Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority Bill

House of Commons, 4 May 1999.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

The House may like to know at this stage that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to be debated on Third Reading.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE AUTHORITY AND THE ASSEMBLY

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 2, line 32, leave out 'or (6)'.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 94 to 98, 108A and 99 to 101.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Part I of the Bill establishes the new Greater London Authority and the systems by which the mayor and assembly are to be elected. The model of government set out in part I, and throughout the Bill, is a radical one. There will be a new strategic authority—headed by a directly elected mayor and democratically accountable to the people of London—to tackle problems and co-ordinate action on a citywide basis. The voting systems that we are putting in place will underpin that new model of government. They will help to deliver a strong executive mayor with a clear mandate from the people of London, and an assembly that can hold the mayor to account and is inclusive and representative of London as a whole. The elections to the authority will be treated as local authority elections for the purposes of the Representation of the People Act 1983, except where the new electoral systems that we are proposing make existing local government provisions impractical or inappropriate for authority elections. Where changes are needed, I have been keen to adopt a bipartisan approach. I have written to the main Opposition parties on several electoral issues in order to achieve a consensus, as far as possible. I hope that we can maintain this constructive approach as the Bill moves to another place. That is our intention in the amendments, which respond to various issues raised by Opposition Members in Committee. Amendments Nos. 93 to 101 provide for the date of the first ordinary elections to the authority to be specified in the Bill. Hon. Members who served in Committee will recall that I wrote to them on 15 April, setting out details of the amendments that I proposed to make to clause 3. I trust that hon. Members of all parties are satisfied that the amendments meet the commitments that we made in Committee to reconsider the provisions. I made it clear in Committee that we were prepared to consider amendments to write the date of the first elections—4 May 2000—into the Bill, with appropriate provision to enable the elections to be delayed in exceptional circumstances, such as disaster or civil emergency. The amendments achieve that. Also, and in the light of the views expressed in Committee, I have concluded that the provisions of clause 3(2), which empower the Secretary of State to designate the years of the second and third elections by order, are unnecessary. Ordinary elections to the authority will therefore follow in a clear four-year cycle from 4 May 2000. Amendment No. 108A is a technical amendment to clause 18, which provides for the Secretary of State to make payments in respect of the first ordinary elections from the Consolidated Fund. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the Secretary of State must, in preparing an account for the sums issued to him from the Consolidated Fund, state in that account what he has done with the sums received. As I have said, this is a technical amendment to ensure that arrangements for payments from the Consolidated Fund are in line with other legislation in that area, and I ask the House to support it.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

As the amendments are very similar to some tabled by Conservative Members in Committee, we have no trouble with them.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I echo entirely the comments of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). We made those points in Committee and the Government have been accommodating; we are grateful.

SECTION 4

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 166, line 29, leave out 'the prescribed percentage' and insert '5 per cent.'.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 137 and 138.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

These amendments put on the face of the Bill a fixed electoral threshold of 5 per cent. for the election of Londonwide assembly members. I recognise that this is a sensitive issue, which was the subject of considerable debate in the Committee proceedings on the Floor of the House in January. Because of that, and in the light of recent events, I will take a few moments to restate precisely why we consider a threshold to be necessary, and why we have decided that it should appear on the face of the Bill and not be subject to order-making provisions as originally proposed.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

What does the Minister mean by "in the light of recent events"?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman cannot be unaware of the shocking events in London in the past three weeks. I should have thought that all hon. Members would recognise the real concern about people who, for whatever reason, seek to stir up racial hatred or hatred against any section of the community. This is not a matter that any political party can take lightly. We consider that, in the context of the proportional electoral system that we propose for the assembly, a threshold is a necessary safeguard against the possibility of extremist parties or candidates gaining a toehold in our democratic processes having won only a very small proportion of the vote. Once established, extremists and their views could begin to receive a disproportionate amount of publicity, and the corrosive effect of those views on local communities would in turn begin to have a disproportionate effect. Of course, no threshold can be an absolute safeguard against parties or candidates who represent extreme views. In the unlikely circumstances of such a candidate winning more than 5 per cent. of the vote, that candidate would win a London member seat. But if we assume a 50 per cent. turnout, that would require a party or individual candidate to win approximately 125,000 votes from across the whole of London. As members of the Committee pointed out, there are significant drawbacks attached to the setting of such thresholds in that they will not discriminate between the good, the bad and the ugly of minority opinion. Consequently, in seeking to prevent the bad and the ugly, we run the risk of denying a seat to parties or individuals pursuing worthy or worthwhile minority interests, who may also fail to exceed the threshold and who might otherwise have won a seat. We must, therefore, ask whether that is a price worth paying. I believe that it is. A threshold—for all its imperfections—is a bulwark intended to deny a platform to those who, among other things, peddle race hatred, who spread fear among our citizens and seek to undermine our democratic system. That is why we have decided that this measure must be included in the Bill. 4.15 pm As my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and I made clear in Committee, we wanted to consider the views expressed by the Committee, and others, before taking a final decision about how this policy should be implemented. Having done so, I wrote to the hon. Members for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 8 March, indicating that I now favoured dispensing with the Secretary of State's discretion to vary by order the level of the threshold, and seeking their views. I am pleased to be able to report that they have responded positively to my proposal. I believe that, with the threshold specified on the face of the Bill, parties and candidates will know and understand exactly how the fundamental features of the elections that they are contesting will work, and what they will therefore need to achieve to become members of the assembly. Any threshold is to some extent arbitrary. I know that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has done some research which shows that levels of thresholds vary from system to system across Europe and beyond. However, 5 per cent. is a clear and readily understood figure, which is well precedented. It was established in the German federal system, which the British Government had some part in setting up after the second world war. In that country, the threshold has provided an effective bulwark against the resurgence of Nazi or fascist tendencies, although it has not prevented the minority views of parties such as the Green party from gaining representation through the democratic process. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has raised with me the question of whether the threshold should in future be referred to some independent and impartial body for advice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are proposing to establish an electoral commission, one of whose functions will be to keep under review, and advise on, the modernisation of electoral law. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I agree that the commission could usefully in future years consider what the effect of the threshold has been and the extent to which it has affected the outcome of the elections. The commission will therefore have a role in advising the Government on the threshold.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful to the Minister for his serious consideration of that matter. The electoral commission will examine the effects historically of the threshold introduced by the Bill, but will it be able to make a recommendation about the appropriateness of continuing with it in elections in London or elsewhere?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As the commission is not in existence, it would be premature of me to anticipate its powers. However, I have given the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he sought, which is that we believe that this is a matter that could and should be referred to the electoral commission. We must trust the commission to decide how best to respond. I have no doubt that, if recommendations are considered appropriate, the commission will wish to make them. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me to flesh out his thinking on this matter in more detail, I should be happy to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. This is a serious and important matter which the House should consider with care. The Government have considered the issues and reflected on the views expressed in Committee. We have discussed our proposals with the principal Opposition parties, and we believe that the proposals that we are making now are right.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

We expressed our concerns about the threshold proposal some months ago, in the Committee deliberations on the Floor of the House. We were worried that minority views—such as those of the Green party—could be shut out. If 4.5 per cent. of London wants an extreme candidate—of the left, the right or the environmental lobby—there is an argument that asks why those people should not be able to vote for such a candidate. The events of recent weeks have persuaded Conservative Members that the argument lacks merit. I accept that the arrest—and it is no more than that at this stage—over the weekend of a gentleman in connection with the recent nail bombings suggests that they were not the work of an extreme group. I suspect that that was the thinking behind the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Nevertheless, the series of outrages raised again the spectre of extremism in London—it tends to be in London—and we must address that in setting out the political arrangements for elections to the London authority. While most people talk about this as a matter of groups on the extreme right, most civil disobedience in London in recent years has been from the extreme left. I am thinking in particular of the miners' strike and the poll tax rioters. With some reservations, we support the amendment, but the Minister must answer two questions. First, he must explain to those who still have doubts why someone's extreme views are abhorrent if he gets 4.5 per cent. of the vote but acceptable at 5.5 per cent. Secondly, can he confirm that a repeat of the Greater London council election result of 1977, when the British National party polled 5.3 per cent., would mean that it would get someone elected to the new assembly? Where it put up candidates in 1994, the BNP polled 18.2 per cent. of the vote, and in 1998, 7 per cent. So it is possible that extreme candidates will be elected to the authority despite the amendment. That highlights the weakness of proportional representation. If the Government feel that there is a threat, the solution is to rethink in the other place whether it is the right form of electoral system for London. The greatest weakness of proportional representation is the disproportionate power that it gives minority parties and the fact that it allows into office parties whose views most democrats find unacceptable. The answer is to return to first past the post for the London authority.

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

I am delighted that the Government have tabled this amendment, which I called for on Second Reading on 14 December. Many of my constituents have been anxious over the past few weeks after the London bombings. I have in my constituency mosques, Hindu temples, gurdwaras and synagogues. I have ethnic minorities from all over the world and thousands of refugees. The people of Ilford are united in resolute opposition to all forms of racism and fascism. They have good reason, because many of them—or their grandparents or parents—came to this country fleeing fascism, racism and xenophobia. I was therefore surprised by the argument of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). I thought that he was arguing that 5 per cent. discriminated against the Greens and that it would be good if they were elected even with only 3 or 4 per cent. However, he also seemed to argue against the electoral system that would make that possible. I am no great fan of proportional representation. I am a fan of electoral reform, but we can discuss that another time. Once we have agreed an assembly, we have to make a judgment. Do we wish to allow any party that can get a minimum vote to be represented, or does democracy require vigilance and safeguards against extremist, undemocratic, racist and xenophobic parties? I make no apology for believing that democracy must be defended against its enemies. One defence is a threshold to prevent the parties that peddle race hate, xenophobia and anti-semitic propaganda from getting a platform to start their insidious progress in electoral systems, but there is no guarantee. The hon. Member for Croydon, South may be right that 10, 15 or 20 years ago, some such parties might have gained a foothold. They were not standing everywhere in London, of course. They might have had concentrated pockets of support in some local authorities but that would have been offset in other areas, including my own borough, where their support would have been extremely low. On an all-London basis, I suggest that a threshold of about 5 per cent. might be appropriate. However, if there were any suggestion that those racist parties—peddling hatred and extremism—which are anti-democratic in their practice and their propaganda would achieve a breakthrough, it would be quite right to have a threshold higher than 5 per cent.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

May I clarify the matter? In the 1977 GLC elections, the National Front put up candidates in every GLC constituency and received 119,000 votes, which was 5.3 per cent. That is very close to the figure of 120,000 given by the Minister. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) seems to be arguing for a threshold that is higher than 5 per cent.

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

I should be happier with a threshold that was higher than 5 per cent., but I am happy to support that threshold rather than for there to be no threshold at all. We must stand firm against the possibility that the Greater London Authority will provide a platform for racist, fascist, neo-Nazi parties. Reference was made to electoral systems in other countries. In Israel, where elections are to be held on 17 May, there are 120 Members of the Knesset and 33 parties are standing for election. The largest party in the Knesset has between 25 and 30 Members, and the second-largest party—at present that is the Government party—has 18 Members. Without a suitable threshold, there may be problems of coalition building and building alliances, whereby, for example, some extremist rabbi based in New York may determine which party forms the Government in Israel. We do not want the situation to arise in London where an eccentric, mad or extremist group could hold the balance of power in the authority and demand, from an extreme platform, the support of the other parties to ensure their majority. That would be extremely dangerous, and we need the 5 per cent. threshold to keep such people out.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I stand to be corrected, but I understand that Israel has a threshold of between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent.

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

That is correct, but extremist parties can still hold the balance of power, so the threshold is obviously too low. My final point is that, even with a first-past-the-post electoral system, there is no guarantee that extremist parties will not gain support. We know from experience that, from time to time, extremists have tried to infiltrate political parties for their own purposes. That has happened to the Conservatives, to the Labour party and also to the Liberal Democrats. I am not trying to make a party political point here; I am making the general point that it happens in all parties. From the history of the Liberal Democrats, I could give a list of places—Birmingham, Tower Hamlets and elsewhere. I could talk about some of the problems for the Labour party in some parts of the country. I could talk about Brentwood and the current problems of the Conservative party. We must continue to be vigilant about the democratic structures in all our political parties; we must have real democratic vitality, so that when we put candidates up for election, they are standing for democratic values. We must not allow extremist anti-democratic elements to gain a foothold in the democratic system. That is why I welcome the amendments and I strongly urge the House to give them overwhelming support.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

When it comes to electoral systems, it astonishes me that rational, reasonable people who pride themselves on their liberalism display a degree of authoritarianism that seems quite alien to their normal behaviour. We have seen, even in our own experience, periods in which we have proscribed Sinn Fein and forbidden its representatives' utterances. Now, Sinn Fein has elected representatives in Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly contains representatives of minority loyalist groups that were previously thought diabolically evil because they supported those who pursued the defence of the Union by terrorist means. Surely, the experience almost universally has been that it is much better to allow representatives of small parties—even those whose views appear extreme at the time—to have a democratic platform on which to utter those views, for if they are driven out on to the streets and frustrated, they are far more likely to pursue their ends by violence than if they are accommodated within the normal body politic. The Government amendments betray the deficiencies of the d'Hondt system of proportional representation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) made clear. If we accept them, we might not only be excluding small parties, some of which are not necessarily extremist at all. Large parties, like large companies, have their origins in small organisations. Parties have to be small at one stage of their political development—the early, initial stage—and it is reasonable for such parties to aspire to have representatives on the new Londonwide assembly. Why should they be forbidden from pursuing that objective to success—the election of a representative, or conceivably more than one—by the imposition of an artificial threshold? The threshold would affect parties within the mainstream, such as the Greens and many others, and regional parties which want to pursue the interests of individual parts of our capital city. It is likely that certain groups will feel that the grouping together of boroughs into ultra-large constituencies does not give them the opportunity to ensure that their area's particular interests are represented on the assembly. Such groups—say, the Middlesex preservation party, or some other such party—will have to pursue their interests through the list of Londonwide elected assembly men, but they will find themselves frustrated by the provisions of the amendment. I understand the sentiment behind the drafting of the amendments and I comprehend Her Majesty's Government's feeling that they have a power of ethical judgment that most of us would not and do not presume to possess. We would leave that judgment to the electorate, because we believe in a democratic society. Our electors are fully capable of judging the qualities of those whom they elect to representative office, and who are we to put artificial barriers in their way? I conclude, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, that the amendment demonstrates, perhaps more clearly than any provision of the Bill, the fundamental flaws of the d'Hondt system of proportional representation. We never had such a problem when our elections took place entirely according to the first-past-the-post principle, but because we are to have an extraordinary combination of first past the post for ultra-large constituencies, which will probably not satisfy the electoral aspirations of all Londoners, and the d'Hondt system for the assembly men, we need the amendment. The amendment is anti-democratic; it will never satisfy everyone; and it will be the source of much criticism in future.

