Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority Bill

House of Commons, 20 January 1999.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Have you received a request from the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) to come here to correct the record from yesterday? During debate, it was suggested that the decision to abolish the Greater London council did not form part of the 1983 Conservative manifesto. I have read the 1983 manifesto, and it is perfectly clear that the proposal was included in it, so it would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to come to the Chamber to apologise.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

That is not a point of order for me, but a matter for debate. I have received no information of the sort the hon. Gentleman seeks.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE AUTHORITY AND THE ASSEMBLY

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 2, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert— '(a) begin on the first Monday in July following the ordinary election; and'.

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

This debate should be relatively short and centre on the term of office of the mayor and the members of the assembly. The group of amendments raises issues on which we should like to probe the Government so as to ensure that we clearly understand their thinking on how those matters will operate. The effect of the amendments would be to provide for a transition period, from the time when the election of the mayor and the members of the assembly takes place to the time that they assume their responsibilities. The amendments would also remove the Secretary of State's power to set the date on which the authority comes into being and starts to operate. The Bill as it stands provides for the Secretary of State, in effect, to act as mayor of London for about a month, during April, in the run-up to the elections for the Greater London authority, and we do not believe that the Secretary of State should also have the power to change the start date of the authority. That is an unnecessary power and our amendments, if accepted, would make it clear that the assembly would commence its business and the mayor would start to act from July, so there would be no need for the Secretary of State to become involved. I seek clarification on how Ministers envisage acting during the shadow period, when the new authority is in place but the members of that authority have not been elected. As we understand it, the authority will operate from 1 April. We must be clear about exactly how Ministers will discharge their powers on behalf of Londoners during that period. That is why we have tabled the amendments. I hope that the Minister will elaborate on how Ministers will be additionally accountable to London during that time and how we can ensure that we have the benefit of a transition period in future elections. It has been said on several occasions that the Greater London authority presents an opportunity to experiment, innovate and try new methods of operation. The Liberal Democrats are entirely in favour of such experimentation, and we invite the Government to consider a further innovation in the workings of the GLA. Given that the legislation clearly separates the executive and scrutiny roles and that newly elected mayors will face a mammoth task, we believe that the legislation should provide a period of transition from a sitting mayor to a new incumbent mayor following an election to allow the latter to prepare for the task ahead. The traditional model in general elections in this country, whereby an election is held and a losing Prime Minister must vacate his offices almost the same day, is ineffective and inefficient in the context of this institution. Yesterday, Ministers recognised correctly that we must examine each institution and construct it in a manner that is appropriate to the task that it performs. In this case, we believe that the Government should adopt that innovation. The amendments seek to remove the power of the Secretary of State to decide the assembly's first meeting date and to put a clear date for that meeting in the Bill.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I speak to the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and myself, which are similar in intent to those tabled by the Liberal Democrats. It is clear that several lesser appointments will be made in establishing the authority—I do not wish to demean those who will ultimately fill those appointments; they are part of the new assembly's essential machinery. The key appointments will not be made until after the elections. Like the Liberal Democrats, we believe that a time interval should be permitted to allow the mayor and his advisers to make those appointments in their own time. For that reason, we think that a two-month delay in commencing the mayor's term of office would benefit the appointment process. We are not alone in that view. A few weeks ago, the Evening Standard stated: There are genuine practical objections to an immediate handover, when the entire administrative structure to support the Mayoralty is being created from scratch. For once, the Conservative party and the Evening Standard are in accord. That newspaper has not supported us for many years and I am pleased that it is beginning to come around to our point of view. I do not advocate the mooted delay of several months to allow the Government to put in place their public-private partnership for London Underground before the mayor takes office. I think that that transitional stage is a disaster waiting to happen, and it will no doubt form the basis of much debate in Committee. I do not think that the mayor's term of office should be delayed at the Government's convenience. It should be for the convenience and benefit of Londoners. Under the circumstances, a two-month interregnum between the election and the commencement of the term of office seems right and appropriate.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

The Government share the belief of the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that there should be a breathing space between the mayor and the assembly being elected and taking up the duties that the people of London will have placed on them by virtue of electing them. I am happy to consider the hon. Gentlemen's proposals before the Bill reaches its later stages. The assembly will have direct responsibilities for appointing senior officials because it will be necessary to create an executive. It is proposed that there should be a shadow secretariat. I use that term in its widest sense. There will also be a need for the mayor to make appointments to the many executive committees that will be directly responsible to him. We simply need to consider the time that should elapse between the election of the mayor and the assembly and the commencement of their duties. I turn now to amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 70. It is clear that there needs to be a pause because, as Government Members have made abundantly clear, the Bill proposes a new form of city-wide government, and the mayor and assembly will be responsible for designing a strategy to improve the quality of life in London by improving its transport and dealing with many of the other issues that we have already discussed. However, such a pause will be necessary only after the first election, which will take place in May 2000. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made a point about whether there would be additional ministerial responsibilities during that interregnum.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

It is interesting that the Minister says that a pause will be necessary only after the first election because if there were a change of mayor, the new mayor would want to make appointments. He or she would not be able to do so before the election, so the same problem would emerge. The secretariat would remain the same, but the advisers appointed by the mayor would surely change and there would need to be time to make that change.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I find the hon. Lady's intervention bemusing. There is no pause in central Government after an election. There is no pause in local government after an election. The business that is the responsibility of local authorities and central Government goes on whether or not the political power in local authorities or the party in Government changes. The necessary structures that facilitate the work of political representatives sent to those offices by the will of the people support and sustain day-to-day business.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I do not want to prolong the debate, but I want to tease out this issue. We are discussing a unique institution in which we are separating the executive from the legislature. In a parallel institution, the American presidency—a different institution from the one that I cited last night—there is a delay of two or three months while the new President puts in place the people that he has nominated. I view the role of the mayor, as part of the executive, as similar to that of the American President, so a new mayor would need time to make appointments.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I can only ask the hon. Lady to consider the lack of similarity between our proposals and the office of President of the United States. That point was made last night when we were debating another amendment. We are not creating a similar institution, and the powers of the mayor and the assembly are not the same as those of the President of the United States. 4.30 pm The country does not grind to a halt after an election. The governance of the country is seamless. The day after a general election, there is no apparent change for the people of this country. The same is true in respect of local authorities. The kind of changes to which the hon. Lady is referring—changes of direction and of policy, very often coloured by political perspectives—are the responsibility of the people elected to high office, whether they be the Prime Minister, the leader of a local authority or, in this instance, the mayor, but the day-to-day business does not change. I entirely understand that the introduction of the changes to which the hon. Lady refers takes time, but there is no necessity for an artificial break between election and the taking on of responsibilities, other than in the original, innovative, first-time-ever election for this particular form of city-wide government.

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

Will the Minister clarify something that she said at the outset? She suggested that she would be willing to reflect further on the matter. They are not exactly the words that she used, but the implication was that this was an issue to which the Government were willing to give further thought. Perhaps I have leapt in too soon and she was going to say exactly to what the Government were going to give further thought, but, having heard the exchanges on this particular point, it appears that the substance of the amendment—the issue of transition—is not one about which the Government are ready to think again. Will the Minister give us a little more comfort and say that it is still an issue open to debate and further consideration?

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I am sorry if I have not made the position clear to the hon. Gentleman. There is undoubtedly a meeting of minds between us on the fact that there should indeed be a period between the declaration of the results of the first-ever election of a mayor and an assembly and their taking on their full responsibilities. There should of course be such a period for the reasons that I have already touched on—the appointing of senior officials, the necessity for the mayor to appoint chairmen to the committees that are directly accountable to him, and, to repeat a phrase that I have already used, the actual creation of the necessary systems to ensure that the mayor and the assembly will be able to carry out the duties placed on them thanks to their election to high office by the people of London. The clear difference of opinion arises over whether that should be a permanent fixture at every election after the first. We are prepared to take away and consider proposals about the length of time between the election result being declared and the mayor and the assembly fully taking on their responsibilities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having heard that, will withdraw the amendment so that we can return to the issue. However, the Government are not prepared to accept that the proposed period between the election result and the mayor and assembly being fully in place should be a fixture in perpetuity at future elections of the mayor and assembly for London.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister has made that very clear, and the Committee is grateful. I must press her on a linked point in order to understand the first part of what she said, which was about the first time around. Is she now also saying that the Government are willing to accept that for the first time around—we shall leave future elections to be dealt with later—the GLA will come into existence after the elections rather than before, so that the sequence will be elections followed by start date? If that is the case, it is a very helpful and welcome statement.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I am delighted to be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman with a categorical and enthusiastic yes. There will be no mayor, no assembly and no Greater London authority until the election results have been declared. In the light of that, I trust that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will withdraw the amendment relating to the time between the election result being declared and the mayor and the assembly having the reins firmly in their hands, so that we can return to the issue later. The Government believe that that is necessary, but would want to examine it in more detail. I hope, too, that amendments Nos. 70, 65, 71 and 66 will not be pressed. We have no intention of returning to them, for the reasons that I have already given. Amendment No. 32 would remove clause 3(6). I would be grateful if it were not moved, so that we can return to the issue on Report. I shall be perfectly honest: I would require the expertise of parliamentary counsel because it is possible that clause 3(6) is unnecessary. I hope that both the hon. Members for Croydon, South and for Sutton and Cheam will accept the proposal that I have put to them.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

The Minister made it crystal clear in the first 30 seconds of her speech that she was making a concession. Willingly, we shall not press our amendments.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

rose—

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and I looked too much alike. The Minister has taken an important initiative by showing that the Government are prepared to listen.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

We are always prepared to listen.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The Minister says that this is not the first time that the Government have shown that they are prepared to listen. However, it is certainly the first time in this Committee that we have seen signs that they are prepared to discuss matters outside the Committee and consider ways in which, together, we may improve the Bill, on a joint and consensual basis, to paraphrase their words in the Green Paper. We welcome that, and are certainly willing to withdraw the amendment—and, later, not move amendment No. 32. I would, however, like to press the Minister on one point. She says that she agrees with ourselves and the Conservatives that it will take time to set up the authority and make all the appointments following the elections. Will she say on which date she thinks the authority will be established following the elections? I would be grateful if she intervened now. Given that she has not, I hope that we can establish that point very quickly. It would be helpful to future proceedings in Committee. Although we may need to decide later how that date is incorporated in the Bill, the information should be put in the public domain as soon as possible. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I anticipate that this debate will be no longer than the previous one. We shall make good progress on this, as on other issues. We shall vote against clause 2 standing part of the Bill not because there has been no welcome concession from the Minister—for which we are glad—but because the clause deals with some of the matters with which we have just disagreed. Ministers and the Committee know that we have accepted that the referendum decided certain things, such as the creation of the Greater London authority, of which we have always been in favour; that there should be a mayor, which we have always accepted; and that there should be an assembly, for which we have always argued. We have some problem not with the superstructure, but with the infrastructure. We had three objections and now we have two; we are making good progress. We canvassed yesterday on the first of our objections—the size and make-up of the assembly. I shall not cover the ground again. We have a difference of view about that and we are on the record as to what that is. It would be illogical and inconsistent for us, having said yesterday that we did not think that things should be like this, to vote today that things should be as stated in clause 2. Secondly—again, I shall not elaborate—we said yesterday that we preferred another electoral system. We had a good, interesting debate last night about electoral systems. I believe that there was acceptance across the Committee that appropriate systems must be chosen for the body concerned. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) made that point, perfectly reasonably, as did the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). Nevertheless, there is a difference of view between us. We have a preferred system; the Government have chosen their system. That is a perfectly honourable position, but there has not, on this issue, been the consensus that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said that we were in danger of achieving more often than I had expected. Thirdly, before we started to debate the Bill this afternoon there was a disagreement about the start date, but we have made progress on that, for which we are grateful. We have one agreement and two matters on which we have so far disagreed—it is two to one against. On that basis, subject to any other hon. Member wishing to speak, we ask the Committee to vote that clause 2 does not stand part of the Bill, so that we may come back and get it into a shape that is more to our liking. I anticipate that we may not win this time, but Liberal Democrat Members are ever hopeful. Given that, yesterday, we saw the great Labour-Conservative coalition working against us—the most recent example—we believe that we can continue to make progress and gradually break down the barriers of the old, tribal political divides. We look forward to that, but it does not mean that we cannot have the odd distinction of view and the odd difference of opinion. They are honourable distinctions, and soon I shall ask that the Committee be allowed to decide on them.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

The Conservative party was in the same Lobby as the Labour party last night. We were united in our opposition to proportional representation as a method of election—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman is off message again.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

It will be obvious from yesterday's debates that we disagree with the Government on several fundamental issues in clause 2. In the circumstances, we wish to divide the Committee on clause 2 stand part.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have had some very interesting debates on clause 2. We have considered the titles of the mayor and assembly; a proposal for the direct election of a deputy mayor; the size and composition of the assembly; and a range of alternative—and, in some cases, mutually incompatible—voting systems, all proposed by the Liberal Democrats, plus another variation proposed by the Conservatives.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister, as so often in life, tells the truth but not all the truth. Those systems were indeed all proposed by us but, as I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to concede in his usual generous spirit, they were proposed as alternatives, in descending order of preference.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman stresses that they were presented as alternatives, in descending order of preference, but most hon. Members still have no idea which is the preference of the Liberal Democrat party. We have also considered the timing and implementation of our proposals. We have agreed to give further consideration to the timing of the full implementation of the new Greater London authority at its first appearance. We have said that, at future elections, the traditional British system whereby the Government change very quickly without a period of transition will prevail, but in the initial stages it is right that there should be an opportunity for the new authority to be set up. We have listened to the views expressed and we shall come back with revised proposals, as we have undertaken to do.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We are grateful. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Transport in London, a question, and then the nature of the debate did not afford her the chance to reply. May I suggest that the beginning of July 2000 might be a nice date to start the GLA working?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman should have contained himself. I was about to respond to the point that his hon. Friend had made, to make it clear that, as yet, we have no clear predisposition as to the precise date, but we have listened to the views expressed by hon. Members in meetings outside the House and in today's debate, and we shall let the House know our conclusions in due course. The Government have listened but, sadly, the opposition parties have not. The Liberal Democrats intend to divide on the clause despite the clear indications that were given yesterday evening when their proposals were the subject of Divisions. They might note, given the particular amendments to which they are still partial, that the Government majority on a Division yesterday evening on an amendment was 224, followed by one of 417. I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats appear not to have listened to the clear will of the Committee. 4.45 pm The Opposition continue to peddle the concept of a deputy mayor. Having read a recent article written by the Leader of the Opposition, in which he explored matters relating to London government and the future of the Greater London authority and all the things that the Conservative party apparently thinks are important, it was fascinating to note that there was no mention of a deputy mayor. Either the right hon. Gentleman is not on message or the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is not. We do not regard the position of either of the opposition parties on these issues as consistent and effective. Given the decisions that were taken following Divisions last night, I have already given a clear indication of the preference of the Committee. I urge my colleagues to support the Government's proposition that clause 2, as presented, stand part of the Bill.

TIMING OF ORDINARY ELECTIONS

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, leave out lines 2 to 6.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 67. For the sake of convenience, I shall deal first with amendment No. 6, which would provide that the date of the first election is stated in the Bill. We believe that strongly. 5 pm The Minister and his boss have proudly proclaimed that the first election will take place on 4 May 2000. I know that they are holding back a lot—not only reserve powers, but announcements to be made in orders—but that is one date that they do not have to hold back, because they have already announced it. We believe that the date should be in the Bill, if only to give some sense to amendments Nos. 5 and 67. Amendment No. 5 addresses the point that the Secretary of State has reserve powers to announce when the second and third ordinary elections will take place. The Conservative party is deeply suspicious that that is not wholly unconnected with the declared intention in the local government White Paper to move the London boroughs to annual, or perhaps biennial, elections. The Conservative party is happy with the present timetable for London elections—there is no need to fiddle with the dates—and we are happy for elections to take place once every four years. The Government want to move the dates of the London borough elections to try to increase turnout—that is a good intention—but there is absolutely no evidence that annual elections increase turnout. All the signs are that it makes no difference. For one reason or another, elections regularly take place in May and missing the odd year does not seem to make much difference. The public will turn out if they want to, regardless of whether elections are annual or every four years. Amendment No. 67 provides that, if we are unsuccessful with amendments Nos. 5 and 6 and the Secretary of State retains the power to hold the elections at his discretion, under any circumstance the term for the new authority should be not more than four years. A five or six-year term would not be acceptable. There could be indefinite suspension of elections under the Bill. Although I do not believe for a moment that that is in the Government's mind, it would be safer, for clarity's sake, to confirm that no term could be more than four years. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the amendments.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 31, 77 and 78. I am surprised that the Government have made it necessary for the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition to table amendments on the timing of the elections. All hon. Members are agreed that there will be an election for the Greater London authority, but the date on which it will be held is missing from the Bill—unless we count the powers of the Secretary of State, who has infiltrated every nook and cranny of the Bill, to select a date of his choosing. Those powers also apply to second and third elections. That leaves the process open to gerrymandering. We are considering the use of independent commissions to establish electoral structures and dates for elections, and the Government should consider that in this case. We need a clear steer on when the election will be held. We recognise that unforeseen circumstances may preclude putting a specific date in the Bill, but it most certainly should not be within the power of the Secretary of State to decide whether the election takes place at all. I should be grateful if the Minister responded to that point. What happens if, before the elections to the GLA are held, the Government change and the new Secretary of State is not favourable towards the establishment of a GLA? Will the Bill allow the Secretary of State to decide never to hold elections? I hope that the Government agree that this serious point requires consideration and that our concerns are valid. I look forward to a constructive response from the Minister.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I very much welcome the two amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). The amendments make an extremely important point—they show that the Government's attitude towards democratic elections is that they can be moveable feasts at the behest of the Secretary of State's diktat. That is not how the electorate want electoral dates to be set. The first election for the Greater London authority should be clearly stated in the Bill so that there is no possibility whatever of malpractice by the Government. If the Government cannot impose a candidate who is acceptable to the Labour party leadership within the allotted time, they might wish to postpone the first election. If they decide that the election campaign has not been sufficiently well prepared, or if other extraneous circumstances that we cannot anticipate occur, the Government might change the date of the first election. Many are the occasions on which a date quoted in Hansard has, for various reasons, not been upheld, which is why my right hon. and hon. Friends are correct to insist in amendment No. 6 that the first date should be in the Bill—as, too, does the Liberal Democrat party in its amendments. The election to the Greater London authority should not be affected by notional plans for the reform of local government in London. Let us at least get the format for the GLA right and the timetable for elections established in an immutable way, with which the Secretary of State cannot interfere, before we start to reform local government. The electorate wants the first elections to take place, as we have been promised, on 4 May 2000 and the second and third elections to take place four years thereafter. The Bill should not empower the Secretary of State to change the anticipated dates of those elections. I hope that the House will be rigorous in imposing its view on this matter, because once we allow the timing of the elections to be subject to the Secretary of State's discretion, the matter is likely to become party political rather than constitutional. We must safeguard the democratic interests of Londoners.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I had not intended to speak in this debate, but the comments of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) have tempted me to do so. He raised an important point, which the House should consider: why are the Government not prepared to state in the Bill the date of the first elections? The Minister must answer that question if he is to convince the Committee. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that it may be because of the internal machinations of the London Labour party, which has only just managed to agree on the selection process for its candidates. Those may be subject to review—we shall have to wait and see.

