asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, there are currently no plans to change the system of classification for computer games, which, if they show gross violence, human sexual activity or criminal activity likely to encourage similar acts in real life, must be submitted to the British Board of Film Classification and are then subject to the same level of classification as videos. The computer game Grand Theft Auto has been granted an 18 certificate by the BBFC and it is therefore considered suitable for supply only to adults. Its supply to anyone under the age of 18 is an illegal act subject to criminal penalties. The maximum penalty for supplying a computer game in breach of its classification is six months' imprisonment, a £5,000 fine, or both.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. In reply to a previous Question he indicated that the Government are greatly concerned and have the situation under review. As they aim to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, should criminal offences of this kind be allowed to be presented as games or normal pastimes? Are the Government now ready for computer games on burglary and mugging, bearing in mind that it is mostly young people who play these games and not the adults who bought them?

My Lords, the Home Secretary has recently appointed Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith to be president of the BBFC and to be the designated authority for the classification of videos under the Video Recordings Act. It may well be young people who watch these games, but I repeat that it is an 18 classification and its supply to anyone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence. If there is any evidence of such supply, it should be reported to the appropriate authorities for them to take criminal proceedings.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that demonstration copies of Grand Theft Auto are being distributed with magazines on sale to the public but that my 12 year-old son, who has played the demonstration copy, assures me that he is not motivated to go out and steal cars?

My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that excellent news. But it still remains the fact that the supply of such a video for reward is a criminal offence. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would therefore wish to have a private word with his son.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that such games are played by young people in their homes and that it is difficult to know what goes on in the home? Does he also agree that as the Government have made tackling crime one of their three priorities during their presidency of the European Union, they should take any measures that would reduce car crime in this country? We have the worst record for that in western Europe.

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Such video games are commonly played in the home. Self-evidently, I would suggest, parents have a responsibility to supervise their own children. One has to strike a suitable balance between banning everything that can conceivably be a pleasure to any section of the population and protecting the vulnerable. We think that at the moment the law is about right.

My Lords, at what stage in the production process does such a game have to go for certification? Do all such games have to go for certification?

My Lords, a game has to go for certification when it is at its final stage of production. It is then a question of whether the video game is exempt under the Video Recordings Act. If it is within one of the categories that I mentioned earlier, it loses its exemption and therefore needs to be classified.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether this video game or any similar game is available in any of Her Majesty's prisons?

My Lords, I do not know whether any such games are in any of Her Majesty's prisons; but I do know that the Director General of the Prison Service, Mr. Richard Tilt, is keenly concerned that no video or video game should be shown to any inmate in any part of Her Majesty's prison estate if it has an inappropriate classification for the age of that inmate.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, a number of schools already invite people with relevant experience to talk to pupils about religious cults. It is for schools and local education authorities to decide whether and, if so, how this should be done.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But is he aware that many families are suffering extreme distress because youngsters in such cults are often ordered to disconnect themselves from their relatives outside and, even if they leave the cult, they may be followed and intimidated? What can be done about that? Will the recent Protection from Harassment Act help?

My Lords, this is a worrying problem and one sympathises with any family that is broken up by the activities to which the noble Baroness refers. It seems to the Government that if a child is involved—that is, someone under the age of 18—sufficient protections are available at present. If the person involved is over the age of 18, there is the possibility of civil injunction or, as the noble Baroness rightly observed, using the protection against harassment legislation. If criminal acts are evidenced, I would urge anyone with knowledge of them to bring them to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Moonies, as they are known, are on the increase, whether their numbers are static or whether they are, happily, declining?

My Lords, I simply do not know. They seem to have mass weddings, so perhaps they are on the increase.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a growing body of evidence that some of the recruiting methods of such cults are causing great disquiet not only to those who look on from afar but also to the families and the young people involved? Although persons aged over 18 may be involved, is it not a good insurance policy to warn young people before they reach the age of 18 that such techniques exist? When I was a Home Office Minister, I found great reluctance in the Home Office to take this matter seriously.

My Lords, I am sorry to hear that the noble Baroness experienced that in the Home Office. When she was a Minister, the noble Baroness answered a Question—I happen to have a copy with me—about related problems and rightly commented on the difficulty of definition, in that one man's religion is another man's cult. There are undoubtedly dangers for young, impressionable minds and it seems to the Government that it is appropriate in the relevant part of the syllabus, such as religious education, religious instruction and discussions on different religions and cults, to warn young people of the dangers. Again, there is a difficult balance to be drawn between the teaching of mainstream religion and the activities of proselytizing cults. Local education authorities, head teachers and those who provide religious instruction should be alert to that. By and large, I am in agreement with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness.

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the danger of some of these so-called cults and religions is that those who are taken in by them lose their minds, in that they lose the capacity to reason and to think? That is a danger which all mainstream religious bodies and schools should point out. No person, young or old, should be forced to lose their mind or their capacity to reason and to think intelligently about matters of religion.

My Lords, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. Apart from the responsibility of those who teach young people in schools, mainstream religion equally has duties which the noble Lord doubtless discharged in his pulpit in past years.

My Lords, does the Minister know how many cults are currently operating in this country?

