaway

My hon. Friend illustrates the fact that the devil is in the detail. We want to see the detail before we ask Londoners to vote on the matter.

As I have said, the most spurious argument of all is that of delay. The Government may say that to publish the Bill will delay the referendum. That is only part of the case. The only consequence of publishing the Bill in advance of the referendum is that the referendum will not be held on the same day as the London borough elections.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said during her excellent speech, the Scotland Bill had its First Reading five months after the publication of the White Paper. For Wales, the interval was four and a half months. With the publication of the London White Paper on 23 March, a draft Bill could, under the same time scale as for Scotland—the longer of the two intervals—be published in mid-August 1998 with a referendum in October. If the referendum resulted in a yes for the Government's proposals, the Bill would feature in the Queen's speech in November. There is no difficulty in that proposal. There is no reason why it cannot be delivered, and the Government must recognise that that is the fairer way of doing things.

In Scotland and Wales there may arguably have been a case for saying that there was no time. That excuse is not available in London. However, reasonableness and fairness do not come into the making of this decision. The only argument that the Minister is left with is that it will cost £2 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said in his excellent speech, that is peanuts. In terms of the departmental budget, it adds up to 30 minutes expenditure over a year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, that is a small price to pay for the long-term interests of democracy in London.

We all know that the reason for the referendum on 7 May—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam)—is to obscure the appalling record of Labour councils that are up for re-election in the London borough elections on the same day. So ghastly has been Labour's track record over the years, and so appalling has been its performance in London, that the Government want to cover it up.

We have only to look at the disgrace of the schools in Hackney, the broken pledges to Edgware general hospital, the building on green-field sites across London and the waste, inefficiency and incompetence of Labour councils from one side of the capital to the other. In a futile attempt to cover that up, the Government have gone for the ultimate smokescreen—a referendum on the same day. They did not do it in Scotland or in Wales, and they do not have to do it in London. We say that in these matters the devil is in the detail. It is in the fine print that the real answers to the many questions can be found. On past evidence, we are right to ask for the details to be spelled out.

In a letter to the editor of The Times in October, the Minister for London and Construction said that he did not support the idea of a borough leader representing a geographical part of London, who would see his or her first loyalty as fighting for his or her own patch rather than the wider interests of London as a whole. There it is: a clear, unequivocal statement setting out his position as a matter of principle. Anyone who read The Times would be clear what that meant. They would say, "This guy is thinking strategically. Very interesting. I must judge him on that proposal." Just imagine how that person will feel when he discovers that, in truth, the Minister has already abandoned that principle, that he is now considering an electoral system where members are elected by geographical constituency—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), That, at this day's sitting, Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Ottaway

I was drawing attention to the Minister's letter to the editor of The Times.

Mr. Raynsford

Wind up.

Mr. Ottaway

The Minister says, "Wind up." I am afraid to say that he has much to hear yet, which he is not going to like.

Just imagine how the person reading the Minister's letter to The Times.will feel when he discovers that, in truth, the Minister has already abandoned that principle and that he is now considering an electoral system whereby members are elected by geographical constituency, with a top-up list, as we have in Scotland. I know what that person would say: "I am appalled. I have been misled. How can I trust this man?" That is what is happening.

That is why we want all the details of the measure spelt out before Londoners make a judgment. It is no good trusting Ministers: they change their minds about everything.

Before the election, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to extend the scope of personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts. After the election, he announced that they would be abolished. Labour said that it would introduce cold weather payments. The Minister with responsibility for pensions has rejected that.

Mr. McNulty

What does that have to do with the amendment?

Mr. Ottaway

I will tell the hon. Gentleman. It demonstrates that people cannot trust any pledge made by a Labour Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We must keep strictly to the Lords amendment. We are going a bit wide.

Mr. Ottaway

I shall keep to London matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the election, the Minister for Transport in London campaigned on behalf of members of the National Bus Company employees pension scheme, who felt that, on privatisation of the buses—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Lords amendment clearly talks about the government of London and the question of a referendum, so the hon. Gentleman must speak about the referendum. There are many wide issues that he can go into, but not tonight.

Mr. Ottaway

I do not seek to quarrel with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this concerns the credibility of Ministers, who are inviting us to accept a pledge that they will not change the details of the White Paper before the Bill is published. We have heard from other hon. Members how the Government have changed their White Paper proposals on Scotland and on Wales. I am illustrating matters affecting the Minister for Transport in London, which go on in London in the transport sphere, which will be a part of the Greater London authority, and which will feature in the White Paper. I am showing how Ministers change their mind from one day to the next. That is the point that I seek to demonstrate. May I continue on that basis?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

What the hon. Gentleman can say to the House is that the Minister for Transport in London has changed her mind. He has said that, so we can return to the amendment.

Mr. Ottaway

But I have not told the House how the Minister has changed her mind.

Mr. Heald

Does my hon. Friend agree that this should be his concern and that of the House? The Scotland White Paper pledged, for example, that enterprise would be a devolved issue; in fact, it will still be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry. Similarly, the Scottish White Paper said European representation would be a matter for Scottish Ministers, who would be able to go to Brussels and argue the case for the United Kingdom and Scotland; in fact, that is not offered in the Bill. It has to be a question of what is actually in the Bill.

Mr. Ottaway

I sense that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are getting a bit edgy. Perhaps I will find time on another occasion to deal with the pledges to the employees of the National Bus Company broken by the Minister for Transport in London.

Mr. Lansley

Unless we make Lords amendment No. 1, we will not see the integrated transport White Paper before the referendum.

Mr. Ottaway

My hon. Friend makes exactly the point that I was trying to make.

A matter that certainly will be dealt with by the Greater London authority is health in London. In the general election campaign, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) issued a leaflet saying: You Can Still Save Edgware General If You Vote Labour on May 1st". Labour Members will probably recognise the leaflet and the photograph of the current Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who was then the shadow Secretary of State for Health.

The leaflet continues: The handshake which brings hope for the future of Edgware General Hospital. Under that, it says: Barry"— who I presume is Barry Gardiner, although we do not see him around much; I do not know whether he was elected— is determined to restore the accident and emergency department at Edgware with Chris's help. But the honeymoon did not last very long.

Only three weeks later, the Barnet Advertiser—the free newspaper of the year—issued a special edition, with the headline "The Great Betrayal" of the Labour party. It continues: Labour win votes by pledging to review A and E closure, then do an immediate U-turn and consign Edgware General to history". The article states: Three weeks ago Labour captured two of Barnet's Parliamentary seats on the back of a cast-iron"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That has nothing to do with the Lords amendment. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to speak to that amendment.

Mr. Ottaway

May I just say that the quote ends: This week it became clear that those words were not worth the paper they were written on"? That is exactly how the Opposition feel about the Labour party's undertaking—

Mr. Graham Allen

(Lord Commissioner to the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 105.

Division No. 164]	[10.7 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Buck, Ms Karen
Ainger, Nick	Burden, Richard
Allan, Richard	Burgon, Colin
Allen, Graham	Burnett, John
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Burstow, Paul
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Butler, Mrs Christine
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Byers, Stephen
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Cable, Dr Vincent
Atkins, Charlotte	Caborn, Richard
Austin, John	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Baker, Norman	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ballard, Mrs Jackie	Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Barnes, Harry	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Barron, Kevin	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Bayley, Hugh	Canavan, Dennis
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Caplin, Ivor
Begg, Miss Anne	Casale, Roger
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Caton, Martin
Bennett, Andrew F	Cawsey, Ian
Benton, Joe	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Bermingham, Gerald	Chaytor, David
Berry, Roger	Chidgey, David
Blears, Ms Hazel	Chisholm, Malcolm
Blizzard, Bob	Clapham, Michael
Blunkett, Rt Hon David	Clark, Dr Lynda
Borrow, David	(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Bradshaw, Ben	Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Brand, Dr Peter	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Breed, Colin	Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Clelland, David
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Clwyd, Ann

Coaker, Vernon	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Coffey, Ms Ann	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Cohen, Harry	Hepburn, Stephen
Coleman, Iain	Heppell, John
Colman, Tony	Hesford, Stephen
Connarty, Michael	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hill, Keith
Cooper, Yvette	Hinchliffe, David
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hoey, Kate
Corston, Ms Jean	Home Robertson, John
Cotter, Brian	Hoon, Geoffrey
Crausby, David	Hope, Phil
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Hopkins, Kelvin
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Cummings, John	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Dalyell, Tam	Howells, Dr Kim
Darvill, Keith	Hoyle, Lindsay
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Davidson, Ian	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Hurst, Alan
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Hutton, John
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)	Iddon, Dr Brian
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Ingram, Adam
Dawson, Hilton	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Dean, Mrs Janet	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald	Jamieson, David
Dismore, Andrew	Jenkins, Brian
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Donohoe, Brian H	Johnson, Miss Melanie
Doran, Frank	(Welwyn Hatfield)
Dowd, Jim	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Drew, David	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Drown, Ms Julia	Jones, Ms Jenny
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	(Wolverh'ton SW)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Edwards, Huw	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Efford, Clive	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ennis, Jeff	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Etherington, Bill	Keeble, Ms Sally
Fearn, Ronnie	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Keetch, Paul
Fisher, Mark	Kemp, Fraser
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Fitzsimons, Lorna	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Flynn, Paul	Khabra, Piara S
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Kilfoyle, Peter
Foster, Don (Bath)	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Galloway, George	Kingham, Ms Tess
Gapes, Mike	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Gardiner, Barry	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Laxton, Bob
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	Lepper, David
Gerrard, Neil	Leslie, Christopher
Godsiff, Roger	Levitt, Tom
Goggins, Paul	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Golding, Mrs Llin	Linton, Martin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	Livsey, Richard
Gorrie, Donald	Lock, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	Love, Andrew
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McAllion, John
Grogan, John	McAvoy, Thomas
Gunnell, John	McCabe, Steve
Hain, Peter	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	McDonagh, Siobhain
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	Macdonald, Calum
Hancock, Mike	McFall, John
Hanson, David	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Harris, Dr Evan	McIsaac, Shona
Harvey, Nick	Mackinlay, Andrew
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	McLeish, Henry
Healey, John	McNulty, Tony
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Mactaggart, Fiona

McWilliam, John	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Skinner, Dennis
Marek, Dr John	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Smith, Miss Geraldine
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Martlew, Eric	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Maxton, John	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Snape, Peter
Meale, Alan
Michael, Alun	Soley, Clive
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Southworth, Ms Helen
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Spellar, John
Miller, Andrew	Squire, Ms Rachel
Mitchell, Austin	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Moffatt, Laura	Steinberg, Gerry
Moore, Michael	Stevenson, George
Moran, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)	Stott, Roger
Morley, Elliot	Stringer, Graham
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mountford, Kali	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mudie, George	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Mullin, Chris	(Dewsbury)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Norris, Dan	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
O'Hara, Eddie	Timms, Stephen
Olner, Bill	Tipping, Paddy
Öpik, Lembit
Organ, Mrs Diana	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Touhig, Don
Palmer, Dr Nick	Trickett, Jon
Pearson, Ian	Truswell, Paul
Pickthall, Colin	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Pike, Peter L	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Plaskitt, James	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Pollard, Kerry	Tyler, Paul
Pond, Chris	Vaz, Keith
Pope, Greg
Pound, Stephen	Vis, Dr Rudi
Powell, Sir Raymond	Wallace, James
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Wareing, Robert N
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Watts, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Webb, Steve
Primarolo, Dawn	White, Brian
Prosser, Gwyn
Purchase, Ken	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Quin, Ms Joyce	Wicks, Malcolm
Quinn, Lawrie	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Rammell, Bill	(Swansea W)
Rapson, Syd	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Raynsford, Nick	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Rendel, David	Willis, Phil
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)	Wills, Michael
Rooker, Jeff
Rooney, Terry	Wilson, Brian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Winnick, David
Rowlands, Ted	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Roy, Frank	Wood, Mike
Ruane, Chris	Woolas, Phil
Ruddock, Ms Joan	Worthington, Tony
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Wray, James
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ryan, Ms Joan	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Salter, Martin	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Sanders, Adrian	Wyatt, Derek
Savidge, Malcolm
Sawford, Phil	Tellers for the Ayes:
Sheerman, Barry	Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Amess, David	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Arbuthnot, James	Lansley, Andrew
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Leigh, Edward
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Letwin, Oliver
Beggs, Roy	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Bercow, John	Loughton, Tim
Beresford, Sir Paul	Luff, Peter
Blunt, Crispin	McLoughlin, Patrick
Body, Sir Richard	Madel, Sir David
Boswell, Tim	Major, Rt Hon John
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Malins, Humfrey
Brazier, Julian	May, Mrs Theresa
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Moss, Malcolm
Browning, Mrs Angela	Nicholls, Patrick
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Norman, Archie
Cash, William	Ottaway, Richard
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Page, Richard
(Chipping Barnet)	Paterson, Owen
Chope, Christopher	Prior, David
Clappison, James	Randall, John
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)	Robathan, Andrew
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Collins, Tim	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Ruffley, David
Cran, James	St Aubyn, Nick
Curry, Rt Hon David	Sayeed, Jonathan
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Shepherd, Richard
Duncan Smith, Iain	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Soames, Nicholas
Evans, Nigel	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Faber, David	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Fabricant, Michael	Steen, Anthony
Fallon, Michael	Swayne, Desmond
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Syms, Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Gale, Roger	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Garnier, Edward	Townend, John
Gill, Christopher	Tredinnick, David
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Tyrie, Andrew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Viggers, Peter
Gray, James	Walter, Robert
Green, Damian	Wardle, Charles
Greenway, John	Wells, Bowen
Grieve, Dominic	Whittingdale, John
Hammond, Philip	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Hawkins, Nick	Wilkinson, John
Hayes, John	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Heald, Oliver	Yeo, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Horam, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Tellers for the Noes:
Hunter, Andrew	Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Nigel Waterson.
Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Question accordingly agreed to

Question put accordingly, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 346, Noes 103.