Mike Gapes (Labour/Co-operative, Ilford South)

As the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the selection process, can he tell me who the Liberal Democrat candidate will be?

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Details of our selection process have been published, and we are now approving candidates. There have been no internal squabbles in our party about the process. It is open and above board and follows democratic procedures. If the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) wants to intervene, I am sure that he can explain that his party's selection process is also democratic and open.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

The hon. Gentleman tempts me. Apparently, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party is at this moment resigning from office. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could enlighten us on the method of election for that post.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I have no knowledge of that. If it were true, any election would be open and democratic, as for many years we have been the only British political party to have a one member, one vote system for the election of our leader. I am glad that the Conservative party is modernising itself. It is about time, because for years it has been the most undemocratic party in Britain. We have not had a good explanation of why the Government are not prepared to put the date of the election in the Bill. That may be because of the internal problems of the Labour party or because they are worried about the passage of the legislation. They may be worried about their opinion poll ratings in May 2000. Perhaps they want to leave it as late in the day as possible so that they can be sure of winning. Only time will tell, but Ministers should have more confidence and should be prepared to include the date in the Bill.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House his apparent total lack of concern about the news that he has just been given that his party leader has resigned?

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am tempted to answer that question, but under your direction, Mr. Lord, I shall not. At least our leader has given brilliant leadership to his party, unlike the right hon. Gentleman's leader. The Government should, consistent with the Nolan recommendations, refer the date and the process of elections to an independent election commission. Having accepted the recommendations of the Nolan committee, one would have thought that the Government would implement them. There should be more transparency, certainty and stability in the management and organisation of elections. When the Government were in opposition they railed against secondary legislation and such decisions being taken by orders, but now they are in government they are changing their mind. I support the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). I hope that the House will force the Government to put the date of the election in the Bill.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I rise to speak about the date of the first election of the mayor and the assembly. I do not know what the Government are up to with regard to the second and third elections, and as I am a bear of very little brain, I see no point in trying to unravel what they are attempting to do in the second and third elections until we know what they are doing in the first. As the Chinese say, "On long journey, first step most important." I would feel much firmer on the ground under my feet if I knew what the Government were doing. Uncharacteristically, I have a certain suspicion of the Government: I am not normally prone to such scepticism. Whenever we discuss dates with the present Administration, there is always a degree of fluidity as to when things are going to happen. That certainly applies to recesses. We still do not know whether we shall go into recess for the half-term holidays, although we are hearing noises about how difficult that would be. I do not know whether the Government's uncertainty on these matters is dictated by—[Interruption.] I do not have the total attention of my Front-Bench colleagues, but Labour Members are listening to me attentively, and they are, of course, my most important audience. I do not know whether the Government's inability to give us firm dates is a function of profound incompetence or immensely sophisticated psychological warfare. Ultimately, I do not mind, but it means that we have to press to get the date. 5.15 pm We were originally told that the elections would be in May 2000. There then crept into the public prints a story—which may not have had validity, but it sounded as though it came from someone who knew—that the Prime Minister was extremely anxious to have the mayor beside him in the dome on 31 December 1999, and that he really could not see in the new millennium without the mayor. I think that I could manage to do so, but it was said that it was important to the Prime Minister that this experience should be shared. When the story disappeared from our screens, I suspected that officials had been quietly briefing that there was no way in which the elections could be ready by autumn 1999, and that this was a foolish ambition on the part of the Administration. It would be profoundly helpful if, at this stage, we could be definitively told—as I thought the Deputy Prime Minister had done in an off-the-cuff remark some time ago—that the elections will be in May 2000. As the Bellman said in "The Hunting of the Snark": What I tell you three times is true. I look forward to the third time we are given the date of May 2000—I hope that that is what the Minister will tell us. I look forward to that for another reason, which relates to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) in Committee yesterday. He was temporarily incorrect in saying that the Conservative party had never won an election for the London county council. Those present will remember that, as soon as I half rose, he immediately corrected himself and agreed that it had won. In correspondence with the Minister, I have discussed the LCC election of 1949, when the Conservative party won as many seats as the Labour party, which represented a major swing to the Conservatives. The one Liberal who was elected said that he would vote with the Conservative party. The Labour party used a stratagem to ensure that it retained power, but I shall not go into that, because you would rule me out of order, Mr. Lord. I do not resent the fact that the Conservative party got 120,000 more votes in London that day and yet did not win the election. I would not regard that as an argument for proportional representation, and I was happy to vote against all the Liberal Democrat propositions on PR yesterday, because it did not affect me. Such experiences concentrate one's mind on the small print when dealing with the Labour party in matters of Greater London. That is why I hope that we shall be given a date. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request. We may have mutual doubts about the quality of the legislation before us. A learned lady—I think her name was Mrs. Hunt—once said that the entire administration of the Roman empire could be derived from the construction ut with the subjunctive. I do not have the same sense of total coherence and cohesiveness in this legislation, and it is not unreasonable for Opposition Members to ask to know the date of the first election. It may even make us more enthusiastic about the legislation than we have so far been.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), although I would not go quite so far as he does in his two thoughts as to why no date has been given for the first election. I shall be charitable and say that it is an oversight.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

indicated dissent.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

No, it is not. Clearly, some of the more Machiavellian theories are true. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party are in the process of selecting their candidates for mayor in a clear and open way, whereas the Labour party is using this issue as a face-saving device to hide the chaos it is in. We are clearly not going to get any satisfaction on this issue, but it is always worth a try. Certainly, Conservative Members will be very unhappy if no clear statement about the date is made in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster pointed out, specifying a date would be quite an enticement to people to take an interest. Despite the Government's claim that there is great interest in London, we are not finding that people are desperate to vote for a London assembly. Having a date for the first election might help to provide democratic legitimacy. I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) about the failure to inform us of when the second and third elections might take place. I am deeply suspicious about that: I suspect that the Government may wish to hold annual elections in London. In a previous existence, I represented two local authorities, one of which held annual elections and the other four-yearly elections. I agree with those who have said that it makes no difference: the turnout is the same. What is clear is that a small proportion of people are prepared to go out and do their democratic duty in all circumstances and at all times.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I, too, have experience of both systems. Does my hon. Friend agree that four-yearly rather than annual elections would increase the likelihood of a large swing? Such an arrangement gives local authorities time in which to get on and govern, and also gives the electorate time to make up their minds on the basis of balanced judgments.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I certainly think that it takes much longer to change the control of any authority when there are annual elections. The problem is that, in such circumstances, authorities often end up with no overall control. The effect is, dare I say, similar to the effect of any form of proportional representation. No decisions are made; any decisions that are cobbled together are cobbled together behind closed doors, and no one who voted for any of the councillors concerned knows what policy will eventually be adopted. In fact, annual elections have two drawbacks, one of which is that they represent an unsatisfactory and unofficial form of proportional representation. Not only do we need clarification of the second and third dates; as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) pointed out, there is a possibility of Machiavellian gerrymandering beyond a four-year term. At the least, we need an assurance that elections will take place within a four-year period. I am sure that none of us would find a longer period satisfactory.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am not as charitable as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I suspect that there is something profoundly unsatisfactory—indeed, probably something sinister—about the Bill's present wording. I say that for an obvious reason. When it comes to a question as vital as elections and the timing of elections, surely the electorate—not to say MPs—are entitled to know at this stage where we stand, what we are being asked to approve and where we go from here. As so often, the Bill says that all these matters will be determined by the Secretary of State. That in itself is profoundly unsatisfactory. We know the way in which the Government tend to make decisions: they make them on the basis of focus groups or opinion polls. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was, I think, the first to point out, there is every possibility that the Government are trying to give themselves electoral manoeuvring space to ensure that the timing of the elections is arranged in the most favourable way according to what they are being told, or think they are being told, by the current focus groups or opinion polls. That takes us back—although you will be pleased to learn, Mr. Lord, that I do not intend to rehearse the arguments—into the territory of referendums, and what I consider to be their invalidity, in the sense that the timing of a question is crucial to receiving the desired answer. We are, I think, entitled to suspect that is what the Government are after now: that they want to be able to time elections, whether the first or subsequent elections, on the basis of what they believe will be most favourable to them. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us credible assurances that will not and cannot be the case. That leads us to the question—also identified by my hon. Friends—of the relative merits of yearly and four-yearly elections. I have two problems with the idea of annual elections, one being the simple problem of cost. There will be a serious cost penalty if we have to crank up the election machine every year and expect the taxpayer and voter to pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, there is no evidence that annual elections will produce greater enthusiasm and participation; indeed, the opposite may well be the case. Until my hon. Friend put us right, I would have said that, if anything, the turnout for annual elections would be lower than that for four-yearly ones. Another factor is continuity and stability of administration. Annual elections for any elected body mean the possibility, if not the probability, that control will change annually, preventing continuity or policy and producing what may well be a chaotic arrangement. That can be seen now in hung councils. Frequent control changes, as we all know, are a prescription for inadequate administration and inadequate policies.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Is the right hon. Gentleman honestly saying that every hung council that includes Conservative councillors is being run incompetently, and that those councillors are making no decisions?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

No. I am saying that too many decisions are being made, and that they are often inconsistent and lacking in continuity of purpose. I accept that decisions must be made; I even accept, however reluctantly, that if the verdict of the voters is that there shall be no overall control, something must be done about that. My point is that returning to the electorate every year at least invites the possibility that they will alter the disposition of the council, and that there will be different arrangements, different coalitions and different control. That cannot be good for local administration. The Minister has an obligation to tell us what arrangements the Government believe should be in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said, those arrangements should preferably be stated in the Bill. The Minister may argue that is not entirely reasonable—that it would be rash to name a date before the Bill has completed its stages and been given Royal Assent—but I feel that he should at least tell us the reasoning behind the Government's proposals, and reassure us that none of the unease expressed by Conservative Members is well founded. I hope that he can assure us, and the people of London, that everything will be done properly, and will be above board.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

This has been a remarkable debate. It has been characterised by paranoia, and by astonishing suspicion about the Government's intentions. We have been accused of sinister behaviour by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and of anti-democratic behaviour by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Before the hon. Gentleman makes further accusations of anti-democratic behaviour, he should reflect on the fact that it was his party that took from the people of London the right to vote for their own citywide authority. We have heard paranoia from some Members who are prone to such tendencies: the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst probably fits into that category. I fear that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) is moving in that direction, but we also heard it from other Members of normally more sound and mature judgment: the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I have to be charitable and assume that Members have been distracted. In the case of the Liberal Democrats, clearly, the news that their party leader is resigning has had slightly destabilising implications. I assume that, because the fear of losing members of one's party also has a destabilising effect, the loss of various Conservative Members of the European Parliament has probably also had a destabilising impact on Conservative Members. In charity, I will allow that interpretation.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I will in a moment, but I have first to disappoint all the right hon. and hon. Members who have had paranoid delusions about our intentions. Let me explain why the date of the election is not in the Bill. The explanation is simple. As hon. Members will recall, the Bill was published on 3 December. The date for the first election for the Greater London authority was only announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on Second Reading of the Bill on 14 December, so it was simply not possible for the date to appear in the Bill. The position has now changed. As I have already made clear, we are a listening Government and are only too happy to accommodate reasonable amendments, even from other parties, if we believe that there is justice behind them. In that spirit, I am happy to assure hon. Members that we are happy to accommodate their wishes. The date is now known and it is possible to incorporate a date in the Bill. Therefore, I am happy to consider amendment No. 6. I have to make one caveat. Because we have to have provision against the possibility of a national disaster, or an event that makes it impossible to hold the election on that date, there must be a consequential amendment that allows flexibility against such circumstances. [Interruption.] I can assure hon. Members that the resignation of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would not be a national disaster and would certainly not require the postponement of elections to the Greater London authority. Subject to that one caveat, we will be happy to consider the amendment and come forward with a further amendment that puts the intended election date in the Bill. We ask Opposition Members, for reasons that I will explain, to agree that the amendments that would remove the Secretary of State's power to make an order setting the dates on which the second and third ordinary elections would be held should be withdrawn. I would be happy to discuss with the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) between now and Report the form that those consequential amendments should take. We do not seek that flexibility because we have a sinister and secret agenda to amend the dates of the first and subsequent elections for political advantage. We are as anxious as everyone else that the GLA should be elected at the earliest practicable date, but, for the practical reasons to which I have referred, the dates cannot become immutable. We must be able to respond to unforeseen circumstances that might make the postponement of the election unavoidable. Conservative Members' protestations would have been more convincing if the legislation that they introduced to set up the Greater London council in the first place—the London Government Act 1963—and, indeed, the Local Government Act 1972, had provided for the first ordinary elections to counties and districts to be fixed not by statute, but by the Secretary of State. Therefore, their record in government was not blameless. Having said that, we intend to ensure that there will normally be a period of no more than four years between elections, but we need to allow an element of flexibility, not least because of the possibility of further primary legislation being introduced in relation to the dates on which London borough elections will be held. For that reason, we believe that it is necessary to retain clause 3(2), which enables the dates of the second and third elections to be moved if that becomes necessary. In the light of the commitment that I have given to consider amendment No. 6, I hope that the hon. Members for Croydon, South and for Carshalton and Wallington will now agree to withdraw their amendments.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I hope that he noted that the Liberal Democrats were very calm and collected throughout the debate, regardless of what was happening elsewhere. The Minister has made a major concession and I am happy not to press my amendments.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I have not been specifically provoked by the Minister, but I could see that my father's role in the 1963 legislation was going to play a part in our proceedings. On behalf of the spirit of my late noble father, I will say that there was a long gap between Second Reading in 1962 and the election in 1965—a longer gap than that which prevails between today's debate and the date of the first election, so the then Government can be excused for not having set the date. It is rare that any speech of mine or of my colleagues produces so immediate a concession and favourable response from the Government. I am grateful to them. However, I note that the explanation as to why the date was not in the Bill was that 11 days passed between publication of the Bill and Second Reading. The Government were unable to make up their mind by 3 December, but were able to make up their mind by 14 December, or whatever the date was. The spirit of my noble father draws the Prince of Denmark briefly into the debate. I was Under-Secretary to Sir Keith Joseph, that great man. The job of Under-Secretary to that great man, who spent an enormous amount of time pacing the battlements of Elsinore, was occasionally to dart from a turret, tug him by the sleeve and say, "Secretary of State, the time has come to make a decision." I had not previously thought of the Deputy Prime Minister as suffering from the same degree of indecisiveness. Indeed, in physical terms, if I were to put them together in the same frame, I would have cast the Deputy Prime Minister in the role of Sancho Panza and the late Sir Keith in the capacity of Don Quixote. Why the Government could not make up their mind by publication of the Bill on 3 December remains a major mystery.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I am afraid that I cannot match the invocation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) of noble shades or ancestry, or even match his literary allusions. However, I should like to probe the Minister more on one particular adverb: normally. The Minister said that the second and third election dates could be affected by changes, notional at this stage, in the timetable for the elections for the London borough councils. Should not the election of the mayor and assembly of the Greater London authority have primacy? Should we not set a fixed timetable of a four-year term starting from 2000? Why do we need to change the second and third election dates? If we are going to change the term, the Minister suggests that it might be extended. Might Londoners not want it to be curtailed, rather than extended? Therefore, I insist again that it is not correct to give the Secretary of State power to alter the dates of the second and third elections on the basis of what remains a hypothetical possibility: changes to the timetable for London borough elections, which Parliament has not yet approved.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I should like to say how much I appreciated the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). As we still have some 274 clauses to go and he is on the Committee, perhaps we might get one or two more speeches such as that from him. The Minister has made a generous concession. I would not say that we are entirely happy with his reaction to the two amendments, but, under the circumstances, we think that his approach to the clause is right. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

VOTING AT ORDINARY ELECTIONS

Gillian Shephard (Conservative, South West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 38, leave out from 'system' to end of line 39.