No, my Lords. It is not a question that is capable of a rational answer because one man's religion is another man's cult and one man's orthodoxy is another man's doxy. I really do not think that I can offer a sensible or helpful answer.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, it is true that, as the noble Earl said, much DSS expenditure is demand-led, but that does not mean that government overall have no control over the level of that spending. This Government intend to focus their policies on reducing the need for social security, so that social security no longer pays the bill for social and economic failure. That is why we are investing in the New Deals for the unemployed, lone parents and sick and disabled people, to help them to make the most of their abilities. For such initiatives to be successful—I know that the noble Earl has previously been concerned about the point—they require co-ordinated initiatives across Government; in other words, joined-up policy, which we shall seek to deliver.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for what she said about meeting needs. Does she agree that as governments cannot substantially reduce the number of people with disabilities, nor the rate of relationship breakdown, and as no government are ever likely to set out to reduce the expectation of life, the only way in which governments can significantly reduce the need for social security is by increasing the amount of employment, which is not the responsibility of the Department of Social Security and which cannot be achieved by reforming the welfare state?

Dealing specifically with welfare-to-work, am I right in believing that entitlement lasts for only six months? If at the end of that period the person cannot find a job, does he recover the right to benefit, does he get more welfare-to-work or is he handed over to the Salvation Army?

My Lords, the noble Earl makes several points and I shall do my best to answer them. He said that the Government could not affect the need for pensions, the level of disability or the relationship background. He is absolutely right, but that does not mean that the Government do not have the ability to help people meet those issues. For example, although pensioners are living longer, over a million of them fail to claim the income support to which they are entitled. We can help them to do that. We also know that inequality among pensioners is widening, which is why we seek to help more future pensioners go on to a new secure funded second pension.

Equally, it is true that society has become more sensitive to disability issues. But it is also the case that the number of people who claim incapacity benefit has trebled since 1979, not so much because people have gone on to benefit but because they are not coming off benefit since they do not have the opportunity to return to the labour market as they would wish. They can be helped in that regard by welfare-to-work.

Similarly, in the case of relationship breakdowns we can help by making the Child Support Agency deliver financial support and ensuring that society produces the child care that lone parents need. It is not black and white. We can take initiatives to ensure that marginalised groups return to the mainstream of society. I agree with the noble Earl that all these initiatives depend on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country delivering a sound and prosperous economy. We shall work to those ends.

My Lords, referring to external reductions in social security spending mentioned in the original Question, can the Minister clarify the position with regard to the so-called affluence test which received widespread publicity earlier in the week? If it was not simply a sound bite on the part of the Secretary of State, can the Minister tell the House what level of income the Government regard as "affluent"? Will that be dealt with in the Green Paper for which we have been waiting for a very long time? When does the Minister expect that document to be published?

Short answer!

My Lords, a call has been made for a short answer. It would help not to have five questions to answer. However, I shall do my best. What we seek to do by affluence testing is to resolve the problem, which I am sure the whole House recognises, of how to target benefits without getting into some of the traps associated with means testing. I am sure that all noble Lords recognise that that is a problem. Affluence testing will allow us to reduce benefits to those who already have high incomes and are well able to support themselves. For example, it could be based upon an individual's tax position.

My Lords, in a recent interview on the Government's review of disability benefits, the Prime Minister spoke of fraud in the system now totalling £5 billion. How has that figure been computed? Is it based upon evidence from the DSS or a guestimate by the Treasury?

My Lords, I believe that the £5 billion was a combination of suspected fraud and possible confirmed fraud in respect of some of the earlier benefits, together with error. That figure emerged from a project undertaken by the previous government. At the moment we are in the middle of a benefit integrity project which has already received about 30,000 replies from disabled people. Thus far we have seen no cases of confirmed fraud. However, we have discovered that in about 20 per cent. of cases there are errors in payment—sometimes too much and sometimes too little. There is a problem to be addressed, but I am happy to confirm that the benefit integrity project has revealed no cases of confirmed fraud.

My Lords, has the Minister's department been able to locate a single lady in the United Kingdom whose income is sufficiently high to generate the savings in benefit suggested by the Secretary of State? Can the Minister explain to the House the difference between affluence testing and means testing?

My Lords, the difference between affluence testing and means testing could be the difference between means testing and taxation. I am sure that noble Lords understand the difference between the two. As to maternity payments, your Lordships will be aware that there are one or two high flyers in this country who would be entitled, given the reported levels of earnings and salaries, to draw that level of maternity benefit. But there is a problem. Maternity benefit is paid in conjunction with earnings. However, insurance contributions are not concomitant with earnings. That was the difficulty upon which the Secretary of State quite properly focused.

My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government do not believe that the way to deal with affluent people receiving benefits is to raise the top rate of tax since at the moment people who earn £1 million a year pay the same top rate of tax as those who earn £27,000 to £30,000 a year?

My Lords, the Government are determined to abide by the manifesto commitments on which they were elected. One of those commitments was not to raise the personal levels of income tax.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the important point is not to save money in the social security budget but to ensure that people who really need money—in particular pensioners—get it when they require it? Can she explain what is being done in that connection?

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the particular problems of pensioners. We know that, while on average pensioners have grown more prosperous over the past decade, the wealth of the top 20 per cent. has grown twice as much proportionately as that of the bottom 20 per cent. That is why we need to extend access to a secure, funded flexible pension to all pensioners, including those who may be carers and unable to work in the labour market. My noble friend is absolutely right. If we are to address the pensioner poverty of the future, we must ensure that all pensioners have access to a secure old age.

My Lords, does the Minister realise that some of us on this side of the House believe that the Government are taking the right line in attempting to focus the limited available resources by way of benefit on those who need help? Indeed, some of us would regard it as immoral to give benefit to people who do not need it when that means not giving adequate benefit to those who do. Does the Minister agree that the following are two small steps in the right direct: first, that child benefit should be taxed; and, secondly, to end the nonsense whereby all pensioners in many cities, particularly London, have free public transport, and to do that by deeming it to be a taxable benefit?