Division No. 165]	[10.21 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Austin, John
Ainger, Nick	Baker, Norman
Allan, Richard	Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Allen, Graham	Barnes, Harry
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Barron, Kevin
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Bayley, Hugh
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Atkins, Charlotte	Begg, Miss Anne

Bennett, Andrew F	Drew, David
Benton, Joe	Drown, Ms Julia
Bermingham, Gerald	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Berry, Roger	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Blears, Ms Hazel	Efford, Clive
Blizzard, Bob	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Blunkett, Rt Hon David	Ennis, Jeff
Borrow, David	Etherington, Bill
Bradshaw, Ben	Fearn, Ronnie
Brand, Dr Peter	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Breed, Colin	Fisher, Mark
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Fitzsimons, Lorna
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Flynn, Paul
Buck, Ms Karen	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Burden, Richard	Foster, Don (Bath)
Burgon, Colin	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Burnett, John	Galloway, George
Butler, Mrs Christine	Gapes, Mike
Byers, Stephen	Gardiner, Barry
Cable, Dr Vincent	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Caborn, Richard	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Gerrard, Neil
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Godsiff, Roger
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)	Goggins, Paul
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Golding, Mrs Llin
Campbelt-Savours, Dale	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Canavan, Dennis	Gorrie, Donald
Caplin, Ivor	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Casale, Roger	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Caton, Martin	Grogan, John
Cawsey, Ian	Gunnell, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Hain, Peter
Chaytor, David	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Chidgey, David	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Clapham, Michael	Hancock, Mike
Clark, Dr Lynda	Hanson, David
(Edinburgh Pentlands)	Harris, Dr Evan
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Harvey, Nick
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Healey, John
Clelland, David	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Clwyd, Ann	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Coaker, Vernon	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hepburn, Stephen
Cohen, Harry	Heppell, John
Coleman, Iain	Hesford, Stephen
Colman, Tony	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Connarty, Michael	Hill, Keith
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hinchliffe, David
Cooper, Yvette	Hoey, Kate
Corbyn, Jeremy	Home Robertson, John
Corston, Ms Jean	Hoon, Geoffrey
Cotter, Brian	Hope, Phil
Crausby, David	Hopkins, Kelvin
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cummings, John	Howells, Dr Kim
Dalyell, Tam	Hoyle, Lindsay
Darvill, Keith	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Davidson, Ian	Hurst, Alan
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Hutton, John
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Iddon, Dr Brian
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)	Ingram, Adam
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Dawson, Hilton	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Dean, Mrs Janet	Jamieson, David
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald	Jenkins, Brian
Dismore, Andrew	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Johnson, Miss Melanie
Donohoe, Brian H	(Welwyn Hatfield)
Doran, Frank	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Dowd, Jim	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Jones, Ms Jenny	O'Hara, Eddie
(Wolverh'ton SW)	Olner, Bill
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Öpik, Lembit
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Organ, Mrs Diana
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Palmer, Dr Nick
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Pearson, Ian
Keeble, Ms Sally	Pickthall, Colin
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Pike, Peter L
Keetch, Paul	Plaskitt, James
Kemp, Fraser	Pollard, Kerry
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)	Pond, Chris
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Pope, Greg
Khabra, Piara S	Pound, Stephen
Kilfoyle, Peter	Powell, Sir Raymond
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Kingham, Ms Tess	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Primarolo, Dawn
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Prosser, Gwyn
Laxton, Bob	Purchase, Ken
Lepper, David	Quin, Ms Joyce
Leslie, Christopher	Quinn, Lawrie
Levitt, Tom	Rammell, Bill
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Rapson, Syd
Linton, Martin	Raynsford, Nick
Livsey, Richard	Rendel, David
Lock, David	Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Love, Andrew	Rooker, Jeff
McAllion, John	Rooney, Terry
McAvoy, Thomas	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McCabe, Steve	Rowlands, Ted
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Roy, Frank
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)	Ruane, Chris
McDonagh, Siobhain	Ruddock, Ms Joan
Macdonald, Calum	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
McFall, John	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Ryan, Ms Joan
McIsaac, Shona	Salter, Martin
Mackinlay, Andrew	Sanders, Adrian
McLeish, Henry	Savidge, Malcolm
McNamara, Kevin	Sawford, Phil
McNulty, Tony	Sheerman, Barry
Mactaggart, Fiona	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McWilliam, John	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Skinner, Dennis
Marek, Dr John	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Smith, Miss Geraldine
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Martlew, Eric	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Maxton, John	Snape, Peter
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Soley, Clive
Meale, Alan	Southworth, Ms Helen
Michael, Alun	Spellar, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Squire, Ms Rachel
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Miller, Andrew	Steinberg, Gerry
Mitchell, Austin	Stevenson, George
Moffatt, Laura	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Moore, Michael	Stott, Roger
Moran, Ms Margaret	Stringer, Graham
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Morley, Elliot	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	(Dewsbury)
Mountford, Kali	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Mudie, George	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mullin, Chris	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)	Timms, Stephen
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Tipping, Paddy
Norris, Dan	Tonge, Dr Jenny
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Touhig, Don

Trickett, Jon	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Truswell, Paul	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)	Willis, Phil
Twigg, Derek (Halton)	Wills, Michael
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)	Wilson, Brian
Tyler, Paul	Winnick, David
Vaz, Keith	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Vis, Dr Rudi	Wood, Mike
Wallace, James	Woolas, Phil
	Worthington, Tony
Wareing, Robert N	Wray, James
Watts, David	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Webb, Steve	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
White, Brian	Wyatt, Derek
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wicks, Malcolm	Tellers for the Ayes:
Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)	Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Cllve Betts.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Amess, David	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Lansley, Andrew
Arbuthnot, James	Leigh, Edward
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Letwin, Oliver
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Beggs, Roy	Loughton, Tim
Bercow, John	Luff, Peter
Beresford, Sir Paul	McLoughlin, Patrick
Blunt, Crispin	Madel, Sir David
Body, Sir Richard	Major, Rt Hon John
Boswell, Tim	Malins, Humfrey
Brazier, Julian	May, Mrs Theresa
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Moss, Malcolm
Browning, Mrs Angela	Nicholls, Patrick
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Norman, Archie
Cash, William	Ottaway, Richard
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Page, Richard
(Chipping Barnet)	Paterson, Owen
Chope, Christopher	Prior, David
Clappison, James	Randall, John
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)	Robathan, Andrew
Collins, Tim	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Cran, James	Ruffley, David
Curry, Rt Hon David	St Aubyn, Nick
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Sayeed, Jonathan
Duncan Smith, Iain	Shepherd, Richard
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Evans, Nigel	Soames, Nicholas
Faber, David	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Fabricant, Michael	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Fallon, Michael	Steen, Anthony
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Swayne, Desmond
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Syms, Robert
Gale, Roger	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Garnier, Edward	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Gill, Christopher	Townend, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Tredinnick, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Tyrie, Andrew
Gray, James	Viggers, Peter
Green, Damian	Walter, Robert
Greenway, John	Wardle, Charles
Grieve, Dominic	Wells, Bowen
Hammond, Philip	Whittingdale, John
Hawkins, Nick	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Hayes, John	Wilkinson, John
Heald, Oliver	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Yeo, Tim
Horam, John	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Hunter, Andrew	Tellers for the Noes:
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Nigel Waterson.
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Question accordingly agreed to

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 11, leave out ("question") and insert ("questions").

Mr. Raynsford

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 3, and the Government motion to disagree thereto.

Mr. Raynsford

When the Bill was last debated, I said that the Government were pragmatic about the two questions; unlike the Opposition, we would be prepared to listen. Indeed, I invited the Opposition to come up with a viable second question. However, I specified some essential tests that any second question would have to pass.

First, if we are to have a second question on the grounds that it extends democratic choice, it needs to do just that. It needs to accommodate the various permutations and preferences raised during our debates. The amendment made in another place patently fails to do that. Rather than clarifying the choices, it opens up a series of ambiguities. The electorate will not know what they are voting for.

How does the staunch Tory who wishes to vote specifically for his party's preferred option—an assembly made up of borough leaders—do so when faced with the two questions? He cannot. He can only vote for an assembly without knowing how it might be constituted. This is from the party that argued throughout the previous debate that clarity was essential—that people should be aware of every fine detail of the arrangements. Of course when it comes to this Lords amendment, the Conservatives use totally different logic.

Mr. Ian Bruce

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford

Oh dear, the hon. Gentleman is once again going to bore us.

Mr. Bruce

I am grateful to the Minister, who thinks that he will be bored. The Government have produced the Green Paper and the consultation paper, and if the amendment is passed the referendum will not take place. We do not know, however, what the Government will propose in the White Paper. How can we ask detailed questions when we do not even know what the Government propose?

Mr. Raynsford

It is a little depressing to realise that the hon. Gentleman—who was in the Chamber for most, if not all, of the debate on the previous amendment—obviously has not listened to a single word. We have made it clear that the Government will publish a White Paper, setting out the full details of the Government's decisions in respect of the Greater London authority, and that will be at least six weeks before the referendum. In addition, a summary leaflet will be distributed to every household in London. I accept that the hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency somewhere in the west country, will not get a copy through his postbox because he does not happen to live in London—except during the week.

Mr. Bruce

I have an address in London.

Mr. Raynsford

Well, I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets one through his postbox. He will then see the basis of the Government's proposals.

Mr. Bruce

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford

No, I wish to make progress. The hon. Gentleman has intervened on many occasions but has cast little light on the debate. We should proceed.

Equally, how does the earnest Liberal Democrat express her preference for a mayor elected from the assembly? She cannot. She can only vote for or against a mayor, without knowing how the mayor will be elected. Again, that is clear evidence that the Opposition have failed to come up with a second question that clarifies the issues.

Mr. Simon Hughes

indicated dissent.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he would want a Liberal Democrat to have the opportunity to vote for an assembly without a mayor. That cannot be done on the formulation he proposed. That reveals the total failure of the Opposition to come up with a viable second question.

Mr. Hughes

With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall deal with this point at greater length later.

The Minister's argument is flawed in two respects. First, the Bill, as amended by our amendment, specifically says that the Government propose one question, "Do you want an elected assembly, elected by Londoners?" and another, "Do you want an elected mayor, elected by Londoners?" Secondly, the Minister knows that his one-question proposition does not allow somebody who wants only a mayor or only an assembly to express that view either. The argument that he applies to us applies equally to him.

Mr. Raynsford

I accept that. I have never pretended that we have a duty to put before the electorate the Liberal Democrats' basically unsound proposals. We are not obliged to put their views to the electorate.

Mr. Hughes

rose—

Mr. Raynsford

I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep calm and I shall give way to him in a moment.

We have always said that we would put before the electorate the Government's proposition, which we put to the electorate at last May's election and which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of London. The Liberal Democrats would love to be in government and they could then put their proposition, but they are not and they should therefore accept that they are not in a position to do so.

Mr. Hughes

I am not so arrogant as to suggest that the Government put our proposition to the electorate; I suggest that they put a choice to the electorate. Why do not the Government allow the electorate to decide, rather than insist on determining the question?

Mr. Raynsford

That is exactly what the Government are doing. We are putting the proposition that we put to the electorate last May. The electorate voted for the Labour party, which had made it clear that it proposed a Greater London authority comprising a mayor and an assembly. We said that we would consult the people of London before legislating. That was our pledge and that is what we are doing, in marked contrast with the Conservative party, which consulted no one when it abolished the GLC. There was no referendum or test of opinion, and it is pure humbug on the Conservatives' part now to talk about referendums, votes and tests of opinion.

Mr. Lansley

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford

No.

My second test was that the referendum must be capable of delivering a decisive expression of public opinion. Those two questions do not guarantee that. If I, as a proponent of the Government's package of a mayor and an assembly together, voted yes on both questions, only to find that a mayor alone had been approved in the referendum, I would be appalled. My vote would have contributed to an outcome that I did not want. We have repeatedly emphasised that the mayor's powers must be balanced by the accountability provided by the assembly. Without that framework of accountability, too much power would be concentrated in one person's hands, yet, under the amendment made in another place, I would be denied the option of a vote for the combination of mayor and assembly, which forms the basis of the Government's proposal.

It is pretty rich for the Opposition to devise a couple of questions that would deny the people of London an opportunity to say yes or no to the proposal contained in the Government's election manifesto, which was supported by the overwhelming majority of Londoners. That is the sheer hypocrisy of the Opposition parties.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister knows that the majority of Londoners did not vote Labour at the election. We discussed that last time and the Minister must withdraw that claim. If his case is to be credible, he must persuade the electorate to vote "yes, yes". They then get exactly what he wants and will have answered both parts of the question in the affirmative. He simply does not have confidence in his own case.

Mr. Raynsford

On the contrary. We have just heard from the hon. Gentleman the typical Liberal Democrat ploy of trying to get their own way, and denying the people of London the opportunity to vote on the Government's proposition. That was endorsed by 49.5 per cent. of the electorate of London last May—a rather larger proportion than that which voted for the Liberal Democrats.

