HL Deb 19 February 1998 vol 586 cc318-26

2 Page 1, line II, leave out ("question") and insert ("questions")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

2A Because the question asked in the referendum should be in the form set out in the Schedule to the Bill.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2A. In moving this Motion, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 3. This is the issue which has been at the heart of the debate on this Bill at all stages in this House and in another place. We have gone from stage to stage into more and more minute detail and analysis of the varying options and the ramifications of the questions that it was suggested were put on the ballot paper.

In trying again to state the Government's position on the referendum question, I should like to step back a little from the detail and come once again to the principles. The flaws in the multiple question formulations proposed by parties opposite, and crystallised in the amendment before us today, have been addressed both here and in another place. I do not propose to dwell on them.

However, I should like to restate the Government's position on the two issues at stake here. The first is the nature of the referendum proposed. It was clear from the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that in some ways—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said this in terms—many people would have preferred to see a post-legislative referendum; failing such a post-legislative referendum, they were seeking a referendum following publication of a Bill. However, this amendment takes us further away from certainty and more into turning the referendum into a consultation exercise as opposed to a test of consent. A pre-legislative test of consent was always what the Government were promising—an opportunity to put to the people of London not only the Government's well thought-out, detailed proposals but also their opinions on how the government of London should be structured. It is important to focus on the issue of consent—the consent to bringing forward legislation to implement the proposals set out in the White Paper.

As well as differences of opinion about whether the referendum should be post-legislative or a much wider, much softer and much more consultative process, there are differences of opinion between the parties about the best form of government for London. It is perfectly understandable and acceptable that such different views exist, but the Government's position has always been that, although such views may exist and although parties are perfectly free to propound them, it is not the Government's duty to put those different views to the people of London in a referendum, raising expectations that the Government would then act in ways which the Government firmly believe would not be in the interests of the people of London.

We were elected on a manifesto promise to establish a Greater London authority consisting of a mayor and an assembly, following a referendum—a referendum on those proposals. This Bill was introduced to provide for that additional expression of consent in accordance with a clear manifesto commitment—nothing more and nothing less.

Accusations of arrogance, of high-handedness, are without foundation. If we are guilty of anything, it is of wishing to put a crystal clear proposition to the people of London, and put it in a way that can deliver a clear mandate to the Government. We have been accused of not being willing to trust the people and of not being willing to risk rejection of our proposals. We are willing to risk the rejection of our proposals if that is what the people of London wish. If they consent to the implementation of our proposals, they will vote yes. If they are opposed to our plans, they are free to vote no. What we are not prepared to do is to raise their expectations or to waste public money on holding a referendum on unclear propositions which could not provide a clear mandate—and on propositions that we believe to be fatally flawed. I refer to separating the question on the elected mayor from that on the elected assembly.

It is interesting that the first amendment was posed on the basis of producing more clarity so that people could better understand what they would be voting for. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred to the use of the phrase "a wrecking amendment". When introducing the Motion, I said that the Lords amendment would wreck the timetable of the Bill. I think that that is true. I also believe that that amendment, taken in conjunction with this amendment, does wreck the Bill because it would be impossible to produce a draft Bill to be published before the referendum covering the possible outcomes of what was essentially a consultative referendum which might result in very different answers with regard to the form of government that should be introduced.

We need to have clarity in the process. It is not a question of the Government saying to the people of London. "Take it or leave it". The Government are fulfilling their responsibility of offering real choice and the prospect of a real outcome following expression of that choice. Anything else opens up a Pandora's box of confusion: a referendum that would lack clarity and lead to a devalued, unclear and worthless mandate.

The proposals that we shall put to the people of London have not been dreamt up on a whim. They are the result of extensive consultation and careful consideration. In the week commencing 23rd March—that is the same formulation that I have used all the way through our debates in this House—the White Paper will be published. As I have expressed it before, that will put the flesh on the bones of the Government's proposals. However, the bones of the Government's proposals are not up for negotiation and I make no bones—

Noble Lords

Oh!

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I should say, "I make no apology for that"! We have always said that we would consult on the question of the Greater London authority. We had to make it clear that that authority would comprise two separately elected elements: a mayor to provide the voice and the leadership and an elected assembly to provide the accountability. Together they form one proposition—and that is the proposition that we intend to put to the people of London in a simple yes/no referendum. The detail will be reflected in the White Paper.