My Lords, such questions as these land on the Minister's table and are continually under review.

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that publicity from government sources has drawn attention to the fact that disability living allowance in some cases goes to people on above average income. Will the Minister bear in mind that without disability living allowance many of these people would never have earned the income, and that disabled persons and the Exchequer would equally be the losers?

My Lords, I well take that point. It was the previous government who introduced DLA, with our full support. I am well aware that DLA has transformed the lives and opportunities of many disabled people. I am sure the House agrees that we must ensure that the money goes to those who most need it in order that they can enter the mainstream.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of the 9 million pensioners have been extremely concerned by recent newspaper reports that the state pension, which they believe they have paid for during their working lives, will be removed? Can the Minister give an absolute assurance—I hope that she will be able to—that existing pensioners in particular will not be affluence tested and will continue to draw the state pension, dynamised each year by the cost of living, for which they believe they have paid?

My Lords, yes, that was our manifesto commitment. We shall continue to be committed to it.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced in July 1997 that he would set up a new all-Wales agri-environmental scheme. A working group, comprising representatives of farming and environmental interests, has considered the details of management prescriptions for the new scheme. My right honourable friend will take decisions on its conclusions shortly.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, with the more adverse farming conditions we now have, an agri-environmental scheme is becoming even more essential in order to keep economic and social stability in rural Wales? It seems that such schemes are necessary in many parts of rural England, judging by the Countryside Commission's latest report which appeared today.

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord's proposition; namely, that farming has not merely an economic place but an important social place in the fabric of Welsh life. I am happy to say again how much importance the Government attach to that. There is no doubt that farming conditions in parts of Wales have been adverse through no fault of farmers or those who work with farmers. Obviously that adds weight to the initiative which the Secretary of State set out last July.

My Lords, throughout Wales one finds people in favour of an all-Wales agri-environmental scheme whose standards, one hopes, will follow those of the Tir Cymen pilot scheme. The real question relates to the amount of resources the Government are prepared to put behind such a scheme. A scheme that did not cover all Wales would be undesirable, because one would have bits and pieces here and there. An all-Wales scheme is bound to need a great deal of resources. Are the Government prepared to put the resources necessary behind the scheme?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The matter needs to be looked at on an all-Wales basis. I agree that the Tir Cymen pilot scheme has produced invaluable lessons. As to funding, I cannot specify the precise allocation of funds which will be available. That depends, first, on the Secretary of State's consideration of the representations, and, more fundamentally, on the outcome of the Government's comprehensive spending review. I can, however, please at least one Member of your Lordships' House—my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington—by pointing out that we shall have 50 per cent. of the money back from Europe.

My Lords, perhaps I may press my noble friend a little further on the all-Wales scheme. It is a desirable development which I hope can be hastened. If we look back at some of the agri-environmental schemes in Wales we see them failing dramatically. We are at crisis point in Wales in terms of the natural environment, species and habitats, in particular. Can there be some examination in the announcement of the scheme of targeting towards those habitats and species which are in most pressing danger at the moment? We are close to losing many species from Wales, probably once and for all.

My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point. The scheme's objective will be to protect and enhance the landscape, wildlife habitats, and historic features of the Welsh countryside by encouraging the introduction, with financial assistance, of environmentally beneficial farming practices, hope that answer fully meets my noble friend's concerns.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State has received positive advice from the Countryside Council for Wales on the need for an all-Wales scheme? Will he ensure, along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that the level of remuneration in the scheme will be adequate to meet the current serious income crisis within the Welsh agricultural sector?

My Lords, we have had useful representations from the Countryside Council for Wales as to the precise level of funding. I must rest upon my earlier answer, which is that it is dependent upon the comprehensive spending review.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that any agri-environmental scheme will be in addition to the protection given under the CAP at present?

My Lords, decisions about precise funding mechanisms, their level and how they are to be deployed must await the Secretary of State's consideration of the representations made. As is well known, reform of the CAP is a priority of the Government during their presidency.

My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to refer to me in connection with the UK's rebate in respect of the contribution that it makes to European funds. Is he aware that in 1996 £5 million of such receipts went to five individuals (£1 million each) in this country, and that the benefits received back from the Commission are not as evenly spread as I am sure he would wish?

My Lords, I was aware of that figure in 1996. Plainly the regime then in power misplaced its priorities—to put it at its kindest. We aim to avoid the mistakes of our predecessors, there having been ample opportunity for us to learn from their errors.

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that a great deal of money has been spent over the past decade or so on agri-environmental schemes. Will he assure the House that he is satisfied that the level of monitoring in place on those schemes has been sufficient to ensure that the schemes have been a success, because it seems to me that there is not much point in creating an environment if we do not have the specie that should go with it?

My Lords, the noble Earl makes a sound point. There has been monitoring in Wales, about which I am presently speaking. Undoubtedly the Secretary of State will bear in mind such a consideration with great scruple and care when he considers the representations that have been made to him.

My Lords, I appreciate that what the Minister can say on funding is limited, but can he at least give the House an assurance that progress on the implementation of the scheme will not be held up by the Government's inability to spend European funds, because of the Treasury's intransigence?

My Lords, I have never before heard it suggested that the Treasury has ever been intransigent. I am quite shocked, and I shall sit down quite soon. The progress of the arrangements will depend significantly on how quickly we obtain approval from Europe, not on how quickly we obtain approval from No. 11.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved. That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hayman.)