The two questions drafted by the Opposition risk peoples' votes carrying the day for a package with which they do not agree. That is good neither for clarity nor for democratic choice.

Thirdly, the Government should not be in the business of putting forward unworkable propositions in which they do not believe and which they would not implement, but that is precisely what those two questions risk. What would the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) do if he were faced by a vote in favour of a mayor without an assembly? What would the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) do if he were faced with a vote for an assembly without a mayor? Would they implement models of government to which they were diametrically opposed? I doubt it. I have explained that the amendments do not meet the key tests set out in our earlier deliberations.

Mr. Lansley

This is curious, because the Minister seems to suggest that the Government will not respond to an advisory referendum. Surely the point of having a referendum is to render the Government advice on the view of the electorate of London, but the Government are saying that they do not want to be given such advice and that, if they get the wrong advice, they will not follow it.

10.45 pm

Mr. Raynsford

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who has a reputation for being thoughtful in some respects, should have entirely missed the point. He talks about the Government seeking advice. The Government are seeking not advice but the view of the electorate on a specific proposition. We are seeking clarity. In the last debate, he was all in favour of clarity. He now peddles the argument for ambiguity. The point that I have already made to him, and which he appears incapable of understanding, is that, if the questions as now phrased were put to the electorate, people would be voting for propositions the outcome of which they could not know.

There are several permutations that could lead to the result that people least want as a result of voting in the way that they thought would accord with their views. That is the problem. The Conservative who does not want an assembly but wants a mayor could vote yes for a mayor and yes for an assembly, which seems to be roughly the Conservative party position, and end up having voted for the assembly, because that is a separate vote, but not getting the mayor because the majority were against one. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) does not seem able to understand the problem that there would be no clarity. There would be confusion and uncertainty.

I have explained that the amendments do not meet the key tests set in our earlier deliberations. The Opposition have failed utterly to come up with two questions that meet the requirements that we set, and they have equally failed to refute the Government's case for a single question. We must therefore ask why the amendments were pressed in the first place. As with the previous amendment, the answer can be only that they are determined to wreck our clear manifesto commitment to rostore democratic citywide government in London.

As I said earlier, the Opposition parties dare not do so openly, because they know that our proposals command the support of the overwhelming majority of Londoners. They have resorted to the subterfuge of wrecking amendments. That is not an honourable or creditable approach. It is, of course, all too typical of the Conservatives, who have twisted and turned on the issue over the past year. Twelve months ago, they were saying that there was no need for a new authority for London.

Mr. Gerald Howarth

rose—

Mr. Raynsford

The people of London gave their verdict overwhelmingly on that proposition on 1 May last year. I invite the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) to consider that point: does he agree with the outcome of the general election on 1 May, and will he respect it?

Mr. Howarth

If it was the clearly expressed will of the electorate of London last year that there should be a mayor and elected assembly, and if the Minister is Mystic Meg and knows the outcome already, why is he holding the referendum in the first place?

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman ignores the point that I have made many times already. It was a manifesto commitment that we would hold a referendum to confirm the support of the people of London for our proposition. I hope that even he would not suggest that we should break manifesto pledges.

Twelve months ago, the Conservatives did not want an assembly or authority for London. The people rejected their view. Now, realising that they are profoundly unpopular, they have started to change their position. They now say that they think that there is a case for a mayor. They cannot bring themselves to agree with the concept of a strategic authority and are therefore going for a halfway house of support for a mayor but rejection of an assembly. It is difficult to understand how any political party could get itself into such a ludicrous position until one recalls that it is not the product of rational analysis but of the Tories being told by their spin doctors to change their policy without having thought through the issues.

Perhaps the more interesting question is not how the Conservative party got itself into this mess, but why the Liberal Democrats should have been so keen to join them in opposing the Government's proposals. In their case, it is once again, as with the Conservatives, not the product of any sensible or rational analysis. Indeed, it was notable that, in the other place, those Liberal Democrat peers who had given serious thought to the governance of London—I think especially of the distinguished former director of the London School of Economics, Lord Dahrendorf—did not support their party's wrecking amendments. Lord Dahrendorf was explicit in saying that he supported the Government's Bill without any ifs and buts."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 1997; Vol. 584, c. 428.] The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, to whom I will happily give way, should perhaps consider that the person in his party perhaps best qualified from experience to comment on the governance of London explicitly repudiated his party's position in the other place.

Mr. Simon Hughes

It is true that three of our colleagues supported the Government in the other place.

Three of the Government's colleagues supported us—two former London Members of Parliament and one other Member. Does the Minister accept that it is as valid to regard the opinion of his dissenters as it is to regard the opinion of ours?

Mr. Raynsford

If any of the dissenters on the Labour Benches had had as distinguished a career in analysis of the governance of London as Lord Dahrendorf, I would have treated their opinions with respect. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he was wrong once again. He often is. It was not three but four Liberal Democrat peers who voted for the Government, one of whom happened to be their Deputy Chief Whip. I have to put it to the hon. Gentleman that his party, as usual, did not know what it was doing.

The truth is that the Liberal Democrats in London are in the pocket of their local councillors, who have not the vision to see any possible alternative system of government to the conventional town hall model. A rather distinguished senior figure in the Liberal Democrat party, who was one of many others who did not vote because they could not bring themselves to vote for their party's absurd position, commented that the fault line in the Liberal Democrat party was now between the councillors and the others. That was very evident in the debates in the other House.

The two Opposition parties are united in an unholy alliance of conservatism to try to wreck the Government's radical reform proposals. The electorate will no doubt have a good chance to reflect on that on 7 May.

As my noble Friend Baroness Hayman made clear in another place, there are legitimate differences of opinion about the best form of government for London. It is perfectly acceptable that such differences exist, and I am happy to debate the issues, but the Government are not obliged to put those differences to the people of London in a referendum. We do not have to offer a vote on the Conservative position, the Liberal Democrat councillors' position or indeed any other variation.

We will seek the consent of Londoners to our considered proposal for an authority made up of an elected mayor and an assembly. We have consulted the people of London already on that and worked up detailed proposals. We have published those proposals in a White Paper well in advance of the referendum. That is the package that we believe to be the best form of government for London. That is what we promised to deliver in our manifesto. If Londoners do not agree with our proposals, they are free to vote no.

Our proposal for a single question in the referendum will allow a decisive expression of public opinion on a clear proposition. People will know exactly what they are voting for, and what they will get. If there is a yes vote, the people of London know that the Government will act, and how they will act. Londoners have waited far too long for their chance to decide on their city's future; they should not have to endure further confusion and delay now. I urge the House to reverse the Lords amendment.

Sir Norman Fowler

That is probably one of the weakest arguments that I have heard even the Minister make on these issues. We have debated them before. The distinctive feature is that his replies get worse rather than better. When he begins to attack us for being the prisoners of spin doctors, he is really scraping the barrel for an argument. To suggest that the amendment is a wrecking one is a ludicrous proposition; it has the support of a number of people representing a range of opinion.

When the Minister discussed the previous amendment, he made a great deal about the House of Lords, its rights and the hereditary peerage. He did not mention those issues again in his speech on this amendment, for the good reason that, when it came to a decision on the amendment in the other place, the Labour party managed to garner only 104 votes in the Division, which it lost. Presumably Lord Hattersley was either still out at lunch or preparing for dinner, and other Ministers were unavailable to the Whip. On that occasion, three Labour peers voted with the Conservative party, including Lord Jenkins of Putney and Lord Stallard. Lord Jenkins and Jock Stallard are not exactly pillars of the Conservative party.

Mr. Raynsford

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why a distinguished former leader of the Greater London council, Lord Plummer, voted with the Government on that occasion?

Sir Norman Fowler

Lord Plummer doubtless voted with the Government, but, although I hate to make the Minister leave his fantasy world, I must remind him that the Opposition won that vote. His party was able to produce only 104 votes. A coalition of Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour peers managed to win the vote, for good reasons; no one can seriously doubt the strong arguments invoked.

This is an important debate and I hope that the Government will not move the closure before the Minister for Transport in London, who is meant to responding to the debate, has the opportunity to do so. It shows an unappealing lack of confidence in her that the closure was moved before she had the opportunity to say a word. Presumably there was a risk that she would deter people from voting in her Lobby. The decision to move the closure was extremely discourteous to Labour's chosen candidate for mayor of London. We have already made it clear that the Conservative party backs her candidature. We imagine that she will soon stand down from office to take up that challenge.

The amendment refers to an issue that has remained crucial throughout the debate on the Bill. The Government have been urged not only by the House of Lords but by a range of other people to make provision for not one but two questions to be asked at the referendum. The public should be asked whether they support the proposal for a directly elected mayor and, separately, whether they would support the establishment of new elected assembly for London.

The Conservative party has made it clear that it supports the proposal for a directly elected mayor but opposes that for a new assembly. We are not alone in that view, because the Liberal Democrats support us, as do members of the Labour party. The most significant speech from a Labour Back Bencher in the entire debate in the House was that of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), when he roundly attacked the Government's proposals. On that occasion, Labour Back Benchers were allowed to speak, and it is significant that, since the hon. Gentleman's speech, they have been banned from doing so. The hon. Gentleman said We are not getting a single voice for London—we are getting two competing voices, locked into an institutionalised conflict"—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 400.] His argument was that the crucial body was the directly elected assembly. Given his position on the GLC, that comes as no surprise.

The hon. Member for Brent, East revealed that many people in the Greater London Labour party were unhappy with the Government's proposals, usually because they wanted an assembly but did not want a mayor. He was scathing about the whole consultation process. He said: If we were prepared to trust Londoners, we would have a debate in which Ministers could marshal their arguments and we could challenge them. If Ministers could persuade Londoners, Ministers would get their way, but they do not trust Londoners, which is why they will not be given a choice. Londoners will be told, 'Take it or leave it.' That is insulting to Londoners. We have just had a referendum in Scotland and we allowed the people to have two votes to decide about tax policy, but Londoners can have only one option … 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 Londoners and an insult to their intelligence."—[Official Report,19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 403.] That was the opinion of the hon. Member for Brent, East. Whatever other criticisms one can make of him, he has taken some interest in the affairs of London and local government during the past few years.

11 pm

By any standards, no one can seriously claim that the idea of two questions was dreamed up in the House of Lords. It has been at the heart of the debate on the London referendum throughout. A large part of the press has supported the two-question proposal. The Times said: These are two different issues. They require two separate questions and answers". It said: If the Government has its way, Londoners will be asked to consider one single proposition in which they must either accept or reject both a mayor and an elected assembly. The electorate will not be allowed to choose between them. Referring to the Prime Minister, The Times said: He imposed that view on a reluctant party. He should not do so again. The Guardian expressed a similar opinion.

There are two separate propositions. It is possible to argue for a mayor, to be a voice for London and to carry out other functions, without accepting the case for a new assembly. That is especially so, in the light of the effect of the proposals in the Bill combined with the effect of the proposals in other legislation currently before the House—in particular, the Regional Development Agencies Bill and a House of Lords private Member's Bill, the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill. That shows that we are heading for an incredible, multi-layered bureaucratic administration for London.

I should have thought that many hon. Members on the Labour Benches—if there were many hon. Members on the Labour Benches; remarkably, not only do they not speak now, but they do not even turn up to listen to the debate—

Mr. Raynsford

Yours are going.

Sir Norman Fowler

I think that common observation will illustrate that the Conservatives are better represented in the Chamber than are the massed ranks of the Labour party, who are, presumably, even now in the Tea Room.

Let us consider what the structure of local government in London will be if we continue on the lines that the Government propose. First, we shall have a directly elected mayor, with powers yet to be specified by the Government. Secondly, we shall have a directly elected assembly, also with powers yet to be specified by the Government. Thirdly, we shall have a regional development agency, appointed by the Secretary of State, but with powers that will impinge on all of London. Thirdly, we shall have the Government office for London, which, on past performance, will be extraordinarily reluctant to give up any power or influence.

Fourthly, the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill will allow boroughs to apply to have their own executive mayor. I gather that the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is already working on that model. If all these plans go ahead, residents of Hammersmith and Fulham, of which I am one, will live under a London mayor and a borough executive mayor, and there will also be powers for a small cabinet around the borough mayor.

Finally, at long last, in this new bureaucratic system for London, we get to the borough councilors—the people who are directly accountable to the public they serve. They are at the end of the queue. Their power will be reduced—there is no other sensible explanation of what is happening. It is simply not possible to argue that the power and influence of borough councillors can remain the same given the vast superstructure that has been erected above them.

Mr. Raynsford

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is interesting to note that he is clearly unsympathetic to the proposals for democratic reform in local government advanced by Lord Hunt through legislation in another place. I am rather surprised that the Opposition do not support that measure.

I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that he was incorrect in claiming that the development agency for London would be appointed by the Secretary of State. We have made it clear that there will be a direct line of democratic accountability from that agency to the mayor and the assembly of London. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct the impression that he has given.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I remind the House that this is rather a narrow amendment. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to speak to it.

Sir Norman Fowler

I accept that warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is that we are debating whether there should be a separate vote for a mayorf and a separate vote for an assembly. A crucial argument in allowing a vote on an assembly is that the Government will insert new layers of local government into the system. In other words, it is crucial to understand that, as well as the directly elected assembly, other layers will be inserted by different legislation. I shall not labour the point. However, it was not clear from the Minister's remarks who will appoint the development agency.

Mr. Raynsford

The mayor.

Sir Norman Fowler

The mayor will appoint the development agency for London, but we are correct in saying that it will be an entirely appointed body. There is no question of its being elected democratically—in other words, it will be a major quango. [Interruption.] Let us not have any arguments from a sedentary position. The Minister is provoking my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).