Linda Perham (Labour, Ilford North)

I support the Government amendments, because I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction that the price is worth paying. I might also support the imposition of a higher threshold, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). My hon. Friend mentioned the diverse population in the Ilford area. My constituency of Ilford, North has perhaps the largest Jewish population in western Europe. A few weeks ago, there were celebrations for Israel's independence day and remembrance ceremonies for people killed in the holocaust and in the struggle to establish the state of Israel. Fortunately, the Jewish population was not targeted in the recent bombings. Despite the fact that someone has been arrested for those bombings, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said, that has not stopped a plethora of neo-Nazi groups claiming responsibility for the outrages. We must remain vigilant. There is also a growing Asian population in my constituency, and Sikhs celebrated the 300th anniversary of the Khalsa at the weekend. Many Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian people also live in the Ilford area, all of whom were extremely concerned about the recent outrages. As I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), I was reminded of the words of Baroness Thatcher. When Sinn Fein representatives were banned from speaking in this country, she referred to the "oxygen of publicity". I would not like to give the oxygen of publicity to extremist groups for whatever reason, which is why I support the Government's amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Linda Perham (Labour, Ilford North)

I have concluded my speech.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful to the Minister for the consultation that the Government have afforded us and the Conservative party since the debate on the Floor of the House in January this year. As a consequence of that debate, hon. Members will be aware that we must reach agreement about this matter and proceed cautiously. This is the first legislative proposal for a threshold in British politics and, before we go down that road, we must be absolutely clear that we can justify its establishment—if, indeed, we can do so. I believe that we must start from the position espoused by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who said that we normally should not have to impose thresholds in electoral systems. People should be able to stand for election and express their views within the law. If they break the law—by inciting racial hatred, for example—they should be prosecuted and, if convicted, banned from taking part in the electoral process. As I said, on the Floor the House, and in the Standing Committee, my colleagues have adopted that view as our starting point. The Government have moved from their initial proposition that the Secretary of State of the day should decide the nature of the threshold to stating that threshold in the Bill. That is a definite improvement. If there is to be a threshold, it should be stated in legislation so that people can vote for or against it. That decision should not be left to a Minister who—regardless of his or her best intentions now or in the future—must be subject to political influence. If we are to have a threshold, it should be stated clearly on the face of the Bill so that this House, and the other place in a few weeks' time, can vote for it or against it, or amend it. It should not be left to a Minister to take a decision over which the House can exert no influence.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Would it not be more honest if those who advocated that the threshold should be set deliberately at whatever level is necessary to prevent the election of extremist candidates simply advocated the disqualification of such candidates from standing?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is one way of approaching the issue. Another way is requiring a large number of people to propose candidature. The Green party has stated that that should be the method of testing whether a proposal or candidate has sufficient electoral support. That is perfectly usual; it is done in other countries, and in this country in some contexts. We need to debate that issue. I now come to my second point. The Government's proposal for the electoral system for London—it is new for London, and there are similar new systems elsewhere—is that there will be a balance between single-member constituencies and a list. One of the proposal's redeeming features is the fact that it does not eliminate for all elections a person's right to stand and reach the threshold. The threshold will apply only to the list, not to single-member seats. It allows any party that is registered as a political party, and any individual, to stand on a Londonwide basis, and allows any party to field candidates in every single-member seat, from whatever shade of the political spectrum they come. The law will therefore allow extreme right-wing parties, extreme left-wing parties or any others to take part in the process; they are not proscribed. From our viewpoint, that is a redeeming feature, because it does not carve out a load of people. I now come to my third point. The Minister was kind enough to say that the concern that my colleagues and I had expressed was that, for the first time—it has not been done in Scotland or Wales; it is only being done in London—we were considering a threshold in the absence of objective advice, other than our own historical data and comparative figures from abroad, as to whether it was necessary or a good idea. That was why I put to the Minister the proposition, which he kindly took on board, that, at the earliest opportunity, the matter should be referred to someone independent of the politicians, who would give advice. I tell the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, and other Conservative Members who might argue the case that he did, that the Liberal Democrats will support the proposition that a threshold should be specified in the Bill only on the basis that the matter can be referred to the electoral commission as soon as it is set up. Moreover, we do not agree to that proposition for anything other than next year's elections, unless the commission's advice, and the debate that follows its publication, justifies the retention of that threshold. We are nervous about the idea of a threshold; we do not like it, and it certainly should not continue to remain part of British law without independent authority. We must be able to justify the threshold for now, but my colleagues will support it only for now. Does the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) want to intervene again?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

indicated dissent.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister was right to mention the fact that my colleagues and I, with our advisers, did some work to discover what precedent there was. The Minister for Transport in London was kind enough to write to me on the subject. Thresholds do exist in electoral systems elsewhere in Europe, and in Israel. The lowest is about 2 per cent.; the highest is 5 per cent. I counsel those Labour Members who call for a higher threshold against the very anti-democratic view that creating the highest threshold in the democratic world is justified by anything that might cause them concern in their constituency, or that might cause me concern in mine. One does not advance the cause of democracy and participation by suppressing groups of people, even if they may have political views that the hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) and I might dislike and always oppose.

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

The hon. Gentleman implied that I was proposing to suppress people. I am not; such people could still stand for election and campaign within the law. However, I believe that democracy must be defended and that we must be vigilant. I suspect that, if people in Germany were to think about the way in which Hitler came to power in 1933, they might, in retrospect, reconsider those electoral arrangements—although I understand that that was not a proportional system. We must all learn from history. I believe that, in the British context, we would be wise, after adopting a 5 per cent. threshold, to monitor the way in which it works. If it causes us problems, we should return to it, not in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but in the other direction, which is to defend democracy against its enemies.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman would be quite entitled to put to the electoral commission his proposition that it should consider a 10 per cent. threshold. However, that would be without precedent anywhere in the world, and he cannot persuade me that other countries do not have the same mix of races, backgrounds, religions and creeds that would—in Europe—have required them to consider the matter. We never imposed 10 per cent. on Germany. In case the hon. Gentleman raises a small point later, the only place where a 10 per cent. threshold applies is where there is a two-week electoral process, such as in the French elections, where one vote is held one week and another is held a second week. In France, and only in France, and in Paris and only in Paris, there is a 10 per cent. threshold to enter the second round of the elections, for the second week. Those are the only circumstances in which a 10 per cent. threshold is used. 4.45 pm We would be extremely unhappy with the proposition that, because a threshold is acceptable once, and because, for exceptional reasons, we might agree that 5 per cent. is right, we must go on looking ever upward. A higher threshold is likely to affect bona fide democratic parties such as the Green party far more seriously than it would affect people who are interested in politics as a means of inciting others against their fellow citizens.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

The hon. Gentleman is intellectually honest, but is not the perverse and wholly unsatisfactory effect of the provision that, instead of the seat being left vacant because the party did not achieve the threshold, another party would be over-represented? By the provision, we are choosing to secure the election of a representative who would not otherwise, by the number of votes that he scored, have secured election.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The last concern that I intended to express, which was the subject of one of our debates, was whether we could have left the threshold to be arrived at from the fact that there would be 11 top-up members of the Greater London assembly, which would require a mathematical threshold to be achieved. The figure is about 3.8 per cent. I did not sign up to that view, nor did Ministers, because that threshold is entirely dependent on the number of members. If there are 25 members, the threshold is 3.8 per cent. With 40 members, the threshold is lower. To determine the threshold purely on the basis of the size of the assembly struck us as arbitrary and much more difficult to defend. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood is right. If the percentages are altered and the threshold is set at 5 per cent., the division across London is not as clear. My hon. Friends and I are prepared to agree with the other two major parties that, on this occasion—and as far as we are concerned, on this occasion only—there should be a threshold, because, when London's government is reinstated after 14 years, we do not want the first election for it to be detracted from by people who are interested not in the government of London, but in peddling their own partisan and divisive views. We must not jump to conclusions after the events of the past few days. One person has been arrested, who may have nothing to do with extreme right-wing views. The measures proposed can be justified only by the sweep of history, not by recent events. From time to time in London, more frequently than elsewhere, the electoral system has been used by people who were clearly divisive, racist and extremist. For the first election, we must protect the process from being hijacked by that agenda. I hope that such a measure will not be necessary in future, but I am happy to take the advice of the electoral commission before we as a Parliament and, I hope, as individual Members of Parliament, make the decision. This should in any event be a matter for the individual votes of individual Members, not a whipped vote. If the proposal goes to the vote, I hope that the Whips will not be employed.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

I add my support to the Government's decision to introduce the threshold into the forthcoming elections. I accept that it was a difficult decision. Cogent arguments have been articulated in Committee, outside this place and in the Chamber today about the validity of various tactics and methods for dealing with extremist views and defeating them. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that no threshold is likely to eliminate or deter extremist views or, indeed, can guarantee exclusion of extremist candidates, as we have seen from recent electoral history in London, when such candidates got a higher vote than the threshold that is being laid down. However, after witnessing at first hand the victory of the British National party on the Isle of Dogs in my constituency and having seen the climate created there—which lead to intimidation, fear, alienation and hostility in Tower Hamlets and throughout the east end—I am strongly persuaded that everything possible should be done to prevent any repetition. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) asked, "Who are we to make such an arbitrary artificial decision?" With the greatest respect, we are the elected political leadership and we are obliged to give our society a political lead. Some people may perceive the provision as a gesture; it is an important signal that there should be no place in our society for those whose ideology is to discriminate against a minority or minority groups. We are a pluralistic society now, and the House has a responsibility to demonstrate that by saying that we are introducing the threshold to prevent those extremist views from taking hold. This has been a difficult decision for the Government. Following discussions in Committee, which have been repeated here today, and outside this place, strong views both for and against have been expressed. As one who supports the first-past-the-post system, I take the view—I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—that we need to ensure that this new electoral system and structure for London send a signal to the London public that we are creating a new democracy and a new government for London and that this is our society, which will be inclusive for all its elements.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I shall make two brief points. First, while I do not agree with the electoral system proposed for elections to the Greater London assembly, given the system that has been proposed, I utterly support the Minister in making the threshold 5 per cent. I note that, while paragraph 7(3) of schedule 2 proposes that the Secretary of State should have a prescriptive power to decide the percentage, paragraph 7(4) states that it should not be greater than 5 per cent. Therefore, the Minister is announcing a threshold at the upper end of what was presumably envisaged by the Government. I accept that. Secondly, I think that the Minister said that, if there were a 50 per cent. turnout—I very much hope that there will be, although I will be agreeably surprised if there is— the 5 per cent. threshold would require a party to have of the order of 125,000 or 150,000 votes. Frankly, and this is where I may disagree with one or two Labour Members, no matter how obnoxious the policies of a party, if it gets 100,000 votes in the election on 4 May next year, it can reasonably claim to have a stake in the assembly. I do not want to rehearse or overstress this point, but we may find that we get more trouble if people are barred from being members of an assembly, or Members of Parliament, by structures that are deliberately devised to keep them out. If a fair threshold is set and they get in, so be it. I would point out to the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick)—I may not agree with his views, but I deeply respect them—that a member of the BNP may have got in in a London borough or local authority election, but we are not seriously considering changing the electoral and the ward system on that account for our borough elections. We have to be robust about the obnoxious nature of some parties, but, if they get beyond a reasonable threshold, they are perfectly entitled to representation, in this case in the Greater London assembly.

Ken Livingstone (Labour, Brent East)

We should look at the narrow point at issue in terms of numbers of votes cast. We are introducing a threshold which means that a fascist party will have to get 5 per cent. of the votes to qualify for a seat. We know from the 1977 GLC election, when the British National party contested all seats across London and got 5.3 per cent. of the vote, that that is an achievable objective for a fascist party in this country. If we did not impose a threshold, a party would still need to win 4 per cent. of the vote to get a seat. Given 25 seats, it would need to get 4 per cent., unless a vast number of minor parties got 2 or 3 per cent. each. So we are drawing a small margin of difference. Across Europe, it is not unusual now for fascist parties to get 15 per cent. of the vote. There have been breakthroughs in France and Austria. To guarantee to keep the fascists out for all time, we would most probably have to set the threshold at 15 per cent. or more and that would also eliminate the Liberal Democrats in many areas. When I first entered local government in London, the Liberals did not get 5 per cent. in the borough council elections Londonwide. So we are working ourselves up over the wrong issue. It worries me that people could use candidacy as a platform to propagate their racist views. We should consider what to do to prevent that. My fear is about what may have motivated the young man who has been arrested for the bombings. He was not linked into an organised fascist party, but the contagion of fascist views had reached him. What worries me most is not the threshold—whether the 4 per cent. without a bar or the 5 per cent. bar that we are introducing—but the fact that the new election for mayor could give a fascist candidate access to broadcasts and a big distribution of literature which, while with clever lawyers working on it may narrowly stay within the race relations law, would pander to racism, homophobia and bigotry and help to stir up the sort of passions that have led to deaths on the streets of London in the past few days.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have had a full, extensive and good debate on a difficult and extremely important issue. Hon. Members have covered a wide range of points, to which I shall respond briefly. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who spoke for the official Opposition, asked why a party that got 4.5 per cent. should not be elected when one that got 5.5 per cent. would be. In my opening remarks, I made the point that any threshold is, by its nature, arbitrary, but there are precedents. We had much to do with the imposition of a 5 per cent. threshold in the constitution established in Germany after the war to provide a bulwark against a resurgence of national socialism. That has been seen to work effectively without precluding opportunities for smaller parties such as the Greens to be elected. So there are good reasons for the threshold. While I accept that it is arbitrary, it is right that we should have safeguards against parties that set out to destroy and damage the electoral process and, above all, to stir up hatred against different sections of the community. The hon. Member for Croydon, South said that, in certain circumstances, the extreme right wing could be elected. I accept that, on the 1977 GLC election results, it would have secured a place on a 5.3 per cent. overall vote. It is not our objective to prevent a party from being elected. In setting a threshold, we seek to send a clear message that a party has to establish a substantial body of support among the electorate before it will secure a place in the electoral system. In general, the extreme racist right in this country has not achieved that substantial proportion. The figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted for 1994 and 1998 were, he will accept, from relatively small areas rather than pan-London figures. 5 pm The hon. Gentleman argued that the fundamental problem was the system of proportional representation, and that the amendment was necessary only because we were proposing such a system. In fact, the only recent example of an extreme right-winger and racist being elected was in Millwall, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick). He was elected in a 1993 by-election under the first-past-the-post system. Extreme right-wingers can be elected even under a first-past-the-post system in certain circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) rightly stressed that democracy must be defended against its enemies. He pointed out that previous experience showed that support for the National Front and the British National party tends to be localised, and that, in the present circumstances, such a party would be unlikely to secure a 5 per cent. vote across London as a whole. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke of the risk of excluding reputable smaller parties. I have already partly answered that question by saying that the 5 per cent. threshold in the German constitution has not prevented the Greens from securing election. Conversely—this is not the fault of the d'Hondt system, which I know the hon. Gentleman does not like—in the 1990 European elections, the Greens in this country did very well in terms of the proportion of the vote, securing something approaching 15 per cent., but did not manage to get a single member elected. The first-past-the-post system can and does exclude small parties that have a legitimate place in the democratic system. All that adds to the complexity of the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) mentioned the concerns of communities—in her case, the Jewish population in her constituency, but also the Sikhs and the Bangladeshis—which have been understandably alarmed by the threats made in recent weeks by hard-line extremist parties claiming responsibility for bomb attacks, although they turned out not to be responsible. We should bear in mind that bodies such as Combat 18 have been only too pleased to use the circumstances of the past three weeks to promote their own deplorable attitudes. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the issue should be considered very carefully, because this was the first occasion on which we had proposed a threshold. I remind him, and the House, that we are doing so because no electoral system has previously been proposed making it possible for a party to secure election on the basis of a relatively small proportion of the vote. In both the Scottish and the Welsh frameworks, which involve the additional member system and a list top-up, the percentage necessary to secure membership through the list is very much higher than that which will apply in Greater London. The hon. Gentleman himself made the point that London has had rather more of its fair share of experience of the activities of the extreme racist parties. That is why we are proposing a threshold. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have thought carefully about this. We have not jumped rapidly to conclusions. We initially proposed that the Secretary of State should be given power to set a threshold but, on reflection, we concluded that it was right to put a threshold in the Bill. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, and that of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), for our decision. I also confirm our decision, in response to a request from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, to refer the matter to the electoral commission so that there will be an independent review of the process. Let me say to both the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that, in practice, the mathematical threshold is 3.85 per cent.: a party that secures that percentage of the vote is guaranteed a member through the top-up list. In certain circumstances, however—I admit that they are not necessarily normal circumstances—it would be possible for a party to be elected with significantly less than that percentage. Figures that were prepared for us while we were considering the matter demonstrated that a party could secure a member through the top-up list system with a vote of less than 3 per cent. That is where the real worries come into play. That is why it is appropriate that there should be a threshold. In practice, it will not be only marginally higher than the natural threshold, as was implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. Five per cent. is a substantially higher hurdle to get over than, say, 2.5 per cent., which could, in certain circumstances, be the mathematical threshold. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town rightly referred to the fears and anxieties that were felt by the Bengali community in Blackwall after the British National party secured the election of a candidate in a 1993 by-election. I visited Blackwall frequently during those months and played a small part in organising the campaign to ensure that that particular pedlar of race hatred was evicted in the subsequent 1994 council election. I am delighted that the democratic process triumphed and that the BNP was rejected in 1994. I pay tribute to all the decent people in the Blackwall community who came together in adversity to ensure that democracy and decent values prevailed against the BNP and the pedlars of hatred, but I have not forgotten the fears and anxieties that I experienced at the time. I have not forgotten the sight of thugs—one can describe them by no other word—marching in a bully-boy way through the streets of a community that is largely populated by Bengalis, deliberately stirring up hatred and fear. We cannot allow such spectacles in our society. We have a duty and responsibility to take action to prevent our democracy from being subverted by people who have no commitment to it at all and who use the opportunity of a democratic election to undermine all the democratic values, values of decency and good relations between races that are fundamental to our society. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town referred to the new democratic system that we are putting in place and emphasised how important it is that it is inclusive. I cannot do anything other than concur entirely with his views. I have already referred to the support of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet for our decision to put a threshold in the Bill; I am grateful for his support. He made the point that a party that can secure 125,000 votes deserves a voice. That is the effect of what we are proposing. A party that secures about 125,000 votes will secure a voice; below that, it will not. As I have said, it is, to some extent, an arbitrary figure, but there are good precedents for the 5 per cent. It seems to us to be a reasonable level. It will establish that a party that cannot secure that level of support among the electorate as a whole does not get the opportunity to voice its views, obnoxious as they may be, through the Greater London assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East referred to the natural threshold. I have explained that it is 3.85 per cent., but can be lower. That is the justification for a 5 per cent. threshold. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that, in Europe, the extreme right has secured much higher percentage figures in polls. I agree. That is one of the great lessons that we have to learn. It is not a cause for complacency, but, in the past 50 years, we in this country have been fortunate in ensuring that the views of extreme right-wing and racist parties have not built the sort of bridgehead that has been possible in other countries, including France. We must remain constantly vigilant against the threat, which can do enormous damage to good community relations and democracy. I believe that the threshold that we are putting in place will contribute to the process. I remind hon. Members that it was this country that contributed to the establishment of the threshold in Germany in the post-war era. In many respects, that has proved successful as a bulwark against the resurgence of extremist, racist views in Germany, which has seen more of that than any other country in Europe this century. Therefore, we must be serious and careful. What the Government are proposing is appropriate. It is a step taken, not lightly but with considerable care and after consultation. I hope that the House will endorse the amendment.