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 7, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,").

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5. I give the Committee notice that, depending on what is said during the debate and by the Minister in reply to Amendment No. 1, I may press Amendment No. 2 when it is called.

Sadly, if the Bill is passed unamended, we shall be seeking the approval of the people of Greater London for a government proposal which at the time we are discussing it has little form or substance. They will be invited to vote for an idea, not a proposal. The point has been made in debates on other Bills that it is a highly unsatisfactory way of proceeding to seek the views of the people in a referendum without their having the details before them so that they can see what is proposed. Indeed, the Opposition Benches require answers to the questions which were posed by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish about the conduct of referenda. We shall return to that issue and shall press the Government for answers.

The Green Paper on this issue, with its 60 or more questions, gives an indication of how complex the governance of London may be. I submit that people are entitled to see the detail before being asked to commit themselves. Indeed, by seeking a positive vote in a referendum in these circumstances, the Government are asking for carte blanche to do precisely what they like when enacting the legislation.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we are promised a White Paper in March after consultation on the Green Paper. But even that is not satisfactory. It assumes—and it is a big assumption which ought not to be made—that Parliament will enact the legislation to implement the White Paper without amendment. It assumes that the Government will not at some stage change their mind over some significant matter. However, the amendment standing in my name does not ask for the legislation to be in place but merely to be published, mindful as we are of the Government's stated desire to make progress with the proposal. If the draft legislation is to be ready in time for the referendum the Government have nothing to fear from such amendments and can accept them.

It is extremely relevant to the people of London when deciding how to vote that they have before them details and not questions or merely the results of consultation. Some of those matters are critical: for instance, the method of election of members of the assembly or of the mayor; the functions of the mayor and the assembly; its financing; whether it is to be tax raising; the powers which will come from central government to the mayor and the assembly; and what will go from the boroughs to the assembly. Planning is vitally important. All those issues can colour the attitude of people towards the proposals. Given the unfortunate mix of powers which existed between the old Greater London Council and the boroughs, people will wish to pay considerable attention to those issues.

If the amendments are accepted there will be some safeguard of a reasonable period before the vote when people will have the details before them and can give them due consideration.

Although the Conservative Party is proud of the fact that after 18 successful years London is now regarded as probably the greatest capital city in the world, it accepts that nothing stands still. Therefore, this is an appropriate time to consider how we can modernise and reform our city for the challenges of the 21st century. However, asking Londoners to consider the changes before they have the details of them is the wrong way around.

We know that there will be a White Paper in the spring, but we do not know what will be in it. Indeed, the Government admit that they have not yet decided on the details. As was said in the other place and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when speaking to Amendment No. 1—I am speaking to Amendment No. 2—the devil is in the detail. At the very least, we must ensure that Londoners have sufficient time to consider the details before the referendum on 7th May.

This very simple amendment seeks to do just that. It will ensure not only that those details can be examined closely, but also that the Government meet the deadline for the production of the Bill. I can see no reason for a government committed to openness and transparency to refuse the amendment.

I shall start these proceedings on a conciliatory note. We share the concern expressed by both Front Benches in proposing these amendments that we should ensure that those who have a right to vote in the referendum are well informed about the proposals for new London government.

We have already demonstrated our commitment to facilitating a proper debate. We printed 1 million summaries of the Green Paper to ensure that all Londoners who were interested were aware of the issues. These were distributed throughout London—through an insert in the Evening Standard, through post offices, libraries, local authorities, via many London organisations and, on demand, by post.

Ahead of the referendum we shall ensure that every household gets a neutral and factual summary of the White Paper, setting out the proposals on which they will be asked to vote, as well as other initiatives to ensure that everybody knows what the issues are.

The questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, will be answered in clear terms in the White Paper. The White Paper will he published during or before the week commencing 23rd March, well ahead of the referendum. That will allow six weeks of full debate on our proposals—sufficient time for all the issues to be explored. That is the proper order to follow. It follows the clear precedent established in Scotland and in Wales for a pre-legislative referendum. It has always been clear that that was what was being proposed in relation to the referendum on London government.

I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I find it rather curious that the Liberal Democrats should have tabled these amendments because in Committee in another place the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Mr. Simon Hughes, argued in terms that that would not be an appropriate way forward. He said that it would not be right and that they were not arguing that it is possible to produce a Bill before the referendum. He accepted that it would slow down the proposals and that he did not believe that to be an appropriate sequence of events. Anyone can change their mind and I understand that the noble Baroness's party has done so. But we do not believe that that is a sensible way forward.

Publishing a Bill which would be a highly complex piece of legislation, drafted in a highly technical style, would not be more comprehensible for ordinary Londoners going to the polls to vote on a referendum than a clear and comprehensive White Paper. We shall publish detailed proposals in the White Paper and Londoners will have the opportunity to consider them in the language not of those of us who are legislators but of those who are voters before they come to vote.

If Londoners vote yes, it will then be for Parliament to scrutinise the legislation, taking account of the content of the White Paper and the verdict of the people of London. The requirement to publish a Bill before the referendum would mean unnecessary complication and delay. It would do little or nothing to assist Londoners in assessing the substance of the proposals. People have waited far too long happily to tolerate further delay.

The dangers, if such are dangers, of the proposals that the Government put forward being changed apply in the same way to a Bill as they do to a White Paper. Parliament is supreme and has the opportunity and duty to scrutinise legislation and to change it. Publishing a Bill does not mean that the proposals in it are set in stone before they have become statute. It would do nothing to aid informed debate, which is what we all want from the proposals which the Government put forward.