Gillian Shephard (Conservative, South West Norfolk)

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 have the effect of establishing a first-past-the-post system for the election of the London mayor. The Minister has sought to demonstrate his credentials as part of a listening Government, and he has with his acceptance of some of the points made in the previous group of amendments. We shall test him further when we make our case for this group of amendments. The Minister will know, because we have made these points on a number of occasions both on Second Reading and in Committee on the Floor of the House, that we are concerned with the clarity and transparency of electoral arrangements for assembly members and now, this evening, for the election of the London mayor. Our concern for clarity extends to the selection of candidate for mayor, which will not involve caucuses, closed doors or smoke-filled rooms, but one member, one vote and the utmost transparency at every stage. We have a clean slate with regard to our own party selection arrangements. As I said yesterday, and it is not disputed, the Bill is a substantial piece of legislation which will, in effect, set up an entirely new form of government. As the Minister will know, we feel that some of the Bill's proposals do not contribute to the principles of transparency and accountability which we look for in local government, because of the proliferation of bodies, agencies, duties and overlaps that they introduce. In addition, the provisions that we are debating this evening will oblige Londoners to use three different voting methods for two elections to be held on the same day—first past the post for the 14 constituency assembly members, a form of proportional representation with a closed list for the 11 London assembly members and, for the mayor, if there are more than two candidates, a supplementary voting system. All of that would be difficult enough, but the Government are subjecting our capital city and much of the rest of the country to unprecedented constitutional change. Notwithstanding what was said in the House earlier this evening, the Opposition's view that the Government's approach to all this constitutional change is piecemeal, is shared by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which, in its second report on the operation of multi-layer democracy which was published on 18 November 1998, said: Devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is only one part of re-writing of the Constitution which is currently taking place. As far as we can see, this reform is being conceived piecemeal; if there is an overall blue-print showing how all the pieces will fit together, none of our witnesses were aware of it. Thus we see different systems and different voting procedures being introduced in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, with some recent rumblings from the direction of Hull, East about regional government in England as well, with no thought as to how, if at all, these new bodies and their functions will interact or affect one another. Such an approach is not only irresponsible, but it strikes at the very heart of democratic accountability by blurring and confusing the processes with accretions and overlaps. It has to be remembered that Londoners will face no fewer than four intermediate layers of government between local authorities and central Government—the mayor, the assembly, the London development agency and the Government office for London. There will also be a transport body for London, the Metropolitan police authority, a London fire and emergency planning authority and the cultural strategy group. I am aware that on Second Reading the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that the mayor would be accountable for a number of those bodies and that there would, therefore, be accountability. But that proliferation of bodies and the consequent overlap of responsibilities could be confusing, and Londoners could be forgiven if they did not know exactly whom to hold accountable for policies affecting them. 5.45 pm In addition, the Bill contains 277 clauses which set powers; introduce new rules, orders, functions, standards and regulations; plan audits; establish committees; set charges and levies, and provide for a set of new agencies. Against that background of wholesale change to be imposed on Londoners and against the confusion of accountabilities that the Bill, of necessity, introduces, the Government should pause to examine whether it would be better to retain a voting system to elect a mayor which is tried and tested, and familiar and comprehensible to the electorate. We recognise that there is a case for a voice for London. That voice will be the mayor's. She will speak for London, to national Government and for London on the international stage. It was because we recognised the need for a voice for London that we recommended a yes vote in the referendum. The Government will no doubt argue that because the function of elected mayor is a new one—we would say an experimental one—it should be achieved with a new voting procedure. But we would argue that it is precisely because the Bill throws so much else into the air that a first-past-the-post, tried, tested and understood voting system should be used to elect London's mayor. Leaving aside whether Londoners will welcome the range of different voting systems that they will have to face at borough, assembly, mayoral, parliamentary and European levels, which the Government are imposing on them, is not the reality that, in the end, there will be only two or three strong, high profile, credible candidates for the post of mayor? Would it not be better for the successful candidate to be able to say, "I was elected because I won a clear majority", not "I was elected because I was the least unacceptable candidate"—which could, to quote the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), be the effect of the broad based, superior, majoritarian system being proposed. I move the amendments in the interests of clarity, decisiveness and comprehensibility.

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

I start by picking up one or two points made by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). As she spoke, I thought of the proliferation of different bodies that will have a responsibility in the running of London when the Bill is enacted, and then I thought back to the proliferation of bodies that emerged from the abolition of the GLC, some of which I jotted down—the London planning advisory committee; the London fire and civil defence authority; the London grants committee; the London transport committee, which previously included two or three other agencies; the London ecology committee; the traffic director for London, and the London waste regulation authority. So many different agencies and bodies were established by the previous Government to continue the governance of London by other means as a consequence of the abolition of the GLC, that I find it strange that the right hon. Lady now prays in aid the creation of so many new bodies as an argument for the alleged simplicity of the first-past-the-post system. That goes back to some of the points made in yesterday's debate about the proposal that each of the boroughs should nominate appointments to those bodies. Perhaps it is a case of hankering after the structures which were put in place by the previous Government when they abolished the GLC, and a continuation of indirect representation on these London bodies, which has not worked particularly well during the past few years. Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37 and 51 deal with the fundamental issue of the method of election of the mayor. They would put in place the well known alternative vote system, which allows voters to express more than the two preferences allowed by the supplementary vote system proposed by the Government. Under the supplementary vote system, voters will have to make guesses and consider how to vote tactically in the election of the mayor. Many of those who made representations during the consultation period said that AV would eliminate the guesswork and result in a simpler system that would produce a better outcome for Londoners and for the governance of London. The supplementary vote system can produce strange results. The Electoral Reform Society's document on electing the mayor—which has been referred to by other hon. Members in various terms, some not quite so glowing—gives an interesting worked example of how the system can produce perverse results in particular circumstances. In the first stage, the votes of four candidates are split evenly: the Conservative candidate gets 27 per cent. of the vote; an independent candidate gets 26 per cent.; the Labour candidate gets 24 per cent.; and the Liberal Democrat gets 23 per cent. Some hon. Members may regard that as an unreal example, but the situation has occurred in real elections, so the Electoral Reform Society's worked example is valid. With no candidate getting a majority of the votes cast, the two top candidates go through to the next round and the others are eliminated. The second preference votes of the two eliminated candidates are examined and added to the totals of the votes for the top two. Second preferences for candidates other than the top two do not count. If the Liberal Democrat voters chose to vote for the Labour candidate as their second preference, those second preference votes would be wasted. If those voting for the Labour candidate split their second preferences equally between the independent and the Liberal Democrat candidate, half of those second preferences would also be wasted. The winning candidate in this example is the independent, with 38 per cent. of the vote. That is not a way to produce a strong majoritarian system of the sort described yesterday by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). The system is not fair because it does not allow all those in London who choose to exercise their vote the opportunity to express their preferences.

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

The hon. Gentleman is arguing the case for AV. Will he confirm that under that system a candidate placed third on the first count could win the election?

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

I am happy to confirm that that is a potential outcome of the system, which would enable Londoners' preferences to be properly reflected. This is clearly another debate in which we shall have the unusual spectacle—perhaps not today, but on Report—of large numbers of hon. Members voting together in an unholy alliance to preserve their interests. In an earlier debate it was said that voting systems were all about vested interests. We all have vested interests in the way in which voting systems work.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

In the current circumstances, how can the hon. Gentleman claim that the Conservative party's support for first past the post is in its immediate interests?

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

Perhaps the Conservative party should reflect on that. As we said yesterday, we want a voting system that allows the electorate to choose the people whom they want to represent them and allows those wishes to be properly reflected in the assembly. The current first-past-the-post system often denies the electorate the opportunity for their wishes to be truly reflected in their assemblies. That defect needs to be corrected. The alternative vote would go a long way towards dealing with that.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to reflect on the other side of the question that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) properly asked. What is the difference between the election of a candidate who comes second in the first round and the election of the candidate who comes third—perhaps only 1 per cent. behind the second placed candidate? We either have a system in which a candidate wins on the first ballot—the first-past-the-post system, which everyone understands—or we have a system in which the person who comes first the first time may not win because someone else could come through.

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Yesterday he rightly identified himself as not being an electoral reform anorak. I do not wish to wear such an anorak either, but these are important issues. The Green Paper "New Leadership for London" did not mention the supplementary vote system as one of the possible methods for electing the mayor. It advanced three options: first past the post, which is the Conservative party's preferred option; the second ballot method, which is used for French presidential elections; and the alternative vote. In the White Paper—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I should like the hon. Gentleman to clarify a simple point. Does he recognise that the effect of the supplementary vote is the same as the effect of the French system, but the ballot is carried out on one day rather than on two?

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

The procedures are not the same, because having a second ballot removes the tactical and guesswork voting that results from it all happening on one day. That is our criticism of the supplementary vote. We made our criticisms of the second ballot clear in our response to the Green Paper. The White Paper described the supplementary vote as a simplified form of AV. Whom are we simplifying it for? It is patronising to say that the electorate cannot cope with marking "1", "2", "3" and "4" on a ballot paper to express their preferences.

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

The electorate wants the system because it is simple. Focus groups have said that supplementary vote is the system that they want.

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

Some hon. Members sometimes feel that the Government are led too much by focus groups. Reliance is being placed on one focus group to support the contention that SV is the preferred system. When the issues are explained in more detail, there will be greater support for the system that we and many others outside the House propose. The House debated the issue in 1931. I am sure that some hon. Members will now scurry off to the Library to check Hansard on that. A Bill was introduced to bring in the supplementary vote. After deliberation, the House decided that the alternative vote should be introduced instead. The Bill fell because of the undemocratic institution at the other end of this building, whose Members decided that they did not agree with it. That is another reason why the statement earlier today is welcome. The supplementary vote is used only in Sri Lanka, for the election of the president. It was briefly used in Alabama in the early part of this century. Alabama abandoned the system because of a result in 1926, when the winning candidate secured only 29 per cent. of the first and second preferences. That is why the supplementary vote is not an appropriate way to elect a strong and effective mayor in the terms that the Government are proposing.

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

I must correct the hon. Gentleman again. The supplementary vote is not used in Alabama or Sri Lanka. That system is a variation, in which three preferences are recorded on the first ballot. Under the supplementary vote, the first and second preferences are recorded.

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and happy to stand corrected on that point. We would have to call that supplementary vote plus—an innovation that takes us in the right direction, towards the alternative vote, the use of which we advocate. In Alabama, the supplementary vote system no longer operates, but my point is that it was used at the beginning of the century. The Institute for Public Policy and Research recommended the alternative vote for electing the mayor of London, saying: We therefore recommend that the mayor be elected using the AV system. It overcomes the main drawback to first past the post, ensuring that the winning candidate has the support of over 50 per cent. of those voting. Amendment No. 48 provides for the possible outcome of using the supplementary vote of a result tied between two candidates. It addresses the question of whether a tie should be resolved by drawing lots—that is, by chance—or by giving the assembly a role in making a decision. We contend that the assembly should have the right to make a decision in cases where the election has not produced a conclusive result and two candidates emerge from the supplementary vote system with equal votes. The amendments would increase voter choice and ensure that the mayor will start with a strong and clear mandate. That is why we have tabled them and we look forward to getting as much support in the Lobby as we can possibly secure.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I have already enjoyed one debate on clause 4, so it will be useful to me to participate in another one tonight, even if the outcome will be the same. In the light of the news breaking as we speak, I wish the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) well, as probably the only London candidate in the forthcoming election. I know of no Member of Parliament who deserves more than he to have what is quintessentially a dead-end job going nowhere—surely it must be preferable to come a miserable third in the mayoral election. Tonight, in respect of the amendments to clause 4, we have heard again many of the words that were blithely thrown around yesterday in respect of clause 2. Yesterday, it was the PR anoraks who were doing the throwing, but tonight they have been joined by the first-past-the-post anoraks on the Conservative Front Bench. Tonight, we have heard two perorations on alternative systems to the one proposed in the Bill. Lots of little words have been thrown around, but no significant justification has been offered as to why either first past the post or the alternative vote system are preferable to the supplementary vote system for use in the mayoral election. Neither argument has been rooted in what the office of mayor is all about or how it fits in with the overall structure; nor have the speakers, having established what the mayor is supposed to do for London, justified their choice of electoral system. That is why, last night, my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction was entirely right to dismiss the PR and first-past-the-post lobbies as anoraks. They start from some notion of purity in electoral systems, but fail to work out how their chosen system will fit in, even though they claim to have done so. Instead, they use a blithe little lexicon that assumes that they have discussed the merits of both the role of the mayor and the electoral system. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) says that the system she prefers is better because it is more transparent. If pressed to explain why it is more transparent, she simply restates that it is more transparent. It is sub-intellectual and febrile to believe that if something is said often enough, it becomes true: an election system is transparent because it is transparent because it is transparent. We get the same sort of argument from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), whose personal dynamism leads us to hope that he will not be the election agent for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk must recognise that, rather than three different electoral systems for different bodies being a flaw in the Bill, they are in fact the Bill's glory and strength. We need the 14 directly elected members to take the authority some, albeit not all, of the way towards parochialism, thus giving it some local basis, albeit in super-constituencies. However, to reflect both the diversity of London's communities and the relative strengths of the political parties in London, we also need a degree of proportionality. That there are to be directly elected members as well as supplementary or additional members is not a flaw, nor is the fact that there is to be an entirely different system for electing the mayor. Anoraks apart, people recognise that the institution should determine what electoral system—or systems—is appropriate to fill it, not the other way around.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman made exactly the same point yesterday about the voting system for the assembly. He said that the system was wonderful and ideally crafted for the purpose the assembly is to fulfil; however, he did not explain the link between the system and the purpose, nor has he done so today. I do not doubt that he is such a loyalist that, whenever the Government come up with a system, he will say that it is wonderful and perfect for the purpose. However, I have not said, either yesterday or today, that the proposed systems are entirely inappropriate. If he is to be true to his own arguments, the hon. Gentleman has to explain why the proposed system, which was in part devised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and is to be uniquely applied in Britain, is the perfect system, when many others that are already used, in both this country and others, work perfectly well.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I know that, more often than not, the hon. Gentleman is polite, but I also know that he must be seen to attack Labour in such a distasteful manner if he is to establish his leadership credentials, so I shall let him off for now. If we have a clause stand part debate on clause 4, I shall certainly elaborate on why the proposed system is the appropriate electoral system for the institution of mayor. However, with my limited grasp of parliamentary procedure—a failing which Madam Speaker and her deputies have had cause to bring to my attention on many occasions—I thought that the current debate related to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives and I was endeavouring to stay in order. If we have a broader debate, I shall be happy to oblige the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry to say that colleagues on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs were wrong to say that the reform is piecemeal. We are making constitutional change in appropriate areas and our agenda is as clear as day. Although it might be slightly off message to say so, I am at one with the rumblings emanating from Hull, East about having a regional tier of government for England to fit in with the rest of the jigsaw. With the greatest respect to all those who serve on Select Committees, I have to point out that the fact of an opinion being expressed in a Select Committee report does not make it right. It is not irresponsible or blurring by accretion to have a plethora of different electoral system and institutions that are appropriate to regional responsibilities. Unlike the way in which the body politic and all its parts developed during the 18 years of Tory Government, all the developments made under Labour are, at root, democratic. Opposition Members might think that a trite point, but I happen to believe that it is fundamental to our entire constitutional agenda that all the elements are democratic. It is rather lame to say that first past the post is tried and tested, so if we have an election for a single post, we should use first past the post and ensure that we get a recognised voice for London. That is the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument, and no consideration is given to the context within which the London mayor is to operate, or to London's diversity. No single system is ideal. All we can do is try to use each system appropriately and I believe that, on balance, the system set out in the Bill is the most appropriate. Neither is it the case—this argument is equally weak—that we have decided to introduce a new electoral system for this novel new post. That might be how the new "British way" Conservative party organises policy, but it is not how we do it. We organise policy in a far more responsible manner. If I thought that first past the post would be more appropriate given the nature and role of the mayoralty in London, I would say so. In recent months, we have had many nauseatingly boring debates in this Chamber about electoral systems. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk said that a mayor elected under first past the post could claim to have a clear majority, but nothing could be further from the truth. Many hon. Members in this place are not elected by a clear majority. I suspect—I have not done the research—that very few hon. Members could put their hands on their hearts and say that they were elected by more than 50 per cent. of their electorates. I was not, and I am sure that many of those opposite were not either. I was elected by 52 per cent. of the 70 per cent. of people who voted. I asked whether hon. Members were elected by more than 50 per cent. of the electorate, not of those who bothered to vote. Very few hon. Members could make that claim, and a London mayor certainly could not do so in the absolute terms suggested in the context of a first-past-the-post electoral system. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will expect me to say that the examples in the Electoral Reform Society document aim to prove a point. I was touched by his naivety when he said, "They are in the pamphlet, so they must be true." That is like saying that something is true because a lawyer said so. If that is the hon. Gentleman's experience, I would like the name of his lawyer. It simply does not follow. The system outlined in the Bill is the most appropriate and the arguments advanced by the PR anoraks do not stand up. We are told that the system is dreadful because a candidate with a low number of votes could win, as occurred in the worked example in the ERS document. However, nothing was said about that last night when the Liberal Democrats mentioned the single transferable vote—it is their pure flame. It consistently results in more and more Johnny-last-in candidates in terms of the Teachta Dala in Ireland. Such candidates hang on by dribbles of preferences and never get anywhere near a significant amount of the vote, especially in five-candidate constituencies. They get elected simply because they are the last ones standing—and there is nothing democratic about that. So the Liberal Democrats' "pure" system is completely impure as well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said earlier—I was going to intervene but it was not worth it—the Electoral Reform Society makes it clear that the supplementary vote plus system is the same in Alabama and Sri Lanka. That is what it says in the document, so my hon. Friend's valid points stand in relation to both examples. It does not prove anything to ask, "But what about Alabama?". If the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam does not believe me, he should take up the matter with the Electoral Reform Society. It says clearly in its introduction that Alabama and Sri Lanka have the same supplementary vote modified system. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington does not make the hon. Gentleman's case.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

rose—

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

rose—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall give way first to the new Liberal Democrat leader.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Electoral Reform Society is in my constituency, so I must defend it. It says in the document that the Alabama system is no longer used, and cites the example of the winner who had 29 per cent. of the vote. I accept the assertion by the hon. Member for Workington that the situation is not quite the same in Sri Lanka because there are three people in the final count between whom the votes are transferred. However, the issue is the same: should we allow the accumulation of the preferences of all those who vote? Under that system, we could get nearer to a plurality of votes for one candidate. Under the Government's proposed system—[Interruption.]