In developing and implementing our proposals, we have sought to maximise consultation, democratic participation and inclusion. We have been reaching out to the people of London and they have had their opportunity to have their say on all the questions raised in the Green Paper. Having done that, it is right that the people of London should then be asked to consider that question, and to vote on it on 7th May. They will vote on a single question proposed by the Government. That is the only way to provide them with a clear voice. They will know what their vote will mean. I urge the House not to insist on this amendment.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2A.—(Baroness Hayman.)

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, the Minister commented on the relationship between these two amendments and the first amendment. However, as we have already disposed of the first amendment, I suggest that it is not necessary to address that point.

The first point to strike me when I read the Commons reason was how inadequate it is as a reason. It does not begin to reflect the Minister's argument, which was a perfectly respectable argument—I am sorry. I hope that that does not sound impertinent. For the Commons to say, "We disagree with the amendment because the question should be in the form in which we first proposed it", is not the highest reasoning of which either House of Parliament is capable.

I congratulate the Minister on presenting the Motion in a somewhat calmer fashion than appeared to prevail in the other place, according to my reading of the Commons Official Report. A sharp distinction can be drawn between presentation there and in this House. I suppose that it is not for Members of this House to comment on the standard of debate in another place, but it did not seem to me to set a gold standard.

There is a difference of view—some may put it more emphatically than others—as to what this exercise should comprise. The Minister has been clear throughout that the Government propose a package. She has said that it is not a consultative exercise in the sense in which we on these Benches would like to see it. She spoke of it being a test of consent. My continuing difficulty is: consent to what? There is to be flesh on the bones but the White Paper will represent this project in its infancy. The completed legislation will be the fully formed adult with both skeleton and no doubt flesh and will be rather more substantial than when the White Paper is published.

We on these Benches believe that if two questions were asked and the outcome was not what the Government favoured, the matter would have to be reconsidered. We have made no bones about that. We have never proposed that the Government should be hound by the outcome of a two-question referendum if they genuinely considered that it would not be possible or practical—the term "pragmatic" was much used in another place in relation to this exercise—for the wish of Londoners expressed in answering the questions to be put into effect. I am disappointed. I regard this as a lost opportunity to achieve a high level of democratic legitimacy for the two constituent parts of the proposed authority. I believe that we shall require a better debate than will be enabled of a subject that so far appears to have been hijacked by discussion of the personalities involved, not the way in which the authority will operate.

Yesterday I attended a discussion held by the King's Fund on the impact of the GLA on health in London. Formerly, health was not proposed to be within the power of the GLA but matters such as pollution and housing very much affect the health of Londoners. What particularly struck me was the almost dangerously high expectations among the very well informed people who discussed this topic without a debate about how the structure would operate, as if we would move from nothing—not even a skeleton—to something that was fully formed. They expected this new organisation to solve so many problems.

I do not believe that the White Paper will produce the level of detail that we seek. Earlier this year I tabled a Written Question relating to the responses to the Green Paper. I asked how many people had expressed themselves to be in favour of an assembly with a separate directly elected mayor, an assembly alone or a mayor alone. The Answer of the Minister was that the details would be in the White Paper to be published in March. I do not believe that the White Paper is likely to provide that kind of detailed analysis. I appreciate that the responses are available for inspection, but it is beyond the scope of members of the public, and, quite honestly, Members of the Opposition, to do the amount of work required to provide an answer. I believe that the Government have an obligation to answer those questions.

However, with a sense of disappointment but also realism, and also a little question in my mind as to whether when presented with the ballot paper on 7th May I shall be tempted to spoil it by writing yes and no—because I do not find the question crystal clear according to the Minister's description of it—we on these Benches accept that this composite question is the question to be asked. I therefore look forward to working on the substantive Bill. That may be the second best approach, but the details of the relationship between the constituent parts of the authority, in particular the checks and balances, are ones to which I hope this House and another place will give all the attention that they deserve.

Lord Bowness

My Lords, this response is almost as regrettable as I found the response to the previous amendment, especially as the Government at an earlier stage in another place virtually invited the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to produce a proposal for a sensible set of two questions that they could both support. That was done. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am disappointed by the reasons given for its rejection. It appears that once again the Government are not prepared to listen to the argument or, despite what the Minister said earlier this afternoon, to risk having to listen to the people.