The Secretary of State appoints the members of other regional development agencies, but, in the case of London, the mayor will make the appointments. There is no question but that the members will be appointees and that the body will be a quango.

One does not have to be a paid-up Conservative Member to see that the system being proposed is out of control. Even those who advocated the idea of a London mayor must now wonder about the enormous machine that is being constructed. The House of Lords was entirely correct to pass the amendment. It will enable the public to decide whether they want to remove at least one layer of administration and bureaucracy that the Government are inserting.

The Opposition have no argument about the mayor: we support the concept of a mayor. However, for all the reasons that I have stated, we oppose the idea of a directly elected assembly. If an assembly is required as a checking measure, we propose that it should comprise borough leaders—it could even include executive mayors, if power has passed to them by that stage. The Minister challenges me on that point. We seek an assurance—which is one of the reasons why I was so sad not to hear the winding-up speech of the Minister for Transport in London—[Interruption.] The Minister must have a glimmer of understanding that we are working in a democratic assembly and that hon. Members have an absolute and utter right to put their points of view. It is not enough for the Minister to say, "We achieved a big majority at the last election, and this is our will." We do not accept that, and the sooner the Minister gets used to that, the better it will be for him.

Mr. Raynsford

Rather than expressing mock indignation, the right hon. Gentleman should speak to his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) about honouring undertakings about the length of winding-up speeches. If those undertakings had been honoured, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London would have had time to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Perhaps we can return to the amendment.

Sir Norman Fowler

The Minister is totally erroneous and he is certainly out of order. It is a great pity that he does not calm down and listen to the arguments. [Interruption.] Perhaps I may be allowed to continue.

If we go down the Government's proposed road, there will be exactly the kind of institutionalised conflict that the hon. Member for Brent, East forecast. There will be conflict between the mayor and the assembly, and between the elected assembly and the elected borough councils. It will lead to a transfer of power from the boroughs to the centre. It is fanciful, ludicrous, to believe that elected assembly members will be content simply to carry out strategic thinking and checking. I can think of no elected assembly that would be happy with such a role. Step by step and year by year, the members of the assembly will seek further powers.

It was entirely clear from Labour speeches on Second Reading that Labour Members want a return to the Greater London council. They consider it a great pity that the GLC was abolished and they would like to see it return. That is their honest view, although it is not a view which the Government would dare to express. The powers that go to the assembly are unlikely to come from the Government and Whitehall, because, if history is any guide, they will fight like tigers to preserve their own. The powers that eventually go to the assembly will be those of the boroughs.

The Minister challenged me and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to table clear amendments that gave the public and the House a choice. We think that we have already tabled such amendments and I am glad that the Liberal Democrats have come round to our way of thinking on the matter.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

How does the right hon. Gentleman keep a straight face?

Sir Norman Fowler

The amendments are exactly the same. The Liberal Democrat Chief Whip would realise that if he knew anything about these matters, which I doubt.

The amendments are clear and I think that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I can agree on that. Above all, they give the people of London a vital choice and the House should support that. We have consistently argued for two questions. The other place was right to pass the amendment, and I urge the House to support it.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) looked forward to the day when Hammersmith and Fulham had directly elected mayors. Even if, with our support, he does not win the battle for a referendum with two questions, he may soon get two referendums, each with one question. People may be asked, "Do you want a directly elected mayor and an assembly for London?" and, "Do you want a directly elected mayor and an assembly for Hammersmith?" There is a consolation prize ahead of the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Norman Fowler

I shall not get that because there are no powers for such a referendum. That is precisely my point. There are no powers for a referendum anywhere but in London. That is why I want an assurance from the Government that the House will be given the opportunity to debate the private Member's Bill in the other place that is being promoted by Lord Hunt.

Mr. Hughes

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. At the moment, there are no such referendum powers. I share his view that there should be such powers and that there should be a debate. My colleagues and I share the scepticism about some elements of Lord Hunt's Bill.

I was reflecting on what the debate on the Lords amendment would be called if it were a novel.

Mr. Raynsford

"Much Ado About Nothing."

Mr. Hughes

From a sedentary position, the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It would help progress enormously if we did not have interruptions from a sedentary position, from Ministers or anybody else.

11.15 pm

Mr. Hughes

Particularly if they are so misinformed as to think that "Much Ado About Nothing" is a novel.

The title I gave it was "The great abolition justifies the great endorsement". The Government's argument seems to be that, because the Tories were wicked—which they were—in abolishing the GLC without asking anybody, which is what happened, they are now justified in saying, "This is our proposal and this is the only show in town."

The Liberal Democrats want the Bill to become law as the House of Lords has now amended it. On a Liberal Democrat amendment, supported by Conservatives, three Labour peers—I hope that the Government will concede, on reflection, that they are not insubstantial Labour peers, as they included two eminent former Members of this House and one other—and independent peers, including a former Speaker of the House, the other place amended the Bill to provide that the referendum should have two questions, not one. The amendment also provides that the schedule should have two clear questions, not one simple question.

Mr. Raynsford

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the vote in the other place, the Government were supported by the distinguished former leader of the GLC—Lord Plummer, a Conservative peer—Viscount Falkland, the Liberal Democrat deputy chief whip in the Lords, three more Liberal Democrats and some of the most distinguished Cross-Benchers, including Lord Carnarvon who chairs the all-party London group? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is a pretty clear sign that there was substantial support for the Government's position from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Conservative Benches and the Cross Benches.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister fails to understand an important point. The Government should allow people to express their opinion. We did. The Minister corrected me earlier, and I accept that four of our colleagues voted with the Government. If the Government had not steamrollered their view through their party, their regional conference and their local parties, ignoring grassroots opinion, and if the Minister had allowed the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and all the others to vote as they wished, he would have found that many of his hon. Friends would have voted with the Liberal Democrats.

Given that, for the first time in the history of Parliament, we now have the rule that, if one votes against the Government, one risks deselection with no reselection, and there is no right to object to the Government's policy, of course most people follow the party line. It is that, or no job. In the other place, thank God, some people were more independent. I support the idea that there should have been a freedom to vote. There should have been freedom in this place and the other place. If my hon. Friends here had wanted to vote differently, I hope that we should have allowed them to do so.

I also believe that the voters of London should have a free choice and not be dragooned into one lobby with only one choice, imposed by one minority Government.

Mr. Lansley

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it seems odd that the Government deny the right of the other place to amend the Bill while moving on to a detailed exegesis of who voted which way and what value should be ascribed to their vote?

Mr. Hughes

I began to wonder whether we were evaluating whether an earl was worth more than a viscount or a baron and whether, if they happened to have been Members of Parliament, that added a few points to their credentials. I believe that, even in the other place, each vote counts as one. On two occasions a couple of weeks ago, according to the calculations by the Whips in that place, we won. My understanding is that that is the way in which this place works. It may be simple. It may be simpler even than the Government's original proposal, but, if it has been all right for this country for a few hundred years, I reckon that it may be all right for a few hundred more.

Mr. Brooke

Did the hon. Gentleman observe that, although the Minister claimed three quarters of an hour ago that Lord Dahrendorf voted with the Government, the Minister did not quote his name the second time? The reason is that Lord Dahrendorf did not vote for the Government in the second vote.

Mr. Hughes

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. However, like some of my colleagues in the other place, Lord Dahrendorf not only spoke in favour of the principle of directly elected mayors, but did not vote against the proposal that Londoners should be able to decide that question.

Mr. Raynsford

In response to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I should like to make it clear that I specifically said that Lord Dahrendorf spoke; I did not say that he voted. I would not wish to be misrepresented. Lord Dahrendorf, who is a distinguished former director of the London school of economics and who has studied the issue in great depth, reached an informed view as to the right basis for government and said that he fully supported the Government's position. That is the point that I made and I hope that that is accepted.

Mr. Hughes

This is in danger of becoming a seminar on decision making in the House of Lords. There was a heated debate among my colleagues in both Houses. The result is that several colleagues—Lord Taverne for example—share the view not only that there should be a directly elected mayor, but that there should be two questions and that people should be allowed to make the choice, whatever we, the legislators, think.

As I said in an intervention, it was rich of the Government to claim that, because the amendment was passed by an unelected hereditary second Chamber, it should not be listened to. I have been here 15 years this month. On several occasions, the other place has either succeeded or nearly succeeded in preventing this place from getting away with things that it should not have got away with.

The other place may not be perfect and I do not like the way in which it is composed, but it is an important safeguard. It is composed as it is because past and present Governments have not changed it. The Government could have changed it, but they have not. It does not lie in their mouths to complain.

How we govern our capital city is a big and important issue. It is right that it should have a lot of attention because this country needs a capital city that works best. It is exciting that we are going to get London government back. My colleagues and I thoroughly share that view.

We welcome a Government who want to roseore government to London. We have said that unequivocally. We think that the Government started from the right position: they wanted to rostore democratic government in London. However, there is no theology about that and we are here because we think that they have the wrong proposal. We are entitled to say that, the Tories are entitled to their view, and others are, too. Worse, having fixed on a view, the Government have not been listening or adapting their view—formed originally by a relatively small number of people—in the light of the public's opinion.

In many respects, we think that the Government have been far too timid in not giving the proposed London government tax-varying powers and in not allowing it any control over strategic health matters. Therefore, in many respects, it is not a bold and radical proposal. Only one thing appears to be a huge totem pole of machismo and conviction for the Government: we have to have both a directly elected mayor and an assembly, whether people like it or not. The Government appear to be wedded to that proposal.

The Green Paper asked 62 questions to elicit opinions. The one question that most people wanted to answer was not even asked. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was in the manifesto."] I shall not have a great debate on the manifesto. There was a pledge in the manifesto, but that does not mean that the manifesto either expressly stated that there would not be two questions—I have a copy of the manifesto here, and it did not even imply that—or that the Government should not respond if there were a well of opinion in London favouring two questions.

We are in for a hard time if we have a Government who will never, even in the light of circumstances or of public opinion, alter a single word implied in their manifesto. The curse of undemocratic Governments is to be wedded to a manifesto, without engaging the brain. It is important not only to apply policies and principles but to listen to what the people are saying and, whenever possible, to give them the maximum choice.

Mr. Lansley

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he has been generous in giving way. Does he recall that, in a previous debate, the Minister for Transport in London told us that, although none of the 61 questions dealt with how the referendum questions would be phrased, 10 per cent. of responses raised exactly that matter, asking how voters would be consulted in the referendum?

Mr. Hughes

I have read our earlier debates on the matter, and I think that that is what the Minister said. Although the summary of responses that the Government supplied—it is in the Library, and I have a copy—does not provide such a breakdown, I believe that a clear majority of those who responded on that matter wanted there to be two questions. I shall be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong on that. Where a view was expressed, it supported the Opposition's and not the Government's position.

We are in this muddle and are having a debate between this place and the other place over the Lords amendments because we have gone about the process in the wrong way. There is no theology about it; logically—I repeat our position, because I do not want Ministers to misrepresent it—we think that there should have been a Green Paper and then a White Paper. After we had seen the proposals, we should have seen a Bill, so that we knew what the public would be asked to decide in a referendum. We should then have a referendum. We are being asked to approve a referendum before knowing the proposals—which could be very different from those in the Green Paper.

The arguments in the other place on whether we should attach the Bill to the White Paper and on a post-legislative referendum are perfectly valid, although there is no perfect answer to them. We simply believe that the Government have got themselves into difficulty because they were determined to hold the referendum in a certain manner. Their difficulties are of their own making.

There is a difference between this debate and the debate on Lords amendment No. 1. It is fair to say—without misrepresenting anyone's opinion—that, as was conceded by the Government and Opposition Front Benchers, Lords amendment No. 1 was an accident. The Government did not think that they would lose the vote on it, and the Tories did not think that they would win.

Sir Norman Fowler

What did the hon. Gentleman think?

Mr. Hughes

That is a perfectly valid question. I do not think that we thought that the Tories would win.

Lords amendment No. 2 was not an accident but was completely intentional. It was absolutely not a wrecking amendment. It was also not, as the Minister suggested, contrived in secret. The Government asked us to produce a proposal that we negotiated in the full light of day and tabled when the sun was shining. Several days were spent preparing it before it was debated in the House, and there was a vote on it on a normal weekday afternoon. There was absolutely no secrecy about it. For the Government to suggest—in the words of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)— "something of the night" about our doings is very unfair. We did what the Government asked us to do.

I remind the House of what the Minister asked us to do. I remember the stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not allowed to quote, so I shall not. On 19 November, the Minister said that Liberal Democrats and Conservatives could not agree on the formulation of a common wording; that the Liberal Democrat amendment that was being considered would not allow the Conservatives to have what they wanted; that there was no single and simple proposition for a simple second question; that there was no simple second question; and that even the Tory and Liberal Democrat proposals would not do justice to people with a different point of view.

I do not know what the academic analysis would be, but it seems that the amendment passed in another place is pretty simple. It asks whether the voter is in favour of an elected mayor, yes or no? It then asks him to put a cross in the appropriate box. If that is not simple, I am a Dutchman.

The Government do not trust Londoners to answer two questions. For some reason, they do not think that Londoners can manage to express two opinions on two linked questions and understand what the consequences could be. The Minister repeatedly argues that people might end up not getting what they wanted but, under the Government's proposal, many people will have no choice but to vote for something that will not give them what they want.

Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It seems odd that the Government do not trust Londoners to take two votes but wished to impose two votes on the people of Scotland, although many did not want two. The Government perversely intend to do the opposite of what the people whom they are meant to serve want them to do.

11.30 pm

Mr. Hughes

My hon. Friend makes a point to which I can anticipate the Minister's response, because I heard it yesterday. The Minister's answer will be that the Scots did not have two constitutional questions to answer—one was constitutional and one was non-constitutional. However, I had always thought that tax varying was a bit of a constitutional issue. In any event, that was the Minister's answer when he and I and Lord Archer appeared on television yesterday—it was in fact this afternoon; it just feels like yesterday because we have been here so long. On the other hand, it will soon be yesterday.

Even if what the Minister says were true, there were two questions in Scotland, and the Scots managed perfectly well. They answered both and got a result with which they were happy, although one result was closer than the other. I think that the people of London would be perfectly capable of undertaking the same exercise.

It is of course credible for the Government to put across their point of view and say that Londoners have to take the whole package. We do not dispute that they can do that, but we are saying that it is not the best way to proceed. It is credible for the Conservative party to say that it wants a mayor and to ask people to vote for a mayor and against an assembly. We happen not to agree with that, but the Conservatives are entitled to put their point of view, just as we are entitled to say that we want a traditional parliamentary-type system whereby members are elected and the leader is chosen from among them.

They are all credible propositions. All we are saying is that we should not have a little debate here that limits the options to one. Many more people would vote in the referendum if there were a better choice of question than if there is only the "take it or leave it" option.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not listened to what I was saying. Will he explain how, under the formulation that he is proposing, someone who believes in the Government's proposition that there should be a mayor and an assembly, and that either one or the other without the total package would be a mistake, can vote? There would be no guarantee that the outcome would be the two linked together. That is the defect in the hon. Gentleman's formulation, and he should recognise that.

Mr. Hughes

I have heard that question before, and it troubles me to think that that is what has been exercising all the great brains in the inner sanctum of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for so long. The answer to the question is that the outcome cannot be guaranteed; we have to encourage people to vote for both.

Mr. Raynsford

There is no clarity.

Mr. Hughes

That is not the case, but I shall deal with that point in a moment. It is exactly the same as the dilemma facing, for example, a Liberal Democrat who on 7 May wants to vote for an assembly but does not want a directly elected mayor, or a Tory who wants to vote for a mayor but not a directly elected assembly. They have to make a judgment. We shall recommend to our people to vote yes, not as our preferred option, but as our second best option. We are waiting to hear what the Tories will recommend.

We cannot know. The Minister will say that the Government offer certainty. A voter will know that, if they vote for the Government's proposal, it may get through. Is it better to give people a choice that they do not want, with the certainty that they will get something that they do not want, or to give them a choice that includes something that they want, with slightly less certainty that they will achieve it? People would rather have less certainty but know that they could get what they want than be forced to have something that they do not want, knowing that the only certainty is that they will get it.

Mr. Wilkinson

Is not the paradoxical delight of the proposal that the Government have naively put that it maximises the chances of a no vote, giving real hope to the anti campaign in the forthcoming referendum? Those who are dissatisfied with part of the Government's proposal for a Greater London authority will have an incentive to vote no for the whole thing.

Mr. Hughes

That may be true; I do not know. Logically, it is likely that a coalition will be formed of people with different reasons for voting no. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has been an assiduous participant in these debates. There is a coalition on our proposal that includes Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and absent Labour Members. I heard one on the radio today saying that they support us. I shall not embarrass the London Labour Member whom I heard today by naming him, but I heard him and Labour Members know that. That Labour Member was aware that this was the right proposal, that there should be no directly elected mayor and that there should be two questions. I shall produce the London News Direct tape tomorrow if the Minister does not believe me.

The benefit of our proposal is that each party's preferred outcome is possible. The Tories could win. There is an incentive for them to campaign and get people out to vote. We could win. The Government could win. To my simple little mind, a proposal in which anyone could win, a bit like the lottery, is more exciting and more likely to induce participation than a proposal in which only the Government can win and nobody else can get what they want. I shall give way for the last time to my erstwhile opponent.

Mr. Heald

The hon. Gentleman won on the previous occasion. Does he agree that the dilemma that the Minister has posed is the same as was faced in Scotland? The Government believed that there should be a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers. There were two questions. It was possible that they would not get everything that they wanted. In Scotland, they were prepared to give two votes. Why are they not prepared to give two votes in London? Is not the issue the same in principle?

Mr. Hughes

In logic, that question also baffles me. I think that the answer is that, before the general election, a few people, including the Prime Minister, got together and decided on the package that they wanted. Once the Prime Minister decides, that is the end of the debate.

Mr. McNulty

It was in the manifesto.

Mr. Hughes

That is why it was in the manifesto. There were not many proposals in the manifesto that the Prime Minister did not want. I challenge the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) to offer me one. There were many proposals not in the manifesto that many of his colleagues wanted. The hon. Gentleman is on weak ground.

We think that people have to be offered more than one choice. The Government know that one choice is not real choice.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

Hobson's choice.

Mr. Hughes

As the hon. Gentleman says, it is traditionally known as Hobson's choice. In this case it is Blair's choice—we get Blair's choice or we get no choice. We can vote only for or against what the Government want.

I have two final points that open the issue out. We are going down a dangerous constitutional road.

At the moment, the Government want us and their colleagues to vote later tonight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Much later."] They want us much later tonight to vote to roseore one rather unclear and unstraightforward question. The implications of the mayor-assembly relationship are not clear or straightforward. We have never had such a system in Britain before; we have never seen whether it works; we do not know the balance of power—it might be different in the White Paper. The Lords proposal explains the Government's position. It says: The Government propose the establishment of a Greater London Authority made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor, both to be elected by Londoners". It puts the Government's case categorically.

The amendment then proposes two simple questions, which are much more clear and simple propositions than the Government's alternative to roll things together and not say how it will work out. The Lords propose two simple but good questions which, if I may say not a little immodestly, are right because the novel issue for Londoners this year is whether we want a directly elected mayor. If the Government do not ask people that question specifically and on its own, they are clouding the question. The Government are trying to change what the House of Lords, to its credit, put right just a couple of weeks ago.

I think that such a proposal is dangerous. In spite of the Prime Minister's speech in Scarborough at the weekend and what I hoped—and still hope—that Labour would do, the proposal presages a desire to impose the Government's will rather than allow a multiplicity of flowers to bloom.

My party—this is one of the reasons why I have been a member of it for more than half my life—believes in pluralism. We believe that we do not necessarily need the same form of local or regional government in every part of the country. If the Scots do not want the same form of government as the Welsh, they should not have it. It should be for them to decide. It should be part of the country's richness. The Spanish did very well when they started to work out regional government after Franco. It is different in different parts of Spain. We support that; we are pluralists, and the Government should be too. That is exactly why there should be a free vote—or at least an unwhipped vote. The signs are worrying because the Government are not only imposing their will on the single question.

The Government commissioned a report by Professor Patrick Dunleavey and Dr. Helen Margetts on electoral systems for the London assembly, which is called "Electing the London Mayor and the London Assembly". We on the Liberal Democrat Benches happen to know that the first draft was sent back for rewriting because, we understand, it did not quite say what the Government wanted it to say. I am not suggesting that they asked the authors to say things with which they did not agree. I am suggesting that the Government asked for the report to be rewritten in order that it said more clearly what the Government wanted Professor Dunleavey and Dr. Margetts to say that they agreed with.

In answer to my question, To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to place the first version of the report on the electoral system for the Greater London Assembly commissioned from Professor Dunleavey in the Library", the Minister replied: In line with usual practice, we do not propose to make available incomplete and uncorrected earlier drafts of the report."—[Official Report, 10 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 128.] By not allowing people to see entirely independent academic reports without the right to recommission them, the Government are setting a worrying trend. I am troubled that we are seeing government by diktat from Downing street and not government by decision of Parliament.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman has completely misrepresented the basis on which the report from Professor Dunleavey and Dr. Margetts was presented to the Department. As with all other such reports, a draft is prepared, there is a discussion about its details, and if there are factual inaccuracies or a need for further work on particular items because certain items have not been fully covered, that further work is done. I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that there was no suppression of any point of view expressed in the report, and no pressure put on the researchers to produce any variation from the recommendations that they produced in their first draft. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

11.45 pm

Mr. Hughes

Of course I accept what the Minister says from the Dispatch Box. It would be improper for me not to do so. However, in that case I want an answer—although it need not be given tonight—to the question why, when the first report was published and we asked to see it, and the authors said that we could, the Government prohibited us from doing so.

If that report were written at the beginning, even if it had drafting errors or was typed in the wrong colour ink, or whatever, I do not accept the idea that a Government committed to open government and to discussing their proposals with a view to getting advice on how they could be improved, can claim to have a consistent attitude if they keep it for a long time and allow it to be read only at a much later late. That is certainly what happened, because we were told that the authors would have been happy for the report to be released to us some time before.

Challenged to agree on some wording, the Opposition parties agreed. Challenged to come up with a proposal, we have done that, too. The Minister had said—I told him at the time that it was to his credit—that the Government would give serious consideration to a jointly agreed proposal with two simple questions.

However, I do not think that the Government have given serious consideration to our proposal. If there is a defeat in the House of Lords at about 6 o'clock, the Government say they are angry at 7 o'clock, they issue a sound bite at 8 o'clock and a press release at 9 o'clock, and by 10 o'clock declare their intention to reverse the defeat, that is not serious consideration. It does not sound to me as if there was much reflection—

Sir Patrick Cormack

That is how they always do things.

Mr. Hughes

Perhaps. It does not sound as though serious consideration was given to whether the Lords amendment should be accepted. If the Government had listened to consultation—most of the responses were on our side of the argument—to their Back Benchers who know a lot about such matters, or to the peers, who by a majority vote freely entered into, decided that the Government were wrong, they would have been willing to change their mind.

The Liberal Democrats say that whether London should have a directly elected mayor is a big controversial issue. It is also an unprecedented issue. We are likely to have foisted on us something that we may—not necessarily will—live to regret.

We shall probably have an assembly with no independence, and the electoral system that the Government are determined to put through will mean a mayoral type of election that rules out people who are not members of big political parties. There will be no chance to vote against, no matter how weak the assembly and how powerful the mayor—or how strong the assembly and how weak the mayor. The Government are saying, "Take it or leave it."

We think that the people should have been asked the questions and the decision should go to the people, and we are even stronger in our view tonight than we were a few weeks ago. We are grateful that the House of Lords agreed with us, and we ask the Government to respect the other place. They should not get away with saying that, because the Lords are not elected on party tickets as we are here, they should be ignored. This time the Lords are right, and they should be listened to.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

The debate surely illustrates better than most the folly of referendums as a means of trying to decide what are invariably difficult and complex questions. The decision before us, as it turns out, is just such a difficult and complex question, not the simple-minded question that the Government suggested when they started out on the venture.

The question has become no simpler. If anything, it has become more complicated. The excellent speech by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) showed that all too well.

The Minister has imported over and over again the tired old new Labour red herring of the mandate. I am getting sick and tired of hearing about that mandate.

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow)

You would.

Mr. Forth

It is being seriously suggested to us, apparently, that each voter assiduously studied the Labour party's manifesto, and then voted in a deliberate way to endorse each individual item in it.

I find that somewhat difficult to believe, and I reject totally the Minister's suggestion that the people of London rushed out to the polling booths with wild enthusiasm to vote for the Labour party and its manifesto specifically so that they could get not only a mayor and an assembly but a single-question referendum.

Mr. Lansley

Did my right hon. Friend note that Ministers are trying to suggest that, because the Conservative Government abolished the Greater London council on the basis of a general election mandate, and did not hold a referendum, they did not have a true mandate? They want to have it both ways: they have a mandate, but we did not have one when we abolished the GLC.

Mr. Forth

That is a valid point, and it underlines what nonsense the mandate argument is. We can put that to one side and forget it for the purposes of this or any other debate.

Mr. Ian Bruce

The Labour party manifesto—we know now what new Labourspeak is all about—uses the words: Following a referendum to confirm popular demand". How can a referendum without even a minimum number of votes required, let alone any opportunity for people to choose what they want, confirm popular demand?

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend is right. The concept of popular demand is an interesting and difficult one, especially in this context. Those of us who have the privilege to represent London constituencies are unaware of any popular demand for the nonsense that the Government want to impose on the people of London.

We are being asked to accept what I can only characterise as an excess of bureaucracy, and indeed even an excess of democracy. We are now contemplating a London in which hapless Londoners will be expected to vote from time to time for a borough councillor, a Member of Parliament, a Member of the European Parliament, a member of a Greater London assembly, and a mayor.

Some of those may provide a valuable service—Members of Parliament perform a vital function, as we all know, as do London borough councillors, who are close to their communities—but we must ask exactly what additional democratic or governmental value the members of the assembly or indeed the mayor will bring. Such questions are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. The amendment is about whether there are to be one or two questions. It is tightly drawn.

Mr. Forth

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The questions are about the assembly members and the mayor. I was leading into that part of my argument when you very kindly reminded me that I should perhaps move on to it, which I shall now do.

People will want to ask whether they will get additional value from an extra level of government as represented by the proposed assembly, and/or an extra level of government as represented by a mayor. The Government have tried to tell us that those proposals are indissolubly linked, and can have governmental validity only if they are taken together. That is the core of the Minister's argument, but I do not believe that the people of London see it that way at all. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey brought that out extremely well.