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Mr. McNulty.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As hon. Members have said, the Electoral Reform Society document refers to the 1926 gubernatorial primary in Alabama when the winning candidate got 29 per cent. of the first and second choice votes. I fully accept that. It then defies the argument that the supplementary vote systems are different in Sri Lanka and Alabama by saying: A similar version of the system has been used since 1978 to elect the President of Sri Lanka. The system is similar in terms of the supplementary vote variation, not in some other way. I hope that we shall return to the debate about STV, although it is not appropriate to do so now. I suppose that I shall have to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman over a cup of tea, which is a shame. It is true that the system is similar to the French system—although we shall complete the process in one day. The Bill's key point is that we must break free of the mindset of fighting elections under the first-past-the-post system. I hope that all parties will fight the first election on the basis of not just "Support our candidate because we're the best" but also "Support so and so for second". Under this system, if political parties do their jobs correctly, they will tell the electors clearly what to do with their second preferences. It is not a case of candidates simply winning more than 50 per cent. of the vote. We must appreciate each of the different systems in that context. I suspect that we will face the same hurdles when we ask people to vote in their constituencies, but for different reasons. I do not understand the legitimacy of amendment No. 48, which fundamentally ignores—or at least misunderstands—the new architecture of London governance. In the event of a tie in an election for an executive position that is distinct from the assembly, the amendment seeks to give the assembly—which had nothing to do with that election—the power to choose the winner. The only justification for that position—we return to the naked self-interest of the Liberal Democrats wrapped in treacle, as I said last night—is that it is designed to reinstate Liberal amendments that have been rejected by the Committee. The Liberal Democrats want a proportionately elected assembly that will elect the mayor. That position profoundly misunderstands the relationship between the various elements of London's new government.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman has failed to tell the Committee what will happen if the Bill is not amended as we propose. The alternative is that a mayor of 7 million people will be chosen by drawing lots. My view of the hon. Gentleman's concept of democracy will diminish very rapidly if he is honestly claiming that the mayor of London should be chosen by drawing lots rather than by the votes of 25 elected members of the assembly.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman again shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the relationship between the two elements. The two elections will not happen on the same day by coincidence. They are elections for different things taking place in different contexts. In the unlikely event of a draw in the mayoral election, I would rather draw lots than allow an assembly that has no democratic mandate regarding the election of the executive to choose the winner. The hon. Gentleman can giggle in his little anorak way all that he likes, but that is the reality of the situation. If two mayoral candidates each secured 3.5 million votes, I would rather see the winner chosen by drawing lots. Twenty-five assembly members who were elected to perform entirely different roles should not choose the winner. That may or may not reflect the credentials of the two remaining candidates in the race.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We have considered inaccurate parallels with American elections. After the votes in US presidential elections have been added up, a second group—an electoral college—decides who should be President. I repeat that I cannot believe—I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman believes—that Londoners would rather have a lottery and have a chance choice made between two people who got the same number of votes than that 25 other people to whom they have given a vote of confidence should choose who they thought was the appropriate person.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That demonstrates that any claim—one was made soon after the general election—that the proposals simply copy a failed American model is wrong. Such a claim was made last night by a colleague who was sitting behind me but who is not here tonight. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is wrong in one regard—the electoral college is the first, not the second stage in US presidential elections. That system does not work on the basis that if a popular, first-past-the-post vote is tied, the decision goes to an electoral college. In presidential elections, people vote for members of the electoral college. If that vote is tied, the decision goes—completely wrongly, in my opinion—to the legislature, rather than the executive. That fundamentally blurs, by accretion, democratic mandates. We are discussing different parts of government in London. Flipping a coin is far preferable to another body, which has nothing to do with the executive in the democratic process, making that decision.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I give way to the man with the retail store in Uxbridge.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

The hon. Gentleman can repeat that any time he likes. Would he prefer the drawing of lots or the tossing of a coin? In other words, is he a drawer of lots or a tosser?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That remark was well worth my allowing the hon. Gentleman to intervene and far preferable to all the interventions that I have just accepted from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who I would say, if I had to put money on it, does not draw lots. The Bill has got the balance right in its proposals for electing the mayor. I have heard nothing of substance from the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk or the putative new leader of the Liberal Democrats that changes my mind. We should resist, as trivia borne by anoraks, all the amendments.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I hope that I will be taken seriously in this debate if I confess that I am not a political anorak or an electoral system wonk and that, come election time, unlike Liberal Democrat Members, I do not wear sandals. The further the Liberal Democrats get from power, the more keen they become on what the electorate would regard as jiggery-pokery with the figures and what in French or Euro-speak might be termed "repechage"—a blatant attempt to manipulate the electorate's clear decision. The great merit of the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) is that the first-past-the-post system is readily comprehended. All the mayor needs to know is that he or she is chosen by the majority of Londoners. That is the key question. It is not a matter of second preferences. The mayor needs to be the person who receives the most wholehearted support from those who want him or her to be their mayor. People often vote for second preferences without wishing them to be elected. I am sure that the Minister will advise the Committee whether, as I presume, it will be valid for voters only to make one choice. Many Londoners may do so. Will he advise the Committee also why the second preference votes for the candidates who are eliminated because they do not come first or second—or third, if there is a tie—should count more than the second preference votes cast for the candidates who come first or second? I do not comprehend the distinction that is being drawn. The other point that we must clearly understand is that the electorate must have confidence in the system and must understand it. The best argument for the simple system that my colleagues propose was made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). At the end of his speech, no one was any the wiser as to the merits of the amendment that he was supposed to be putting forward. The second-best argument came from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who, after 20 minutes, had not convinced the Committee of the inherent merits of the Bill's proposals. He has, rightly, fled. I doubt that anyone was convinced by his arguments. I do not want to anticipate the debate that we might have on schedule 2, but if members of the electorate for London seeking guidance on the system for electing the mayor turned to that schedule, they would find it extremely complicated, whereas they comprehend fully that the candidate who wins the most votes most deserves to be elected.

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

The hon. Gentleman is making the point that the system is simple because people can understand that the candidate who gets the most votes should be the winner. However, does he accept that in many cases, particularly a mayoral election in which there might be three, four or five candidates, it is highly likely that, under first past the post, no candidate will win the support, in his words, of the majority of Londoners?

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

It would be clear that more Londoners supported one candidate than any other. That is what matters. The gradations of second or third best are of no consequence because regardless of how people cast their second vote—and third vote, if they have one—their hearts will still be with their No. 1: choice. In our highly party political system, that first choice will, unless he is an independent candidate of exceptional merit, carry the same ideological convictions as the voter and be someone whom the voter regards as best suited to implementing the party political programme of the mayoralty, which will have been put to the electorate. It is not valid to suggest that we shall get better governance, which will have more support from Londoners in general, from a system that could rely on second preferences. That will call into question the validity of the election system as a whole and diminish the electorate's interest in voting because they will find the system complicated and unconvincing. We need the maximum turnout for a system that everybody understands, that is traditional and that achieves the objective—the return of the person who has more support from Londoners than any other candidate.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

I shall not detain the Committee for long. I apologise for not being present for the opening speech by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), although I did, by electronic means, hear her describe the first-past-the-post system and refer to my description of the supplementary vote system as a superior majoritarian system. I shall briefly try to convince the Committee that the SV system is indeed superior to first past the post, which her party advocates, and, in those circumstances, to the alternative vote system that is supported by the smaller opposition party. Certainly first past the post would be greatly inferior in the current circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) summarised her speech as, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", to which the short answer is that the first-past-the-post system is broke. It would also be especially dangerous in the election for the mayor of London—the first executive election in these islands and quite different from any that preceded it. 6.30 pm As I am sure that everyone who has spoken in the debate knows, the main failing of the first-past-the-post system is that it can result in the election of people on very low percentages of the vote. The hon. Member for the quaintly named constituency of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) was elected by 31 per cent. of the voters, and Sir Russell Johnston the former hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber—another quaintly named constituency—was elected by only 26 per cent. under the present system, while his rivals received 25, 24 and 22 per cent. In other words, Members have been elected on less than a third of the vote in this Parliament and on only just over a quarter of the vote in recent elections. Let us consider the lack of legitimacy that the system would give to a London mayor. We must also take on board the fact that, in a mayoral election, independents have a stronger chance and more people will be voting other than on political grounds. I should not advocate it, but experience in the United States suggests that name recognition will count for a great deal, independents can make a stronger showing, and business experience and other factors may be considered relevant in a way that they might not be in a legislative or council election. There may be 10, 20 or 30 candidates, and five or 10 plausible candidates might get a share of the vote. I want to draw the Committee's attention to what happens under the first-past-the-post system in countries that have a plethora of candidates. The only country that has adopted first past the post—this supposedly superior system—since just after the second world war is Papua New Guinea. It started with the alternative vote but switched to the first-past-the-post system in the 1960s. I assure you that this is highly relevant, Mr. Martin. Under the alternative vote system, candidates in Papua New Guinea had to appeal to voters along the lines of their splintered, tribal, village politics. The candidates had to find support across the country in order to get the 20 or 30 per cent. of the first choices that they had to have if they were to stand any chance of winning. When the country switched to first past the post, it reverted to the narrow politics that revolves around small villages. A candidate in Papua New Guinea is returned to Parliament on 6.5 per cent. of the vote, while the 15 or 20 other candidates get less. I accept that there is not much correlation between an election in Papua New Guinea and a mayoral election in London except for the possibility that we may have a plethora of candidates, all plausible and all with some support, and we may well be pushed into having a mayor elected on 6.5 per cent. of the vote. It is clear that, in a mayoral election in which there may be many independent candidates, there is an overwhelming need for an electoral system that guides people to make a realistic choice between a small number of candidates rather than opening the way for an election that descends into farce. There is nothing wrong with picking an electoral system that forces people to choose. At the end of the day, any choice of an executive boils down to a choice between two alternatives, and one is trying to get voters to think realistically about the alternatives. The supplementary vote, devised partly by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), is exactly such a system. It forces people to think before the election who would make a good mayor and who it is worth spending one's vote on. A voter has only two votes and cannot choose any number of options. The process of narrowing the choice and the realistic alternatives is vital to the success of the mayoral elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East was quite wrong to say that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was going to run for one dead-end job. In fact, he is having to choose between two possible dead-end jobs. One would be the Liberal Democrat candidate for the mayor of London and the other the leader of his party. Clearly, we need a system that will narrow the choice and thus force people in London to choose between realistic alternatives, without denying them the second choice that can avoid the difficulties of tactical voting. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk complained that voting under three different voting systems on the same ballot paper would cause confusion and difficulty, a point also made by some of her colleagues. Let us consider a possible ballot paper for the London vote on 4 May next year. While it may be true that experts would describe it as containing three different voting systems, to the voter there will be very little difference between the vote for the constituency representative, the London representative and the mayor. The only instructions that need appear on the ballot paper are that one should put an X against the candidate that one supports for the constituency representative, an X for the party list or independent candidate that one supports in respect of the London representative, and an X for one's first and another for one's second choice of mayor. All three are X votes. Voting experts may say that they employ three different voting systems, but they will not appear so to the voters. Each system will involve simply putting one X or two. That is another reason why the supplementary voting system would be superior in this instance to the alternative vote. If the alternative vote were adopted for this election, we would have two elections by X votes and a third by preferential voting, which involves marking 1, 2 or 3 next to the candidates. The ballot paper will ask for three votes, all of which will be X votes. That is the enormous merit of the system over the two alternatives.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I hope that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) will not take offence if I say that, although some hon. Members have spoken about election system anoraks, he has proved that people who know about election systems can be quite entertaining. I congratulate him on his contribution. I was especially taken by his points about Papua New Guinea choosing first past the post. As I recall, Papua New Guinea was the only country that also opted for the poll tax while it had the first-past-the-post system. That again shows the demerits of that system. An issue that has not been examined in enough detail is the type of post that we are electing. It is a new post. We have not had a mayor or a mayoral system before, which means that the way that we have thought about politics and elections probably needs to be reconsidered. The Government have gone some way towards that, but they have not opened their mind sufficiently to the implications of a mayoral system; nor do I detect that the Conservatives have applied their minds to the matter. We are voting for one person, and the whole executive will be in that person's hands. The mayor will form a cabinet, but does not have to form one based on his or her support in the legislature. It is totally separate. The election of the mayor is about just one person, not that person's relationships with another party. That is why I believe that independents will stand. If the process is about electing just one person, we need the electoral system to give as much legitimacy to that person as possible. That is where first past the post fails completely. The hon. Member for Battersea referred to a former Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, Lord Russell-Johnston, who was elected on just 26 per cent. of the vote in 1992. That shows how the winning candidate from four or five candidates under first past the post would have very little legitimacy. On anyone's analysis, 26 per cent. of the vote cannot be considered full legitimacy. The strength that is normally acknowledged of first past the post in general elections is that it gives a clear result, with no need for coalitions. I do not accept that argument for general elections, but, in elections for a mayor, it does not apply at all, because they involve the election of only one person. There is no question of forming a coalition—at least I do not think that one can form a coalition with oneself, unless one is schizophrenic. We would not suggest that Londoners would elect such a person. Therefore, first past the post is not appropriate for mayoral elections. The Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments supporting the alternative vote primarily because it is the most suited to this type of election. The alternative vote will ensure that, whoever is elected, every Londoner's vote will count. Whoever wins, more than 50 per cent. of the people of London will have expressed some preference for them. That would surely enable them to govern London with much greater legitimacy than other options open to us.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

If the hon. Gentleman sets such store by the winner receiving the majority of the votes cast, would not a simpler and much more intelligible method be to stage a re-run, eliminating—perhaps—all but two candidates, rather like in French elections?

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I think that I am beginning to win some support. The alternative vote achieves that automatically because it allows people to express their preferences. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned, as I am, about ensuring that the winning candidate has a majority, he must vote for our amendment. I invite him to join us in the Lobby. During this sitting, we have heard some news that has affected my party particularly. I should like to draw to the Committee's attention the fact that not only do we table amendments in support of the alternative vote system for the election of one post, we employ the practice in our internal elections. The Liberal Democrat leader will be elected under the alternative vote system. That shows that we have faith in it—not because it happens to be in our interests in the London elections, but because we believe that it is the fairest and most democratic system. We practise what we preach. I know that the Labour party—I am not so sure that this applies to the Conservative party—employs the alternative vote system in its internal elections because it believes that that gives more legitimacy to the people whom its party members are electing. The Labour party does not have much faith in the supplementary vote system for its internal elections—nobody has ever told me that it uses such a system—so it is amazing that it has dreamt one up for London. Labour certainly does not practise what it preaches, although I suppose that we are used to that. One argument against the alternative vote system—that, somehow it would be complex—must be tackled. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that the first-past-the-post system had the merits of simplicity. He is insulting the people of London if he believes that they cannot decide first, second third fourth and fifth preferences. Is it really that difficult? Labour Members suggested that such a system would confuse the electorate because people would be voting in a different way for assembly members. I find that insulting to the people of London, too. It is not difficult for people to put the numbers one to six into six boxes. That is one of the most simple things to do. The complexity is in the counting of votes. Although we would not deny that the system can be complex, computers and trained electoral adjudicators could ensure that there would be no problem. The key point is that the system would not pose any difficulty for the elector. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) defended the supplementary vote system. I am not sure whether he will be known in future as Mr. Lottery or Mr. something else, following the suggestion by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). In his so-called defence of SV, the hon. Member for Harrow, East gave no reasons. He did not answer the question why it would be the best choice for the election of mayor. Perhaps he will give his reasons during the clause stand part debate; we certainly hope so. We were unconvinced by his arguments, and remain convinced that our arguments for the alternative vote system are far superior.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) because I shall make one or two remarks about Liberal Democrat contributions to this debate. I was taught by the late Alan Whitehorn, the father of Miss Katherine Whitehorn, the journalist. He would require us to translate Tennyson, psalms, hymns or Shakespeare into Latin or Greek verse. In prose, he would periodically ask us to translate something like our driving licences, in order to test whether we could embrace technical language as well. Speeches by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on the subject of proportional representation would have been quite a good candidate for the process that I have described. Although one must be uncertain about the outcome, the one thing of which one could be certain is that they would be neither Ciceronian nor Demosthenic. I give the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam one piece of credit. He demonstrated that he could read out word for word a brief provided by the Electoral Reform Society. That same briefing was deployed last night by the Liberal Democrats in debates on the single transferable vote. I was struck on that occasion by the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), who has also spoken in this debate, who drew attention to the totally practical disadvantages of STV in Irish elections, to which the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) has alluded today. Those practical disadvantages did not, at least to my eye, appear in the Electoral Reform Society briefing. I do not remember it drawing our attention to the fact that the system did not work too well in Ireland.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

The right hon. Gentleman might care to know that the Electoral Reform Society is precluded by its constitution from supporting any system other than the single transferable vote.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