AMENDMENTS OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACTS.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 174, line 38, at end insert— 'Broadcasting during elections 21A.—(1) Section 93 shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1), after "local government election" there shall be inserted ", other than an Authority election,".'. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall that I wrote to them on 4 March, setting out my intention to disapply section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 for the purposes of the GLA elections. As I said in an earlier debate, elections to the authority will be treated as local authority elections for the purposes of the RPA, except when our proposed new electoral systems make current local government provisions impractical or inappropriate. When changes are needed—as, for example, in broadcasting regulation at elections—I have been keen, as on other issues, to adopt a bipartisan approach. I have written to the main Opposition parties on a number of electoral issues, so that we might achieve—so far as possible—a consensus. Hon. Members will recall that section 93 stipulates that an item cannot be broadcast during an election campaign without the consent of all the candidates in a particular constituency. As I said in my letter to Committee members, it would be completely impractical—given the arrangements for election, across the whole of London, of assembly members on the top-up list—to apply those provisions, as only one candidate would have to refuse consent for there to be no possibility of a broadcast. Such a situation would be nonsensical. An approach similar to the one that we are proposing was adopted, after consultation with the parties, for elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Equally, section 93 will not apply to elections to the European Parliament. Amendment No. 102 is essential to ensure that workable arrangements can be put in place for coverage of the elections. Broadcasting organisations will still be bound by the requirements of impartiality, accuracy and balance that are placed on them by statute and by the broadcasting regulatory bodies. It is a practical and sensible amendment, which I hope the House will accept.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

The Opposition have no trouble with accepting Amendment No. 102, which makes the same provision as that included in the legislation establishing the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. However, what needs amendment is the Representation of the People Act 1983—not each individual Bill as it comes along.

COST OF HOLDING THE FIRST ORDINARY ELECTIONS.

QUALIFICATION TO BE THE MAYOR OR AN ASSEMBLY MEMBER.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 105A, in page 10, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert 'a citizen of the United Kingdom'.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 106A, in page 11, line 7, leave out 'his principal' and insert 'the place of work at which he spends the majority of his working time'. No. 107A, in page 11, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 28.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I confess that, when I first saw the Bill, my eye was drawn to the provisions of clause 19. We heard over and over again—on Second Reading and in Committee—how the assembly was all about Londoners, and about how its establishment would be a great moment for Londoners. The Bill was about an assembly for London and for Londoners, and there would be an authentic London mayor. I was therefore puzzled when I saw that the Bill provides that a person will be qualified to be elected mayor if he or she is (a) a Commonwealth citizen; (b) a citizen of the Republic of Ireland; or (c) a relevant citizen of the Union. Such a provision would be bad enough, but the Bill goes on to say that that same person must satisfy at least one of a group of other conditions, of which one is that his principal or only place of work during that twelve months has been in Greater London". I was therefore forced to the conclusion that it would be perfectly possible to have someone from Finland or New Zealand, for example—I have picked the two countries more or less at random, although one is at the other end of the globe, whereas the other is somewhere up near the arctic circle—as mayor. The Finn might not speak English, although the New Zealander would happily do so. The only other qualification that those undoubtedly excellent people would have to have is that their principal, not only, place of work for 12 months has been in Greater London. A person who does not speak English or who comes from the other side of the world and whose sole qualification is that their principal place of work—an undefined term that could cover almost anything—is in London could offer themselves for election to a uniquely London body that provides an exciting new opportunity for London representation. That is political correctness carried to the most bizarre extent.

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

But they would not be elected.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am shocked that a Member of Parliament should feel himself able to predict the results of elections.

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

rose—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I do not want to prolong the debate, but I shall give way in a moment. We are talking about a serious matter: the qualifications set out in legislation for those who want to be authentic representatives of London.

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

In 1978 I was on telling duty at a polling station in Thamesfield ward in Putney. One of the Conservative candidates subsequently became a Member of Parliament for a Croydon seat and has now moved on to newer pastures. A Conservative-supporting voter came up to me and said, "Who are those candidates for the Conservative party? Oh, one is a woman and one is a New Zealander. I'm not voting for him." Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) might be right.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Or perhaps that story endorses my view—who knows? Rather than concentrating on the citizenship of an individual, I want to tighten the undefined criterion of the principal place of work over the previous 12 months, because it does not establish adequate credentials or connection with London to qualify someone properly to stand for election to the new, exciting and uniquely London body. I could have gone further and suggested that all candidates should be Londoners, or maybe even that they should have been born within the sound of Bow bells—a claim that, alas, I cannot make. If we are not careful, people with only the most tenuous link with London will be able to clutter up the voting paper. Given the complexity of the voting arrangements that are to be foisted on the people of London, clarity is essential, particularly during the early stages of the new process. There is a risk that the voters, struggling with all the novel forms of election, might be confused or misled if we allow such generous, unrestricted, loose and ill-defined qualifications. That is why my amendments would do a great service to the people of London.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

There are only two flaws in the argument of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), apart from the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—that someone who fitted the characteristics described would probably not survive the electoral battle. First, the rules for election to this place are based on the same criteria and have been used by certain Canadians and New Zealanders, who have become Tory Members. Secondly, if we define the electorate, it is reasonable that they should be drawn from the same constituency as those who seek to be elected. There may be arguments about who the electorate should be, but that is not a debate for London, but a debate for electoral reform. The right hon. Gentleman might have an uphill struggle if he suggests that Commonwealth or European Union citizens—let alone Irish citizens—should be suddenly disfranchised after having lived here for years.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a couple of good points, and I shall make a couple more. I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has seen fit to table the amendments, for the reasons that I shall explain. In seeking to narrow the categories of person who may stand for mayor or for the Assembly, amendments Nos. 105A and 107A could well send exactly the opposite message to the one that we have rightly encouraged—that London's multicultural diversity should be celebrated, rather than denigrated. In Committee, I made it clear that the provisions of the Bill in respect of qualification to stand are based on the provisions of part V of the Local Government Act 1972 governing qualification to stand at local authority elections. It would be quite wrong to adopt different criteria for people standing for the Greater London Authority from those that apply for people standing for election in the London boroughs. I find it even more extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst should make the proposals given that the conferment on EU nationals of the right to vote and stand in local elections was inserted in the 1972 Act by regulations made in 1995 by the Government in which he was then serving as a Minister. I accept that the Conservative party is now apologising for what it did in government, and is moving on. However, it is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman to wish to reverse so soon afterwards decisions that he was very much a party to in the last Parliament. On amendment No. 106A, clause 19(4)(c) provides that a person is qualified to stand for mayor or for the assembly if he or she satisfies the condition that his or her principal or only place of work during the preceding 12 months has been in Greater London. The amendment would replace the reference to principal place of work with the place of work at which he spends the majority of his working time. I cannot accept the amendment. The terminology in the current provision is based on the provisions of the 1972 Act. "Principal" in this context means main or chief place of work. Where there is doubt, it will be ultimately for the courts to establish as a question of fact what constitutes a person's principal place of work. The right hon. Gentleman's formulation would, by contrast, be less flexible and difficult to interpret. If someone divided their time equally between a couple of part-time jobs and a voluntary position for a charity or community organisation, but was paid significantly more for one job than for the others—to the extent that that was clearly the most important or principal job that that person did—that person could be disqualified, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, simply on the basis that he did not spent 50 per cent. or more of his time on that job. Therefore, there are practical problems with the proposal, as well as the obvious problem of precedent; the amendments would be a breach of current practice in local government provisions. It is important that the language of electoral law is consistent in such areas and, in the circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

It always amuses me to hear Ministers and Labour Members say that because something has lasted for a long time and is well established, it cannot possibly be challenged. To me, that represents the ultimate acceptance of the credo of conservatism that is now rampant within the Government. Part of me welcomes that and finds it warming. However, we young, thrusting radicals in the Opposition do not necessarily accept that as a sufficient reason or rationale. Suffice it to say, I have made my point and put down a marker. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, I do not necessarily accept that what is is necessarily acceptable, and I would like to revisit some of the matters. I wanted to use this as an opportunity to put down a marker and to demonstrate that the claim of the unique London aspect of the Bill cannot be made in light of the measure. However, in view of what the Minister has so graciously said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

DECLARATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE

NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We now move from a young, thrusting, radical amendment to a young, thrusting, radical new clause. It is designed to give respectability and credibility to the method of selecting mayoral candidates and would provide that all those involved in the selection process, of whatever political party, are there to represent their party's members and are not imposed from the centre. The Government office for London commissioned a report by Professor Dunleavy and Dr. Helen Margetts, entitled "Electing the London Mayor and the London Assembly". I want to read into the record one paragraph. It says: It will be particularly important for the success of the London Mayor how the political parties go about making their candidate selection. If all the established parties follow OMOV procedures in picking candidates the eventual general election will seem much more legitimate to most people and the chance of there being dissident candidates from established parties will be reduced. If parties' internal procedures seem less legitimate then the election may not command such high levels of public support: dissident candidates will be more likely to stand against the official party nominees and more independent candidates could also stand, so the number of viable candidates would tend to grow. Given the importance of candidate selection procedures inside the parties for the direct election to an executive position, there is a case for the Government to require parties to follow OMOV procedures internally, which might require the registration of parties intending to offer Mayoral candidates also. The new clause is designed to accept that recommendation and enshrine it in the law.

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

Would the hon. Gentleman want that principle to be extended to his constituency, so that it was required in law that the people of Croydon, South should follow similar procedures?

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

Frankly, I am pretty relaxed about it, because that is what happens now.

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

What about the selection process?

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I could not agree with the recommendation more, because it is essential that the public believe in the system. As for our selection process, we have a first round, a second round and a final round, and everyone involved in the process is a party member, elected by other members as a representative. That is the only way in which one can get on to the committees.

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

Yes, but should that be enshrined in the law?

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

As I said, I am perfectly relaxed about that, because what I have described is what happens, except in the Labour party. The only way in which the recommendation can be enshrined in the law is for the House to accept the new clause. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great democrat and I am sure that he would not want a central diktat over the method of candidate selection for his party.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but time is too short, because of the guillotine. The Labour party is similar to us, and its document, "Modernising Labour Groups and Local Government: a consultation paper on the Labour Party contribution to implementing Modern Local Government", says: Is the choice of candidates for mayors purely a local decision? Conference has indicated its support for the principle of OMOV for the selection of mayors. This is included in the proposals for the election procedure for the Party's Mayor of London candidate. The party will need to set out procedures for shortlisting and selection criteria. So far, so good, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) could not disagree with that; but then we come to another document, "Greater London Authority Elections 2000", subtitled "London Assembly Selection Process". Incidentally, I am grateful to whomever in the Labour party is leaking this stuff to me. I do not suspect the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on this occasion, but it might have been one of his friends or supporters.

Ken Livingstone (Labour, Brent East)

It is unusual for us to get any Labour party documents.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

In the case of this document, I am not surprised, because it states: The London Regional Board shall establish a selections board to compile a panel of interested candidates. The selections board shall consist of 4 members of the regional board from their own members"— So far, so good. However, it continues: 4 members of the NEC"— and that is not so good, because—

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

They are elected.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

They may be elected, but they are not elected by London members. They are elected by United Kingdom members. In our judgment and as recommended by the report to the Government office for London, those involved in the selection process should be exclusively from London. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Workington would suggest that he should be involved in the selection of candidates in Scotland. The third group on the selection board are to be 4 members who are prominent and senior Labour Party members in London, who will bring experience and expertise to the panel. There will also be four non-voting members on the panel. The document continues: The independent members and advisers shall be appointed jointly by the Regional Board and the NEC. That shows that the NEC will have a veto over who is selected, and that is the rub—and the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party. In my party, everybody who takes part in the selection process does so as the result of a fair and democratic process. The Labour party's selectors will be imposed by diktat from Millbank and the method of selection is designed to stop the hon. Member for Brent, East becoming the Labour mayoral candidate. The Labour party's proposals abuse the democratic process, damage the reputation of those of us who believe in democracy and damage the Labour party itself. Dr. Margetts and Professor Dunleavy are not out of step or freaks. They have articulated widespread concerns about the method of selection of candidates and it would be in the interests of the Labour party to take heed of what they have said.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

New clause 1 is a good proposition. The case for it was made in Committee by us and has not been answered since. For the record, our system entirely accords with the proposal in new clause 1. The power to choose shortlist candidates and to put the candidates before the London membership, who will vote with one member, one vote, was delegated to the London region of the party. It alone, with no veto from the central party, has gone through the procedure and set up the rules. It has appointed the selection panel and undertaken the approval and interviewing, and it will produce the short-list on which the membership in London will vote. The Labour party has been embarrassed, is embarrassed and will be embarrassed—

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

You wish.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I do wish, and I am glad, because the Labour party should not go down that road. The great new Labour party belief in devolution is a fig leaf because in fact a few people in the Cabinet and on the national executive are pulling the strings. We all know about that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone to Wales today because the Welsh election campaign cannot be allowed to run itself and the London election process can be vetoed by the national executive. If the Labour party were a modern democracy, it would support new clause 1. I look forward to its conversion, but I do not believe that it will happen soon.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I do not want my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to feel isolated in any way. I am sure that the new clause meets the wishes of members of the Conservative party, and that it conforms to the natural, democratic instincts of people throughout London. Labour Members regularly make a song and dance about transparency and openness. Now they have a chance to show that their rhetoric is matched by their behaviour in practice. If they are to live up to their speeches about transparency and accountability to the electorate, they should incorporate new clause 1 into the Bill. The public are all too cynical about politics in this country. The first election for the London mayor and for the Greater London Authority as a whole represents an opportunity to ensure that the mayor—the figurehead to whom the whole of London will look up—will be elected by wholly democratic means. The processes behind that democratic election should be in the public domain, and those responsible for them must submit a sworn declaration—a testimony—verifying that they are bona fide and in accordance with the democratic principles in which the Conservative party believes. My final point was alluded to indirectly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). People in London will want the mayor to be the people's choice in London. It is essential that London members of a political party will have the deciding influence over who is chosen as candidate. That requirement is made clear in the new clause, but it is manifestly not part of the Labour party's intentions for this election. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South has made the matter clear, and I am sure that the electorate will not forget it if the Government are remiss enough not to accept new clause 1.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

The important issue raised in the Dunleavy and Margetts report is that abuse of power by a political party may, in due course, reflect on and discredit the office of mayor of London. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked whether that issue required legislation, but legislation is used to correct an abuse, and so far the debate has shown that no abuse of party systems has taken place. The Labour party, like the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties, has a shortlisting system that will be voted on by its individual members. I urge any hon. Member to come forward if he or she can find a statement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the leader of the Labour party, or from the chair of the board of the London Labour party, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), that would prevent any candidate from standing, or influence the vote. There has been no statement by the Prime Minister to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) from putting his name forward or being selected.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman says that no statement has been made to exclude the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) or any other candidate. Would it not be more accurate to say that no on-the-record statement of that sort has been made by any representative of the Government? Have not the Government been briefing against the hon. Member for Brent, East for as long as any of us can remember? Why do they not have the guts to put it on the record?

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

Unfortunately, I am not party to off-the-record briefings. There is no statement directly attributable to the Prime Minister, the chair of the London board or any member of the national executive committee to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East from standing.

Ken Livingstone (Labour, Brent East)

There is a statement on the record. I discovered it when I opened my copy of "Turn Again Livingstone", the new biography by John Carvel, price £6.99. He recounts a formal meeting with a Downing street senior official who works directly with the Prime Minister. Points about me were put and the reply was: Tony likes Ken. They can have an amiable chat. He feels it is a terrible waste that his abilities have not been put to work. He is rather depressed about it. I find all that very encouraging.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

That proves that the Prime Minister is, if anything, trying to intercede on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. Do we need legislation at this stage to correct an abuse? As there has been no abuse of the system, and as the parties seem to be entering into the democratic spirit—exemplified, to some extent, by the new clause—in the selection of their candidates, I do not feel that legislation is required. However, if at some stage there are abuses of party political selection procedures, we may need to return to the matter. I put it on record that if there is interference in selections, we may need to return to this and I may promote a private Member's Bill. All parties have a right of redress in respect of abuse from above in their selection systems. In the Labour party, it is the national executive committee. As they cast their votes, Labour party members will bear in mind the performance of NEC members on selection issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town knows, there is also the selection of the members and chair of the London board. There are democratic processes of recall. On that basis, I do not think that the argument for legislation at this stage has been carried.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

The thrust of the Conservative new clause is that there is some impropriety in Labour party procedures. As chair of the board of the Greater London Labour party—I am sure that this was pointed out in Committee but I repeat it here—I stress that the board has overwhelmingly endorsed the procedures that we have arrived at. The London board is elected regularly by the 65,000 members of the regional party. The individuals who have been nominated to the selection panel, both from the board and from the NEC, jointly arrived at a consensus.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

If that is the case, is the hon. Gentleman happy for the matter to be left to 63,000 members of the Labour party in London?