It must be right that people—voters and taxpayers—who are being asked to accept additional levels of government, and therefore of bureaucracy and, almost inevitably, of cost, should be allowed to make their judgment about whether they believe that such an imposition would be valid for them as Londoners. They should be able to decide about each level separately.

I leave aside the validity of the arguments about whether London requires those extra levels of government. I recognise that that is not relevant to the amendment, and I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not want me to rehearse those arguments again. We are considering whether it is necessary for the people of London to be allowed to consider the questions, and answer them separately.

For the life of me, I cannot see why the Government are afraid of asking the questions separately. Is it contempt for the ability of the people of London to make that judgment? Is it one of the characteristics we have learnt that the Government show above all—an arrogance which says that, because they have a very large parliamentary majority, they can sweep aside all other considerations and impose their will on the people of London, or the country as a whole?

What about the Government's relationship with the House of Lords? Why are the Government so keen to do away with the hereditary peers? It is almost precisely because of what we are considering tonight. The second chamber has performed its role responsibly and thoughtfully. The Minister was at pains to tell us how thoughtfully the Members of the House of Lords had considered the matter, but conveniently ignored the fact that they delivered what he would regard as the wrong answer.

We can see why the Government want to abolish the second chamber—in all meaningful senses—as quickly as possible. They want to deny us—the people of London in this case—that revising, thoughtful approach that we have learnt to value.

We are beginning to see clearly the Government's true motive. They will use what they describe as their mandate—their enormous parliamentary majority—to railroad through these proposals, completely ignoring not just the wishes of the people but the considered views of another place. The matters are tied up closely. The merit of the case is vital, but the Government want to deny the people of London the possibility of looking at and answering the questions separately.

I remain to be persuaded that the people of London need or want either an assembly or a mayor, and I would want at least the opportunity to consider the questions on their merits and to be allowed to give my answer. I would take my chance—like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—that the answers to these separate questions might not be the ones I wanted. I would seek to persuade my fellow citizens of my point of view, but I would accept the verdict of the ballot box. Why is the Minister not prepared to accept that? What is he afraid of? Does he think that he might get two "no" answers, or one "yes" and one "no"?

Why does the Minister not have confidence in his own case, with all the powers of persuasion and propaganda that the Government have? If he were confident, he would be more than happy to go forward on that basis to get the double "yes" answer he wants. The Government will not do that, because they are not certain of the outcome. They are afraid of the potential power of the arguments—which we have not really heard yet—against these extra levels of bureaucracy and the different layers and costs.

All this comes before we have heard in any detailed or coherent sense the answer to the important questions about the relationships that will exist among all the different institutions, all of them elbowing one another aside and crunching the people of London beneath them as they attempt to take them who knows where.

Until or unless we get the answer to those questions, the Government will not have persuaded me, and I suspect that they will not have persuaded the House. We must have proper answers. I hope that the House will agree with the other place and reject the Government's arguments tonight.

12 midnight

Mr. Wilkinson

At this midnight hour, I should like to try to analyse rationally the Minister's arguments in favour of overturning their Lordships' considered amendment.

First, the Minister argued that it was pragmatic to do so. I do not comprehend how this Administration's entirely dogmatic attitude towards this issue could be considered pragmatic. A pragmatic Government would seek to establish a genuine dialogue with all the interested parties, and find a form of words that best meets the democratic imperative of finding a question that is most acceptable to all the participants. If a referendum is to be valid, it must be based on consensus. That is absolutely fundamental.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has expended a great deal of intellect and emotion on these matters. The most disappointed people must be the Liberal Democrats, who have had a "special relationship" with the Government and are participants in the constitutional Committee. Where is their pay-off? Even Lord Dahrendorf does not seem to behave as one would expect a happy Liberal Democrat to behave in the other place.

Democracy is about genuine choice, and the people of London, in having a single question foisted on them, are definitely not being given genuine choice. The Minister says that the Government's steamroller policy is based on the need to avoid ambiguities. The consequence is to maximise ambiguity rather than diminish it.

Inasmuch as there is no scientific estimation of popular opinion on the two constituent elements of the Greater London authority, the legitimacy of each will never thereafter be properly quantified and evaluated. The likelihood must be that the GLC will go into operation fundamentally deficient in that scientific endorsement by a clearly established popular vote on its constituent parts.

Sir Sydney Chapman

My hon. Friend will recall that the Labour party manifesto specifically promised a referendum on an elected assembly and a mayor. Given that it was written in simple English, people must have concluded that there would be a referendum on those two issues, and that they would be put separately. It would be reasonable for any moderate person to assume that, if the Labour party intended that there would be only one question, it would have made that point specifically in its manifesto.

Mr. Wilkinson

My hon. Friend, who has consistently taken an intense interest in local government over many years, and who has been a London Member of Parliament for a long while, is entirely right in his interpretation of the Labour party manifesto. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made clear, the pernicious doctrine of the mandate is not even implemented properly. It is a perverted mandate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet explains. It is Stalinism with a trendy face. That is what new Labour is all about.

Mr. Ian Bruce

I am sure that my hon. Friend has read the Labour party manifesto for time out of mind, as we all have. In the same sentence as it says Following a referendum", it states: there will be … a strategic authority and a mayor, each directly elected. If Labour had not wanted those issues to be decided separately in a referendum, surely the sentence would have been separated out? It is ridiculous.

Mr. Wilkinson

It is ridiculous. As I sought to suggest in my intervention in the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, the perverse consequence is likely to be that the no vote will be maximised inasmuch as people will have no confidence in the referendum per se, and certainly no confidence in it as a means of testing their opinion on the two ingredients of the assembly that they are supposed to endorse. In fact, because they will be preoccupied with their immediate future in their boroughs, thank goodness, I believe that they will be concentrating on the vote for their councillors. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, it is councillors who matter to people in their daily lives.

The experience of all hon. Members on the doorstep in London was that the Greater London Authority did not come up. In my constituency, it genuinely did not come up at all. It never came up once at any public meeting, or on any doorstep, or in any church question time or on any of the occasions which characterise the hustings in a general election campaign.

Because the question is so clearly a democratic fraud, I suspect that the winners in the referendum campaign will be the abstainers by a huge majority, as they were in the Welsh referendum, but even more so. In this case, however, people are supposed to be encouraged to vote on the Greater London authority by virtue of the fact that they are likely to go to the polling stations to vote for what really matters for them, their borough elections.

Thirdly, the Minister said that the referendum was to be a decisive expression of public opinion. We have already seen that in microcosm on the Labour Benches. The service in which I spent my formative years had the delightful expression "dumb insolence". I do not charge Labour Back Benchers with that but with a dumb insult to democracy. That is what this is all about. It is a dumbing exercise by the Labour party, and as such its stand should be utterly rejected. I am sure that it will be by the electorate. It will be seen as a fraudulent Stalinist attempt to deny the people of London the genuine choice they deserve.

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)

I have watched this process with great disappointment. I attended the Second Reading debate and the Committee. I read the reports of the debates in the House of Lords. All along, the Government's attitude has been disappointing.

The Government may say that I am a naive young Member and that I was gullible enough to take them at their word when they told the House that they were open-minded. My disappointment at their not fulfilling their word is shared outside the House. It is not only rock stars who now realise that the Labour party cannot be trusted. It goes wider than that, throughout the community.

People in the media, in local government and in the Minister's own party are extremely disillusioned with the approach and style of the Government. The approach that the Government have taken on this issue typifies that. It is not just the public spending cuts that the Government have made. It is not just their attitude to lone parent benefits: it is their attitude and the way in which they are going about reforming London government. People are disillusioned, and the Government should take that seriously.

The Minister told the House that he would listen. The House of Lords called the Minister's bluff. Unfortunately, the Minister has been found wanting. Gone is his promise to be open-minded. Gone is his promise to be consultative. The rhetoric has been proven to be very weak. I found his arguments weak. Labour Members were shame-faced at the tortuous logic he used to defend his arguments. He is having to defend the Prime Minister's beliefs. Those beliefs are not shared by the party, or by the public at large, but Ministers are having to toe the line and come up with some weak arguments to do so.

Tonight, the Minister's arguments relied on the fact that the Government's proposals on London government were in the manifesto. That was the only argument they seemed to put. But that shows how unserious they were all along about consultation. They have just taken the partisan line. Why have they wasted our time? Why did they offer to be open-minded? Why have they wasted so much money on the process? It throws into question the Government's commitment to consultation.

I thought that the Government were serious about consultation. I thought that they wanted a new style of government—new Labour, new style. I thought that they were doing that because they were trying to achieve a political aim. I thought that they wanted to show that they would be this inclusive, cuddly, democratic Government. But they are not. It is a charade. They have not changed their minds.

Mr. Ian Bruce

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. We think that the millennium bug has come into effect. It got to midnight and the annunciator stopped working; it is now switched off.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

It has been reported, and it will be attended to. I thank the hon. Member for bringing it to the attention of the House.

Mr. Davey

I am glad to hear that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I would not want Members who were hanging around the bars not to know that I was on my feet. I know that they would rush in to listen to my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Members do not hang around the bars.

Mr. Davey

I am waiting for someone to rise on a point of order, but perhaps they will not.

Mr. Simon Hughes

A pint of order?

Mr. Davey

No, not that sort of order.

The Government's attempt to portray themselves as consultative and open-minded has backfired on them. Not only have they disappointed people who were looking to them to be open-minded, but they have lost the good will of many people in the community. They have lost credibility when they consult.

Therefore, when the Government issue their next consultation paper on another subject—the reform of the House of Lords or some other reform—will it be worth anyone replying? People will know that the Government are not serious about consultation. No one will believe them or trust them in future episodes of consultation. That is a great shame. The Government have proved to us that they are not a listening Government.

Mr. Hughes

You are on again.

Mr. Davey

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me that my name is now back in lights.

The case for a referendum is strong, because it is important that the new assembly for London has legitimacy and a mandate to operate based on the solid support of the people of London. That mandate will ensure its permanence. The system of government in London has changed up to four times this century, and we want the next change to be a permanent, not a short-term, feature. We do not want the ebbs and flows in the structure of London government to continue. A referendum that provided a mandate from the people would ensure that that new government structure for London was guaranteed stability.

12.15 am

The Government have lost an important opportunity by their failure to opt for a two-question referendum. The legitimacy offered by a referendum on one question is different from that offered by one on two questions. If the people voted yes in a one-question referendum, it would mean that they wanted a democratic voice for London, but it would not provide a mandate for that. A two-question referendum would enable all parties to be sure that Londoners wanted a particular democratic structure.

There is a dangerous implication behind the Government's actions. Although a future Government may recognise the mandate for a democratic voice in London, they may quite rightly say that the structure of democratic government in London had not been given the proper support of Londoners because they were never given a choice. The government of London could therefore be changed once again—subject to yet further ebbs and flows in its sorry history. If that happened, the Government would be culpable because of their failure to seize the opportunity to provide proper legitimacy for the structure of government in London once and for all. That arrangement should not be a political football.

The Minister said that the referendum should pose just one question, because that is the only way in which the people of London—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. There should no other conversations in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.

Mr. Davey

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

According to the Minister, it is important that people are certain about the likely structure of London government after the referendum, and that therefore just one question should be posed. Certainty about the outcome is an interesting concept of democracy. It is my understanding of democracy that the outcome should not be known before the question is put. The Government's suggestion seems to hark back to one-party states and the notion of choice in eastern Europe—one was either for or against the Communist party. That is not democratic or pluralist, and it reveals the danger behind the Government's simplistic approach to referendums.

The Government are setting a dangerous precedent by their reaction to the calls for consultation and their attempts to secure legitimacy for their views. Their behaviour will come to haunt them, because people had expected more of them.

Mr. Horam

When the Minister opened the debate just a few moments ago, but, in fact, yesterday, he said that he would be pragmatic. That choice of word rather surprised me, but he said that he would subject his pragmatism to three tests.

The first test was to decide whether a two-question referendum extended choice. He argued that it did not. That seemed to me an extraordinary argument. Two questions are greater than one question. Therefore, two questions extend choice. The Minister seemed to be arguing that one question was greater than two questions; the logic of his arithmetic escaped me.

I remember Douglas Jay, a Cabinet Minister in two previous Labour Governments, arguing that even socialism must obey the laws of arithmetic. In suggesting that one question provided more extensive choice than two, new Labour has even gone beyond Douglas Jay's remonstrations.

Secondly, the Minister suggested that the test must be a decisive test of public opinion. He asked, what would a loyal Liberal Democrat or a loyal Conservative want to do? That person might not end up with a choice that favoured his point of view. However, surely, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, we do not know what the results of democracy will be before we embark on the course. If the Liberal Democrats argue their case that there should be an assembly but no mayor, they may get a no, yes vote. If we argue our case for a mayor and no assembly, we may get a yes, no vote. If the Government argue their case and succeed, they may get a yes, yes vote. That would be a perfectly accurate, decisive test of public opinion.

The Government's conflation of the two questions causes concern because that formulation will not necessarily ensure a proper test of public opinion. For all we know, public opinion may be in favour of a mayor but not of an assembly. How is that point of view to express itself when there are not two separate questions? If there is only one question, and if, on balance, the public feel that we should have a mayor but are prepared to put up with an assembly, they will get both, even though they do not want an assembly.

It is extraordinary that the Government are arguing that a two-question approach is not a decisive test of public opinion. It is a decisive and clear test of public opinion.