The great thing about remaining in this House for a long time is that one learns something every day. Although I like to feel that there are one or two other advantages, that is certainly a prime one. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remark. To some extent, he has elided my next point: the arguments deployed seemed to be primarily academic and technical rather than practical. I think that our electorate is the most mature in the world, and as a Londoner, a fortiori, I think that our electorate in London is the most mature in this country. Their virtue, and what gives them their maturity, is that their attitude to what we are about is essentially practical. I confess that, in my salad days in this House, I once voted for proportional representation on one measure—an arcane fact that at least one political journalist has uncovered and revealed to me that he has done so and would, if necessary, hold it in evidence against me. In those days, I was of the view that, if PR was to have a future in this country, it needed to be tried out on the electoral foothills before anybody made an assault on the south col. Almost 22 years of sharing this Chamber with first Liberals and then Liberal Democrats has cured me of any enthusiasm for PR. If I were an adviser to the Liberal Democrat party, I would, in the sere and yellow of advancing age, give it the same advice that I cited a moment ago. I would also urge it, for the practical reasons that I gave a moment ago, too, that it should make its system as simple as possible. The speech that we had from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, in all its Sri Lankan and Alabaman complexity, demonstrated that, in terms of simplicity, the Liberals have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by extolling the virtues—including maturity—of the people of London. Surely he is not suggesting that, despite that maturity, they could not make their preferences in the order one, two, three, four, five.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My peroration is devoted to that subject, so if he will forgive me I will answer him then. You will be delighted to hear, Mr. Martin, that I shall come to my peroration very shortly. In passing, I may be the most recent Member present to have visited Sri Lanka. We had a wholly admirable Sri Lankan driver, who told us that he had not voted in the last six presidential elections in Sri Lanka, but he then rather spoilt the effect, in the context of this speech, by saying that he was of so conservative a temperament that he would be happy if the British were to return. It just shows that London cab drivers are not the only ones in the world to play to their passengers guessed-at predilections. However, the heart of this debate is the proposition in the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) that the Government are asking us to tackle too many new voting systems at once. I do not share the views of the Scottish judge that a change for the better is a contradiction in terms, and I am not averse to experiment, but it is possible to have too much of a good thing, and it is possible to discredit that thing in the process. That is why I believe that the people of London will be better off staying with the system with which they are wholly familiar, and should not be asked to try a whole series of new systems simultaneously.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have had a wide-ranging debate. We have done a veritable world tour, covering areas as far apart as Alabama, Sri Lanka and Papua New Guinea, and now we return to London. As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) reminded us, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) opened the debate by claiming that there were too many different voting systems. I have to accept that the Liberal Democrat party has given the impression that the debate is all about a plethora of voting systems, but the Government's proposals are not complex and detailed or prolific. Last night we discussed, and decided on, voting arrangements for the assembly. Tonight we are considering the voting system for the mayor. We are not offering a range of voting systems; we are offering one simple voting system—the supplementary vote. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk said that she wanted a mayor elected with a clear majority—not the least worst candidate. We agree whole-heartedly. That is why we do not support the Liberal Democrat advocacy of the alternative vote system, under which it would be possible for a mayoral candidate to be elected with very limited first preference support, simply on the basis of second, third, fourth, fifth and umpteenth preference votes from people who saw that candidate as the least worst on offer. That is not a good recipe for a mayor with a strong mandate to deliver effective government for London, and we reject the Liberal Democrat amendments proposing that system.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

We are discussing only the election of the mayor at the moment but, unless I am mistaken, on election day—4 May in the year 2000—Londoners will be confronted with three electoral systems in the polling station. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will fund education to promote awareness, and fund training for polling agents, presiding officers, electoral registration officers and so on, so that they are capable of dealing with the voter rage that is bound to follow, and so that they may have counselling afterwards for its effects?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Mr. Martin, I shall not risk incurring your wrath by straying into that territory, which is far from the subject of the amendment before us. The amendment is specifically about voting arrangements for the mayor—arrangements for people to vote on a single ballot paper, in the way that they do in elections for a Member of Parliament or councillors, and which will not involve additional costs or expenditure. We shall deal with those matters at the appropriate moment. I assure the hon. Lady that we shall make appropriate arrangements to ensure that the first election for the mayor and assembly of London can be handled efficiently, and that reasonable costs incurred by local authorities conducting those elections will be reimbursed through the normal and appropriate mechanisms. However, that is far from the subject of the debate. The supplementary vote does not have the effect of the alternative vote, which could allow a candidate incapable of getting substantial support on a first preference vote to win. The supplementary vote ensures that only a candidate who can come in the top two on the first preference can go forward and, ultimately, win. It therefore ensures that the winning candidate must have a large measure of first-preference support. The system has been discussed many times, and was recommended most recently by the Plant committee, established earlier in this decade—or perhaps toward the end of the last—with a very distinguished membership, including my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

indicated dissent.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am wrong to say that my hon. Friend was a member of the committee; he submitted evidence to it, and the committee recognised the good sense of his evidence and recommended the supplementary vote system, which he had advocated. I pay tribute to his advocacy, for many years, of an electoral system that ensures the election of a candidate who commands substantial support, and which ensures that, in a situation such as a mayoral election for London, in which there may be many candidates, no candidate can win on the basis of very limited support, simply because of the wide spread of voting preferences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) put it, it is a superior majoritarian system of voting. That is why we have adopted it.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Can the Minister confirm that, under SV, the winning candidate may gain less than a majority of the votes of the people of London?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is certainly possible that, under SV, the winning candidate will not secure 50 per cent. of the votes cast, because only the second preference votes of the defeated candidates—those not in the first two places—will be reallocated, and some of those votes may not be for candidates in the top two places. However, that does not in any way negate the value of the supplementary vote system. That system ensures that—as in France—only two candidates who have secured substantial support in the first preference vote can proceed to the second stage, so that only strong candidates with real backing are in the final run-off, and those are the two whose total votes, with the second preferences added, ultimately determine the outcome. The amendments before us would change the method of election for mayor from that recommended by the Government. The Conservative amendments would restore a first-past-the-post system, requiring a simple majority. The Liberal Democrat amendments would replace the supplementary vote system with the alternative vote system. Neither proposition is acceptable to us. The White Paper clearly said that we had considered those alternative arrangements, and made it clear why we had rejected them in favour of the supplementary vote system. The election of the first mayor of London will be the first time that we, in the United Kingdom, have a directly elected executive fulfilling a major responsibility such as that which the mayor of London will fulfil. In itself, that appears to us to call for a method of election the result of which attunes itself as closely as possible to the expressed views of the electorate, and which delivers to the candidate the strongest mandate possible. That is why we have proposed election by the supplementary vote system. We want a strong mayor, with whom the people of London can identify, and whom the majority of those who vote will feel that they have had a say in choosing—if only by the use of the second vote. I am therefore unable to accept the Conservative or the Liberal Democrat amendments, which would change the electoral system for mayor. I invite the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to withdraw their amendments. Amendment No. 48, also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is wrong and wrong-headed. The intended effect of the amendment is to allow the assembly to take a tie-breaking decision when two candidates for the office of mayor receive an exactly equal number of votes during the election. Such a situation is exceptionally unlikely. We are talking of an electorate of 5 million, and 5 million votes, or a proportion of them, cast between a range of candidates with first and second preferences is exceptionally unlikely to produce the situation that is suggested. However, irrespective of that, the amendment is wrong because it is technically defective. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), who introduced it, seems not to have read subsequent provisions in the Bill. If he had, he would know that clause 4(7) requires the returning officer to determine who has been elected as the mayor, and constituency assembly members, before the returning officer can decide who are the London members of the assembly. Therefore, after the first elections to the GLA an assembly will not exist until after the tie-breaking decision would need to be taken. As I have said, the situation that has been suggested could not happen. At the second and subsequent elections the decision would have to be taken not by the new assembly but by the outgoing assembly, and clearly that would be nonsensical. 7 pm The amendment is wrong-headed because what is being proposed would allow a separately elected assembly, with a different mandate from that of the mayor, determining who should or should not be the mayor. It would make whichever candidate was chosen as the mayor beholden to the majority in the assembly for his or her office. That would fundamentally undermine the authority of the mayor and undermine the principle of the separation of powers that we intend to put in place for the new authority. Therefore, the assembly should not take such a tie-breaking decision. The decision should, as is the case in all other tied elections, including elections to membership of the House of Commons, be left to the random outcome of the drawing of lots. In these circumstances, I invite the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to withdraw the amendment. The Government's proposal for the supplementary vote is an important and innovative system of election that is entirely appropriate to the innovative system of government that we are proposing for London. It will ensure the election of a mayor with a strong mandate who is able to represent the people of London confidently and to fulfil the serious responsibilities which we are giving to the post. I urge right hon. and hon. Members who have moved amendments to withdraw them. If not, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Government's position and to reject the amendments.

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

It has been a useful and interesting debate. Having listened to the comments of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I shall take away his comments, reflect on my earlier contribution and endeavour at a later stage, perhaps, to adopt a more plain English approach to the presentation of electoral systems. The debate has focused on first past the post, the supplementary vote and the alternative vote, and because of that the issues become very confusing. I think that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have perhaps demonstrated that quite ably this evening. As the Committee knows, our proposal is that there should be the alternative vote. We would wish to return to the matter on Report and therefore we shall not be pressing the amendments on the alternative vote now. We feel that given the Minister's remarks about a tied vote for the mayor and the technicality of the relevant amendments, it would be appropriate for us further to consider them. However, we are not convinced by the Minister's arguments. We feel strongly that the issue should not be decided on the toss of a coin. We believe that we need a simple and fair voting system that maximises support for the mayor and allows genuine and full choice for the voter.

Gillian Shephard (Conservative, South West Norfolk)

It has been a wide-ranging debate. We do not normally travel from New Guinea via Sri Lanka and Alabama back to London. Nor are we dragged to and fro between 1926 and the present day. The debate has stimulated the Liberal Democrats to crown their achievements of yesterday, when they proposed no fewer than four electoral systems for the assembly, by proposing a completely incomprehensible system, which has been described by the Minister as such, for the election of mayor. The debate has also stimulated the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) to continue his barrage of surely undeserved insults against the Liberal Democrats, accusing them of an anorak tendency while demonstrating certainly his growing credentials to be a trainspotter. We have had a customary erudite contribution from the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), who might prefer to be known as a superior majoritarian given that he is clearly an expert in that particular system. We have had sound sense and elegant erudition from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). We have had customary urbane reassurances from the Minister, who is very far from being either an anorak or a trainspotter. The point of the debate is how to achieve a clear and comprehensible system for the assembly and the mayor of London against the background of the great changes to the governance of London that are set out in the Bill. The Minister has made it clear that he cannot accept our amendments. We believe that his stance is mistaken. We believe also that the clarity that we seek can be achieved only by a first-past-the-post system of election both for the assembly and for mayor. We therefore seek to divide the Committee on amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I will be quick. I merely want to put it on record that the Liberal Democrats oppose the clause standing part of the Bill, for the simple reason that the Government have not argued their case strongly enough for the supplementary vote system. In reply to my intervention, the Minister made it clear that that would not ensure that a majority of Londoners had voted for the winning mayor—

Jim Cousins (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne Central)

Person.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Person. I thank the hon. Gentleman. Only our proposed system would ensure that the majority had voted for the winning woman or man. As I said, we are opposed to including the clause in the Bill.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

Any clause containing an election method for the London assembly that enshrines a method of proportional representation is unacceptable to Conservative Members. We shall divide the Committee on it.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

Mr. Martin, you performed a service to the Committee by urging the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) to get to his feet rapidly, as his speech was kept short. He and other Liberal Democrat Members have been making their arguments on the voting issue, but, ultimately, the issue will come down to numbers. Today, although he argued that the Government failed to argue our case sufficiently strongly, the Division numbers clearly show that we have won the argument. I tell the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that I quite understand his discomfiture. The official Opposition's arguments on the issue—which was debated in no small detail—also failed to convince the Committee, which comprehensively rejected the official Opposition's amendment. The Committee has had a protracted debate on the systems to be used to elect a mayor and an assembly. I do not propose to re-open the issues in this stand part debate. Our debates have had the benefit of the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—each of whom, in his own way, is an expert on the matter. As the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said, my hon. Friends took us to New Guinea, Alabama, Sri Lanka and back to London. As my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction said in replying to the previous debate, our proposals for the voting system for both mayor and the assembly are important and innovative. That is what Londoners voted for in the referendum, and it is what the Government shall deliver.

VOTING AT ELECTIONS

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 143, line 27, at end insert 'no later than 55 days prior to the date set for the ordinary election'. This is a probing amendment. Schedule 2 provides that lists of London member candidates must be submitted by the registered political parties, but there is no time scale. We want to ascertain the Minister's thinking on that.

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

The amendment would set for parties wishing to field candidates in the elections for London wide members a limit of 55 days before the assembly elections to submit their lists to the Greater London returning officer. The amendment is unnecessary and impractical. The time limits for the close of nominations in elections are normally laid down in secondary legislation, but the amendment would put a time limit in the Bill, which we believe would be an unnecessary constraint. If the normal time limits for local elections are used for the assembly elections, the last day for nominations under our proposal would be the 19th day before the date of the poll, excluding weekends and public holidays. For an election on 4 May 2000, nominations would have to be in on or around 31 March—about five weeks before polling day. We see no need to extend the campaign further, and electors will have every opportunity to get to know who are the candidates on a particular party list. The amendment could mean that nominations for London wide seats might close at a different time from nominations for constituency seats and mayor. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) would agree that that would be nonsense, because half the campaign would be under way and half the candidates would still be undeclared. He would also agree, after listening to my remarks, that there is no need for the amendment. There is no reason why we should not keep the normal time limits for local elections.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I welcome the Minister, who is my parliamentary neighbour, to our debate. I am tempted to say that her arguments are persuasive; this is not an issue that we have decided is a great cause to fight. There is logic in having a similar date, and there is certainly logic in not extending the formal campaign. No one who has been through an election campaign would want a six-week formal campaign instead of a three-week campaign. The pre-campaign will be bad enough without the formal campaign being elongated. It is perfectly proper for the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to table a probing amendment, and we should reflect on what the Minister has said. If we need to, we can return to the matter. Ideally, the list would be published on the closing date for individual candidacies for constituencies, if we are to have the system proposed by the Government.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 144, leave out lines 25 to 37. The amendment would remove the artificial 5 per cent. threshold, which any candidate seeking to be elected to the assembly by the list system has to surmount. There are many political views in this country that we disagree with, many that we find unacceptable and, on rare occasions, views that we find repugnant. Politicians of the left, the right and the centre usually find common cause in fighting and resisting the policies of the extreme right and the extreme left. We do so because we choose to, and because we are committed to the political process, but we are also committed to the democratic process. Everyone has views, particularly Members of Parliament, and we exercise our democratic right to express those views. One had only to go outside the House into Parliament square this afternoon to see demonstrators from Chile expressing their views for and against General Pinochet. Nowhere is the opportunity to express one's views in a civilised way more enshrined in tradition and culture than in this country. One of the most enjoyable ways of spending a Sunday afternoon is to go to Speakers' Corner, where the wide variety of views expressed range from the extreme to the eccentric. That commitment to democracy led us to table the amendment. The rationale behind it is straightforward and simple: if 4 per cent. of Londoners express support for a candidate and if, under normal circumstances, that is sufficient for him or her to join the assembly, it is right, proper and democratic for that 4 per cent. to have their voice heard on the assembly. However, under the system that the Government propose for the assembly—devised, I understand by a Mr. d'Hondt—any party standing for the London assembly will need at least 3.8 per cent. of the vote to get one of its members on to the assembly and, under extreme circumstances, that figure could drop as low as 2.8 per cent. Thus we are debating the difference between 2.8 per cent. and 5 per cent. Conservative Members would far rather accept the natural threshold than the arbitrary imposition of an extra 2.2 per cent. Why is someone's view unacceptable if 3 per cent. vote for him, but acceptable if 5 per cent. do so? The moral for the Government is that one cannot just pick and choose with the electoral system. If they do not like the consequences of proportional representation, they should not introduce it in the first place. The Conservative party is fundamentally opposed to the principle of PR. It produces weak, divisive Governments and assemblies, and severs the link with constituencies which we regard as important. Israel is experiencing a nightmare situation, with religious groups with low percentages of support holding the balance of power to the country's detriment. 7.45 pm It is all very well for the Government to have thresholds when it suits them. They had no threshold in the referendum for London and they had no such artificial threshold in Scotland or Wales. They should not have a threshold in London just because they might disagree with someone's political views. This matter goes to the core of democracy. If the Government cannot stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this important debate. Those of us who have been involved in London politics for a long time understand its significance. It will be the last substantive debate on the Bill and I hope that the Committee will excuse me if I take a few minutes to outline the issues. May I make it clear that the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power to prescribe a threshold—a percentage of the vote that a party needs to surpass in order to be elected—and that the maximum threshold would be 5 per cent.? I remember hearing a perfectly reasonable response from the Secretary of State, whose good faith I do not doubt. He said that he would consult widely on the matter before determining his view. My colleagues and I propose to vote against the schedule tonight because, at this stage, we do not want to concede that the discretion should be left in the hands of the Secretary of State, nor do we want to jump to the conclusion that, for the first time in Britain, a threshold will be set at 5 per cent., which is what will happen if we leave the schedule in the Bill. There are two main issues. The first is, how do we accommodate smaller, perfectly democratic parties?