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

There seems to be some suggestion that London Labour's 65,000 members—I beg to differ on the figure—will not have the final decision. They will.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

There seems to be an insinuation that my hon. Friend seeks to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East from standing. It is worth pointing out that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town has made no attempt to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East from standing. In many instances, he has given positive support to encourage democratic debate.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

I am pleased to receive the endorsement of my hon. Friend. London Labour members will ultimately take the decision. The difficulty is that there are too many candidates; we cannot put all 20 or so to the London membership. The number on the final ballot paper will probably be no higher than four. That is our normal procedure for the selection of candidates. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East may well be on that shortlist. It is not a matter on which I can contribute. However, the Labour party is comfortable with its procedures. Whatever the conclusions, the one thing of which we are confident is that the Labour candidate will be mayor for London next May.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am surprised that the Opposition have seen fit to table this measure again, given our extensive debate on the subject in Standing Committee. As I explained in Committee, the measure would, in effect, require political parties to adopt internal selection procedures specified by the state in legislation. It would make the processes by which a particular party selected its mayoral candidate grounds for determining whether or not that candidate was in fact allowed to become mayor. I am astonished that members of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties should be nailing their colours to the mast of state interference in the organisation of political parties. They know only too well that that is a slippery slope, which, once embarked on, can lead to the worst possible excesses. All too often, such excesses have stained democracy in parts of the world where state interference has been allowed. Members of parties that call themselves Conservative or Liberal Democrat should think very carefully before advocating state interference in the role and work of political parties. As I made crystal clear in Committee, I cannot accept the measure. The procedure that each party adopts for selecting its candidates for any election must remain a matter for that party, not for the state. If the electors do not like the way in which a particular party selects its candidates, they will no doubt reflect their distaste when they come to vote. Furthermore, as I also pointed out in Committee, the measure could place a heavy burden on smaller parties. They may not have the resources to organise themselves on the lines proposed and might, therefore, find themselves unable to field a candidate, in which case the measure would have the effect of narrowing the electors' range of choice.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does the Minister not accept that, to a degree, candidate selection is already justiciable by the courts? The Labour party discovered that to its cost in the context of its women-only shortlist policy.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect on the extremely visible difference that people see when they look at this place between the relatively reduced, but predominantly male, group of people on the Opposition Benches—men in suits—and the proper representation of women as well as men on the Government Benches. That is the result of the Labour party's commitment to ensuring equal opportunities. As for the hon. Gentleman's question, it is of course right that political parties must act within the law. It is for the courts to decide. That is different from the state interfering in the processes by which political parties choose their candidates. I put it to Conservative Members, in the nicest possible way, that only members of parties that are in a terminal state of decline or are irredeemably confused could support such measures. As I understand it, all three major parties will ensure that they have a democratic process for the selection of their candidates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has pointed out, the Labour party will elect its candidate on the basis of one member, one vote. That is clear. Furthermore, all parties will have a shortlisting process—although the Conservatives appear to be a bit confused about that. In a press statement earlier this year, the Liberal Democrats admitted that they would be drawing up a shortlist of five candidates for mayor by March. They do not seem to have met that target, but never mind; they admit that they are going to draw up a shortlist. As for the Conservatives, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is rather confused. In Committee, he said: The Tory party is not having any pre-screening panels. However, he continued: In the first round the executive of the Greater London area … will do a paper sift of candidates … If there are 50 candidates, they will reduce the number to, say, 20."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 January 1999; c. 104.] Although the Tories appear to be rather confused about how they are going to shortlist, shortlist they will, so there will be no problem about shortlisting by any political party. The only argument being advanced relates to whether members of the party nationally should have an input into that process of shortlisting. It is purely the consequence of their party being incorrigibly anarchic, in the case of the Liberal Democrats, or in a state of terminal decline, in the case of the Tories, that Opposition Members believe that parties centrally should have no role to play in the selection of a candidate for the major post of mayor of London. The Opposition's proposals are opportunistic, inappropriate and disingenuous, and they deserve to be rejected.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

What we are hearing is mock outrage masquerading as democracy. There is no doubt that the Conservative party selects its candidates only through those who are members of the party. There is no central diktat in the Conservative party, nor in the Liberal Democrat party; it is the Labour party that is being undemocratic. The Minister says that he believes in one member, one vote, but that is only if that one member lives at No. 10 Downing street. We shall divide the House on this new clause.

THE PURPOSE OF THE AUTHORITY

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment No. 109A, in page 14, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 15.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 110A to 113A and 120 to 122. Government new clause 32—The general power of the Authority. Government new clause 33—Limits of the general power. Government new clause 34—Consultation. Government amendments Nos. 126 and 128.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I clarify that you have also called amendment (a) to new clause 32, which you did not announce? It may assist hon. Members to learn that, depending on the Government's response, we may seek to divide the House on that amendment.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is quite right. I apologise to the House. Amendment (a) to new clause 32 is as follows: in line 6, after 'development', insert 'and the encouragement of equal opportunities'.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Part II of the Bill establishes the principal purposes of the authority, its general powers and functions, how those powers and functions should be exercised, and by whom. It deals also with the accountability and openness of the authority and its functional bodies, and the ethical standards it should maintain. Finally, it deals with the appointment of the authority's staff. I do not intend to address all those issues today. Each of them was addressed and dealt with in Committee and none of the fundamental principles, or our intentions, were challenged successfully. However, important issues did emerge during our debates, and the amendments I am moving today seek to address the concerns that were expressed and, where necessary, to clarify or make more explicit our intentions. The principal issues the amendments address are: first, the purposes of the authority; secondly, the general power of the authority; thirdly, consultations to be undertaken in relation to the use of the general power and the preparation of the mayor's strategies; and fourthly, the issues to which the mayor must have regard in preparing or revising those strategies. Our intentions in relation to each of those issues remain the same as in the Committee print of the Bill. So the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister seek simply to ensure that there is no confusion or ambiguity about those intentions, and to reassure Londoners and London organisations that the GLA will be an inclusive, not an exclusive, authority. To this end, amendments Nos. 109A, 110A and 111A delete clauses 25, 26 and 27 of the Bill which are replaced by new clauses 32, 33 and 34. The principal purposes of the authority are integral to its successful functioning. Those purposes are threefold: first, promoting economic development and wealth creation in Greater London; secondly, promoting social development in Greater London; and, thirdly, promoting the improvement of the environment in Greater London.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

Will new clause 32(2)(b), which refers to "promoting social development", take into account the promotion of equal opportunities as part of that development?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I shall come specifically to that point in a few moments. The authority's general power is conferred to enable it to further one or more of those purposes, and those purposes will inform the preparation of each of its strategies. Because of concerns expressed in Committee, the drafting of new clause 32 makes it absolutely clear that, in exercising the general power to do anything that it considers necessary to further any one or more of these purposes, the authority must have regard to the effect that that will have on the health of people in London, and on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. Where the authority does exercise the general power conferred by the clause, it is also required to do so in a way that is best calculated to create improvements in the health of people in London and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. Other amendments that we shall discuss later—amendments Nos. 114 and 118 to clause 33—ensure that, in preparing or revising his or her strategies, the mayor must have regard not only to the principal purposes of the authority but to similar considerations relating to health and sustainable development. Promoting the improvement of the health of Londoners and achieving the objective of sustainable development will, therefore—as we have always intended—be explicit and fundamental considerations for the authority. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this meets our White Paper commitments and the concerns expressed in Committee.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Specifically on those two matters, will the Minister explain why the Government are still resisting the inclusion of "promoting improvements in the health of persons in Greater London" and "the achievement of sustainable development" in the list of the principal purposes of the authority in new clause 32(2)? We have economic development and wealth creation", social development and improvement of the environment. Why cannot we have the other two things up there, making a total of five principal purposes?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman obviously did not follow closely the line of argument that we advanced in Committee. We clearly explained that the three principal purposes that I have described are the overarching purposes of the authority, but that, inevitably, they overlap with some of the issues raised by the promotion of health and the promotion of sustainable development. In order to prevent the possibility of any misunderstanding, we have chosen to give added prominence to the issues of health and sustainable development, but without compromising the architecture of the Bill, which has always depended on those three pillars or principal purposes—economic, social and environmental. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, sustainable development is obviously implicit in the environmental objective, but it also must be reflected in the economic and social development objectives. If it is not, there will not be sustainable development. Therefore, it would be confusing to set sustainable development as a separate objective. We have responded to concerns that we were not giving sufficient emphasis to health and to sustainable development by tabling new clause 32, which makes it clear that these considerations are to be in the forefront of thinking in the new authority, but that they must fall in with the three principal pillars that sustain the new authority. We hope that no uncertainty or ambiguity remain on the subject. I cannot accept amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others, which would add to the principal purposes of the authority the encouragement of equal opportunities". That is not because I do not think that the authority should encourage equal opportunities: on the contrary, we strongly believe that the authority should encourage and promote equal opportunities—it should and it must. We oppose the amendment because it is unnecessary to provide for it in this way. I cannot conceive of a situation where the principal purpose of promoting social development would not include the encouragement of equality of opportunity. I say that in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who is rightly concerned about the matter. Social development obviously cannot be promoted if equality of opportunity is not encouraged. As I said in Committee, we have sought to ensure, in our discussions of the Green Paper, the White Paper and now the provisions of the Bill, that in our multicultural capital the authority will respond to all sections of the community and promote equal opportunities. The GLA will have to observe the existing framework for equal opportunities which is imposed on local authorities. It will be subject to the Race Relations Act 1976, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and many of the Bill's provisions will ensure that the authority gives equal opportunities the importance that they deserve. The provisions and our amendments on consultation, transparency and accessibility are all especially important in that respect.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I hear what the Minister says in response to our amendment and to the intervention by the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), but is it right that there are provisions that resemble the wording of amendment (a) in the Scotland Act 1998, in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and in the Northern Ireland Act 1998? The amendment is supported by the Association of London Government. Why on earth are we exclusively taking London out of that flagged-up, written-up protection, which is widely supported by those outside the House who believe that it should be written into part II of the Bill?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman will recall from many hours of debate in Committee that provisions that have been implemented in Scotland and in Wales have not been adopted in the same way in London. Conversely, some provisions that we have adopted in the London legislation are not echoed in the Scotland and Wales legislation, for very good reasons. Earlier, we discussed thresholds. We have made provision for thresholds in the Bill, but there is no equivalent in Scotland or in Wales. If we believe—as I thought the Liberal Democrats did believe—in devolution, we may feel that it is appropriate that there might be some differences in the way in which duties and powers are expressed in different parts of the country. However, I thought that I had made it clear to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—and I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town—that that does not in any way imply that there is not a commitment to equal opportunities. On the contrary, we have a total commitment to equal opportunities. It is implicit in the way in which the Bill is drafted. There are clear statutory obligations on the authority to pursue equal opportunities. Moreover, as I have explained, the GLA will be a best-value authority, and best value will require local authorities to put equality and equality of opportunity at the heart of their policies. No authority could be said to be truly effective if it discriminated against one section of the community, or in favour of another, in the delivery of its services. Of course, we do not intend to give the authority carte blanche to do anything that it chooses. That is why, in drafting the general power and purposes provisions of the Bill, we have sought to achieve a clear balance between the need to provide the authority with the freedom and flexibility to act, and the need to avoid duplication with the statutory responsibilities of its own functional bodies and other authorities, organisations and public bodies. For that reason, the limitations that we sought to place on the use of the general power in clause 27 remain the same in new clause 33. Now, however, they are freestanding. The only new provision is set out in subsection (9). That gives the Secretary of State an order-making power to remove or restrict the prohibitions or limitations placed on the use of the power by the rest of the clause. The Bill already provides for the Secretary of State to add to these prohibitions—clause 27(10)—and we felt that it was right and appropriate and a suitable balance, not least because of allegations that have been made by Opposition parties that we were giving too many powers to the Secretary of State, also to provide the power to remove particular prohibitions or limitations. Our primary objective in establishing the GLA's structure and its procedure is that it should be easily accessible to the people of London and that it should be able to respond to and reflect their interests, needs and priorities. An essential means of securing that objective is to ensure that effective consultation takes place. Londoners must be able to ensure that their views about what the authority does, or plans to do, are properly considered and taken into account. For that reason, we included in clause 25 provisions requiring the authority, in deciding whether to exercise any of its powers, to consider consultations with bodies or people that it considers appropriate to consult—including in particular business interests. We also provided a requirement in clause 34 for the mayor to consult about the preparation or revision of his or her strategies. These provisions were meant to be inclusive, but it was clear from debate in Committee and from representations that I received from interested groups that our intentions would be made clearer if some broad categories of interest were named in the Bill as consultees or potential consultees. We agree that clarity is important in this matter. New clause 34 and amendment No. 120 to clause 34 extend the consultation provisions to meet the concerns that have been expressed. The general power provided for in new clause 32 can now be exercised by the mayor only after consultation with such bodies or people as the mayor considers appropriate in any particular case. Moreover, in determining what consultations, if any, are necessary, the mayor must consider whether to consult certain specified categories of interest. Those categories are any London borough council; the common council; voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of Greater London; bodies that represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in London; bodies that represent the interests of different religious groups in Greater London; and bodies that represent the interests of persons carrying on business in Greater London. Amendment No. 120 requires the mayor, in preparing or revising any strategy, to consider consulting the same bodies. Some concern has been expressed that the amendments might in some way diminish the requirement to consult business. I can state categorically that that is not the case. The mayor must now have regard to the principal purposes of the authority—which include economic development and wealth creation—in preparing or revising any strategy, and as a consequence of amendment No. 120 must now consider consulting business about those strategies. That, of course, means that consultation must take place in circumstances where business's interests would be affected. It was never our intention to give business, or any other interest group, the right to be consulted irrespective of the circumstances. That would be both impracticable and foolish. However, we believe it right that business should be consulted on all matters likely to affect business interests. That is what we have provided for. I am sure hon. Members will agree that the mayor must have some discretion in deciding who he or she should consult. The mayor obviously cannot consult everybody about everything. These provisions mean that, where the mayor fails to give proper consideration to who he or she should consult, or fails to consult bodies representing groups with legitimate interests that will be affected by the exercise of the authority's powers and functions, the mayor's reasons for failing to do so could be challenged and tested. Our intention is to protect the legitimate interests of Londoners, while preserving the proper discretion of the mayor to decide who he or she should or should not consult. Throughout our debates in Committee, there was a tendency for any hon. Member who came across a list, in any clause, to seek to amend the Bill by adding to that list some other item or consideration. We have resisted such amendments. In this case, however, we recognised that there was genuine concern to improve the way in which our intentions were expressed in the Bill, and legitimate reasons for doing so. We have therefore agreed to the inclusion of this short list in the Bill. I should warn Opposition Members, however, that this is not an invitation for them to consider what they can add to that list. I note that in one of his later amendments—amendment No. 151—the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is already seeking to add a further category of consultees to those who should be consulted about the strategies. We will be resistant to further additions, because lists that are allowed to grow become unwieldy and, rather than being indicative, risk becoming exclusive, thereby discouraging wider consultation. I have considered the comments made in Committee, and other representations that I received, about requiring the authority to establish a civic forum. However, I remain of the view that it would be wrong to require the authority to establish such a forum. It should be for the authority to decide how to conduct its consultations. New clause 34(4) provides the authority with a specific power to make appropriate arrangements for undertaking consultation. Therefore, there can be no doubt about the authority's powers to establish a civic forum, if it believes that that would be the best way to proceed. The other amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister are more modest in their scope. Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 make it clear that when and if new functions are transferred or conferred on the authority, they will be exercisable by the mayor unless otherwise specified. Amendments Nos. 121, 122, 126 and 128 are consequential, drafting or technical amendments. I apologise for taking some time to introduce and explain the amendments and new clauses. I hope that the House will recognise that the issues are complex and that it is important for them to be spelt out in detail before we debate them.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

We agree with the broad thrust of this extensive group of amendments and new clauses. However, I make one observation. If ever evidence were required that the Labour party had lost its soul, spirit and principles, the House need look no further than new clause 32. For the Labour party, of all parties, to state that the primary objective—the objective that it puts at the top of the list—is wealth creation in Greater London astonishes me. As the Minister moved the clause, I saw the ghosts of the elder statesmen of the Labour party stirring in their graves. What they would make of those priorities, I cannot imagine. We all know why the Government have done that. This is the Labour party of mood music and focus groups, which tells the public what they want to hear. That is cover for the fact that the Government have introduced compulsory union recognition, signed the social chapter, introduced a minimum wage and accepted the working time directive, all of which do nothing to help wealth creation in Greater London.