The Government may well want a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly. I have no doubt that members of the Government will campaign for it. The Minister says that it is not possible to produce a Bill, or, as it is to be, a White Paper with alternatives, but that is not something for which we have asked and it is not what we say. Were the Government to listen to the essence of this amendment they would produce their White Paper on the basis of their stated policy. But there are two questions. I submit that it would be a better pre-legislative test of consent, if that is what it is, not a consultation, if the two questions were posed.

It is possible to want one proposition but not the other. It is possible that with merely a White Paper people will form views on the details—even those that the Government decide that they need—but not be prepared to endorse one or other element of the proposition. This does not commit the Government to proceeding with one and not the other, but they would need to think again about the rejected element. I find it distressing that the Government will not take that risk. One is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that they are sure about people's willingness to buy the proposal neatly wrapped up as one but rather more nervous about their reaction if it is opened up so that people are allowed to see and comment on the constituent parts. I regret that the Government cannot contemplate the possibility of a second thought either after the referendum or in this House this afternoon.

Lord Rea

My Lords, as one of the few Members on these Benches who supported this amendment initially it is right that I should say a few words this afternoon. I agree with my noble friend that clearly the manifesto promised a referendum on the combined package, but as a member of the Labour Party I do not recall contributing to that decision. Many other Londoners would very much like to have back their elected assembly but a significant number are not convinced that a directly elected mayor is desirable. I remain to be convinced that the benefits of such a new institution in London will outweigh the dangers. As the noble Baroness has said, the Government have been accused of not trusting Londoners. I believe that they would be shown to have greater trust of Londoners by allowing the two-question version to stand.

One anxiety expressed by my honourable friend Nick Raynsford in another place was the danger that if we have two questions we might land up with an elected mayor without an assembly. I think that that would be unlikely, but I believe that it is the outcome that some Members of the Opposition Benches would like to see. I agree that that is a danger that we want to avoid. However, that could have been dealt with easily by asking first, "Do you want an elected assembly or not?" and then asking the second question to be answered only if the answer to the first question is, "Yes". But I realise that on this occasion the Government are steam-rollering ahead with this, and that it will be clearly ridiculous to try to get in the way, because this time we will be completely squashed.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lady Hamwee said what she did about the Commons Reasons, because they are remarkable: Because the question asked in the referendum should be in the form set out in the Schedule to the Bill". That must say one of two things. Either it says, "This Bill is unamendable, because it is our will", or it says, "We disagree because we disagree because we disagree". Neither of those is particularly persuasive.

I shall have been here 10 years next month. During that time I have noticed the reasons given by another place becoming slowly more perfunctory. It is a sliding process in which last May does not seem to have caused so much as a blip. It is something which causes me some regret. It also raises—this is the serious point that I want to make—the attitude of government to a revising Chamber. I say that without prejudice to any decision on what form such a revising Chamber might ultimately take.

All governments say that they want a revising Chamber, but all governments do not like it when they get it. The trouble with a revising Chamber is that it is no good unless you have it when you do not like it, because if you only have it when you do like it, in effect, you do not have a revising Chamber at all.

Government, it seems to me, is an animal of remarkable political consistency no matter in which party colours it may temporarily be clothed. All governments believe that they have well thought out and carefully considered proposals; all governments believe that altering those will open a Pandora's Box of confusion; and all governments believe, although they are not always as honest about it as the Minister was today—I thank her for that—that the bones of the proposal are not up for consideration. That is an attitude which calls in question the uses of a revising Chamber.

I should like to ask the Minister—I hope that notice of the question has reached her—how many times the Government have had amendments carried against them in this House; how many of those amendments they have accepted; how many they have reversed; and in how many of them they have reached a compromise. I hope that the reply to those questions will not offend against the law of averages.

In the previous Parliament Mr. Frank Field—as my memory is not perfect, I believe that I must be paraphrasing—said that, if the Lords should so much as find a grammatical error in an Act of Parliament. a junior Whip would rise to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment". I hope that Mr. Field was wrong.

Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare

My Lords, it has now become obvious that we shall have just one question for the people of London on the referendum paper, and I accept that, although I believe that the Liberal Benches and the Conservative Benches won the argument even if they lost the vote. Would the Minister be kind enough to confirm that no government money will be spent on a "Yes" campaign, when both opposition parties did not approve of the question to be put to the people of London?

4.15 p.m.