Thirdly, the Minister argued that an approach on the question issue had to produce a workable proposition. Only the Government say that any proposition but their own is unworkable. How do we know what is a workable proposition? It has not yet been put into practice. As we know, events usually diverge widely from what theory would lead one to expect. I suggest that a mayor without an assembly is a perfectly practical proposition. An assembly without a mayor may be a perfectly practical proposition; we do not yet know. Therefore it is astonishingly arrogant of the Government to say that only their own proposition is workable.

The Minister said that, in proposing a two-question solution, not only were we not meeting the Government's three criteria—which we obviously are—but we were not honourable; we were playing politics. It is rich of the Minister to say so, because we all know how the Government got into this position.

Traditionally, the Labour party was trying to resurrect, in one form or another, the Greater London council. I remember the Minister—who, unfortunately, is now not in the Chamber—producing little maps, which showed the electoral area for a new assembly, with a slightly different physical shape from the area covered by the Greater London council. The area stretched along the Thames but, unfortunately, did not include Bromley, my borough. One felt that the Labour party intended to recreate the Greater London council, but not quite, to avoid the charge that it was recreating the GLC. That was the traditional policy of the Labour party for many years in opposition.

Suddenly, the idea of a mayor became fashionable and the two ideas—of a mayor and an assembly—were put together, because the Labour party could not make up its mind. There was a strong body of opinion for recreating the GLC and a strong body of opinion for creating the mayor, and the Labour party could not decide.

As the House knows, I have some experience of being a Labour Minister as well as a Conservative Minister. I often say to my hon. Friends that the most profound problem with Labour Governments is not necessarily that they take the wrong decisions—although they frequently do—but that they cannot take decisions at all.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

Like what party to belong to.

Mr. Horam

Well, yes.

This is a perfect example. The Labour Government have been unable to resolve the problem of how to decide between two obvious alternatives, so they have stuck them both together and conflated them. Not only are the Government unable to decide: they are unwilling to allow the people of London to decide between the two alternative propositions—an astonishing situation. We are in this situation because the Government have failed to make up their mind. There will be a cost: it will be of the order of £20 million, which is the cost of the assembly. There is always a cost when Governments, of whatever political persuasion, fail to make clear-cut decisions. In this case, the Government will pass on their indecision to the people of London who will have to pay for it out of their own pockets.

Mr. Lansley

Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of why the Government favour one question rather than two, will he recognise that the Government's argument hinges on the proposition that a significant number of people do not want a mayor without an assembly, and do not want an assembly without a mayor? The Government claim that the two things are interdependent. In fact, there is no evidence that a significant number of people hold the interdependence argument at the heart of their views. Most people have a view about the mayor and a view about the assembly, so it is natural to have two questions.

Mr. Horam

That is so. We must consider the matter rationally, as the newspapers do occasionally. It is interesting to examine their opinions on this issue. The Guardian, which the Government regard as a hostile newspaper, said: 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". The Times, which I imagine supports the Government these days, said: In Scotland, Tony Blair insisted that two distinct issues were separated. He imposed that view on a reluctant Party. He should do so again … These are two separate issues. They require two separate questions and answers".

Sir Sydney Chapman

The Government promised to hold a referendum on the specific issue of whether there should be a Greater London assembly and an elected mayor. Given that the introduction of an elected mayor would be unique to our system of government in this country, does my hon. Friend agree that it beggars belief that the Government think that the people will accept one question rather than having the two issues separated in a two-question referendum? Does he agree also that it would be in the Government's interests, even at this late stage, to allow a two-question referendum? If they do not, they will lose more credibility and Londoners will turn against them.

Mr. Horam

I have followed the debate quite closely both inside and outside this place, but I do not know whether people have been asked whether there should be two questions. I do not know the people's views on that subject, and I do not know how they would vote. I suspect that the Government have not sought an opinion as to whether there should be two questions—they are simply imposing their view this evening, over and above the common sense displayed by the other place. That is a great shame.

After a while, I believe that people will begin to see that the Conservatives' proposal is cost-effective and extremely simple. During Disraeli's second term, his Cabinet comprised 10 people and there were only 16 members of the Government—one of whom was the Master of the Horse. Those 16 people-compared with the 90-odd Ministers we have at present—ran an empire of considerable size. I believe that that is a tribute to the simplicity of government: simple, cost-effective government is always best. This complicated, bureaucratic, many-layered government is sure to fail.

Mr. Brooke

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who has made a second excellent speech during these deliberations. The Minister has been skating on thin ice. I am not much of an authority on thin ice, although I once read an essay by Paul Jennings in the first week of the new year in which he described what his diary publishers thought he needed to know. This year, they thought that he needed to know about ice. He reported that, as a consequence, he now knew that half an inch of ice was required to sustain a duck and an inch was required to sustain an infant; the measurement increased to 16 inches for a county class locomotive and 24 inches for a regiment of foot. When he reached the regiment of foot he wondered how they knew and assumed that it was a dull moment in the Crimea.

12.30 am

I do not know on top of the Government's majority how much ice is needed to sustain a Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but recalling some of their dimensions I hope that a safety factor has been built in. There is a further test of the quality of the ice in that the Minister skated over what the Americans would call "mayor'n assembly" as swiftly as he could. To be fair, at an earlier stage in the Bill's progress, he paid me the compliment of answering a question on this matter that I put to him in Committee. It is recorded in Hansard of 24 November at column 669. The Minister's speech over the next three columns did not answer my question, but when I asked it again at column 679 he started to answer it at column 680, wandered away elsewhere at column 681 and courteously and efficiently finished answering it at column 682.

When pulled together, the Minister's answer was—and I abbreviate—first, that the answer was in the Green Paper; secondly, that there was no simple second question; thirdly, that some of the permutations were unworkable; and finally that the Government were presenting a proposition for a considered judgment. There is no way in which the amendment could satisfy all those criteria, not least because the Opposition did not write the Green Paper.

It is reasonable for us to rebut the Government because while the Minister can tease us that our questions may not give us the answers that we wish, his question is equally incapable of allowing us the choice that we wish.

In the context of the noble Lord Dahrendorf, over whom we had a minor clash, we shall see tomorrow what the Minister said. I freely acknowledge that the noble Lord spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, but on Report he neither spoke nor voted in favour of the Government on the amendment. I had understood the Minister's references to be to that amendment. I hope that the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place, will agree to an interim score of 30 all.

This country's electorate is the most mature in the world and as a Londoner, I regard Londoners as not the least part of that electorate. I regret that electors with that degree of maturity are not to be trusted to find their way through two questions rather than one. I fear that I still harbour suspicions that the American abbreviation "mayor'n assembly" owes more to cobbling together a deal that the London Labour party can live with than to the dictates of good government.

I am delighted that so many papabile people, not the least of whom is the Minister for Transport in London, wish to be mayor. I am sorry that Londoners are not being knocked down in a similar rush to be members of the assembly, but perhaps all those who do not manage to be mayor will get the assembly as a consolation prize. I am left with one essential question which was posed in a tiny intervention by the noble Lord Russell. It was worthy of his noble father but it was never answered by Baroness Hayman. He asked quietly why, if the manifesto decides the matter, we need a referendum at all.

Mr. Ian Bruce

I am grateful to be called and I declare an interest as a council tax payer in this great city of ours. I do not rise to speak for that reason or even because both my parents and those of my wife decided to abandon London and its government to go to better climes. I am up at this late hour because of my concern that, as always, my constituents will end up paying for any mess in London.

I have been somewhat perplexed, in trying to come to grips with the amendment, about what exactly we are trying to decide and how anybody setting up a referendum could do that without having at least the White Paper. It is extremely strange that the Government, who can produce through the civil service as comprehensive a consultation document as the Green Paper in probably less than a month, and who three months ago finished the consultation, the results of which are available, cannot tell us what will be decided upon. Clearly, the Minister is right to challenge the Opposition to say what questions should be used and to ask for examples of better questions than those in the Bill. However, he is not allowing us to see what he has told us the people of London will see shortly. When talking about referendums, the Government always seem to ensure that the House does not know what the electorate are to vote on when it is trying to determine the questions.

We have seen the two alternatives on the amendment paper. In the short time left in the debate—I know that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is about to speak—we should put on record the commitment given in the Labour party manifesto. That is important. We have begun to see how precise the Government are in their choice of words. We are learning how to read what the words really say. I shall read a short paragraph from the manifesto, with its punctuation, because that is important. It says: London is the only western capital without an elected city government. Following a referendum to confirm popular demand, there will be a new deal for London, with a strategic authority and a mayor, each directly elected. Both will speak up for the needs of the city and plan its future. They will not duplicate the work of the boroughs, but take responsibility for London-wide issues—economic regeneration, planning, policing, transport and environmental protection. London-wide responsibility for its own government is urgently required. We will make it happen. It is interesting that the penultimate sentence contradicts the statement: They will not duplicate the work of the boroughs". Then, one begins to learn Labourspeak. Not duplicating the work of the boroughs does not mean that powers will not be taken away from the boroughs to the new assembly. I think that the Minister has agreed that that is the meaning of the words.

It is important that, during the debate that will take place in the country and in the City of London, we talk to people about the cost of an elected assembly versus just having a mayor who acts as a figurehead, a spokesman for London and somebody who brings together the boroughs.

I will be voting no to the one question that the Minister has invited us to accept, but I will be voting yes for the proposal to have a separately elected mayor. I believe that the Minister is doing his case no good. By having two questions he is splitting the Opposition. He will be getting yes votes on one half from the Liberal Democrats and yes votes on the other half from the Conservatives. He may get a bigger yes vote by having the two questions and be seen to be more democratic. At this late hour, I urge the Government to accept the Lords amendment.

Mr. Lansley

I want to add one or two points, one of which arises from the Minister's opening remarks. Having accepted that the referendum is to be pre-legislative and therefore advisory on the Government, it is unwise for Ministers to construe it not as advisory—leading to a choice of options by the Government in line with the preference of the London electorate—but as if it were a post-legislative referendum signifying the acceptance by the electorate of a Government proposal.

I have looked at the accountability of the London development agency to the assembly. Perhaps the Minister will tell us more about that. As I understand the Regional Development Agencies Bill, the Secretary of State appoints the members of the regional development agencies. There is no power in the Bill currently before the House to provide for anybody other than the Secretary of State to appoint the members, including those of the London development agency.

As has been said by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and in another place, we are being presented with Hobson's choice. We in Cambridge understand about Hobson because he was a carter in Cambridge. Hobson's conduit runs through my constituency. Hobson's choice is simple: a person can have any horse he likes as long as it is the one by the door. That is the Government all over: people can have any authority they like as long as it is the one that the Government propose. However, it may not be the one that London's electorate would prefer.

Mr. Ottaway

Some interesting speeches have been made. The Minister raised two important points. First, the date of the White Paper's publication seems to have become a little vague.

Mr. Raynsford

indicated dissent.

Mr. Ottaway

I am pleased that the Minister is shaking his head, confirming that the date is still 23 March.

Mr. Raynsford

May I clarify the matter? We have always said that we intend to publish the White Paper in the week beginning 23 March.

Mr. Raynsford

I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation.

Secondly, the Minister argued that, if we have two questions, the result may be yes no, yes yes, no no or no yes; that, with two of those four results, the proposals would not be workable; and that the various political parties would have to implement proposals with which they did not agree. That is a fair point and I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that that is his view. However, in Scotland, we had two questions and we could have had exactly the same result. The Government urged yes yes, but they may have got no yes, or yes no, in which case the position might have been unworkable and the Government would have been obliged to implement something with which they did not agree. Does that not make a mockery of the Minister's argument?

Another interesting revelation came out of the exchanges between the Minister and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes): the Liberal Democrats' Deputy Chief Whip in the House of Lords voted against his party and with the Government. If my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), my party's Deputy Chief Whip, voted with the Government tonight, I am not sure how much longer he would be the Deputy Chief Whip. That gives a new dimension to the Liberal Democrats' approach to politics: "On the one hand, this; on the other hand, that."

Mr. Simon Hughes

I say only for the record and to defend my colleague's interests that it was not a whipped vote.

Mr. Ottaway

There we are. The Liberal Democrats' approach is: "On the one hand, this; on the other hand, that—but we are not whipped."

Good sense and reasoned argument in another place have given the House a further and welcome opportunity to debate the details of the all-important referendum which will be staged on 7 May. The referendum is intended to reform the way in which our capital city is governed and to reinvigorate London for the 21st century. Above all, it is a referendum that should give Londoners the fullest opportunity to express their views on the details of the proposals for a Greater London authority. However, hon. Members on both sides of the House must realise that the Greater London authority comes in two distinct and separate parts: part one is a directly elected mayor; part two is a directly elected assembly. However, the Government still persist in ignoring the differences between the two and have just one question in the referendum.

The Government have already fiddled the question. "Which proposal should go first?" they asked their focus groups. "Are you more likely to support a mayor or an assembly?" they asked. The focus groups said that they did not like the idea of an elected assembly, so the spin doctors said, "We had better have a rethink and put the popular proposal of mayor first to soften the groups up." They added, "Let us forget about two questions because we will not get much support for both ideas together." I call that piggyback politics.

What is on the table for London's 5 million voters is one 24-word question: Are you in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, that is it. There is nothing more. That is the end of story: a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly; a take-it-or-leave-it question from a take-it-or-leave-it Government, whom the public thought were elected on a platform of greater democracy, not less. The Government's refusal to support a two-question referendum shows how wrong they were.

The Conservative party is prepared to embrace reform, but Conservative Members want the Government to move away from a half-hearted attitude to the referendum and embrace the opportunity that they have been given today, by giving Londoners a genuine choice about reforming their government. A two-question referendum on 7 May would give that choice. We fully realise and have repeated time and again our belief that the time is right to reform London's government. Lords amendment No. 1—which was tabled, although for totally different reasons, by both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party—calls for just that.