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

Like the hon. Gentleman's.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

No, not like ours. Ours is a large party, although it is perfectly good and democratic. Indeed, it is a much older party than the hon. Gentleman's. This is a relatively easy issue. The obvious party to mention is the Green party, which has made a good contribution to British politics and to many of the political systems in the European Union and beyond. It has an interest in the outcome of this debate and would agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that, if there is to be a threshold, it should be the natural threshold, which works out at 3.8 per cent. Those who, unlike the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), have not received the briefing or done the work, might ask why the natural threshold is 3.8 per cent. I thought about it and calculated that, if there were 25 members, the threshold would be 4 per cent. However, 25 members plus one are needed for the counting, so 3.8 is the threshold. My gut reaction on the general question of a threshold for the assembly is that we should have the natural threshold. The weakness in that argument is that the threshold is determined by the size of the assembly, which is in a sense arbitrary. I understand that. Let me be absolutely honest: if we have a bigger assembly, as we propose, with 40 members, the threshold will be smaller. To get one seat out of 40 requires a threshold of 2.8 per cent. There is therefore no definite point at which the threshold is right. The second issue is whether a top threshold of 5 per cent. should be set. Britain has never had a threshold before, so it is a new experience for us and it is perfectly proper that we should debate it. It would require a persuasive argument to raise the threshold from its natural level. As I have said, I am no great expert in this matter, although I have an interest in electoral systems. I should like to cite four examples: New Zealand and Germany have a 5 per cent. Threshold—I am well aware that Germany has had a threshold for a long time as it is a legacy of the post-war settlement, imposed on it by this country as part of its redemocratisation and to avoid a repeat of what happened in the 1920s; Italy has a 3 per cent. threshold; and Israel has a threshold of between 2 and 3 per cent. Thus there is a range of thresholds in other perfectly reputable modern democracies.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

I challenge the hon. Gentleman's assertion that Britain has never before experienced a threshold in its voting system. Although we have never experienced an explicit voting system, the Opposition recommend that we accept the natural threshold of 3.8 per cent. We had a natural threshold in our voting system throughout the 19th century when, in all seats other than those in Ireland, there were only two candidates in practically every election. There was therefore a natural threshold of 49.9 per cent. During most of this century we have had three-cornered contests, so the threshold has been 33 per cent. Our system does include a threshold, so it is odd that the Opposition argue against one.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman's point is relevant to the wider debate, although it is not as relevant to recent history. I thought that he was going to give the example of Northern Ireland. It is true that Northern Ireland has a natural threshold, because it has had a single transferable vote system for a long time, but Great Britain does not. We have never had a prescribed threshold, nor has the Secretary of State had the power to determine a threshold. I am troubled about the prescribed threshold, because it is arbitrary—a 5 per cent. maximum is arbitrary. Even if the Secretary of State acts in good faith, the power would be on the statute book and could be varied by order at a later date. The Neill committee, and the Nolan committee before it, recommended that such electoral matters should go before an electoral commission. The Government have accepted that for Scotland, and there is such a proposal for the House of Lords. My instinct is that the matter of whether we have a threshold and what it should be must be referred to someone who does not have a party political view and does not have a party vested interest—a point that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) made in debates on other amendments. I am making the point in a non-oppositional way. The threshold will be set by a Labour Secretary of State, who will assess what will be the right threshold for the elections to be held next year. It will make a big difference to the Green party whether the threshold is 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 per cent. It could determine whether Labour has a majority in the assembly. In the general election, Labour got 49 per cent. of the votes cast in London, so it almost had a majority. If that were replicated, a decision on the threshold could determine whether Labour would get a majority on the assembly. That is a hugely political matter. Whatever advice the Secretary of State takes—the Callaghan Administration rejected the boundary commission recommendations at the end of the 1974–79 Government—he may make a much-criticised decision that is alleged to be party politically driven. We should avoid that. I ask Ministers to subject the matter to independent assessment before they make a proposition, so that it is out of the party political domain.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

Will the hon. Gentleman express his personal opinion about whether the Government are taking a cynical approach to deciding the threshold for party political advantage or whether their approach is a genuine attempt to ensure that extremist parties have no place in a London assembly?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am coming to that point and, in that sense, the hon. Gentleman and I come from the same political part of London. I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard me when I said that I respect the good faith of the Secretary of State. I do not doubt that the Government want to deal with that issue, and they would be criticised if they did not do so. I am not suggesting that they are trying to gain party political advantage. I am making the point that if the House gives any Minister of any Government the power to make the choice, his choice, given he is a political animal, will be affected by the political factor. The choice of a 2, 3 or 4 per cent. threshold could determine whether the Green party got a seat, and that could determine whether the Labour party had a majority. I want to address the question of how we deal with non-democratic, right-wing, illiberal, extremist and fascist parties. In every parliamentary election that I have fought in the docks and in the east end of London, I have had right-wing, racist opponents. I am happy to say that, without any thresholds, we have taken them on and seen them off. Over the years, the one thing that has united all three of the main political parties in my seat is the fact that, between us, we have been able to keep the vote for right-wing parties as low as possible, and in spite of expectations, they have never achieved more than about 2 per cent. I regard that as very important. What dangers do we see coming down the track from the right-wing parties? Philosophically, being a purist, I would prefer to start with a natural threshold, but I concede that we should not reject a prescribed threshold out of hand. There is a danger that, with 14 seats and a list system, extremists could whip up a right-wing agenda and get people out to vote for a right-wing party when they otherwise would not have done so. A racist candidate knows that he cannot win in the seat of the Minister for Transport in London or in the seat of my friend and neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). In a first-past-the-post system he will never get more than a few per cent. of the vote, but he takes part to incite racist views. Thank God, the right wing has only ever won one election, which was in Millwall a few years ago. The problem was rapidly dealt with, for which I pay tribute to the Labour party. The Secretary of State for Health and the Minister for London and Construction played a large part in that, and I pay tribute to them unreservedly. I would rather a thousand times that Labour won every seat in Tower Hamlets or anywhere else, than any of the right-wing parties. It would be unacceptable if right-wing parties were to win seats. A list system makes a difference. I am concerned that if we present to people the prospect of an extreme right-wing candidate being elected with 3.8 per cent. of votes cast, it may act as an incentive. They may think that they will get a right-wing candidate elected, whereas post-war electoral history shows that extreme right-wing parties have done badly in London—I put aside the rest of the country. We should not be simplistic about the past. The figures for the average votes cast across London for the British National party or the National Front show that they have done badly in the past, but their candidates have not stood in most seats. They have stood in only a few seats, so the figures give a false average. They have got a higher percentage of votes in the seats for which they have stood. It is still only about 1 per cent., so we must be careful not to award them a bigger influence or political importance than they have. Under the legislation, members of those parties will be able to stand as candidates for the assembly. Past voting figures are not a good comparison, because there has never been a slate of right-wing candidates. We share the Government's view that if the assembly is to represent London and if black people, Asians, Africans, Caribbean people and people of all backgrounds, races, creeds, colours and characteristics are to feel part of the electoral process and to be encouraged to take part in it, we must ensure that they are not subject to harassment, intimidation or political annihilation by people who have a dogmatic, undemocratic and racist agenda. I am sympathetic to the idea of a threshold, but I am unsympathetic to the proposal that it should be decided by the Secretary of State, however ethically aware and eminent he may be. I am unsympathetic to the idea that we should today, without any further debate among colleagues whose views we have not heard, decide that it should be no higher than 5 per cent. and that that is the absolute, because that figure has been plucked out of the air. I hope that, however we vote, hon. Members will agree that there should not be a "take it or leave it" conclusion—that the Government should not say "We have thought about this, and therefore we are absolutely right." They may be right, but we nevertheless need to have the debate. Let me make an offer to the Minister for Transport in London, whose credibility in this regard I have no reservations about endorsing. Ultimately, I should prefer an agreement to be reached between conventional, democratic, proper political parties, in relation to "green" parties but also in relation to how we deal with right-wing, racist, anti-democratic parties. If the outcome of this debate is Ministers' being able to say, "We are happy to get the best objective answers to these questions", it will be very welcome. 8 pm We support the removal of the provision from the Bill for the moment, but that should not be interpreted as opposition to a debate or a threshold. We need consensus. I am sure that the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who represent the borough opposite mine across the Thames and who have had experience of such issues, agree that is better for democracy. We have a common interest in securing the best possible democratic traditions. We all want to ensure that people who are bigoted, prejudiced and racist—people of whom I have been a victim when, as an MP, I have taken them on—are put on the margins of politics and never obtain a toehold in this country, as they have in some of our neighbouring countries across the channel.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

Let me say immediately that I respect the views expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and do not for a moment question the integrity of the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the racism that is endemic in a minority of the east London community. As I have said, I respect his party's integrity. The hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, that the British National party won a by-election on the Isle of Dogs in 1993, partly because of policies employed by the Liberals in Tower Hamlets. Those policies were condemned not just by the Commission for Racial Equality and by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but by the High Court, as being racist in their application to housing. In the climate that was created, the BNP was able to exploit antagonism in impoverished communities in relation to unemployment, housing problems, overcrowding and all the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman and I experience in Southwark and Tower Hamlets. I commend the Liberal Democrats for taking action. Let me make a belated suggestion. I know that members of the hon. Gentleman's party, including him, wanted disciplinary action to be taken against elements in Tower Hamlets. Friends of mine in the party argued for some time that it had been hijacked, and I do not for a second suggest that the responsibility lies directly with the hon. Gentleman or his party, but there is some culpability. Extremists of the right will try to infiltrate all political parties to pursue their own advantage. In 1993, the BNP won a by-election on a first-past-the-post basis, gaining nearly 1,600 votes and beating Labour by seven. We employed our resources massively to win back the seat, doubling our vote to 3,000; but the BNP increased its vote to 2,000. I speak as one who represents part of Tower Hamlets and part of Newham—an inner-city east London seat with a multi-cultural population, like those of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). My point is that, as it is easy for racists to play the racist card when it comes to poverty, overcrowding and homelessness, we should introduce artificial requirements to ensure that the racists have no platform. In the GLC elections of 1977, the National Front scored 19 per cent. In that context, a 5 per cent. threshold would be meaningless. I want to engender a multi-cultural London and to promote the diversity and richness that already exists. In a democratic society, there is no place for people who say, "You do not have a right to live. You do not have a right to a job. You do not have a right to live here, in dignity and with respect." We need thresholds of decency. I see this as nothing other than a genuine attempt by those who are concerned for society to make it clear that there is no place in that society for racism. I accept that many views exist about political theology, ideology and philosophy, but there can be no place for those who take a discriminatory or prejudiced approach to people because of the colour of their skin, their race, their sexuality or their religious origin.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, but, so that people do not receive an unhelpful false impression, will he confirm that the 19 per cent. figure that he gave for the 1977 election was not—thank God—the London-wide figure, but was only a local figure? Nothing approaching 10 per cent. has ever been achieved across London.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. We have seen what can be conjured up. In France, the National Front and Jean-Marie le Pen command a respectable number of votes. Thank goodness for the winning team in the French world cup, which was multi-cultural. Zinedine Zidane scored goals in the final. If anything cheered anti-racists throughout the world, it was the French winning the world cup. I have no hesitation in saying that, in a Parliament dominated by English Members. They may not be the greatest lovers of French culture, but, as an expatriate Scot, I do not have the same difficulty.

Oona King (Labour, Bethnal Green and Bow)

When we discuss the election of one local councillor, should we not bear in mind that in 1981 Jean-Marie le Pen managed to secure the election of only one local councillor, but 10 years later there were 1,000 in France? It takes only one to provide the electoral credibility that can start the process. That is why it is so important for the Government to provide for a 5 per cent. threshold.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

The bottom line is that fascism is not about democracy, about respect for the 5 per cent. threshold or about respect for humanity or individuals. The BNP and the National Front will put on an electoral facade in order to con people. They will say, "We are looking after white interests." But we know that, as soon as they have been beaten in the ballot boxes, they will take to the streets. They will continue to perpetrate violence against black people, and people who do not agree with them—against political opponents like all of us in the Chamber. There is no place for racism, extremism or fascism in our society. There is no disagreement about that. That is why Labour Members wholeheartedly support the Government's threshold, which we see as a message or symbol. We have read about the Lawrence inquiry, and we know what is happening in society. We are determined to create dignity and decency, and we must convey that message. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has said, if we give such people an inch they will take a mile; so we must give them nothing. We must give them no space in which to breathe, or to peddle their propaganda. We must prosecute them whenever possible when they express their views in writing, and we must not give them space in which to operate as a political organisation. We have learnt the lessons of history, from Germany and elsewhere. Such people must not be given a toehold. I respectfully suggest to Conservative Members that, although a 5 per cent. threshold introduces an artificial obstacle to democracy, democracy itself is too precious for us to give such people the air to breathe. This is a small step towards depriving them of their platform.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I admire the moral conviction of the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), but I cannot share his conclusions; rationally, they do not stand up. I wholeheartedly support amendment No. 58 and, on this occasion, we have support from the Liberal Democrats. As I said at the outset, there is, as Kenneth Starr might have observed, a pattern of behaviour emerging. Clause 3 contains the power for the Secretary of State to dictate the timing of the second and third elections to the Greater London authority. In schedule 1, which we did not debate, the Secretary of State has the power to decide when a boundary commission should examine constituency boundaries. Now, in schedule 2, the Secretary of State will have the power, if the schedule is passed unamended, to decide whether the threshold should be above the natural one, under the d'Hondt formula, of some 3.8 per cent., up to a limit of 5 per cent. It is surely for us to decide what the threshold should be during the passage of the legislation. I concur wholeheartedly with the judgment of my hon. Friends that it should be the natural threshold. If the d'Hondt formula has any merit—it has little—it is that it does at least set a natural threshold that eliminates the possibility of, I will not say rogue candidates, but not serious candidates, who have minimal support, being returned to office. I caution the House against artificially limiting the accession to the assembly, by diktat of the Secretary of State, of representatives of political parties that the Government may not support and the objectives of which they may not share. To do so is fundamentally undemocratic. It is for the electorate to decide who their representatives should be. If the electorate votes in sufficient quantities normally—that is, without such interference—to secure representation, they should be permitted that representation. If they are not, frustration results and the likelihood is greater, rather than less, that those who are denied representation will pursue anti-democratic, perhaps violent means to achieve their political objectives. We have seen with the proscription of Sinn Fein and other parties that such proscriptions are unwise. Setting an artificially low threshold will not have the result that the parties on the Government Benches desire.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it can be fundamentally undemocratic to support a threshold of 5 per cent. if he supports a system that has an implied threshold of at least 30 per cent.?

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I do not support any artificial threshold. I just happen to feel that the person who secures the most votes in any particular electoral area should be returned, however many people vote for him or for her. As I have said, it is not a matter for such jiggery-pokery. In my political career, I have seen people putting up supposedly hopeless causes. When I was first elected in Bradford, a representative of the Pakistan People's party stood in the Manningham ward in Bradford, West. It may have seemed totally illogical, but, at that time, to the Pakistanis, it seemed the right thing to do. No doubt Mr. Bhutto was pleased that they had a candidate, but that is beside the point. The lesson to be drawn was that the Pakistanis felt that a PPP candidate would have represented their interests best. Had he been elected, be it by 30 per cent., as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) suggests could have occurred, I would have accepted that result. 8.15 pm Who are we to decide which party or affiliation is unworthy of election? The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town cites the National Front. The Front-Bench team of the Labour party might suggest old Labour in certain circumstances, the Socialist Workers party or goodness knows who else. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) argued, the Greens might be denied an office that, without such interference, would properly be theirs; so might supposedly racial parties. In part of the east end, it could be a Bangladeshi candidate; people in that area might feel that a Bangladeshi was right. In Brent, it could be a Gujarati, or, in Southall, a Sikh. One does not want London to polarise on such racial lines, but, in certain circumstances, it might be better that there should be the possibility of such racial representation than that it should be artificially denied. The schedule as drafted demonstrates yet again the determination of Her Majesty's Government to proscribe, to interfere and not to allow the House to make its judgments. That is wrong. Electoral arrangements should be made here rather than by the Secretary of State or the commission, because commissions tend to be appointed by Her Majesty's Ministers.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I do not think that I was suggesting that we delegate the power to the commission. I was suggesting that we delegate the power to make the recommendation to a body such as that, but that it comes back to this place—Parliament—to make the decision on the basis of that advice.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

Of course. The hon. Gentleman is right. I was not following his remarks accurately enough in drawing the interpretation that I did, but I was thinking, for example, of other commissions that are told to do things on our behalf, such as the one on which Lord Wakeham will serve. I tend to misjudge commissions because they tend to be packed with people who will offer the advice that Her Majesty's Ministers seek. I welcome the fact that, on the issue of thresholds, if on few others, there is genuinely bipartisan agreement between my party and the Liberal Democrats. We are right. We should stick to the natural threshold of 3.8 per cent. under the d'Hondt formula.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

We are grateful for the opportunity that the amendment has afforded the House to discuss an important and serious issue. At present, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to have power to set a threshold of not more than 5 per cent. of the vote which a party or independent candidate would have to attain in order to win a London-wide assembly seat. We are under no illusions and we would regard it as grossly irresponsible if we did not listen and continue to listen to what the House says, and welcome and ask for views on what we propose. If the Bill is passed, It would be the first time that such a threshold has been set. We acknowledge that the reason why we have made the proposal is because we are presenting a unique electoral system in London. It will be the first time that the systems are being used to create this type of authority and city-wide government, and the city is, as virtually every Member has pointed out, multi-racial. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke of normal thresholds. Our proposals are ones that the people of London have agreed should be put in place. We are ensuring that the rest of the Bill goes through here. The Government's proposals have been overwhelmingly voted for in the two days of debate. But it is undoubtedly the case that, in certain constituencies, and in certain circumstances with many parties and, in some instances, individual candidates, those systems might result in a highly proportional result. Someone could be elected on less than 3 per cent., rather than what I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood has been said to be the normal threshold of 3.85 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) made a particularly passionate yet reasoned speech, speaking, as he does, for a multi-cultural constituency. He said, and I agree, that there should be no place in the House for those who represent racism, fascism or extremist views of any kind. There is, should, and must continue to be a clear message from the House that we would fight those who would use such arguments to return themselves to this place, and in particular, to what we are proposing as a city-wide government for London. This House is a torch for democracy, and has been for all its history, but there have been too many examples in the quite recent past of an unwillingness to counter immediately the forces of extremism, and we have seen them take over.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I in no sense belittle the ethical impetus which drives the Minister's arguments. But, quite candidly, we should fight evil forces of every kind in politics on the hustings and in every way possible in all our activities. But if a representative of the Marxist-Leninist fringe faction, or some racist party, secures the requisite number of votes by any natural system, be it d'Hondt or any other, we should respect the view of the electorate and try to counter the arguments of that person once duly elected.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I respect the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but I cannot in all honesty accept his argument. I have touched on the point that he has made with regard to normal thresholds and how they, in the unique system that we are putting in place for the first time in Britain to produce a unique form of city government, could, as I have had occasion to say, enable extremist parties to be elected with less than 3 per cent. of the vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town highlighted the kind of increase that there was in extremist parties in Millwall, even under the first-past-the-post system when parties were united in contesting those candidates. I repeat that the Government are proposing a unique form of city-wide government, but one which affords the opportunity for a genuinely representative, multi-racial, gender-balanced assembly, where small parties can be returned. Because of the dangers that we have experienced in the past and the potential for such dangers in the future, the Secretary of State should have the power to set a threshold. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), in his opening contribution, referred to what he regards as the iniquities of any form of electoral system other than first past the post. He described the detrimental impact of such a system in Israel. He failed to touch on the fact that Germany has had a form of proportional representation. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, the threshold there was imposed by the allies after the second world war, precisely to ensure that there would not be a rise of fascist and extremist parties. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey also referred to parties such as the Greens, and the fact that, in some instances, a normal threshold would impact against their being returned. No one is arguing that the Green party is extremist. I well remember the European elections when the Greens polled more than 4 million votes but, under that system, could return no Member to the European Parliament. That is slightly outside tonight's debate, because our electoral system for this unique form of city-wide government has been agreed.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I simply wish to clarify one point, because I may have misheard the Minister or she may have said something that she did not intend to say. She said that the Government want to prevent people from being elected if they represent extremist views and are below the natural threshold. My understanding is that the real debate, if we take percentages, is whether we accept the natural threshold which, given the Government's proposition, is 3.8 per cent., or whether we put up a higher threshold between that and 5 per cent. If a party received less than 3.8 per cent., it could not be elected in the next election for the London assembly because that would not be sufficient.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

No, the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the argument. I was responding to a point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood based on the definition of a normal threshold which, in this instance, as we have heard, could be argued to be 3.85 per cent. But, as I pointed out, it would be entirely possible, given our system, for someone to be elected at a threshold much lower than 3.85 per cent. The issue here is not that we are looking to create an artificial threshold on party political grounds. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that he had no doubt that the present Secretary of State would not consider that for one moment, and I understand what his concerns may be in the future. We wish to have an inclusive assembly, which allows a range of interests and views to be represented. But we are creating a unique form of city-wide government for a unique city. Given the system that we will introduce to elect the assembly and the dangers inherent in it, we believe that it would be right for the Secretary of State to have the power to set a threshold. We are proposing that that should be a threshold of not more than 5 per cent. of the vote. Because this is an issue of such importance, and because the matters raised tonight are so sensitive, but are of major importance in a democratic society such as ours, I ask the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw the amendment in the clear knowledge that the Government would not institute anything without the most—as I had occasion to say earlier—real debate on the issue.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I seek to intervene one last time before the Minister sits down, as I anticipate she is about to do. This is a question to which I do not know the answer. Does the hon. Lady happen to know whether, within the EU, city or city-wide elections, such as those for the Paris or Barcelona councils, particularly in countries such as France or Germany where this is a real live issue—

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

Why just in the EU?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

It could apply elsewhere, but I am concentrating on our neighbours. Do such countries have thresholds? Is there a precedent of city-wide, European, urban, multi-cultural, multi-race elections?