Lord Dahrendorf

My Lords, while I agree entirely with my noble friends Lord Russell and Lady Hamwee on the quality of the reasons given by the other place, and that that is an important deficiency in the debate which we are having, I am of course one on these Benches who, from the beginning, was not in favour of the amendment which we are discussing.

For the sake of clarification and to do perhaps a little better than others in other places who are looking for reasons, perhaps I may say once again that my basic motive is a view of what representative government is about. I believe that it is about government taking the initiative, and Parliament debating and deciding at the end of the day. That is a view which does not make me a natural supporter of referendums in general. I still find it difficult to find a sensible place for referendums in the process of representative government.

If there is such a place, it is probably the one which the Government have chosen in this case, because it does not detract from our ability in Parliament to debate whatever legislation comes forward, if indeed the Government conclude that the results of the referendum enable them to go forward with legislation. It is such a motive which has led me to support throughout the notion that the government initiative should go further than just asking open-ended questions; should indicate the direction in which the Government propose to go; and I therefore find it easy to support the line taken by the Minister, and will also find it easy to take an active part in the "Yes" campaign.

Lord Davies of Coity

My Lords, I listened with interest to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said about this being a revising Chamber, and to the noble Lord. Lord Archer, making the point that the argument was won on those Benches, and yet we are moving forward in the way that the Government propose. Let me remind this House that both this House and another place are representative of the British people. The British people took a decision on 1st May last year when a manifesto was presented to them. The Government now propose to act in line with the commitment that they gave the British people, and they were elected to do exactly that. This place must recognise that at the end of the day it is the British people who decide what happens in this country.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, those are bold words, but a moment might come when the Government will begin to learn from the mistakes they have made since 1st May. The people of Scotland are becoming increasingly astonished to find the detailed problems involved in what they voted for in their pre-legislative referendum. Anyone who reads the Scottish press will understand that. Perhaps that is what will happen in London. I do not know. The Government should begin to learn about this type of thing.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I shall, first, respond to the questions that were asked during this short but interesting debate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was kind enough to give me notice, but it was such brief notice that I am afraid that I shall have to write to him with the information that he requires in respect of dealing with amendments in another place, if he will forgive me for that.

I can give the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, the assurance for which he asks. I have made it clear on other occasions that no government money will be spent on a "Yes" campaign. We have always been explicit that we shall be spending money on an information campaign—I believe that that has been welcomed throughout the House—to inform people about the proposals, the nature of the referendum, and the details of what is being put before them. There will be no public funding for either a "Yes" or a "No" campaign.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke about a revising Chamber. He accused me of honesty in saying that the bones of the proposal were not up for consideration. If he reads the Official Report he will see that I intended to say that the bones were not up for consideration in terms of putting the question in the referendum. The referendum is to be on the proposal. The consultation will deal with the detail which will go around the bones. I do not suggest that the bones of any government policy or piece of legislation are not up for consideration and debate within Parliament, because that would be inappropriate. However, as I have said many times, we owe it to the people of London to be explicit and clear about what we are proposing. As suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, we must be responsible.

Comments were made about the Government's response to the two questions. The suggestion was made that that might not be in line with the proposals that we are putting forward because we consider them to be the best form of government for London. I find that suggestion strange. It was said again today that the Government would not be bound by the outcome of the referendum. The outcome might show that 80 per cent. of the people wanted a mayor, but 20 per cent. wanted an assembly; or that 70 per cent. of the people wanted an assembly, but only 45 per cent. wanted a mayor. It was said that although we would have to think about such an outcome we would not be bound by it. It was said that such an outcome "would not commit" the Government. That is not good governance. The people of London need to know what will be the outcome of their vote. The outcome will be the Government taking the proposals forward or dropping them. That is clear.

The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, spoke of the challenge set in the early days of debate in another place about whether two appropriate questions could be formulated. That challenge was set on the basis that the Government were not opposed to the number of questions, but that there were tests. The tests were whether there could be two questions which gave clarity, did not propose unworkable options and were able to provide a clear mandate. Those are the underlying reasons for deciding to have one question. We are not committed to one question rather than two, but we are committed to putting forward only workable options. We do not want to provide a false prospectus for people voting in the referendum. We want to achieve a clear mandate for the Government. I believe that the only way to do that is to return to the original question as proposed in the schedule. I hope that in the debates in your Lordships' House the reasoning behind that has been explained from the Dispatch Box and I urge the House not to insist on its amendments.

On Question, Motion agreed to.