Ken Livingstone (Labour, Brent East)

rose—

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

Labour is the party of soaring welfare bills and falling police numbers. It is the party that wants to surrender the country's interests to a European superstate.

Ken Livingstone (Labour, Brent East)

rose—

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. We are the party of wealth creation, of the free market economy, of liberalisation and deregulation, of honesty in taxation and of creative solutions. I give way to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) should not stand for so long when he is seeking to intervene.

Ken Livingstone (Labour, Brent East)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to intimidate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) so that he would let me get in. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of any Labour Government who were not in favour of wealth creation? There has been a debate about the proportion of the wealth that should come to the central state for redistribution, but having been around some of the wilder fringes of the Labour movement over the past 30 years, I never came across anyone, apart from one or two complete nutters, who was not in favour of wealth creation. They just wanted some of it for themselves.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

The hon. Gentleman misses my point. I cannot imagine any other Labour Government but the present one who would put wealth creation first. Although they have put it first, and they know that it will run well with the public, they do not know what it means. I gave a list of the measures that they have introduced which will do nothing but destroy wealth creation. The clause is a facade. The Labour party has no idea how to promote wealth creation. Nevertheless, we look forward to its implementation by a Conservative mayor who knows what the expression means and how to put it into action.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That interlude from the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) suggests that he thinks that the Tory party's policy on these matters needs redefinition. I warn him that the more redefinition we get in the final fortnight before certain elections, the more unhelpful it may be. There are three substantive matters relating to this group of amendments and new clauses. The first was the subject of my first intervention in the Minister's speech. The Government are regrouping their clauses of old into their new clauses of today. Although they say that the entire London edifice must stand on three pillars, whatever we think of the order in which they are expressed—economic, social and environmental—all of which are fine, there has never been a convincing and logical argument against the addition of sustainability and health as primary purposes. The pressure from outside the House, and the general view expressed by those who responded to the Green Paper, was that one of the functions of the Greater London Authority should be to promote the health of Londoners. It should therefore be a principal purpose. We do not think that the Government have any justification for downgrading it. 6.30 pm On the second, sustainability, the Government's argument does not stack up either. Although the Minister is right to say that we need economic, social and environmental sustainability, none the less each of the three principal purposes listed in the new clause is interconnected; and it does not mean to say that we should not have economic development that is not socially or environmentally acceptable. The Government remain unpersuaded. I am not even sure that the new drafting works much better. New clause 32(2) now lists the three principal purposes to be promoted, (4) adds health and sustainability and has slightly odd wording, and (5) contains another qualification, namely, that any action can be undertaken only if it is reasonably practicable. The draft people have been at work again. I am sure that there is a clearer way, even if the Government did not want to go the whole hog with us and list the five purposes. The second matter on which the Government said they had responded was consultation. We welcome the fact that new clause 34 includes a list of groups of consultees. In Committee, we had an odd debate about when we should or should not have lists. The truth of the matter is that the Government have lists throughout the Bill, but they did not like it when anyone else wanted to alter them. The new clause is a result of pressure to list bodies that are properly to be consulted. We welcome the fact that the voluntary sector, racial, ethnic and national groups, and religious and business groups in London are to be consulted. We recognise and welcome the fact that the Government have flagged it up that if they were not consulted those groups would have recourse. They want to participate and be involved. We share the Government's view that being over-prescriptive about the format in which the groups should be consulted would be wrong. Therefore, a provision that states that we should consult with these people is better than something called a civic forum, or some other definition of what may be a changing kaleidoscope of London organisations. The only amendment to the Government's new clause that your predecessor in the Chair confirmed had been selected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the simple amendment (a) to new clause 32, to which I referred, and which was tabled by my hon. Friends and me. It would provide that the encouragement of equal opportunities should be expressly included in the power of the authority. I hope that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will understand me when I say that there would be a deficit in the Bill if the amendment were not included. The Minister said that we believe in different solutions for different parts of the United Kingdom, and I understand the argument. It is a reasonable proposition. However, there is no reason why legislation that will set up regional or citywide government for London—whatever one likes to call it—where there is a wider racial and ethnic mix and a more diverse community than any other place in Britain, should not contain legislative guarantees that the Government agency for this part of the world should promote equal opportunities. The Government in Scotland will have certain powers in that regard. The Assembly in Wales will have fewer powers than the Government of Scotland, but the provision is written in there. The Northern Ireland Assembly will not have the full legislative remit, but it is written in there too. London government will have powers that go beyond the local boroughs. It will act across that whole range of activity. I hope that the Government will reconsider and decide that it will be in their interest but, more important in the interests of the communities of London that the equal opportunities power be included in the legislation. Stonewall has written to me in the past few days specifically commending the Bill. In the light of the incidents of the past two weeks, when two of our racial communities and one area of London that is popular with another of our communities have been under attack by whatever sort of person for whatever motive, organisations such as Stonewall, which are entirely credible and reputable, have been reminded that to have an equal society in London we need to ensure that legislation for London reflects that equality. I hope that the Government will accept that proposition and the amendment. If they do not do so, we will force a Division to flag up the fact that the matter is of the highest importance. I hope that the provision will not have to go to the other place before it is changed. If the House does not accept the amendment, I have no doubt that the other place will want to reconsider the matter and change the Bill.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) I generally welcome new clauses 32, 33 and 34, which supersede clauses 25, 26 and 27. It is always heartening when Ministers listen to representations made in Committee and come back on Report with enhancements to the drafting and improvements to the Bill. I am convinced that the three new clauses would achieve those aims. On the principal powers that the authority is to pursue, I, like my hon. Friend, wholeheartedly applaud the unequivocal statement that the promotion of economic development and wealth creation is to be an objective of the authority. It is sad that Labour policy under this Government to date has militated against this objective. It is to be hoped that the mayoralty, under another colour—a Conservative colour—may genuinely and wholeheartedly pursue and succeed in achieving the objective of wealth creation. I am never clear what social development means, but I have an idea of what the Government have in mind. Of course, improvement of the environment is important. However, the key is the reasonable balance stipulated in new clause 32(3)(b). Pursuing economic development at the expense of the environment has done much damage in London, as has the neglect of social development in the pursuit of economic objectives. That balance must be at the heart of the authority's powers, which it is. I hope that, in the execution of those powers, the authority will genuinely secure reasonable equilibrium between those three main objectives. The beneficial side effects will be the promotion of the health of persons in London, which is well and good, and contribution towards the achievement of sustainable development. I confess to still being somewhat at a loss as to what sustainable development entails in a London context. I can only presume that it is a consequence of that balance which is mentioned earlier in the new clause. The limits are equally important. They are heartening and they are part of the reason why I applaud the new clauses. New clause 33 states unequivocally that The Authority shall not by virtue of"— the general powers— incur expenditure in providing … any housing". The old-fashioned Greater London council housing estates were some of the most damaging housing developments for the environment in London and they brought about a division in housing provision that has had adverse social consequences to this day. [Interruption.] I welcome the statement that the authority shall not incur expenditure on "any education services". The Inner London education authority is not a body which we would want to be resurrected in any shape or form and it cannot be under new clause 33. Likewise, social services are obviously best provided at the most local level possible, which is the borough. As for health services, although provision is inadequate in London—I know that the Liberal Democrats have concerns about it and believe that the authority should have a fuller role—health is a professional matter which is best dealt with by professionals. I do not believe that the authority would have such skills.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend develops a powerful case. Perhaps he overheard the Minister for Transport in London chuntering the word, "rubbish" from a sedentary position a moment ago in response to what he was saying about old-fashioned council housing. I wonder whether my hon. Friend deduces from that chuntering that the hon. Lady is an enthusiast for the drab uniformity of former council house provision.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

If I engender any reaction on the Government Benches, especially the Front Bench, I am heartened, especially in a somewhat specialist debate of this nature.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I am determined to nail the canard that any utterance of mine from a sedentary or standing position is not entirely comprehensible to anyone in the Chamber. I never chunter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will, on mature reflection, agree with me that Labour policies on social housing transformed the life of thousands of Londoners by taking them out of the squalid slums in which decade after decade of Conservative Government had regrettably left them. The housing provided was a benchmark for the kind of housing that transforms not only people's lives but their health and the lives of their children.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I agree that the hon. Lady never chunters. Her diction and elocution are a model to us all. If we all projected our voices as well as she does, we would do a better job. Social housing had its usefulness in its time, but it created ghettos. Decay was not remedied in many instances. Lady Thatcher's policy of enabling tenants to buy their homes did the good which was delayed for so long and transformed Greater London council estates. I referred in Committee to new clause 33(4)(b). I seek a renewed assurance on the Floor of the House that the power to acquire existing housing accommodation shall not be abused. The subsection refers to "a temporary basis". The power could be abused, especially if compulsory purchase powers were invoked. I welcome the broad balance of the consultees who are specifically listed in new clause 34 and the fact that the authority will be able to work out with the consultees the best manner of formalising any arrangement. The Government have done a good listing job and generally improved the Bill.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I did not intend to speak, but I have been sorely provoked, not least by the little tantrum from the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), which exerted him so much that he had to leave. He then came back bright and recovered; whatever he went out to get, can I have some of it please? The hon. Gentleman spoke abject nonsense. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that no Labour Government were ever against wealth creation of any description. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) seems to have great difficulty understanding overarching principles and qualifications of those principles in relation to health and sustainable development. He shows naked opportunism when it comes to equal opportunities. It is interesting that, this time round, he seemed to eschew lists. He may remember a classic little list from the Liberal Democrats in Committee that had about 20 organisations on it. Sadly, five never existed; three were wrongly named; and two had already been abolished. That is the strength of little Liberal Democrat lists.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

A slight exaggeration.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Well, I am allowed poetic licence to some degree, surely. New clause 34 deals with consultation. It is right that it contains short lists of core bodies that should be consulted, such as the London boroughs and the common council. The new clause gives the mayor and the democratically elected assembly powers to consult whomever they see fit, as and when they see fit. That must be true democratic practice. 6.45 pm I wish to nail the canard that, without the Liberals' sixth-form little amendment, the Bill will contain no reference to equal opportunities. That is utter nonsense. By any reading, equal opportunities and cultural diversity pervade the Bill. If people do not realise that, they should read the Committee proceedings in detail. During those glorious two months up in Committee Room 12, hon. Members from all parties stressed again and again the importance of equal opportunities and cultural diversity. So it is a shame and beneath contempt that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey implied that, without his amendment, equal opportunities would not be dealt with in the substance of the Bill. Despite the hon. Gentleman's reference to Stonewall, it is a sheer and utter disgrace to pray in aid the bombs that have gone off in London in the past week in support of his amendment. To say that we must accept his silly little amendment because any real notion of cultural diversity and equal opportunities is absent from the Bill is shameful naked opportunism.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The amendment originated not with me but with others outside the House, so it is not "my little amendment". Those from whom it came think that it is important. It was important before the events of the past two weeks and it is important now. The argument that the hon. Gentleman has not answered is why legislation for London government should not give the same prominence to equal opportunities as legislation for the other parts of the United Kingdom.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening—he was talking to his colleague—he would have heard me say that equal opportunities pervade the Bill. They pervade it far more extensively than the legislation for Scotland and for Wales, which sought to encapsulate reference to equal opportunities in one clause. One has only to read the Committee proceedings to know how hon. Members from all parties view equal opportunities and cultural diversity.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and exhort the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) not to understate his case, which is a serious failing on his part. Does he agree that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has just introduced an extraordinary constitutional doctrine which I have not come across before? He suggests that an amendment is not his simply because he was put up to it by someone outside the House. Is it not important that the hon. Gentleman should accept exclusive responsibility for the amendment that he and his party have tabled?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Happily, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was not a member of the Committee for two months. If he had been, it might have been all the more painful an experience. I am grateful for his guidance. I am mindful of the fact that I have a tendency to understate my case when I speak in the House, so I shall take his advice on board. He is right that, when hon. Members table an amendment, it is their amendment, wherever they take their inspiration from. Time and again in Committee, as members of the Committee will know, when Liberal Democrat members were in a corner they used the little refrain, "It's someone else's, not ours, guy," rather than claiming their own words. The proceedings are littered with that refrain, however much the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey may shake his head. I am pleased that new clauses 32, 33 and 34 move us on to greater clarity, not least on the general power of the authority—despite what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey says. Clearly, the Liberals would rather have some first-year undergraduate essay of 20,000 words covering every little aspect of what the GLA may or may not do, but we seek to legislate for a strategic body; to give it the broad strategic framework within which to operate; and to elect a bunch of people to run it and tell them to get on with it, both in terms of fulfilling its functions and in terms of deciding who it should consult and how. Happily, despite the protestations of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, we know that there will not be a Liberal Democrat mayor. Equally, we know that—unless the Conservatives secure a proper candidate rather than the current front-runner, who likes to give £2,000 to strangers at Paddington station every now and again—there will not be a Conservative mayor. I merely ask hon. Members to embrace not just the essence of new clauses 32, 33 and 34, but all aspects of the GLA. As I said in Committee, I believe that five or 10 years from now the beast that will be the GLA and the mayor will be entirely different from what is currently in the legislation. That should inspire us with relish rather than anything else, but I will not indulge, or allow the House to indulge, in the naked opportunism indulged in by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It is a disgrace, and I thought that someone should say so.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have had an interesting debate on what a number of speakers have recognised to be an attempt by the Government to rephrase and clarify the previous drafting of the Bill, to ensure that its purposes are clear and unambiguous. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) gave us an insight into his strange view of the world when he suggested that wealth creation was not a concern of the party that is currently in government. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) made the perfect riposte, pointing out that, in some 30 years' experience of that party, he had never known wealth creation not to be one of its principal objectives—although, of course, there would be other objectives. We are no different in that respect: we make it clear that the principal purposes of the Bill are not just the promotion of economic development and wealth creation, but the promotion of social development and environmental improvement. I cannot imagine any sane person objecting to that formulation.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

Will the Minister confirm that no Labour Government have left office with unemployment lower than when they took office?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman obviously has not been reading his history. The Labour Government of 1945 inherited circumstances in which an enormous number of people were returning from the armed services without employment, and ensured that they left conditions of virtually full employment to the Conservative Government who succeeded them in 1951. That was a remarkable achievement—rather different from the achievement of Conservative Governments during the 1980s and 1990s, who presided over a massive increase in unemployment as a result of two recessions that their ill-conceived policies visited on the country. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is still wedded to the view that he expressed in Committee: "If ever we see a list, let us add an item to it". The hon. Gentleman seems unable to break that habit. We will keep trying, but I fear that the habit is deeply ingrained, probably as part of his party's policy. The hon. Gentleman was a bit confused about subsections (4) and (5) of new clause 32. Let me explain, so that there is no doubt at all. Subsection (4) confers a duty on the authority, when it is considering whether—and, if so, how—to exercise its power, to have regard to the effect which the proposed exercise of the power would have on the health of Londoners, and on sustainable development objectives. A second duty, under subsection (5), binds the authority, when it exercises the power conferred on it by an earlier subsection, to act in the way that it considers best calculated to promote improvements in health. That imposes an obligation both to consider the issue and to act in a particular way. Subsection (5) also imposes a duty to act in the furtherance of sustainable development. I consider that an appropriate way in which to describe the duty involved in both the contemplation and the implementation of policy. As for equal opportunities—as I have made clear, and as has been reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)—we are entirely committed to them. We want the authority to be exemplary in the pursuit of such opportunities: throughout the Bill are provisions requiring the authority to act in a way that will enhance them for all sections of the community in London. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey makes the mistake of assuming that one token reference is better than a Bill that establishes a series of duties and obligations that will achieve the effect that he wants. That is tokenism, rather than the pursuit of policies that will have an impact—and I have to say that it is one of the besetting sins of the Liberal Democrats. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for his kind comments about what we have done to try to improve the drafting of the Bill. In regard to housing, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London rightly expressed concern about his remarks denigrating the London county council's record of providing good-quality homes for hundreds of thousands of Londoners; but, rather than pursuing that, perhaps we should focus on the purpose of the provisions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The hon. Gentleman approved of the effect of subsection (3) of new clause 33, which does not allow the authority to incur expenditure in providing housing. The reason for the provision is, quite simply, that we do not consider that there should be a duplication of powers that already rest with the London boroughs. The position has changed dramatically since the LCC was the major housing authority for London. The boroughs are now the principal housing authorities, and we do not want an overlap or a duplication of responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman was, however, worried about subsection (4), and the possibility that the authority would acquire existing accommodation. It is clear that that would be only in support of additional purposes—other purposes that the authority has power to pursue. For example, in the case of an economic development objective, the GLA could be asked by a borough or a public-private partnership in an area of London to act in a way that would further the development of that area, and to acquire certain properties. It would have the power to do that, ancillary to other uses.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

The Minister has spelt out the position relating to economic development. I am concerned about subsection (2)(b), which relates to the promotion of social development. Is that not the loophole that could be exploited, perhaps unscrupulously, by an extremist mayor in the pursuit of objectives that most mainstream people would not support? Compulsory purchase powers should not be used for the extension of social housing in London.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I can envisage circumstances in which, in support of a local regeneration scheme, the GLA might act to support a local authority in carrying out the decanting of people in need of rehousing, but that would be ancillary to its principal objective of furthering regeneration. It would not be able to pursue its objectives purely for the sake of housing. That is the distinction. It is there to act in partnership, and to support others; it may not itself act in pursuit of housing objectives, and it has no compulsory purchase powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East rightly reminded us of the Liberal Democrats' tendency in Committee in respect of lists. He rightly pointed out that equal opportunities pervade the Bill. I hope that the House will not be tempted to follow the Liberal Democrats in showing a tokenist adherence to the principle of equal opportunities, but will support the Government, who are keen to ensure that the authority acts in the interest of all sections of the community in London, and genuinely enhances equal opportunities.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 14, line 35, after 'of', insert 'health and'.