As the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats recognised in another place, these amendments would put at risk the proposed referendum date of 7th May and with it the benefits to be gained from combining the poll with local government elections. That could result in additional public expenditure of some £2 million to £3 million and risk reduced voter turnout. That could not be in the interests of democracy, the taxpayer or local authorities.

We have no interest in limiting debate on our proposals. We are sure that they will command the support of the majority of the people of London. But we do not believe that publishing a detailed, lengthy and complex technical document—namely, a Bill—would do anything to promote discussion among the voters of London. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Before the noble Baroness decides what she is going to do with her amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she has had an opportunity to read yesterday's discussions in another place in Hansard. I expect that because she has been preparing for this Bill she has not done so. However, other noble Lords may have read those discussions. I beg the Minister to do so.

In the course of the debate yesterday (at col. 79 of the Commons Hansard) Mr. Tam Dalyell, the Member of Parliament for Linlithgow, made a long speech. It was carefully thought out and constructed. It demonstrated a number of political and practical problems that there are in relation to the Scottish Bill, many of which simply were not visible before the Bill was published. It is quite clear to anybody who reads that copy of Hansard that a pre-legislative referendum revealed little or nothing to the people of Scotland.

The Government should learn from that. They have made a great problem for themselves in relation to that Bill, and I am one of those who most regrets it because it will be extremely difficult to sort that out in Committee in another place and at later stages. Will the Minister convey that message to her colleagues, because a pre-legislative referendum is not quite the simple, clever idea which the Government seem to believe?

I am sure that my colleagues will take note of the noble Baroness's remarks, although my impression was that the issues in relation to Scotland and Wales were well understood and debated as regards the pre-legislative referendums. I have not read Hansard because I have been preparing for this afternoon's debate. I believe that I heard something like the speech which the honourable Member made when I was in another place in 1978. The issues are not new.

First, I should make clear, as I made clear in introducing the amendment, that we are not seeking to slow down the process. I quite deliberately chose the period of 42 days because that reflected the Government's own timetable. It is important to recognise that the procedure should not be slowed down. That matter was made clear throughout this party's comments on the Bill.

My honourable friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I, as he has said, want to go on talking and finding the right and best way to deal with this referendum. The Minister seems to be saying that it is not possible or practicable for a Bill which reflects the White Paper to be prepared and published at the same time as the White Paper. She did not actually say that, but that seemed to underlie her remarks.

I accept that a Bill can he changed. Had I wished to see a purely post-legislative referendum in the sense of an Act which would come into effect only if the referendum gave the answer yes, I should have proposed that. This amendment seeks to find a mechanism which will give as much confidence as possible not just to ordinary Londoners, who of course would not read however many pages of legislation, but to the many experts outside this House and another place who will contribute to this debate and who I suspect will respond very quickly when faced with a Bill.

The combination of the White Paper and the Bill would allow that level of informed debate—much more information than can be obtained in a summary to go through a letter-box—to take place. Perhaps I may put it this way, it would also mean that the Government would not be subject to the suggestion that parts of the White Paper had slid over the more difficult areas of the proposal. I see that the Minister wishes to respond. I give way.

Perhaps I may just respond to those points. I share the noble Baroness's wish that we should have informed debate at all the appropriate levels. Indeed, I very much welcome the prospect of debate in this Chamber and in the other place on the proposals in the White Paper. Obviously that is a matter for the business managers in both places, but I believe that we should look at the precedent as regards the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. If we are to meet the timetable that we have set ourselves—and, indeed, we want to publish the White Paper as soon as possible—we must recognise that drafting a White Paper is quite complicated in terms of putting together all the responses to the consultation document. The parliamentary draftsmen simply cannot turn that information into a draft Bill contemporaneously with the publication of the White Paper. The weeks that that would take would inevitably delay the Bill. I accept, of course, that the noble Baroness does not wish to do so.

I am grateful for the Minister's comments. They have indeed helped take the matter a little further. If we can discuss between now and the next stage of the Bill how a debate informed by the White Paper may take place before the referendum, that would certainly enable some of us to review our comments on the process. I hope that the Minister will be able to lean on the business managers in that respect to enable such a debate to take place. On the basis that there is a possibility of such discussions taking place within the next few weeks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1. line 8, after ("prescribe,") insert ("but not less than eight weeks after publication of a Bill providing for the establishment of a Greater London Authority and the election of a mayor for Greater London.").

I urge Members of the Committee to reject the amendment. We very much want proper and informed debate to take place. I raised this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, on a previous occasion. I believe that he is lecturing the Government about the proper amount of consultation and detail which should be available before changing London government. We did not have a great deal of debate about whether Londoners should see the Bill before they voted in a referendum for the abolition of the GLC.

The Minister raised that point on Second Reading. At that time, the Conservative Party fought an election and its commitment was to abolish the GLC. Indeed, we fought a general election on the issue. However, the Conservative Party did not then say that it would submit its proposals to a referendum and that it would seek the approval of the people of Greater London. The Conservative Party chose not to take that route whereas this Government have chosen to do so. Therefore, I believe that we are entitled to ask that people should have the detail of the proposals before they express their views.

Indeed, this Government recently fought an election saying that they would bring forward a Bill to recreate strategic government in London and that that authority would comprise a directly-elected assembly with a directly-elected mayor. We also said that we would introduce a Bill and have a referendum on those proposals which would be put before the people of London. We are trying to keep to that precise commitment. The noble Lord's amendment would wreck that process. It would mean that we could not combine the poll for local government in London and the referendum, which has been accepted as the most efficient way to proceed. As I said, it is a wrecking amendment; it is not about having proper debate to which we are committed. I therefore urge Members of the Committee to reject the amendment.