12.45 am

Conservative Members want two separate questions. The first would ask: Do you want a directly elected mayor? The second question would ask: Do you want a directly elected assembly? It would be two clear issues, two choices and two futures for Londoners to decide on. In our view, London deserves two questions.

After 18 years of Conservative government, Labour felt able, in its 1997 manifesto, to describe London as one of the greatest cities on earth". I am very grateful to Labour Members for so generously realising that achievement.

The Conservative party wants to build on those 18 years and to see London with a directly elected mayor and an indirectly elected assembly of borough leaders. We want to avoid the clash, conflict and anti-borough culture that would be a consequence of a directly elected assembly. Our proposals for an assembly of borough leaders would form a bridge between the man on the street and the mayor.

The mayor would be a voice for London and much more. Our assembly of borough leaders, rather than of elected assembly men, would ensure that power in local government remains firmly based at local level. Whereas the Government want change simply to create more politicians and bureaucrats, we believe in power at the lowest level.

Perhaps we should not be too surprised—because of the very big and public splits in the Labour party on reform—by Labour's failure to embrace democracy as much as we have. The Secretary of State for Wales once said that the trouble with pre-legislative referendums was that there were so many questions that could not be answered. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that he is actually not a great exponent of government by referendum".

We must look to London to observe in detail the divisions in the Labour party. The London Labour party is split from top to bottom, which is a particularly damning indictment of Labour party policy. The minutes of November's London Labour party meeting record: it was clear that the London Labour movement is still opposed to a directly elected mayor and wants a bigger and more powerful authority. It appears that Londoners are a little dim. They continue: ask them two separate questions (do you want an elected assembly and do you want a directly elected mayor) and they come over all faint. According to our leaders, if we ask two questions, we are likely to end up with a mayor but no assembly". So much for the London Labour party's views on the democratic process.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, the London Labour party, ever helpful, has come together to keep us up to date with its views. We now have the February 1998 bulletin from the London Labour party.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Racy stuff.

Mr. Ottaway

It sure is.

The minutes of the London Labour party state: Trade unions, pensioners' groups, community and political organisations have come together to create a 'People's London' campaign working for a democratic Greater London Authority and against a directly elected mayor. They continue: The campaign will work in direct opposition to the Government's plans up to the publication of the White Paper early in March, after which there will be a decision taken on its stance towards the referendum: whether to call for a vote against, abstention, a write-in or some other response. The fight will continue whatever the response to the referendum, concentrating on campaigning for our vision of a people's London: democratic, inclusive, and properly funded.

The London Labour party was due to have a conference, in February, to discuss all those matters. The bulletin continues: The annual conference, due to be held in February, has been postponed until after the referendum is safely out of the way. Regional Secretary Terry Ashton wrote to affiliates saying he had taken this decision because the original venue was too small.

Mr. Simon Hughes

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Mr. Ottaway

Perhaps.

The bulletin continues: However, when it was pointed out to him that he had no constitutional right to do this and that the new venue was actually available on the original date, he sent out new letters claiming that he had consulted with Party General Secretary Tom Sawyer, and that the reason was the need to concentrate on the forthcoming referendum and local elections. The truth is, of course, that there were resolutions from the Fire Brigade Union, MSF and others critical of the proposals. Under the constitution, if 15 members of the Greater London Labour Party Executive call for a special meeting, then one must be held. However, Terry Ashton told one of those who did ask for such a meeting, that none would be held 'even if the whole committee asks for it'. When such contempt is shown for its own members, what does this mean for how the Party feels about the wider labour movement and, indeed, the electorate? There you haveit, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

On Second Reading, the Minister for Transport in London said: London needs the strategic leadership that can be provided only by a mayor who is directly elected by and speaks for the people, and who is capable of bringing all of London together."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 671.] I could not agree more but, as the hon. Lady is a declared candidate to be mayor, it must be frustrating for her not to have the support of London's Labour party. She is in for an interesting time, with Trevor Phillips as the Mandelson-Blair candidate and herself as the Gordon Brown candidate. Let us face it—if she cannot sort out London Underground in nine months, she is not going to sort London out over the next few years.

The London Labour party has confirmed that Ministers fear the result of a full and more open two-question referendum, which is what we want for London in May. Ministers are ducking their responsibilities because they are afraid that Londoners will not want what the Government think would be good for them. We are back to Labour's nanny state mentality.

I urge the House to support the amendment.

Ms Glenda Jackson

The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) ended as he began—with misinformation about those who have declared an interest in standing for the post of mayor. He was, as always, as ill mannered as he is ill informed but, in a sense, that has been the keynote of tonight's so-called debate.

As my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction said, these are wrecking amendments that have come to us from another place. The issues have been thoroughly debated in this House, and the House has rejected the amendments that have been returned to us.

I would not have thought it possible for Opposition Members to cover themselves in any more shame than they have managed to do tonight. Every single Opposition Member, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), has shown nothing but the most withering contempt for the people of London and, something that is perhaps even more shocking, contempt for this Chamber.

It has always been my—

Mr. Simon Hughes

rose—

Ms Jackson

No, I shall not give way.

It has always been my understanding that this Chamber was the supreme decider on legislation in the House of Commons. Never—

Several hon. Members

rose—

Ms Jackson

No.

Never have so many forelocks been tugged with such regularity as they have been tonight by Opposition Members, bending the knee to those tired, dusty, flea-bitten—[Interruption.] Opposition Members would not recognise a dramatic pause if it rose and struck them in the face. They have consistently bent the knee to the other place, where the unelected and unaccountable have attempted to subvert the democratic will of this House and of the people of London.

The people of London made their response to Labour's London manifesto abundantly clear: they voted for it overwhelmingly. They have consistently responded positively to the idea that my party has offered them—the roseoration of a democratic voice which was taken away from them by the Conservative party. The Conservatives campaigned vigorously and vociferously before the general election against the Labour party's option being presented to the people of London—the option of restoring a democratic voice to London with a directly elected mayor and assembly. That is the issue, which Conservative Members have treated—as they invariably do—with the most withering contempt. The record will show that they have no respect for, interest in or concern about the democratic voice of the people of London and that they increasingly have no concern about, respect for or commitment to the primacy and supremacy of this Chamber as the decision-making voice in Parliament.

I have little doubt that the House will vote against this wrecking amendment, as it should. It is shameful that Opposition Members considered supporting it.

Hon. Members

More.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Hon. Members

More.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Deputy Speaker is on his feet. There should not be so much noise. I am about to put the Question.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 181.

Division No. 167]	[1.9 am
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Bayley, Hugh
Ainger, Nick	Bennett, Andrew F
Allen, Graham	Berry, Roger
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Betts, Clive
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Blears, Ms Hazel
Atkins, Charlotte	Blizzard, Bob
Austin, John	Borrow, David
Barnes, Harry	Bradshaw, Ben
Barron, Kevin	Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Buck, Ms Karen	Hill, Keith
Burden, Richard	Hinchliffe, David
Burgon, Colin	Hoey, Kate
Caborn, Richard	Home Robertson, John
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Hoon, Geoffrey
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Hope, Phil
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Hopkins, Kelvin
Canavan, Dennis	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Caplin, Ivor	Hoyle, Lindsay
Casale, Roger	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Caton, Martin	Hurst, Alan
Cawsey, Ian	Hutton, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Iddon, Dr Brian
Chaytor, David	Illsley, Eric
Chisholm, Malcolm	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Clark, Dr Lynda	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
(Edinburgh Pentlands)	Jamieson, David
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Jenkins, Brian
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Clelland, David	Johnson, Miss Melanie
Clwyd, Ann	(Welwyn Hatfield)
Coaker, Vernon	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Coffey, Ms Ann	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Coleman, Iain	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Colman, Tony	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Connarty, Michael	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Cooper, Yvette	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Corston, Ms Jean	Keeble, Ms Sally
Crausby, David	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Kemp, Fraser
Cummings, John	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Darvill, Keith	Khabra, Piara S
Davidson, Ian	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)	Kingham, Ms Tess
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Dawson, Hilton	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Dismore, Andrew	Laxton, Bob
Donohoe, Brian H	Lepper, David
Doran, Frank	Leslie, Christopher
Dowd, Jim	Levitt, Tom
Drew, David	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Drown, Ms Julia	Linton, Martin
Efford, Clive	Lock, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Love, Andrew
Ennis, Jeff	McAllion, John
Etherington, Bill	McAvoy, Thomas
Field, Rt Hon Frank	McCabe, Steve
Fisher, Mark	McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Macdonald, Calum
Fitzsimons, Lorna	McFall, John
Flynn, Paul	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	McIsaac, Shona
Galloway, George	Mackinlay, Andrew
Gapes, Mike	McNulty, Tony
Gardiner, Barry	McWilliam, John
Gerrard, Neil	Marek, Dr John
Godsiff, Roger	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Goggins, Paul	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Golding, Mrs Llin	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Martlew, Eric
Grogan, John	Meale, Alan
Hain, Peter	Michael, Alun
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Miller, Andrew
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	Moran, Ms Margaret
Hanson, David	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Healey, John	Moriey, Elliot
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hepburn, Stephen	Mudie, George
Heppell, John	Mullin, Chris
Hesford, Stephen	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Naysmith, Dr Doug	Spellar, John
Norris, Dan	Squire, Ms Rachel
O'Hara, Eddie	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Steinberg, Gerry
Palmer, Dr Nick	Stevenson, George
Pickthall, Colin	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Pike, Peter L	Stringer, Graham
Plaskitt, James	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Pond, Chris	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Pope, Greg	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Pound, Stephen	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Timms, Stephen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Tipping, Paddy
Prosser, Gwyn	Touhig, Don
Purchase, Ken	Trickett, Jon
Quin, Ms Joyce	Truswell, Paul
Quinn, Lawrie	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Rammell, Bill	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Rapson, Syd	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Raynsford, Nick	Vaz, Keith
Rooker, Jeff	Vis, Dr Rudi
Rooney, Terry	Wareing, Robert N
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Watts, David
Roy, Frank	White, Brian
Ruane, Chris	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Ruddock, Ms Joan	Wicks, Malcolm
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Salter, Martin	Wills, Michael
Savidge, Malcolm	Wilson, Brian
Sawford, Phil	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Sheerman, Barry	Wood, Mike
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Woolas, Phil
Skinner, Dennis	Worthington, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Wray, James
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Smith, Miss Geraldine	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Wyatt, Derek
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Snape, Peter	Tellers for the Ayes:
Soley, Clive	Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.
Southworth, Ms Helen

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Chope, Christopher
Allan, Richard	Clappison, James
Amess, David	Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Collins, Tim
Arbuthnot, James	Colvin, Michael
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Cormack, Sir Patrick
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Cotter, Brian
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Cran, James
Baker, Norman	Curry, Rt Hon David
Baldry, Tony	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Ballard, Mrs Jackie	Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Beggs, Roy	Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Duncan, Alan
Bercow, John	Duncan Smith, Iain
Beresford, Sir Paul	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Blunt, Crispin	Evans, Nigel
Body, Sir Richard	Faber, David
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Fabricant, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Fallon, Michael
Brady, Graham	Fearn, Ronnie
Brand, Dr Peter	Flight, Howard
Brazier, Julian	Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Breed, Colin	Foster, Don (Bath)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Browning, Mrs Angela	Fox, Dr Liam
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Fraser, Christopher
Burnett, John	Gale, Roger
Burns, Simon	Garnier, Edward
Burstow, Paul	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Butterfill, John	Gibb, Nick
Cable, Dr Vincent	Gill, Christopher
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)	Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Cash, Wlliam	Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
(Chipping Barnet)	Gorrie, Donald

Gray, James	Ottaway, Richard
Green, Damian	Page, Richard
Greenway, John	Paice, James
Grieve, Dominic	Paterson, Owen
Hague, Rt Hon William	Prior, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Randall, John
Hammond, Philip	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Hancock, Mike	Rendel, David
Harris, Dr Evan	Robathan, Andrew
Harvey, Nick	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Hawkins, Nick	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Hayes, John	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Heald, Oliver	Ruffley, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	St Aubyn, Nick
Horam, John	Sanders, Adrian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Sayeed, Jonathan
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Shepherd, Richard
Hunter, Andrew	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Jenkin, Bernard	Soames, Nicholas
Johnson Smith,	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Spring, Richard
Keetch Paul	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
	Steen, Anthony
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)	Streeter, Gary
Key, Robert	Swayne, Desmond
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Syms, Robert
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Kirkwood, Archy	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Lansley, Andrew	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Leigh, Edward	Townend, John
Letwin, Oliver	Tredinnick, David
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Tyrie, Andrew
Lidington, David	Viggers, Peter
Livsey, Richard	Wallace, James
Loughton, Tim	Walter, Robert
Luff, Peter	Wardle, Charles
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Waterson, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew	Webb, Steve
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Wells, Bowen
McLoughlin, Patrick	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Madel, Sir David	Whittingdale, John
Major, Rt Hon John	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Malins, Humfrey	Wilkinson, John
Maples, John	Willetts, David
Mates, Michael	Willis, Phil
Maude, Rt Hon Francis	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
May, Mrs Theresa	Woodward, Shaun
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Yeo, Tim
Moore, Michael	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Moss, Malcolm
Nicholls, Patrick	Tellers for the Noes:
Norman, Archie	Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Paul Tyler.
Öpik, Lembit

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.