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

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 37, in clause 31, page 18, line 3, at end insert— '(da) the Greater London Regional Health Authority;'. No. 38, in page 18, line 12, at end insert— '(ba) the Greater London Regional Health Authority,'. No. 39, in clause 57, page 31, line 13, leave out 'and'. No. 40, in page 31, line 14, at end insert 'and (e) the Greater London Regional Health Authority.'. New clause 12—Greater London Regional Health Authority— '(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Greater London Regional Health Authority. (2) The Greater London Regional Health Authority shall have the functions conferred or imposed on it by this or any other Act, or made exercisable by it under this Act, and any reference in this Act to the functions of the Greater London Regional Health Authority includes a reference to any functions made exercisable by this Act. (3) The Greater London Regional Health Authority shall exercise its functions (a) in accordance with such guidance or directions as may be issued to it by the Mayor, (b) for the purpose of facilitating the discharge by the Authority of the duties under this Act, and (c) for the purpose of securing and facilitating the implementation of the health strategy. (4) The Authority may issue to the Greater London Regional Health Authority— (a) guidance as to the manner in which it exercises its functions, (b) general instructions as to the manner in which it is to exercise its functions, or (c) specific instructions as to the exercise of its functions.'. Amendment No. 41, in clause 305, page 158, line 37, leave out 'or'. Amendment No. 42, in page 158, line 38, at end insert 'or (e) the Greater London Regional Health Authority;'.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The amendment proposes that health should be one of the matters that the authority should try to improve, as part of its objective to promote economic and social development. One of the strange omissions in the Bill is the Government's refusal to give the authority more than a limited role in relation to health. We debated it in our earlier discussion, but apparently it is not to be included in clause 25. 7 pm We have never understood, and still fail to understand, why the Government have not taken the great opportunity to put what is now the newly constituted regional health office for London—it has been in existence since the beginning of April, was formed out of the previous north and south Thames offices and is the obvious body to look after regional health strategy—under the umbrella, as it were, of the Greater London Authority, making it one of the functional bodies, to use a phrase in the Bill, and one of the tools with which the GLA would work to achieve its purposes throughout London. We are going to end up with the GLA planning things to do with the promotion of better health—we discussed them in the previous debate—but not being given the link to the obvious body to do that. New clause 12 would set up, under that umbrella, the Greater London regional health authority. It would effectively take a body that is led by appointees—secret people, whom the public barely know—and is a remote part of the NHS, and bring it across, so that it could be accountable to the people of London. Controversial decisions about the closing of hospitals, the planning of strategic health services or the amalgamation of great teaching hospitals should be taken in the open, by accountable people who can be kicked out of office if they get the decisions wrong and who have more than a local view. That is a strongly felt view in London. We hope that the Government, having resisted the proposal in Committee, will, even at this late hour in the proceedings on the Bill, have second thoughts. The move is strongly supported by those outside the House who, however disparaged they are by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), seek to persuade us to advance arguments with which we agree, on their behalf.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

I shall comment briefly on the Liberal Democrat proposal to establish a regional health authority. It seems to us that, when the London regional office of the NHS executive was created in January, it was intended to fill the gaps in the strategic management of health care in London. That office was intended to work in partnership with local government social services, not under local government direction. The London regional office was given five key issues to deal with: developing an understanding of health needs across London; improving primary care; developing intermediate and community care; putting a new focus on the most vulnerable Londoners; and modernising London hospitals. In the judgment of the Conservative party, direct provision of health care is best left to the professionals, rather than to those in local government.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I broadly support my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), but at the same time express a certain sympathy for the objectives behind the Liberal Democrat amendment. I think that all of us will have had experience, in our daily duties as constituency Members, of the problem that is caused by the undemocratic nature of health authorities that take decisions on behalf of our constituents. Those decisions seem at times totally irrational. They certainly have been in the Hillingdon borough with regard to Mount Vernon hospital. If things go wrong, that may also be the case with decisions on the future of Harefield hospital. However, the problem extends well beyond London. I am not clear how a body that is specifically directed to bringing forward a Londonwide health policy, under the control of the Greater London Authority, and thereby making it accountable would be the model for the nation as a whole. The London executive of the national health service has to disburse funds that are raised nationally. The London region allocates resources in competition with bodies that allocate resources elsewhere in the country. We have seen how resources have been taken away from London under the old RAWP—resource allocation working party—formula, to the benefit of the provinces. There needs to be a re-examination of how to achieve better democratic accountability for the NHS as a whole, nationwide. I do not believe that the Bill is the way in which to do it. It would cause a distortion of administrative processes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South has said, it is an area of public policy that is best left to the professionals.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We share the hon. Gentleman's view that, ideally, accountability would be better achieved on an England-wide basis; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would have their own arrangements. We do not have that for the time being. It is only because of the inability of any legislative vehicle to achieve accountability more widely that we seek to do it now. If we could do it for London this year, we could do it for the other parts of England next.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I am not sure that the Labour Government are yet disposed to what the Liberal Democrats propose. It may come to that, but the Minister shakes his head. I am sure that some of the older members of his party who are behind him will be shaking their heads even more vigorously. I appreciate the intentions. In our part of London, decisions have been driven through against the clear, majority will of local people. Huge petitions are raised and not a blind bit of notice is taken. However, it is not a purely London phenomenon. It is one that other Members have suffered elsewhere. We must acknowledge that fact and say that, laudable as the objective behind the amendment is, it is deficient.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has returned to the issue at this stage of the Bill. I thought that I had made it clear in Committee that the Government had no intention of establishing a Greater London regional health authority under the direction of the Greater London Authority. We want the GLA to have a clear and genuinely strategic role in considering the underlying determinants of health. We want it to have a duty to take action, as I have described, in promoting improvements to Londoners' health. That is what the Bill provides for, but there is no justification for another tier of health administration. There are no regional health authorities in other parts of the country; they were abolished in 1996. Since 1 January, there has been a new strategic health body for London, the London regional office of the NHS executive. It is concerned with strategic health issues for the capital, as well as strategic management of health services. We expect it to work in close partnership with the GLA for the benefit of Londoners. I detect a certain difference between the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who speaks for the official Opposition and who broadly concurs with our policy, and that of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Perhaps the rethink going on in the Conservative party about its role in relation to health is an active debate, in which those two Members are on different sides, but I will leave their private grief to them and their party. We are setting a clear provision for health to be at the forefront of the new Greater London Authority's mind when developing its services, but it should not be engaged in the administration of the NHS, which is better dealt with by other means.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The campaign to democratise the health service will go on. I was not expecting the Government to give in. They are resisting democracy in all sorts of places. Conceding that on this occasion they have the numbers against us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

SECRETARY OF STATE'S GUIDANCE ABOUT THE AUTHORITY'S PURPOSE

GENERAL POWER OF THE AUTHORITY

FUNCTIONS TO BELONG TO AUTHORITY BUT BE EXERCISABLE BY MAYOR, ASSEMBLY OR BOTH

GENERAL DUTIES OF THE MAYOR IN RELATION TO HIS STRATEGIES

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 19, line 22, at end insert— '(i) the strategy for the River Thames prepared and published under section (The River Thames) below.'.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

This amendment is even less hopeful of success than the previous one.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

The prospects are about the same.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman is probably right. This is a probing amendment. Clause 33 contains a list of the mayor's strategies. It applies to transport, London development, spatial development, biodiversity, municipal waste, air quality, ambient noise and culture. Our amendment and the new clause seek to add a strategy for the River Thames. The reason why we have tabled the amendment—people who are interested can see how we amplify it in new clause 13, which sets out all the inter-related parts of the proposal—is that the Thames not only is a hugely important principal item in London, and therefore will be governed by London government, but links many other things. One cannot have an environmental strategy, for example, that does not impinge also on the Thames. The Thames has suffered from the lack of a coherent strategy pulling together the strands, and we thought that it would be better if we were explicit in providing such a strategy in the Bill. Although I have no doubt that London's government will want to address Thames issues, it would be helpful if those issues were addressed—to use ministerial phraseology—within an overarching or intertwining provision. A specific Thames strategy is not provided anywhere else in the Bill.

Theresa May (Conservative, Maidenhead)

Speaking as an hon. Member whose constituency includes one of the fine stretches of the River Thames, I find the hon. Gentleman's suggestion a little difficult to accept. Is he really suggesting that the mayor of London should set the strategy for the whole of the River Thames?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Lady was spared the Committee stage, when we discussed such issues. Of course I am not suggesting that the London mayor should do that. The River Thames Society and other bodies deal with the Thames, not only in her constituency, but beyond it to the sea. However, London Thames issues unite all the riparian boroughs, and the GLA will have a responsibility to address them. We believe that it would be sensible to have in London a coherent approach in dealing with the matter.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

As we said, ad nauseam, in Committee—if the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me—although the River Thames is important, we rather share the Government's view that there is no reason why Thames issues should be singled out for special treatment, and that transport policies and various other strategies will deal with the points made by the Liberal Democrats. So far as I can see, the amendments would only impose additional bureaucratic burdens. The odd thing about the new clause is the Liberal Democrats' proposal that the assembly should not make the decisions on the matter.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

The Government fully support the need to protect and enhance the environment and the economy of the Thames. We continue to promote and implement the policies set out in strategic guidance for the River Thames. We are working with the London Planning Advisory Committee to encourage the London boroughs to incorporate those policies in their unitary development plans. We continue to work to promote and maintain use of the river for transporting freight and waste. We are also bringing to fruition the Thames 2000 initiative, which will shortly ensure that public passenger transport services are back on the river. Amendment No. 64 and new clause 13 propose that the mayor should produce a separate document, known as the River Thames strategy, containing proposals and policies for the use, enhancement and protection of the Thames policy area, and proposing an holistic and integrated approach to the strategically significant features of the Thames. Those are laudable aims, and I wholeheartedly support them. However, I should tell the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the proposed provisions are irrelevant, as their aims are already covered by the Bill. We have made specific provision—in clause 248, for the spatial development strategy—to be able to cover specific parts of London, such as the Thames, in more detail, in the same way as the Thames guidance currently does. The mayor will, therefore, be able to include in the SDS policies addressing, for example, the wide-ranging topics of the river's built and natural environment, its use for leisure and recreation, and its role in passenger and freight transportation. The Secretary of State's strategic guidance will remain in place until replaced by the SDS. At that point, it will be for the mayor to reproduce, or even to improve upon, current policies on the Thames. However, it is not a matter that we feel needs to be, or even should be, prescribed in the Bill. Additionally, clause 33—to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred—provides that, when preparing or revising any strategy, the mayor has to have regard to the desirability of promoting and encouraging use of the River Thames. The important role of the Thames will, therefore, be integral to consideration of all mayoral strategies. That will ensure that, for example, the waste strategy considers use of the Thames for transportation, and that the biodiversity plan deals with the importance of public access. Therefore, as the Thames runs through the centre of London, so it—and considerations of sustainability—will run throughout all the mayor's strategies. I hope that I have reassured the House that the very important strategic role of the River Thames is adequately provided for in the Bill, and that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will see fit to withdraw amendment No. 64.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am reassured not only by the Government's very good commitment—which, as a London Member, I welcome—to all the initiatives on the Thames that they have taken in the past year, but by the fact that the spatial development strategy will allow a Thames-specific strategy to be included. On that basis, it would be entirely appropriate to let the current provisions remain in the legislation, which we can always, if necessary, amend later. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment No. 114A, in page 19, line 29, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The mayor's strategies will provide the framework within which the authority and its functional bodies operate. They will also provide the framework within which, in certain circumstances, the London boroughs, and other public bodies and organisations, operate within London. It is, therefore, vital that the strategies should have regard to the authority's own principal purposes—which we have already debated—and also to wider national and international considerations which will impact on the quality of life of Londoners. The authority cannot, and will not, be operating in a vacuum. Amendments Nos. 114A and 118, therefore, require the mayor, in preparing or revising any strategy, to have regard to the authority's principal purposes, as stated in new clause 32, and to consider the effect that such strategies would have on the health of Londoners and on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. The mayor is also required to include policies that he or she considers best calculated to promote improvements in the health of people in London, and that would—for reasons that I outlined in the previous debate—contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK. In both of those cases, and in others—for example, the integrated transport plan—the mayor cannot act in isolation: what happens or is done in London will have an effect elsewhere. The mayor's strategies must, therefore, be consistent with national policies, and with international obligations, when they have been adopted. I therefore cannot accept amendments Nos. 68 and 69—which were tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—which would have the effect of making the mayor have regard to national policies, but not of making him or her produce strategies that were consistent with such national policies. That would be clear nonsense. The GLA, like all other authorities in England, will operate within a framework of national policies and legislation. It simply cannot go its own way and disregard the framework willy-nilly. Amendment No. 115 replaces the current requirement that the mayor must have regard to the need to ensure that any strategy is consistent with international obligations with a less onerous obligation requiring the mayor to ensure that his or her policies are consistent with international obligations notified to the mayor by the Secretary of State. International obligations are placed on the state, and it must be for the state to decide if or how those are to be met. It is difficult to see how the mayor could possibly meet the obligation as previously drafted, as a huge international secretariat would be required to establish whether any international obligation was being breached. Amendment No. 115 is, therefore, a common-sense amendment, and I hope that the House will agree it. Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 are both drafting amendments. I hope that the House will accept the Government amendments in this group, and that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will not press amendments Nos. 68 and 69.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

The Opposition agree with the broad thrust of the Minister's comments. However, I think that he should pay attention to the points on strategies made by London First in its briefing on Report. The briefing, after listing the strategies, states: the Mayor will have few, or no, powers over some of the agencies directly responsible for the above strategies. There is too much emphasis on process, and not enough on delivery. That goes to the heart of our central complaint, in Committee, about the provision. London First continues: We look forward to hearing the Government's considered view on the proposed opposition amendment on performance indicators and strategies. No such amendment has been tabled, but the Minister should be able to tell us how he expects to monitor the effectiveness of the strategies that have been set out in the Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 reflect the difference of view between the Liberal Democrats and the Government on how independent and self-governing London should be. We have always argued for regional government, not citywide government. A regional government for London could reasonably be expected to have regard to national policy without being required to follow such policy. What may be appropriate across England may not be appropriate in London. We are all bound by the international obligations to which the United Kingdom signs up, but there is no reason why London should not differ from a general strategy for England. We have never been persuaded that there must be conformity and homogeneity. We retain our view, although we accept that the Government like to hang on to everything at the centre, as this short debate has shown.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) quoted from a London First briefing when saying that we were focusing too much on the process and not enough on performance. I have frequent contact with London First and a great deal of respect for it, but I believe that it is wrong in this case. The strategies are the framework for action. We want to ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to be involved in their preparation. It is vital that business should be fully consulted in the preparation of the strategies that will guide London's economic development policies. We have to get the process right. Once the strategies are in place, they should guide the process of implementation and ensure that the objectives that we have discussed are met. That covers wealth creation, social development and environmental improvement. The authority is about getting results, improving the quality of life for Londoners and creating a more prosperous and successful city. If we get the strategies right and ensure a framework that allows the mayor and authority to implement them, we shall secure the progress that we want. I am sorry that we have failed to persuade the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that his slightly anarchic view of the role of London in relation to the rest of the country is inappropriate. As on many other matters, the Liberal Democrats are out of step with the general thrust of opinion in the country, which wants a good measure of independence and devolved decision making within a framework that secures the national interest. We do not want an anarchic framework in which some parts of the country act on their own with no regard to the impact on other parts of the country. That is not a recipe for good government or the future health and well-being of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman presses his amendments, I urge the House to vote against them.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment No. 119, in page 20, leave out lines 5 to 9.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The amendments are drafting amendments, bringing together, in clause 305, the interpretation clause, the definition of national policies that appears in several different places in the Bill. I hope that the House will agree with these sensible, but entirely technical, amendments.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

The amendments provide a better structure for the definition of national policies. However, our fundamental objection remains. A national policy to which the mayor must have regard is whatever the Government say it is. It is based not on a decision of the House, but on an arbitrary decision of the Government. Any paper that they lay here counts as policy. The Government laid a transport White Paper a few months ago. I am sure that they will implement many of its provisions, but I suspect that an awful lot of it will not be implemented. It is unacceptable for the mayor to be bound by policies that the Government have no intention of implementing. National policy should be that which has been subject to a resolution of the House, not a Government diktat. Putting a definition in clause 305 is an improvement on the random dotting around the Bill, but I place on record our disquiet about the use of the words "national policies".