I point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 4.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("Authority") to end of line 10.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, described the amendment as a linking, consequential amendment. That is not the Government's view of it. It amends Clause 1(1) of the Bill. The Bill states—at its heart is the Government's proposition—that we shall put a referendum to the people of London to establish a greater London authority,

"made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor".

That is the proposition that was clear in our manifesto; and it is the proposition which we are committed to putting to the people of London.

In effect, the noble Baroness seeks to take out the guts of Clause 1 of the Bill because she recognises that it goes to the core of the legislation and of the Government's belief as to what is the right form of government for London.

Perhaps at this point it might be helpful to the Committee to explain—it is a theme that will recur throughout the debate—why the Government believe that having both a mayor and an assembly, separately elected, is the right composite package of government for London. We favour a mayor who will provide firm leadership, set the strategic direction and be able to get things done. At home and abroad the mayor will represent London's interests and aspirations. But checks and balances are important. The assembly is equally essential to provide a proper framework of accountability, and to scrutinise the mayor's plans and strategies and their delivery.

This is not a package from which the Government believe that it is right that we should pick and choose. A mayor alone, unfettered by an assembly, would wield too much power; and an assembly alone would not give London the focus and the leadership it desperately needs. Together, the mayor and the assembly are the best deal for London. We are convinced that, unlike the half-considered alternatives offered by some, it will work. For London to be governed properly it is necessary to have both the mayor and the assembly coming together to create the authority. That is why we have put forward a clear, unambiguous, comprehensive, single question that allows people to express a view on that package of government being proposed for London.

I have made it clear that we favour a mayor and an assembly as a complete framework: a mayor to provide a voice for London and to articulate its interests at home and abroad; and an assembly to provide an essential framework of accountability. The two elements are the cornerstone of our proposals. To remove them from the face of the Bill would be to wreck the purpose of the Bill. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Perhaps the Minister will explain this point to me. The noble Baroness said that the two elements must come together. She implies, presumably, that the assembly will monitor the financial position as much as anything else. But where will the question be put to the people of London as to whether or not the authority should have tax-raising powers? Where will the money come from?

We made it clear that we shall not propose additional tax-raising powers for the assembly. That was made clear in the Second Reading debate; it has been made clear in another place; and it will be spelt out once again in the proposal. I am giving that assurance. The disposable budgets of which the mayor will have control are the budgets of the functions which will be taken over by the strategic authority.

Perhaps the Minister will expand a little on that. What does she mean by no additional expenditure? Is it envisaged that there will be a precept on local authorities, or will the funding come directly from the Government? It is not clear from what she said.

The programme budgets for the functions to be undertaken by the authority will be passed to the new greater London authority. We are making it clear that unlike, for example, the Scottish parliament, there will not be new tax-raising powers for the greater London authority, but the detail will be spelt out. Amendment No. 3 removes the two component parts of any authority and provides that the Bill will create only a greater London authority.

Does not the amendment avoid a pre-emption? As the Bill stands, Clause 1(1) states that the authority will be,

"made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor".

I shall support Amendment No. 7. I am asked to do so by the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Let us suppose that Amendment No. 7 is carried. Two questions are put and it is decided that there shall be an elected assembly and not a separately elected mayor, or vice versa. Is it not far better to accept the amendment, which does no violence to the intendment of the Bill, and to leave the question open for the decision of this House as to whether, as in the case of Scotland, we should have two questions and not one?

It is right that the Labour manifesto, which I read often, makes the point that there will be an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor. But it does not make the point that people shall not be able to have one without the other. I merely ask that perhaps this point might receive consideration.

I am grateful for the spirit in which the noble Lord puts forward his argument. It is a point to which we shall return during the course of our debates in Committee.

This is firmly at the core of the Government's position. We believe that the two elements which would form together the Greater London authority are inseparable, and therefore that is what the Bill provides. A breach of that principle then allows for the possibility of expressions of support for constitutional settlements that the Government do not believe they could responsibly implement. That is why—we shall come to the debate again and again—we do not believe that two questions are sensible.

There were indeed two questions in the referendum for Scotland, but not two questions about two variants of the constitutional body that would be set up. The additional question related to tax-varying powers. That was an issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred. But there were not two alternatives about whether there should be a Scottish parliament. The whole parcel of constitutional reform was covered by one question.

In Wales, where there was no proposal for tax-varying powers, there was only one constitutional proposal, to which assent was or was not given.

I accept 100 per cent. what the Minister says: that that is what the Government want. But what is the object of having a referendum geared to produce what the Government want? If one has a referendum one wants to find out what the people want. I take the noble Baroness's point but I hope that she can take mine.

I understand what the noble Lord says. As I say, we shall return to the issue. The point I seek to make is that the referendum tests support for the Government's proposal. It is not a piece of market research to see which of a number of variant constitutional settlements might meet with support from various groups. I suggest that that would not be responsible government. We have never pretended that the proposal is about putting forward a wide range of constitutional settlements. It is about testing the support of the people of London for a proposition which the Government believe is a workable, responsible, creative and effective constitutional settlement for the nation's capital.