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I do not have that information at hand, but I shall be happy to obtain it and write to the hon. Gentleman. I stress again that this is a decision for the House inasmuch as the system that we are introducing is unique. As I have said, it is a new form of government. What we are considering would be the first example of a threshold being set in such circumstances. Every aspect of the systems that we are proposing must ensure public confidence. We do not want the proposal to be nodded—or even voted—through without the most comprehensive debate. In the clear knowledge that we want to return to the issue, I ask the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I appreciate the Minister's measured response to the debate. She is right to point out that this is a sensitive subject. I was not clear from her concluding remarks whether she was giving an undertaking to have another look at the issue. Perhaps she might like to clarify that.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I should be delighted to. I repeat yet again that the Government want the most detailed and searching debate on the issue. We are prepared to examine it again, but we believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to set a threshold. We have argued for 5 per cent., but we want opinions outside the House to be discussed and examined. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment, we shall be happy to discuss the issue in detail.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

This is the moment to discuss it in detail. What is the Minister proposing? Is she saying that if we withdraw the amendment she may make a concession on Report? It is important for that to be clear to help the Opposition make up their mind on their stance.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

Because of the sensitivity of the issues and the unique nature of what we are proposing, we should be able to listen to the arguments now that the debate has been entered into. They have mainly been in favour of what we are proposing, but there will be arguments against. I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that we are grateful for the opportunity to return to the issue on Report.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

rose—

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

rose—

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I give way to my hon. Friend.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

Is my hon. Friend's interpretation of the Minister's extraordinary quasi assurance the same as mine? Does he feel that the hon. Lady is refusing to relinquish the power of the Secretary of State to decide the threshold, which will not necessarily be the natural threshold under the d'Hondt formula? Does he also agree that it shows the fatuity of the proportional d'Hondt system that it leaves us scratching around to decide whether to exclude particular candidates with derisory numbers of votes that would never secure election under a proper first-past-the-post system?

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but I hope that he will not be offended if I stick to the point that I am trying to make with the Minister: whether she is making a concession to look at the issue again and return to it on Report. If so, we may well listen favourably to her proposal that we withdraw the amendment, but otherwise we consider the matter rather important. Perhaps she would like to clarify that.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has reduced the tenor of his contributions by implying that the Government do not regard what we have been debating as particularly important. I should like to make it abundantly clear that the Government will not re-examine the principle of a threshold, but we are prepared to examine the level at which it would be set. It is necessary for the whole House to be able to consider that. If he will withdraw the amendment, we shall have an opportunity for greater debate on Report.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I interpret that as an undertaking from the Minister to review the level at which the threshold is set and to revisit the matter on Report. We have a problem. I share the concern of other hon. Members about extremism. I respect those from inner-city seats who have to fight it. The Conservative party backs them in their fight. However, there is a problem. London has a huge ethical minority. I believe that it is 25 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ethical?"] I am sorry; a huge ethnic minority. If we add the further 5 per cent. from eastern Europe, the figure is 30 per cent. A respectable candidate who based his candidature on ethnic origins would be precluded by the Bill. That is where the conflict comes. We have a desire to be democratic, but we also want to combat racism. The problem is inherent if proportional representation is introduced to a city such as London. The Government cannot have it both ways. They can have an electoral system that does not take a chance. If they introduce a different system, those risks are inevitable. The Government did not feel it necessary to introduce the mechanism in Wales or Scotland. This is not an easy decision to come to, but the Conservatives have come down in favour of the democratic argument and we believe in the natural threshold. However, in the light of the Minister's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I shall be brief. We do not propose to divide the Committee. To help those who may have arrived expecting a Committee vote, let me say that my judgment is that there will not be one. If they want to stay, they are welcome, but, if they do not, they can go somewhere else. The previous debate, quite properly, became something of an exploratory discussion between the Minister for Transport in London and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). I want to say only that the Liberal Democrats will happily enter unconditionally into discussions with the Government. I hope that the correct interpretation of the Minister's response to the previous debate is that, outside the Committee, some discussions can take place between the parties whose members represent London in the House of Commons. We retain our preference for the position that I expressed in the previous debate: it would be better if that power did not reside with the Secretary of State, and if the recommendation came from a body that was not party political but independent, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) suggested. I hope that the Government can be persuaded on that point—I do not suggest that they are not open to persuasion. I understand that the Minister for Transport in London has a preferred position, but it would be helpful if, in responding to this short stand part debate, the Minister for London and Construction said, as he always does on sensitive issues, that, outside the Committee, we can pursue ways of reaching an agreement. If we do that, and if, in next year's elections, people stand on racist or extremist platforms, we can—as we eventually did during the second Millwall by-election—express a common view. On that occasion, the Conservative party and the Labour party, to their credit, and the Liberal Democrats were clear about how we should counter those who had entered the democratic process properly, but had done so to undermine the rights of everyone to participate equally in it.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

This short stand part debate brings us to the end of the Committee's deliberations on the first four clauses and two schedules of the Bill. We have had an interesting series of debates on an innovative constitutional arrangement that will give London a new type of leadership and create new electoral arrangements. Inevitably, in that process, difficult issues have arisen, one of which is the scope for unrepresentative and vicious parties, peddling racial hatred, to try to secure legitimacy through election. All of us who are familiar with the problems that occurred in Millwall in the early 1990s know how dangerous that threat is to good race relations in London, which is why the issue must be taken seriously. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London made clear, the Government believe that it is right for there to be a threshold to provide a safeguard against such an eventuality. No measure can provide a guarantee, but it can help to provide a safeguard. We recognise that different views have been expressed about how that threshold should be determined, at what level it should be set and how it should be expressed. Some might argue that it should appear in the Bill, rather than be determined by the Secretary of State. For that reason, my hon. Friend was happy to give the undertaking that the Government would reflect on that issue and return to it on Report. That is illustrative of the approach to the legislation that we have taken and will continue to take. Wherever possible, we shall try to secure agreement on issues of general concern to London.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Committee has rightly emphasised the importance of the issue. It would be helpful if the Minister could make one more offer: to do as he has done in respect of other matters and, not only promise further Government reflection, but convene outside the Committee a forum in which we can try to reach agreement between the three parties whose members currently represent London in the House of Commons. Ideally, we will have reached a common view on the issue by the time we go into the elections for the Greater London assembly.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I fear the hon. Gentleman will have difficulty in securing the degree of consensus he hopes for, given the fundamentally different positions adopted by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives on most issues. However, I have given an undertaking that the Government will reflect further and I am happy to meet representatives of the Liberal Democrats and of other parties who wish to come to see me in the period between now and Report stage. With that, I urge the Committee to agree to the schedule.

Education Funding(South Gloucestershire)

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

It will come as no great surprise to hon. Members to learn that the subject of my Adjournment debate has not been the sole topic of conversation this afternoon among my fellow Liberal Democrats. Having said that, it is an issue of substantial importance to thousands of children in South Gloucestershire, who are represented by me and by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), whose constituency includes a substantial part of South Gloucestershire, and who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The allocation of money between local authorities, especially for education, is a highly political issue because it relates to values. However, it is also a highly technical issue. I shall refer principally to those technical issues tonight, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively. I hope not to approach the issue on a party political basis. As I have said, my arguments are principally technical and hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent South Gloucestershire constituencies—I welcome also the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) who represents part of the authority area—share some of my concerns and may give voice to them during the debate. By way of background, I should explain that South Gloucestershire is an area with a rapidly growing population—in fact, it has one of the fastest growing populations in the country. Many new employers have located to the area—including the Ministry of Defence at Abbey Wood, the aerospace industry and Hewlett Packard—and large numbers of people have moved there also. That is not a one-off phenomenon as population projections suggest that South Gloucestershire's population will also grow rapidly over the next decade or two. That presents some particular problems to which I shall refer this evening. The Minister will be aware that I have tabled questions designed to assess the amount of money per primary pupil that authorities throughout the country receive under the standard spending assessment. The Minister will also be aware that South Gloucestershire usually finishes at the bottom of that league table. According to the written answer that I received, primary school pupils in South Gloucestershire receive an SSA of £2,215 each compared with the national average of £2,372. I am the first to accept that any league table must have a top and a bottom—although I do not welcome the fact that South Gloucestershire has been persistently at the bottom of it. I recognise that other authorities with greater deprivation and greater needs deserve more funding. That is not my problem tonight. However, I believe that the formula must achieve its desired objective: if it is trying to capture deprivation or need, it must do so in the right way. I argue not that South Gloucestershire should be at the top or the middle of the league table, but that the formula should achieve what it is designed to achieve. South Gloucestershire has remained at the bottom of the table following the announcement of this year's settlement—we could debate the generosity or otherwise of that settlement—partly because of reasons that are technical and difficult to explain on the basis of justice. I shall raise three principal issues, to which I hope that the Minister will respond positively. The Government allocate a certain amount of money per pupil and then multiply that sum by the number of pupils in the authority. The fundamental question is: which pupils and when? As I understand the system—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong as I do not claim to be an authority on local authority finances—the number of secondary school pupils is counted in September at the start of the academic year. That information feeds into the local government calculations in the autumn, and the money starts to filter through the following April. The process is completed within one financial year, which seems perfectly reasonable. The system is different for primary pupils and the count is taken not in September but in the preceding January. That will not make much difference to many authorities with static populations, but it makes an enormous difference in South Gloucestershire. I asked my local council—which has kindly provided all South Gloucestershire Members with a briefing for tonight's debate—how many primary pupils were added to the count between January and September. The answer is 267—more than 1 per cent. That is the equivalent of an extra primary school in our area—and that is an extra school this year, next year and the year after because it happens every year. It is not a one-off phenomenon. The council reckons that the figure is out of date and that, if the figure for September rather than the preceding January were used, it would receive an extra £750,000. That is serious money for South Gloucestershire. If the formula were based on up-to-date rather than out-of-date statistics, the loss to certain other authorities—assuming that the total pot remained unchanged—would be quite marginal. I do not argue that all London authorities should lose and only South Gloucestershire should gain. However, that discrepancy in the formula acutely affects my local authority and a small number of others with rapidly growing populations. If it were taken into account, it would result not in huge, sweeping losses but in only fairly modest losses elsewhere. The council has further calculated that, over the course of a year, it spends £1.5 million educating children whom it has not counted yet and for whom it has not received any money. There cannot be any rationale or justification for such a system. I shall illustrate the most extreme case. If a family moved in February 1998 to South Gloucestershire, perhaps because of a job at the Ministry of Defence at Abbey Wood, their children would not appear in the count of pupils at primary school until January 1999. They would not, therefore, become part of the local government calculations until autumn 1999 and the money to pay for their education would not emerge until April 2000. That means that the council would face more than two years of paying for books, equipment and other costs before it received a penny. I hope that there is a more rational system that we could use. In the age of the internet, it seems incredible that we have such out-of-date figures on the numbers of children in our primary schools. They are not difficult to count. My pre-primary school-age children move around rather a lot but even they are not too difficult to count. It has been suggested to me that, in the autumn, the Department's civil servants are under considerable pressure gathering material and information to work out all the figures. I accept that their work has a seasonal nature and that counting the children in September would place a greater burden on the Department than counting them in the previous January. With tongue only slightly in cheek, however, I shall make the Minister an offer. I understand that there are about 18,000 primary schools in England. I will personally type in the numbers of pupils in those schools if that will make the difference. If the only obstacle to counting the children currently in school rather than those who were in school nine months ago is the civil servants' lack of time, there are ways round that. I hope that the Minister will reassure me on that point. My researcher looked very nervous when she read that part of my speech. My second point is particular to South Gloucestershire but less so than my previous point. It relates to the education of children from beyond the local authority boundary. South Gloucestershire was recently reorganised and used to be part of the former Avon authority. Children go to and fro and now cross boundaries that did not previously exist. Therefore, partly for historical reasons, South Gloucestershire educates a particularly large number of pupils—about 3,000—from outside the authority. That number may be diminishing, but it is still substantial. If a primary school child is to be educated in a neighbouring authority, such as Bristol—which is the most obvious authority to export pupils to South Gloucestershire—the authority will be allocated £2,338. If the same child goes half a mile up the A38, to be educated in a South Gloucestershire school, we have to educate him or her for £2,215—£123 less. The authority is already under a great deal of stress. I am not trying to set up South Gloucestershire against Bristol, but many people move into the area and want their children educated in local schools, which are full. Those parents must understand not only that the schools are educating pupils from other authorities but that South Gloucestershire receives what it considers to be an inadequate amount of money for doing so—something that parents find particularly hard to accept. The bizarre result of the system is that, if a child from Bristol goes to school in South Gloucestershire, central Government save money because the child is being educated in an authority with a lower SSA. It is hard to believe that the cost of educating that child is really £123 less half a mile up the A38 because the books cost the same and the teachers are on the same pay scales. If, at the very least, the money followed the child, and central Government did not profit from the arbitrary fact that the child was going over a line on a map to be educated, that would substantially help the authority. My final point relates to the thrilling subject of the standard spending assessment formula. I suspect that the Minister and her colleagues have been bored to death by almost everyone in the country on that topic, so I shall follow suit. I am sure that she has heard many cases of special pleading as to why every authority wants more money.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Hear, hear.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Even Colchester. We need a system that is just and achieves its aims. I shall not dwell on the area cost adjustment, which is popular in the west country. I shall concentrate on the additional needs allowance aspect of the calculation. I understand that the principal variables used to try to identify additional education needs are ethnicity and lone parenthood. It is implausible that the proportion of children from ethnic minority backgrounds is a good proxy for additional educational needs when certain ethnic minority backgrounds tend to produce children with above average educational attainment. It is a crude indicator. South Gloucestershire is in many respects a relatively prosperous area, although with significant pockets of deprivation, but it has significant numbers of children with additional educational needs. I today asked the Library to give me another blessed league table showing the proportion of statemented children. It shows that South Gloucestershire has an above average proportion of such children. I can think of 100 reasons why such league tables might be dubious—policies vary and so on—but that example shows that, just because an area seems relatively prosperous on the face of it, it does necessarily lack children with additional educational needs. The present indicators are not picking that up.

Doug Naysmith (Labour/Co-operative, Bristol North West)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while the increase of some 6.9 per cent. in the education SSA for the coming year for South Gloucestershire may indeed be partly explained by growth in the area and by data changes, it is nevertheless greater than it has been in recent years? If, as he has expounded so eloquently, we can improve the way in which primary school head counts are translated into SSA figures, very significant progress will have been made.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on this very technical but basically simple issue of primary school head counts. I do not want to get into a pointless debate about whether this year's settlement is a lot or a little. My understanding from the authority is that 6.8 or 6.9 per cent., adjusted for the number of extra pupils—a number that is out of date anyway—means that we are getting the national average, but we are still around the bottom of the table. It does nothing about the technical problems, so I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The fundamental technical point is that the balance between the essential—I was going to say "bog standard", but I am not sure whether that is parliamentary language—figure for "ordinary" children and the tweaks for area costs and additional needs seems to be wrong. The variations across the country in the cost of educating one child seem to me to be too great to relate to the variation in true costs. As far as I can see, that is because the core figure for "ordinary" children seems to have too little weight and the variable factors seem to have too much. One might ask how South Gloucestershire has managed so far. It has done so in two ways. The first is by spending several million pounds in excess of its SSA.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I should like to reinforce the point about the head count, which would be of great benefit to my constituency. When a local authority area is given an SSA, it does not necessarily mean that the money is provided to meet it. In order for some local authorities to spend up to their education SSA level, they have to make cuts in other services. It seems as though central Government are abdicating their responsibility and passing it to local councils which are then blamed for the cuts, when in fact it is the inadequacies of central Government funding that are to blame. This is not a party political point—that policy was pursued rigorously by the previous Government and, unfortunately, the same ideas seem to be creeping into this Government's policies.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comment. With his background in local government, he understands far better than I do the arcane niceties of local authority funding. I hope that the Minister responds to that point when she sums up. I was setting out how South Gloucestershire has coped. It has coped by spending £7 million above its education SSA this year. With capping in place—various versions of it, at least—that means cutting other services. That in turn means that I get letters from pensioners asking why they are paying for social services when they used not to, and it means raiding the reserves, but I regret to say that the reserves are pretty nearly empty. The other services are in many respects underfunded rather than overfunded, and the only conclusion is that things cannot continue as they are. South Gloucestershire cannot go on raiding its reserves and cutting other services. Any allowances that the Minister can make tonight to deal with some of the injustices in the formula will be gratefully received. I am not asking that South Gloucestershire be moved to the top of the table, or even the middle. I am simply asking that some manifest injustices, especially the use of out-of-date figures on primary school pupils, be corrected. I hope that the Minister will send us home tonight with a message for the children of South Gloucestershire that, at long last, under this Government the funding for their education will soon be put on a proper footing.