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has said. I may be speaking to a slightly wider agenda, but this is the right time to make my points. Many Londoners believe that there will be considerable devolution of power from the national Government to the mayor and the Greater London assembly. Very few powers, if any, have been devolved from the Secretary of State, but many have been taken from below from the boroughs. The Government claim to be serious about devolving power to Londoners, as they are with the Scottish Parliament and, to a lesser extent, the Welsh Assembly. Many Londoners will be disappointed that the Bill is merely a fig leaf of devolved power with very little substance.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The Government are not taking powers predominantly from other tiers of local government and refusing to devolve power from central Government. The main new powers for the Greater London Authority involve substantial devolution from central Government, where responsibility for transport services in London and the Metropolitan police lies. The new authority will be given real powers. That is part of the process of devolution. Only the Liberal Democrats would normally dissent from the view that such an authority should have regard to national policies. London is part of the country. There is no difference between us and the Conservatives on that. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) expressed concern about the definition of national polices. Some key areas in which the Conservatives have expressed a lot of interest recently, including planning policy on development and new housing in the green belt, would not be covered by a definition limited to items that had been approved by the House. Planning policy guidance note 3 is being seen as an important document in guiding policy. The more limited definition that the hon. Gentleman would apparently prefer would make it possible for such items to be disregarded. It would not be sensible for the mayor of London not to have regard to new planning policy guidance or other documents issued by the Government that are not subject to approval by the House. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but it is misplaced. In practice—

CONSULTATION

REVIEW AND INVESTIGATION BY THE ASSEMBLY

THE GENERAL POWER OF THE AUTHORITY

LIMITS OF THE GENERAL POWER

CONSULTATION

GLA TRANSPORT GRANT

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 48, line 33, at end insert 'but the amount of the grant shall increase by at least the annual rate of the Retail Price Index in each year beginning from the Authority's second financial year.'. In briefly outlining the purpose of the amendment, it may be instructive if I look first at the history of London Underground. As we all know, investment in London Underground has gone up and down unpredictably over many years. We now understand that, in 2000, investment in London Underground will stop altogether, according to the Government's spending plans. The amendment would provide some stability in terms of investment and planning. We must avoid a return to the present situation, where London Underground has a substantial backlog of repairs. Some £7 billion-worth of repairs have built up, and that would not have occurred had a guaranteed level of investment or grant been available to London Transport over a long period. The House could argue about the appropriate level of resources, and about whether the retail prices index is the right level. However, it cannot be disputed that we need a guaranteed level of funding over a long period to enable London Underground and the bus companies to plan their investment programmes without having to second-guess what might happen in four or five years. No doubt the Government are taking into account the revenues that will be accrued through congestion charges and workplace car parking charges. However, those sources of revenue are extremely unpredictable. In theory, if congestion charges and workplace car parking charges do their job, one would expect that, in five, 10 or 15 years—when we have a completely integrated, comfortable and safe public transport system—no-one will be driving their cars at all, and the revenue from such charges will dry up. That reinforces the need for a level of funding to be provided over a long period, which is the purpose of the amendment.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

The Government amendments in this group change in various ways the financial arrangements for the GLA in part III of the Bill. I trust that it will be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for me to outline briefly our proposals with regard to concessionary fares within London. That is an issue of particular importance to the elderly and the disabled.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the Minister is speaking to the previous group of amendments. Amendment No. 27 is about the amount of the grant. If she is not, I apologise, but her remarks do not appear to relate to the one and only amendment that has been selected.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware that the previous group of amendments was not spoken to, and I am aware of the group to which we are speaking. It seems appropriate in the circumstances briefly to detail our proposals with regard to concessionary fares for the elderly and disabled people in London, as we are dealing with finance for Transport for London. I will touch on the amendment that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) later. The present legislative arrangements for travel concessions are provided by the London boroughs, and have been in place for almost 15 years. Clearly, the Bill must make provision for those travel concessions to continue. We have given careful consideration to a number of proposals for improving the scheme. As a result, we will table amendments in the other place that will update the scheme, thus helping to maintain its stability. For the statutory reserve scheme, the start and finish times will be brought into line with those currently in the voluntary scheme. Arrangements for determining the costs of the reserve scheme will be clarified. We are also planning to give the boroughs powers to set up a statutory joint committee dealing with concessionary fares, which will have the option of taking decisions on the basis of qualified majority voting.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is clearly the speech for the previous group of amendments, which the guillotine prevented us from debating. We are happy—if you will allow it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to respond to the Minister's remarks. I hope that if the Minister is having the latitude to speak on what is clearly the previous group of amendments, the same latitude will be afforded to others, and we will not just have the Minister trying to justify the Government's difficult-to-justify position without my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) putting his case.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Financial arrangements are tailored to the model of London governance for which the Bill provides. There will be a strong executive mayor and an assembly to provide scrutiny. There will be four new functional bodies, dedicated to delivering key Londonwide services. Transport for London and the London development agency will be separate corporate bodies, directly accountable to the mayor, who will set their budgets and strategies and appoint their boards. The Metropolitan police authority and the London fire and emergency planning authority will be authorities in their own right. The mayor will set their budgets and appoint assembly members who will form the majority of members of each authority. The financial framework in part III provides the mayor with flexibility to allocate resources in line with mayoral priorities. It ensures that the GLA and each of the functional bodies have responsibility for managing their own financial affairs. It makes it easier for Londoners to understand how they contribute, and it fulfils our commitment that the GLA would be subject to the local government finance requirements with modifications needed to reflect its undoubtedly unique role. The GLA transport grant will draw together money that the Government now pay to all Transport for London's predecessor bodies and to the London boroughs through transport policies and programmes. This will provide the baseline for the first year's budget. After the first year, the Secretary of State will determine the amount of grant after consulting with the mayor. In other words, they will negotiate. The mayor will make clear what level of resources central Government must provide to deliver the transport strategy and what the effect of inflation will be. The Secretary of State will consider the mayor's proposals against the demands of the rest of the country. That is the right way for the level of transport grant to be determined. Increases must be properly justified. Amendment No. 27 would be entirely counterproductive. It could deter the Secretary of State from making a one-off additional payment to the mayor; for example, to provide funding for a significant project. If the amendment were accepted, what Secretary of State would be prepared ever to provide additional amounts if the Government had to continue and increase those large sums long after the need for them had passed? It is hardly an incentive to increase resources, and it is most certainly not a recipe for best value. The Government have made available an extra £1.8 billion over the next three years to deliver our integrated transport strategy. We need, and will take, no lessons from others about the importance of proper funding for transport. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am afraid that the Minister failed to respond to our principal concern, that the GLA should be provided with a guaranteed level of funding over the time frame that is required for investment and planning purposes. With the Government's proposals, the uncertainties will remain. I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's response, so we will press the amendment to a vote.

LIMITATION OF PRECEPTS

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 7 would exclude the Greater London Authority from rate capping and council tax capping. It would give the GLA the freedom to which local government aspires. The Government have moved some way towards that freedom, but they have not yet given it to local government. In Committee and on Second Reading, we debated what sort of beast the GLA will be. We had always understood—and it was the Government's position before the election—that London would have regional government. That has shifted over the past two years to citywide government and local government. Ministers have described the GLA in various ways, but it is a creature all to itself. We are not against that, except that we feel that it should be a regional government creature, not a local government creature. However it is defined, it is clearly not the local authority delivering first-tier services in London, because there are 33 of those—32 boroughs and the City of London—and they will remain. If the GLA is to match the aspirations of the people of London, if we want the mayor and the assembly not to disappoint people and if we want the hype that will surround the GLA' s election next year to be justified, we must give it as much financial freedom as possible. There were only ever two options for doing that. The first was to allow a variation in the tax that could be collected in London. That power has been given to the Scottish Parliament, although the Labour party has promised that it would not use that power initially. The Welsh Assembly has not been given that power. We argued that London's government should be given tax-varying powers—up or down—but the Government regard that as too great a concession and too great a degree of devolution. No doubt they did not want to lose control of that issue. The second option is contained in new clause 7. It is a more modest proposal and it would at least allow the GLA to decide how much money it sought from Londoners without having to ask the Government's permission. One of the themes of debates on the Bill has been how much the Secretary of State will have control over everything that the GLA will do. We wrung a concession out of the Government in Committee which will mean that traffic wardens' uniforms will not be subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State. That was a great concession that London could be trusted to decide such matters on its own. Sadly, when it comes to the big decisions, the Government wish to retain hold of the apron strings. We hope that the Government will take this opportunity to give Londoners more of the powers they want for their new authority next year. The Government should be generous and allow London to decide on London's finances.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

We do not support new clause 7, although not for the reasons that the Minister might expect. The Conservatives believe that it is a desirable long-term objective to get rid of rate capping.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

But not yet.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

We happen not to be in office at the moment, so we could not get rid of it.

John Smith (Labour, Vale of Glamorgan)

Not for a long time.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

The hon. Gentleman should not count his chickens. It is difficult to get rid of rate capping in isolation. It has to be done in conjunction with other reforms to ensure that local government expenditure does not run out of control. There were many good reasons for introducing rate capping. Lord Callaghan said in the 1970s that the party was over for local government spending, and the rate-capping regime followed. Although the proposal in new clause 7 is desirable, we will be unable to support the Liberal Democrats on it. One cannot take one authority in isolation and exempt it. If rate capping is to be abolished, it has to be for all local authorities, equally and fairly. We share the Liberal Democrats, sentiments about rate capping. Indeed, I suspect getting rid of rate capping is a common objective. However, it is many years since we had a Liberal Government and the harsh realities of office are such that it is a bigger job than they think. We agree with the principle, but we are unable to support the new clause.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have had a revealing debate. We heard further evidence of the Tory party U-turn process, in which it is dissociating itself from what it stood for in government, and we had another example of the Liberal Democrat nirvana in which everything is possible if we would only give as much power as possible to devolved assemblies and let them do what they want with no regard to anything else that is happening. We reject both approaches. We made it clear in the White Paper that the GLA would be subject to the same arrangements for limiting council tax increases as local authorities generally. The GLA is sui generis a citywide authority, but it will operate within the local government ambit and its revenues will come from traditional local government sources—precepts, non-domestic rates and Government grant. Therefore, it should be subject to exactly the same disciplines as other local government authorities, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) rightly stressed. Replacing crude and universal capping with reserve powers for limiting council tax and precepts fulfils a manifesto commitment given by the Government. The reserve powers will be far more flexible than the system put in place by the previous Administration. The Government have a duty to protect local tax payers and must have those reserve powers, but we have made it clear that we hope that we will not have to use them—for the GLA or for any local authority. New clause 7 is not only unacceptable; it is irresponsible and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I shall remind Ministers of that when they get rid of the Prescott version of capping, as they say they intend to do. We will continue to press for the walls of central Government to crumble before devolution until we have succeeded. It seems that the Government will not give in tonight, but we will return to the issue. Reluctantly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

DIRECTION BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 188, line 36, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— '(c) a Member of the House of Lords,'. Schedule 8 disqualifies politicians, including peers, from membership of the Transport for London board. However, as the House of Lords Bill will disqualify hereditary peers from the House of Lords, they will no longer be politicians and should therefore not be excluded from membership of the TfL Board. This amendment would exclude Members of the House of Lords from the TfL board, rather than peers in general. I commend it to the House.

RAILWAYS

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 85, line 36, at end insert— '(6A) The Franchising Director shall consult the Mayor before proposing any changes to rail services which will affect the level of provision of rail services in Greater London.'. The amendment would give the mayor greater powers—or at least a greater say—over rail services in London. I hope that all hon. Members agree that London needs an integrated transport strategy. Such a policy should include the tube, buses and trains. Regrettably, rail at present is missing from the integrated transport strategy. The mayor will have control over buses. He or she eventually will have a degree of influence over the tube. If the Government's public-private partnership proposals collapse, the mayor may have much greater control over the tube system. However, the rail system remains outside the mayor's grasp. That is very bad news for commuters. Today's briefing from the Save Our Railways campaign identifies 91 London centres that will miss out because the mayor does not have control over rail. I believe that the list should contain 94 such centres, the three missing from the original list being Beddington, Wallington and Hackbridge. All such centres will miss out because rail services will not be integrated fully into the mayor's powers or responsibilities. The amendment would enable the mayor to have a complete strategy for controlling all aspects of transport in London, and not leave out the rail service, which is a major people-mover.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I trust that I will be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman about the mayor's powers in connection with surface rail and about the underground. I assure him that there is no danger of the public-private partnership collapsing, and the mayoral power will be complete when the underground transfers into Transport for London, after the successful completion of the public-private partnership. Amendment No. 34 would place a duty on the franchising director to consult the mayor before proposing any changes to rail services which will affect the level of provision of rail services in Greater London. Again, however, there is no need for this amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) will find that consoling. As I made clear in Standing Committee, we intend to bring forward an amendment at a later stage that will place a duty on the franchising director to consult the mayor on the level of provision of services within London. Our intention is that the duty on the franchising director will be similar to that currently imposed on him in respect of London Transport by section 31A of the London Regional Transport Act 1984. This duty will be in addition to the duty of co-operation placed on the franchising director and Transport for London by clause 137. I should also like to say a few words about how we intend that the Bill should deal with the mayor's powers in respect of the national rail network. There was substantial debate in Standing Committee of our proposals in this area. Some hon. Members expressed concern—and we have heard it again today—that the mayor's rail powers needed to be further strengthened. In the event, the Committee endorsed the principle behind the relevant clauses and decided that they did not require amendment at that stage. However, I indicated to the Committee that the Government would consider bringing forward some amendments at a later stage in particular areas. I am now in a position to indicate to the House the nature of the amendments that we envisage. Although it has not been possible to prepare those amendments for consideration on Report, we intend to table the amendments for consideration in the other place. The aim of this package of amendments will be to fine-tune the balance between the real powers that the mayor will have, and the wider national objectives of the franchising director and his successor, the Strategic Rail Authority. The principle to which we are adhering is that, although the mayor should have a significant degree of influence over London's railways, that influence should complement and not detract from the need for the Strategic Rail Authority to take an overall strategic view and to address the key issues facing Britain's railways. I should make it clear that this Bill, of necessity, refers to the franchising director rather than the Strategic Rail Authority. Subject to parliamentary approval, the functions given to the franchising director by the Bill will eventually be inherited by the Strategic Rail Authority. I shall turn to the specific amendments that we propose. First, we intend to bring forward an amendment at a later stage that will provide for the mayor to issue instructions as well as guidance to the franchising director, subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of clause 165. That was an issue to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who unfortunately is not in his place, drew attention during the Standing Committee's consideration of the clauses on railways, although his suggestion was that the mayor should be able to issue directions to the franchising director, rather than simply guidance. The amendment that we propose is designed to bring the mayor's powers more closely into line with those of the Secretary of State who, by virtue of section 5 of the Railways Act 1993, is able to issue both instructions and guidance to the franchising director. The 1993 Act does not empower the Secretary of State to issue directions to the franchising director, and so I hope that the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Carshalton and Wallington will accept that our formulation is more appropriate. Secondly, we intend to bring forward an amendment at a later stage to make it clear that the franchising director is to implement the mayor's instructions and guidance in the manner best calculated to give effect to the instructions and guidance". This would replace the Bill's current wording, which simply requires the franchising director to implement the mayor's guidance. This would be a technical amendment, again designed to harmonise the Bill's wording with that in section 5(1) of the Railways Act 1993, imposing a duty on the franchising director similar to that which he is currently under in respect of instructions and guidance issued to him by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, we shall table an amendment to the effect that the mayor's instructions and guidance to the franchising director shall include instructions in respect of additional railway services to be procured by the franchising director on behalf of the authority. That is so that the franchising director can ensure that the best use is made of scarce track capacity on the London rail network, and can advise the mayor on the best way of meeting his or her requirements for additional services. Fourthly, we shall table an amendment to clarify the position where there is a conflict between the instructions and guidance issued by the mayor and those issued by the Secretary of State. The amendment will make it clear that, while it is for the Secretary of State to set the overall strategic policy for the railways in Britain, it will be open to the mayor to issue instructions and guidance on operational matters which impact directly on users of rail services in London. We shall also table an amendment to deal with the procurement of additional rail services and facilities by London local authorities other than the Greater London Authority. We intend to table an amendment in the Lords to give the mayor the power to promote new network improvements and to comment on or oppose proposals advanced by others. That will be done by giving the mayor the ability to promote and oppose local Bills in Parliament and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992. We believe that that package of amendments will more fully define the relationship between the mayor and the franchising director and give each of them a clear framework of co-operation within which to work. As we made clear in the London White Paper, the franchising director and the Strategic Rail Authority will retain the final say over rail, but the mayor will have a crucial role to play in improving London's rail services and will have the powers needed to make a difference. In that light, I trust that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will withdraw the amendment.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I apologise for intervening after missing the speech by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). However, the Minister's statement is of such significance that it cannot go unanswered. She made a series of pronouncements that should be incorporated in new clauses. She said that references to the national rail network in this part of the Bill will in future often relate to the Strategic Rail Authority. The mayoralty will have powers beyond guidance to the franchising director in the form of instructions. The mayoralty will have a strategic responsibility vis-a-vis the railways in London that was not envisaged when the Bill was published. The changes were not mooted by the Government on Second Reading or in Committee. I greatly welcome the new provisions because if the Greater London Authority is to be genuinely strategic, one of the most important strategic functions is the co-ordination and rationalisation of the provision of public transport in the capital. It made little sense for the mayoralty to be able to issue guidance to the franchising director but to be unable to make dispositions as to the facilities and resources necessary to bring about the co-ordination that is central to the mayoralty's role. I hope that their Lordships will give those matters the closest scrutiny. I welcome the outline of the new provisions but several questions are begged by the Minister's observations. As she admitted, there could be conflict between the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State and the mayoralty to the franchising director. There will be a mechanism to resolve that conflict, but Londoners will want the mayor and his authority to have the predominant power to bring about the rationalisation of public transport facilities in the railway sector that the Bill was intended to achieve and that it has hitherto lacked the mechanism to bring about. The Government are moving in the right direction, but I wish that they had spelt it out much more clearly a lot earlier.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the Minister for her statement, which is of some significance. I welcome her announcement that the Government will table amendments in the other place. It is important that they fine-tune arrangements between the mayor and the franchising director and between the mayor and the Strategic Rail Authority. I hope that that will shift the balance of power away from the franchising director towards the mayor, as I think the Minister said would happen. The views of the mayor and of Londoners should be paramount in discussing London rail services. I welcome the fact that the mayor will be able to promote new services. In those circumstances, I shall not press the amendment.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I wish briefly to respond to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). In Committee, I said: We intend to table an amendment at a later stage that will place a duty on the franchising director".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 February 1999; c. 743.] In some of our lengthy and substantial debates in Committee, I said that the Government were considering tabling amendments later on particular matters. That is what we have done. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's response to what I said. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for welcoming the Government's proposals and for his commitment to withdraw the amendment.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