I wish to express my increasing anxiety as to the constitutional propriety of the Government's intentions. The heart of this Bill is about holding a referendum. As the noble Lord has just remarked, it is about consulting the people. The Minister seems to be making two other, incompatible arguments. One is that this proposal was in the Government's manifesto and therefore, on the old doctrine of the mandate, it should go through and there is no need whatever to hold a referendum. The second is that we are allowed to have a referendum only on what the Government want. The Minister referred to a new constitutional settlement. My party believes that Britain should be moving towards such a new settlement. But if we are to be told that the only new constitutional settlement we can have is the one that was written into the Labour Party manifesto, then we are rather unhappy about the proposal.

The Minister referred to, "the clear precedent of Scotland and Wales". Taking that as a precedent, in the case of Scotland the Government insisted on a two-question referendum. We need some rather clearer rules about referenda. This will not be the last referendum to be held under this Government. We may anticipate more. My party has a certain interest in the referendum that will follow the report of the Jenkins Commission on proposals for forms of proportional representation. If I understood the Minister correctly and there is no need, for example, to make clear when a referendum is held what exactly Parliament is to be asked to do, and it is possible to return to the proposals and change them, I presume that means that following a referendum the Government could change in some substantial detail what had been put to the people.

There is a distinction between referenda and plebiscites. Plebiscites are what governments do to demonstrate the illusion of consultation but to get their will. Referenda are real consultations with the public. We have moved a little bit away from parliamentary sovereignty in accepting referenda, but only a little bit. The Government are now telling us that the people of London are to be consulted a little bit, but only in regard to one particular package.

I have no doubt that the popular wish in London will be overwhelmingly to have an elected assembly. The case for a directly elected mayor has to be made. I am not entirely sure which line I take on the matter. It would be highly desirable to have a referendum in which the Government would have to make that case to the people of London. It would be an educating process, an encouragement of popular participation. That is what I thought New Labour was supposed to be about: educating the public, involving the public and persuading the public.

I suggest that, as many of your Lordships will have noted well, there are two aspects to New Labour's approach to a new constitutional settlement. There is the side of Labour which is decentralist and in favour of more open democracy and more participation; and there is another side which wants to maintain central control, to have an appearance of consultation and to have a government who tell us what the people think as they regard themselves as representing what the people think.

The constitutional dimensions of sliding towards referenda on terms whereby only the Government decide what questions are allowed to be asked are extremely dangerous. I therefore hope very strongly that in the course of the Committee and Report stages we shall change the nature of the way in which the Government define the purpose of referenda, which seems to be the underlying purpose of the Bill.

If I over-simplify matters, may I be forgiven? I have a very simple mind. Would any government be responsible if they put forward a proposal—referendum or no referendum—which gave dictatorial powers to one individual without any responsibility on that individual to account to an assembly such as is suggested? Any government who did so would be wholly irresponsible.

When it comes to the question of a referendum, with true democratic backing for any such principle, the Government say this: "We think it is a good idea to have a Greater London Assembly, together with a mayor. People, do you agree with us, or don't you?" That is the simple position as I see it; and I support it.

The major innovation here is not the elected assembly which will, after all, reverse the extraordinarily ill thought through abolition of the GLC by Mrs. Thatcher. The major constitutional innovation is having a directly elected mayor for what is in effect a regional authority. The Government need to carry the population with them on that matter. The case needs to be made. If we are moving towards a more participatory democracy, I suggest that the case should be made in a two-question, rather than a one-question, referendum.

I must not conduct a debate across the Floor, even though it is very tempting when the noble Lord makes any utterance to say in polite terms that one disagrees. He put forward a point of view and I tried to simplify the issue.

I always think highly of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, in this instance I believe he has misinterpreted the amendment. It merely seeks to delete certain words from the Bill. It does not seek to say that there should only be a mayor, or only an assembly. It simply seeks to terminate the clause after the words,

"a referendum shall be held on the establishment of a Greater London Authority".

That would mean that a decision could be made at any stage as to what to put to the people—whether to put the matter to them as a package or as two separate items. But deleting those words from the clause does not automatically rule out still having an elected assembly and an elected mayor if that is what the people want. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that one is essential to the other. I understand her party-political viewpoint, but I do not agree with it. I believe that the matter should be put to the people to decide. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. is mistaken in believing that by ending the clause at this particular point we should be ruling out any options. I do not believe that to be the case.

I had thought this to be a rather innocent little amendment. It was drafted by me some time between Christmas and New Year when I realised that it was a requirement if we were to debate whether there should be one question or two, and to that extent it is consequential, as my noble friend described it. However, it has provoked something of an over-reaction. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, are absolutely right in their interpretation of the objective of the removal of these words; that is, not to pre-empt the subsequent provisions within the Bill.

To respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—whose disingenuous description of himself as a simple fellow was not believed by anybody—the noble Lord rightly posed the question as to whether the Government could properly give Londoners the opportunity of voting for what he described as an individual having dictatorial powers without the restraint of an assembly. That is the very point that we on these Benches seek to have debated as fully as possible. It is not only the possibility of dictatorial powers in one individual about which we are concerned. We are also concerned about the powers of the assembly to restrain that potential dictator. That is why we spoke to the previous amendment and why we seek a debate on the two elements. We shall come to that later in the Committee stage. We wanted a debate on the two elements so that that restraint can be well understood and accepted by people as being effective and sufficient. We happen to believe that the provision is unlikely to achieve that.

Perhaps I may ask a question of practical construction. I accept that if we knock those words out we avoid pre-emption. I tried to say so when I first rose. But is it not possible to have an elected assembly without an elected mayor? Let us think about it for a moment. We have one Lord Mayor; we do not have to have another mayor. If people want an elected assembly, cannot they have one without having to have an elected mayor?