Roger Berry (Labour, Kingswood)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate and on an excellent speech. I agree, I think, with everything that he said. The issue is extremely important to his constituents, my constituents—three-quarters of whom reside in South Gloucestershire—and the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) and for Wansdyke (Dan Norris). We have all made representations to Ministers on this and related issues. Indeed, on one occasion we managed to write a joint letter—all in the tradition of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament agreeing to get rid of tribalism and to co-operate with and listen to each other. I notice the absence of interest of a single Conservative Member in a debate on educational funding in South Gloucestershire. I have been wondering why so many Liberal Democrats are present. I am sure that it is because they anticipated a quality speech from the hon. Member for Northavon, and that it had nothing to do with whether he would announce his candidature for his party's leadership.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but we should remind ourselves that this is a debate and not a rally.

Roger Berry (Labour, Kingswood)

I am not the campaign manager of the hon. Member for Northavon, and I of course accept that rebuke. I merely emphasise that the four hon. Members—including myself—to whom I have referred, have very seriously supported the arguments of South Gloucestershire council on this issue. I acknowledge and welcome the fact that the increase in South Gloucestershire's education standard spending assessment is significantly greater than in previous years. Some schools in my constituency are already benefiting from the new deal. There are new classrooms, and class sizes are coming down as a result of the Government's initiatives. I warmly welcome the substantial additional funding for education overall. Like the hon. Member for Northavon, I feel strongly that South Gloucestershire council is being treated unfairly, but I do not do so simply because of a place in a league table. League tables are quite useful, but given that some local authorities must be at the top, some in the middle and some at the bottom, it is sensible to ask why they are in such places and whether there is any case for doing something about it. League tables are a guide to asking sensible questions. When I do so about South Gloucestershire council's ranking for education SSAs, I must confess that I reach very similar conclusions to the hon. Gentleman. Why is South Gloucestershire council's education SSA so low? First, it is due to the allowance for area cost adjustment. I say no more about that except that at least four hon. Members present, who have served on either the former Avon authority or district councils in that area, have made this argument to successive Governments year after year. We all believe that, for our part of the country, the way in which the area cost adjustment is dealt with is inequitable. Secondly, there is the issue of additional educational needs, about which, as the hon. Member for Northavon has said, concern has been recognised. The Government have recognised that that, too, is flawed. Unfortunately, however, we do not yet have a more satisfactory solution. Thirdly, the education SSA in South Gloucestershire is too low because of the date on which children in school are counted to calculate it, as has been mentioned. The primary SSA for the next financial year, 1999–2000, is based on the number of pupils in school in January 1998—the beginning of last year. Obviously, pupils who started primary school in September 1998 will not be funded by the SSA until April 2000, which is a delay of 18 months. I am aware of the justification for using the January figures for primary school children and the September figures for secondary school children. The unfortunate thing about children is that they do not all become five at the beginning of the school year.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

indicated assent.

Roger Berry (Labour, Kingswood)

The Minister is right. It is profoundly awkward and it is a serious reason why dealing with the count for the primary SSA is more complex and difficult than dealing with that for children starting secondary education. One can see the argument that, if it has to be September, January or April, why not take January, and I dare say that that could be the justification for doing so. Unfortunately, schools cannot staff classrooms on that basis. They have to plan to have teachers there throughout the year. Therefore, a general problem is confronted when the count is based on youngsters in primary school in January, but South Gloucestershire has the particular problem that, because of rapid growth, the relevant pupil numbers are much more out of date than for the majority of other local education authorities. I am sure that it will be said that, this time round, the increase in the education SSA for South Gloucestershire is significantly better than in previous years, as I said, and I welcome that. It might even be said that the increase is one of the largest in the country, and that would be true. The precise reason why it is one of the largest is rapid population growth, because pupil numbers are rising by about 2 per cent. each year. South Gloucestershire is being unfairly treated as regards the primary SSA precisely because primary school numbers are rising by that much. That rapid growth in population—at Emersons Green in particular, but also elsewhere—means that the figures are seriously disadvantaging the council. The director of financial resources—it used to be treasurer, which was easier to remember—information technology and so forth for South Gloucestershire council, Richard Szadziewski, who is the officer responsible, estimates that the council will have to spend £1.6 million to fund children who are in school, but who do not exist as far as the SSA calculation is concerned. The SSA for primary education should be calculated on the basis of the number of children of primary age who were in school in the previous September, as the hon. Member for Northavon said. I urge the Minister seriously to consider that suggestion. If that change cannot be introduced for 1999–2000, I seriously urge her and her colleagues to consider introducing it in the following year. The present system is manifestly unjust to a local education authority that is experiencing a rapid increase in pupil numbers. We are not talking about changing the formula. Nor are we talking about a difficult negotiation, in which there will be winners and losers so that it will be a problem. In this case, we are talking about simply changing the data to which the formula is applied. That would make a profound difference to South Gloucestershire and, perhaps, one or two other local authorities, but it would have virtually no impact anywhere else. In conclusion, and I apologise if I have spoken too long, I not only acknowledge but warmly welcome the fact that South Gloucestershire council has received a significant increase in its education SSA. It is the best SSA for years but—this must be said—a significant reason for that is the increase in pupil numbers. The increase in the education SSA does not diminish the strength of the council's argument that education funding at present is unfair. I urge the Minister and her ministerial colleagues to consider these issues further.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

First, I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on raising the topic that is before us, which is clearly one that will concern his constituents and all those who live in the council area. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) in saying that I think the hon. Gentleman delivered the message in a sensitive and sensible way, which enables us to have a decent conversation about an important issue. I acknowledge the interest that my hon. Friend and other colleagues who represent seats in the area have shown in this issue. Before I come to answer the questions that have been raised—I shall discuss the fundamental issues in some detail—I want as a Minister with responsibility for education to acknowledge the achievements of schools within Gloucestershire. Whatever their input in terms of finance, their output is very good. The key stage 2 results for the key subjects of both English and maths are above the national average. That comment is not intended to score a cheap point—"If you can do that with a small amount of money, I might take some more off you next year." I will take any opportunity to praise good quality teaching and effective learning wherever that may be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, the debate takes place in an atmosphere and against a background of an increasing amount of money going into schools. I understand that this is an argument about the share of the pot, but I know that I would not have been expected to reply to the debate without making it clear that the pot is larger this year than last year, and that it will be larger still over the next three years. The fact that there will be a £19 billion increase over the settlement period of the comprehensive spending review enables us, perhaps, to address some of the issues that will arise. It is far more difficult to do that at a time of falling budgets than when they are increasing. I accept, of course, that if there is more money available, there is an argument for wanting a fair share of the cake if the cake is about to grow. I am happy that the point has been made that the money that is being made available is increasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood is right to say that education SSAs will rise by 5.7 per cent. this year. South Gloucestershire's provisional education SSA will rise by 7.2 per cent. I do not know where that puts it on the league table, but I know that measured against the comparable figure last year, it is an increase that is above the national average. My hon. Friend was right to say that that is because of increased pupil numbers. In some ways, because the pot is larger and because most of it is delivered on pupil-led funding, that has been reflected in an increase in the SSA. That is the position whatever count is taken. The debate comes down to the SSA formula because that is the criterion that decides how much money will go to each local authority and then to schools. An important point is when we do the count. I shall not argue that it would not be better to have more recent figures of pupil numbers for deciding the count. That makes sense and there is neither an educational argument nor an economic one for using any figures but the most recent that it is possible to obtain—and it is essential to validate them and to ensure that they are robust. It should not always be assumed that greater numbers will mean more money. The crucial factor is rate of growth compared with rates of growth within other local authorities. There could be a gain by not having an accurate reflection because of the comparable rates of growth within other local authorities. An individual rate of growth might be large and it might be thought large compared with other local authorities, and that would be the key point. There may be more children in schools, but how is that reflected when compared with pupil growth across the nation? The fact that pupil numbers have grown nationally means that the national pot from which resources are distributed has been larger this time round. It would be a good idea if the September count used for secondary schools could also be used for primary schools. I was grateful for the offer made by the hon. Member for Northavon, although I suspect that he may not be the only Liberal Democrat Member who is filling in job application forms this evening. With respect, if the solution was as simple as typing numbers into a computer, I would instruct our officials to do so. I would make sure that the allocation of civil servants at that key point was sufficient to allow us to do that. The critical date is not when the money starts being spent in schools, but when the local authority settlement is announced. There is a relatively short time between September and the date when the Government must make decisions about that. One of the things that I have learnt since becoming a Minister is that the figures are checked, rechecked, and double and triple checked, because as the hon. Gentleman said, key decisions depend on those figures. I am told by civil servants that although they find it possible to carry out such checks in that time for the 6,000 secondary schools, they do not believe that at present they could do the same for the 20,000 primary schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood remarked, at the start of the school year, there is some fluctuation before the numbers settle down, especially as primary schools may have a common enrolment date, but do not have a common starting date. Nevertheless, we would be happy to reduce the time between allocation and count. If technology makes that possible in the medium term, there is nothing to prevent us from doing so. That is our wish. We have no ulterior motives, provided that I could promise hon. Members that the numbers would be as accurate as they are now. The best that I can offer now is to say that I hear what all hon. Members have said. The issue affects other local authorities as well. The fact that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter tonight will serve as a reminder to me and help me to keep it in mind. When we can change the counting date, I have no objection to doing so, and nor do the Government.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. LEAs have a rough idea in September how many primary pupils they have to educate, as they have to pay the teachers' salaries, arrange for the contracts to be drawn up, buy the books and so on. Would it not be possible to get a provisional figure from all LEAs, with some penalty mechanism for LEAs that give an inflated figure? Is it not better to have the right sort of figures—I dread the phrase "the right ball-park"—rather than to use a figure from eight months before that turns out to be completely wrong? We could at least now set the date as April. I do not believe that it takes from January to November to get the numbers right.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

The hon. Gentleman paused after he said "the right", and went on to say, "sort of figures". He was correct the first time. It is better to allocate money on the basis of actual pupils, rather than on estimated pupil numbers. We have considered the use of estimates as an option, but that would create new bureaucracy to pay money back, claw it back and argue with local authorities about the accuracy of figures. That was one of the issues discussed in "Fair Funding". On the whole, schools are not keen on using projected numbers. They would prefer their money to be allocated on actual numbers. The hon. Gentleman's argument has some validity, but there are strong arguments against it. It would affect our ability to move quickly if we paid out money to some local authorities and later had to claw it back. The hon. Member for Northavon perceived correctly that I was about to move on to the other tricky point—what constitutes the standard spending assessment formula. I shall happily keep his point in mind. I shall also happily reflect and take advice on whether it is ever worth moving the timetable by only a few months. Making such a change is very much not a political decision, but a matter of the political machinery practising the art of the possible. No political impediment stops our receiving more accurate and more recent figures; no one has any such political agenda. As I now realise that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in the matter, I shall keep him informed of developments. SSAs are a terribly complex matter. I realise that hon. Members know that SSAs are not—and should not be—determined to provide the same spending level for each pupil, but should ensure that the same education standard is available across the country, acknowledging the fact that the cost of providing education varies from one local education authority to another. Additional education needs, providing free school meals, meeting small schools' transport costs in rural areas and labour costs in the south-east and in London are all factors that have to be considered. The hon. Member for Northavon cited two factors—ethnicity and single-parent families—as major elements in determining SSAs. The fact is that there are so many elements in determining SSAs that the process is an absolute minefield. Moreover, the debate on the relationships between those elements, too, is a minefield. The hon. Member for Northavon said, for example, that ethnicity surely is not the key factor in determining whether extra resources are needed in a classroom. Interestingly, although ethnicity is a factor at some key stages, poverty becomes a greater factor by key stage 4. Moreover, the situation changes at each key stage and across the education system. Therefore—although it would not reflect real life—it would be good, and easier administratively, if everyone could agree on some factors in determining SSAs.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

As a kindred spirit—now that South Gloucestershire is back in the historic county of Gloucestershire—I can have some say in this debate, even if we are in a different education authority. My hon. Friend the Minister has been making a valuable point. I appreciate why the educational needs dilemma has not yet been resolved, as doing so might have made the poorest children in London worse off. However, surely there will be a need for a mechanism in the next three years to consider how we can manage change, given that additional educational needs seem to be one of the many ingredients for disparities and unfairness in the formula.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and shall try to deal with them—particularly and pointedly—in a moment. It is amazing that not one hon. Member or council leader queued up to tell me that his or her local authority's SSA was too generous. I smiled when the hon. Member for Northavon started his speech by saying that he would not be making a party political argument. I can tell the House exactly how the battle-lines were drawn in the discussions on SSAs: they were drawn parochially, according to a local authority's boundaries. Even if we could have changed SSAs and offered funding protection this year, at a time of increased spending, some local authority leaders and local authority associations would still have been split on the matter, as they wanted also to increase their share of a larger cake. As the hon. Member for Northavon will know, in the past few months the Government have been consistent in dealing with the matter. The bottom line is that, had there been general agreement on the matter among local authorities and local authority associations, we might have been able this year to make some progress in adopting an SSA that was accepted as being fair. However, there was no such agreement. I feel strongly that we cannot fundamentally change SSAs every year—or even every three, five or 10 years—but that we have to get SSAs right. This year, despite all the effort that has been put into the matter and all the contributions that have been made, we did not feel that there was unanimity or that we could have made more progress. However, that is not the end of the debate. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that more work needs to be done on that issue, and the Government hope to return to it over the lifetime of this Parliament. We have asked local authority associations to continue with their work, and we will continue to do so. I represent a constituency in Birmingham, in the midlands, not a southern seat. I am not saying that the SSA is fair and equitable and can be defended on either pure educational grounds or even on the ground of giving opportunity to all children. We are all at one about that. I hope that, in this time of an increasing budget, we can seize the opportunity to achieve something that, although it is not perfect, we can all live with and that does a reasonably balanced job of treating our children fairly. As a Minister, I have to live with that SSA formula, both this year and next year, but I want to do something about what I believe to be inequality of resource allocation. I must use the mechanisms that are to hand and, because of that, we have looked carefully at the money that does not come through SSAs, but through the standards fund and other pots of money over which the Government have more control. I remind hon. Members who represent the South Gloucestershire area that, as well as the 7.2 per cent. increase in SSA funding, we are making £3.3 million available through the standards fund. That is 10 per cent. more than we made available for the local authority last year and it includes £500,000 specifically to reduce class sizes. Capital funding this year for South Gloucestershire is £900,000. When the hon. Member for Northavon and I met, I thought that we would discuss performance tables in respect of allocation of resources because he was bound to say that South Gloucestershire is at the bottom of those tables. I do not deny that; it is clear that pupils in his area receive less funding on a straight SSA basis than any others. Where we have flexibility, however, we are trying to put resources into certain areas. The argument is not about this year's underfunding; underfunding is historic, because the argument has never been tackled and these difficult issues have never been grasped. It is interesting to compare funding in respect of the standards fund. South Gloucestershire has received more standards fund allocation per pupil than more than 115 authorities, and more capital funding than more than 135 authorities. South Gloucestershire would appear in the top part of such a league table. South Gloucestershire received 20 per cent. more money per pupil through the standards fund than the national average, and 75 per cent. more money per pupil than the national average through our support for capital funding. I know that that is a smaller stream of revenue and capital, but that was where we had flexibility this year and where we could begin to try to rectify some of the faults, which I agree exist, within the SSA formula. Authorities that do badly under the SSA formula are stuck with that for the next two or three years, but it may be possible to find other ways of getting money into those local authorities. That may offer some reassurance—although big bucks, to use a crude term, are not involved—about the plight of local authorities that get a rough deal in SSAs, through no fault of their own and because of what happened in their area years ago.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Will the Minister therefore confirm that the impact of what she has told the House is that, when using the flexibility that she claims the Department has to choose which of the 16,000 LEA bids made since the Government took office will be successful, the Department is using as one of the criteria for selection the position on the SSA per pupil league table? Is the implication of that that LEAs that are high on that league table are wasting their time putting in a bid?

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

No. The criterion must always be the quality of the bid. The hon. Gentleman knows that when decisions are made, we always look at the overall picture. What will never be tolerated, however, is a bad bid—someone going through the standards fund to a local authority just to get the money. The key issue is that the Government's national agenda must be met. I am delighted if we can ensure that local authorities' needs are met through sources of Government funding, of which there are many.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Some of my constituents in Gloucestershire will say that we receive more capital funding because our schools are falling down. One school in my constituency has nets to catch the roof tiles so that they do not hit the children on the head, and home economics and science classes are taught in corridors. Another school has had to approach the lord of the manor for more land because it is overcrowded. I suspect that the fact that we have received more money from that bit of the pot simply reflects the continuing unmet need. My real concern tonight is about current expenditure—bread and butter money for year-in, year-out needs.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He was perfectly right in the first half of his comments: it is wrong that a school in his authority should have to have a net to catch tiles falling off the roof. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that that is not important, so he should not say that he is not asking for increased capital spending. If I were him, I would gratefully receive it and shout it from the rooftops with tiles on. Although the debate has been about revenue funding, we are discussing the whole picture. This debate has been useful. It will continue because I sense great dissatisfaction among many hon. Members about how their local authority is dealt with in terms of SSA methodology. We do not want to change it to make it worse; we want to change it to reflect real needs, so that children throughout the country have a similar standard of education. Given that that is such a large task with huge implications, it is worth getting right. On that basis, I am entirely happy that we have not tackled it this year, but very much hope to return to it next year. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon for his comments. I shall reflect on them and keep him and other hon. Members informed if we are able to make further progress.