PROVISIONS CONSEQUENT ON ALTERATION OF METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 104, line 29, leave out clause 199.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The amendments reflect a debate in Committee that did not focus on amendments that would have put into law the issues with which we were concerned. The Government want to make the boundaries of the Metropolitan police authority coterminous with those of the Greater London Authority. That makes sense for many aspects of its operation. It will help it to be more accountable. The establishment of the Metropolitan police authority in many ways requires the two sets of boundaries to be as one. As with any boundary change, anomalies are thrown up. Our amendments seek to put right such an anomaly. They deal with the effect of the boundary change on taxi drivers who are regulated by the Metropolitan police authority under the legislation listed in the amendment. We believe that reducing the Metropolitan police district to being coterminous with the GLA will denude the market of many cab drivers, particularly those who ply in the suburbs. By fiat, the livelihoods of many of my constituents will be made more difficult because their lawful business will suffer from the loss of some customers. We make no apologies for arguing again on Report on behalf of those constituents. They may support the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan police authority coming under democratic control, but they feel that they are being hard done by. There seems to be no problem in retaining the current Metropolitan district simply for the purpose of regulating London cabs. As we pointed out in Standing Committee, that creates no real problem for the regulatory bodies—the police. I discussed with officers from the Metropolitan police and from the Surrey constabulary how such a policy could be implemented. It was clear that it would create no problems for them on the ground. They would be able to distinguish who should take responsibility in which areas and to whom they would have to report any transgressions of the regulations. As there are no practical difficulties associated with the proposal, one has to ask why anybody should be opposed to it. I can see no particular reason, unless people with over-tidy minds need to ensure that each boundary looks nice on the map. The Minister may recall that we had an interesting debate in Standing Committee, when I pressed her on several points during her response to my argument. At one stage, she seemed to suggest that my point was not valid because taxi drivers could be licensed by the new licensing authorities—for example, in my neck of the woods, the Elmbridge district council—and could also be licensed by the Metropolitan police authority. Taxi drivers could continue to earn their living in both taxi areas. I picked the Minister up on that point because it was news to me. Cab drivers who are members of the Kingston and Surbiton cab drivers association have told me that it is most unusual to be able to be licensed by two authorities and that that is not allowed by the taxi regulatory authorities in many parts of the country. However, the Minister was clear on that point: It will be entirely possible for cab drivers to drive a black cab if they hold a licence within the GLA and maintain the requirements for licensing. However, should they wish to drive a cab in districts outside the GLA boundary and outside what will be the Metropolitan police district boundary, they will have to obtain the requisite licence from the requisite local authority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 March 1999; c. 925.] The Minister made it clear that dual licensing was possible. When I pressed her on how that would be implemented practically, she clarified her remarks by saying that the licence was related to the vehicle and not to the owner. Therefore, if, in order to maintain their standard of living, drivers took up her suggestion, they would have to operate two cabs. They would need one for the GLA area and one for the area outside the GLA boundaries. One needs only to reflect on that proposition for one minute to see how impractical it would be. Not only would there be the cost of purchasing and maintaining two separate vehicles: there would be different health and vehicle checks every year under different regulations, and that would be extremely costly. The solution offered by the Minister in Committee is not a practical answer to people whose livelihoods are affected by the proposal that we are debating. If the Minister can offer another alternative to protect the living of those cab drivers, we should be glad to discuss it. Our amendments would provide a solution that works within the remit of the current legislation and would ensure that it was clear in statute that the anomalous boundary distinction of keeping the current Metropolitan police district for cab drivers would apply only to cab drivers. It would not affect other aspects of the day-to-day duties of the Metropolitan police. My hon. Friends and I believe that the amendments provide a constructive way forward that is more practical than the solution of dual licensing offered by the Minister in Standing Committee. I hope that the Minister has reflected on the matter; we are keen that she should give us a positive answer.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

Before I get to the meat of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), I point out to him that the proposals that he has presented to the House as being helpful would in fact lead to a situation in which there would be no requirement for any licensing at all. I find it very odd that a member of the Liberal Democrat party, whose members constantly urge that power be devolved to local authorities, should present a proposal whereby local authorities would have no power whatever over allowing taxis to ply within their own areas, on their own streets and carrying their own taxpayers. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks as to the good sense that he and Members of his party perceived in the fact that the boundaries of the GLA and the new Metropolitan police district would be made coterminous. However, I regret to have to tell him that amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67 make no sense at all. They would retain, for the purposes of taxi and minicab licensing only, the current Metropolitan police district. That would mean that taxis and minicabs operating in district council areas outside Greater London, but within the current Metropolitan police district, would be subject to regulation by Transport for London rather than the relevant district councils. However, the boundary would be notional; the Metropolitan police would have no role whatever. Our White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London", stated: Responsibility for taxi and minicab licensing in councils' areas outside greater London, but partly or wholly within the Metropolitan Police District (MPD), will be transferred to the local District Council. Even before the decision was taken—one that the hon. Gentleman and his party consider makes good sense—it has always been the policy to align the Metropolitan police district with Greater London. Districts outside London would regulate taxis and minicabs in their areas. In seeking to extend Transport for London's remit beyond Greater London, especially by making Transport for London responsible for taxi and minicab licensing outside Greater London, the amendments go against that principle. Regardless of the anecdotal evidence that the hon. Gentleman has presented to the House of the approach of the Surrey police to his proposals, they would cause untold confusion by implying that the Metropolitan police—seemingly linked to an area called the Metropolitan police district—would have a role in regulating taxis and minicabs, when, of course, they would have no such role. The effect of the amendment would be a patchwork quilt of different boundaries and different responsibilities. I argue that that is a recipe for total and unmitigated confusion. However, the hon. Gentleman did state concerns that have been expressed to him by some of his constituents who are suburban taxi drivers, to the effect that they might be adversely affected by changes to the Metropolitan police district which they perceive as being likely to cause a reduction in their livelihoods. As I said in Committee, and as I now repeat in the House, those concerns are unfounded. Let us take the example of a taxi driver who currently plies for hire in Epsom. From 1 April 2000, when the MPD boundary is scheduled to change, the taxi driver in question may apply to Epsom and Ewell district council, which the Bill will make a single taxi-licensing area, for a licence to ply for hire in that district; or that individual may choose to ply for hire in Greater London, thus carrying on with his or her current licence issued by the Public Carriage Office. That licence will remain valid, giving the right to ply for hire in all or part of Greater London, depending on whether it is an all-London licence, as most are, or a licence for one of the suburban sectors. Moreover, following consultation with the London Taxi Board, and the Metropolitan police service, the Public Carriage Office has revised suburban taxi sectors. That revision is designed not only to align the sectors more closely with borough boundaries, but to allow drivers a wider area than that which would have been available to them once their current area had contracted. The arrangements are outlined in PCO notice 5/99, dated 31 March 1999. 1 will arrange for a copy of the notice to be placed in the Library and furnish a copy to all members of the Standing Committee. In respect of the taxi and minicab licensing responsibilities of the eight district councils moving outside the MPD, in September 1998 representatives from each council attended a PCO-organised seminar that addressed the MPD changes. Most recently, my Department has written to each of those district councils in some detail about the transitional arrangements. 8.30 pm The point to stress in conclusion is that all existing licences granted by the PCO remain valid. If drivers want to apply separately for a licence from a fringe district, they are free to do so. I hope that the House, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and his constituents will take reassurance from that, and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am rather disappointed by the Minister's reply. Her assertion that the cab drivers in my constituency will not be affected and that their livelihoods will be protected by the sectoral review she describes is not borne out by my conversations with them. They are convinced that they will be hit in the pocket by the boundary changes. They are well aware of the sectoral review inside the GLA, but they are convinced that they will lose some of the rich pickings to which they currently have access. The Minister mentioned Epsom, but in Standing Committee I explained that cab drivers are concerned about the business that they will lose there. Their options are either to stay there and be regulated by Epsom and Ewell district council, or to go to Wimbledon and compete with the many other drivers who currently ply the cab rank outside Wimbledon station. The cab drivers are not convinced that they will not be severely hit by the Government's policy. The Minister appears to suggest that our policy will be difficult to implement, because it will create a patchwork throughout the capital and its bordering districts. However, there is already a patchwork, because we currently have a rather bizarre historical arrangement under which there are several areas just outside the London boroughs where cab drivers are able to ply. Therefore, in practical terms, it makes no difference keeping those boundaries. The Minister also suggests that the amendment would cause confusion to the police, but the contrary is true: the police in suburban London see no problems with administering what the Minister calls notional boundaries. I should point out that there appear to me to be notional boundaries already, and that the only question is how one organises the jurisdictions to enforce the regulations. I am not convinced by the Minister's response, and I intend to go back to my constituents and tell them that I voiced their concerns in Standing Committee and on Report, and that we proposed alternatives to the Government's arrangements, but that the Government have not seen fit to accept our proposals. My constituents will be extremely disappointed, if not angry. I am sure that their retort will be to encourage me to ask my noble Friends in another place to pursue the matter. I hope that, in the meantime, Ministers will talk to some of their hon. Friends who have some knowledge of the cab business—no doubt some still have friends in the cab trade who will be well aware of the impact of the changes. Let me take the Minister up on one point: she is pleased that my views are in line with the Government's policy of establishing a Metropolitan police authority and democratising London's police force. Liberal Democrats have argued for such policies for many years and we are glad that the Labour party has at last come round to our views. However, rather than continuing to stand here making party political points, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

SMOKING IN LONDON TAXIS AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Hon. Members will no doubt ask, "Why is this amendment required?"

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

It is a new clause.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Hon. Members will no doubt ask, "Why is this new clause required?" The answer is that although cab drivers can choose to designate their cabs smoking or non-smoking vehicles, they have difficulty in enforcing the no smoking rule at present. Passengers are well aware that enforcement is impossible, and occasionally point that out to cab drivers who ask them not to smoke. I have met the Minister and I thank her for finding the time to discuss this important subject. I welcome the fact that she has restated her support, in principle, for a ban on smoking in cabs that are designated non-smoking vehicles by their drivers. The timing of this debate could not be more appropriate, as I understand that the Secretary of State for Health spoke today about the importance of banning tobacco advertising. However, the right hon. Gentleman could be sending mixed messages, as he recently presented the rugby league Silk Cut trophy at Wembley. This new clause is about health and individual rights. It is about the health of taxi drivers and that of their non-smoking passengers. Before Opposition Members leap to their feet and question whether there are health implications for the non-smoking passenger who travels in a cab recently vacated by a smoking passenger, I cite the increased stress levels of that non-smoking passenger, if nothing else. It is also a question of individual rights. Taxi drivers operate—

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

The hon. Gentleman just said that a non-smoking passenger would suffer increased levels of stress as a result of travelling in a cab in which the previous incumbent had been smoking. What does he mean by that?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I will explain; it is very simple. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is a smoker and is not familiar with the anxiety or the stress that non-smokers experience when we encounter smokers from all walks of life. It is a question of individual rights. Taxi drivers, who, in effect, operate out of their office, have the right to choose whether they want someone entering that office to smoke. The taxi driver should be able to choose and to take that decision. All hon. Members would agree that taxis should form part of the public transport system. Passengers on buses, trains and the tube are not allowed to smoke, so it seems entirely logical that the same rule should apply to cabs—which are part of the integrated transport system—if drivers choose to designate them no smoking vehicles. If the passenger needs a fix, he or she can always wait for another cab that is clearly designated a smoking cab. This new clause is supported by several organisations, and I shall refer briefly to a couple of letters from them. One letter is from Irving Yass of London First, who says that he is very sorry that the proposed amendment to the GLA Bill to allow taxi drivers to designate their cabs as 'non-smoking' has failed at that time to gain endorsement from Ministers during the Committee Stage. The British Incoming Tour Operators Association writes: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the opportunity that exists to introduce an amendment that would enable taxi drivers to designate their taxis as non-smoking if they so wish. Unfortunately, that opportunity does not seem to exist in reality, but BITOA supports that in principle. The National Asthma Campaign is pleased to confirm that the … Campaign is happy to officially support your proposed amendment to the Greater London Authority Bill which would allow cab drivers to designate their cabs non-smoking cabs.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My hon. Friend mentioned the National Asthma Campaign. I have had reports that some people who suffer from severe asthma open the door to get into a cab, realise that it has been filled with smoke by the passenger who has just left and decide not to take that cab. They may not subsequently get a cab for up to 25 minutes. Their use of public transport is inhibited and the cab driver loses the fare. The whole thing is to the disadvantage of many passengers and of drivers.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I agree entirely with the points that my hon. Friend has made, which are confirmed in the letter from the National Asthma Campaign, which talks about tobacco smoke being a trigger—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

rose—

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

rose—

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I give way to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford).

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

Can you confirm to the House whether you are actually planning to ban smoking—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The hon. Gentleman should use the third person form of address.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman planning to ban smoking entirely from the back of taxis, or is he planning to allow the taxi driver the opportunity to choose whether someone smokes in the back of his taxi?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which enables me to clarify that, as I hoped I had made clear, we are talking about allowing cab drivers to designate their cab a non-smoking cab if that is what they want to do. Equally, if they decide that they want their cab to be a smoking cab, it is entirely down to them. That is the purpose of our new clause.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

Will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter from the other direction? Does he consider that, if there is not a prescribed notice in the cab and the driver is smoking, the passenger should be permitted to ask the driver to stop smoking?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

That is an interesting point. I think the important principle is that the cab driver, who is running a business, should be able to choose whether his cab is a non-smoking or a smoking cab.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I must continue.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

Before the hon. Gentleman continues, will he say what the answer is to the question that I asked him? If the driver is smoking, can the passenger ask him to stop smoking? It is a perfectly straightforward question. Yes or no will do as an answer.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I hope that the passengers would choose a non-smoking cab if they wanted a no-smoking environment, and I hope that cab drivers would respect that and would choose not to smoke.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

We must help the hon. Gentleman in his quandary. I understand that, at present, a cab passenger may insist that a driver extinguishes a cigarette. The cab driver has no such power to require a passenger to extinguish a cigarette.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the Minister for her intervention, which I hope has clarified the matter. I expect the Minister—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I shall give way a final time.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am not trying to deal with the question asked by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), but responding to the interventions by the professional over there—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford)—and the Minister. The issue, as my hon. Friend says, and as the new clause shows, is that there should be freedom to make the choice backed up by a sanction. At the moment, the cab driver may ask a passenger not to smoke, but if the latter does not comply with that request, there is no sanction to ensure that he or she does so.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.