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, makes a good point: we cannot have an elected mayor without an elected assembly. Why cannot we have an elected assembly without an elected mayor? That is what I do not understand.

If the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, had listened to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, he might have heard that there is a different view on his Benches about the possibility of the combinations which might be beneficial to London.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that it had seemed an innocent little amendment. I understand why she and her colleagues thought that it was simply a paving amendment. However, the debate we have had on it has started to illuminate those issues to which we shall return on the two questions. They are the fundamental issues to which my noble friend Lord Mishcon referred. They concern the nature of the exercise in which we are involved in setting up the referendum and they are also the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

It is absolutely correct that a policy that is in a party's manifesto could be implemented without any referendum simply through legislation. That is how we conduct ourselves in most matters of policy. Why the Government get themselves into trouble on the issue, if I may put it that way, is in trying to go beyond that, recognising that it is a constitutional issue and a major change. We have thought it proper that the proposals we put forward for government in London should be tested to see whether they have the approval of the people of London. That would accord with the values of new Labour, to which the noble Lord referred, in terms of being open, testing and consultative.

Where we draw the line is in putting ill-defined questions which could produce answers which the Government believe would be wrong and irresponsible and which they would not implement. I do not believe that that is giving real choice to people. It would be quite improper for a government who believe as strongly as we do that the two constituent parts of the assembly and the mayor must go together. Other people may disagree; Londoners may reject the proposition. That we are prepared for. What we are not prepared for is to have imposed a constitutional settlement which we believe would be fundamentally wrong. That is why the amendment is ill-founded.

I am becoming a trifle puzzled. Is it not the case that until we have the second Bill we shall not know what the constitutional settlement is? We know what its principle is and that it is suggested that there should be an elected mayor and an elected assembly to oversee him, or we assume that. But we do not know what the relationship is. Nor is there any means of devising it from the question in the paper. What is worse is that the procedure being suggested, as I understand it, permits the referendum to take place before the definition is clear. Although that has nothing to do with the amendment, it arises from the discussion that has taken place on the amendment. I am becoming a little concerned. It appears increasingly to me that we are being asked to fulfil an election commitment rather than informing and genuinely obtaining the opinion of the people of London on what the detail of the final settlement is to be. We do not have that. It is a dilemma we faced in the Welsh debate and subsequently in the Scottish debate.

The situation is extremely difficult and I accept the Government's problems in tackling it. Producing a Bill to deal with a referendum is relatively simple. We have a brief and commendably understandable Bill, but the Committee must be concerned with what lies behind the legislation. The difficulty we face is once again that we do not have the clarity which is required for us to be able to debate the matter simply and easily.

I suggest to the noble Lord that that is exactly why we should not add to the lack of clarity by possible fundamental differences in the structure that we propose. Perhaps I may put it this way. I revert to the issue of the devil being in the detail and exactly what detail people will know. The flesh that will be put on the bones of the Government's proposals will be made clear in the White Paper. It will be finally refined—if that is what you do to flesh—when we go through the legislative process of the scrutiny of the Bill. But the skeleton is not up for negotiation. The skeleton is that for the matter to hang together coherently we need the two parts: the mayor and the assembly, working inter—dependently. That is the Government's position, the fundamental position to which we shall return and the proposition on which we wish to test assent in the referendum.

I believe that if the Minister accepts that this is a constitutional question—and I must declare an interest as a member of the Charter 88 Executive—it seems to me that we are edging towards the increasing use of referenda without appreciating just how much it is changing the British constitution. We all understand the difference between a plebiscite and a referendum. A plebiscite is something which an authoritarian government pose which is intended to contain a question to which there is only one possible answer. A referendum, as I understand it, is a consultation in which it is possible for the people to choose realistically among a number of options.

The difficult question for all of us is: do we wish to accept not just the return of elected government to London but also the major constitutional innovation of a directly-elected mayor? The debate we are now having is because the Government wish to say, "You can only have one, so long as you have the other." That seems a contradictory and possibly semi-unconstitutional measure. We do not have clear constitutional rules on it and I believe that the Government should give a better answer. if not now then certainly before we come hack at Report stage.

I could not disagree with the noble Lord more than I do. I am not particularly keen on referenda but what my noble friend said and what the Government propose is sensible in the circumstances of what is envisaged for London government. Indeed, I see no alternative to it.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has just tried to tell us what should happen in a referendum. I may be wrong but I cannot remember any referendum being conducted except on the basis of asking the people the question which the government of the day wished to ask. We cannot have a referendum on what the referendum shall be about. That is exactly what the noble Lord proposes. We cannot say to the people, "We shall have a referendum and we shall have some means of finding out what question we would like to ask you so that you can affirm the answer." That is a nonsense in government and local government terms. What is proposed is perfectly simple. If we are to have an elected mayor, then there must be some elected assembly to which he is ultimately responsible. Otherwise we totally depart from democratic concepts.

My noble friend puts before us a concept and the people will be asked to say "yes" or "no" to that concept. If they say "yes", we then move to the next stage, which has properly been raised, as to what should be the relationship between the two different bodies and how it should be defined in law. But that is stage two. Stage one is to obtain the agreement of the London people to the concept and my noble friend's case has been well made out.

I should like to declare a personal interest in that I have had the privilege over the past 20 years of employing the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as an adviser. I can tell the Committee that at no time has he suggested to me that he is a simple man.

I should like to ask one simple question. I understand the question from the Liberal Benches. But are we to have in the referendum only a question to which the Government are convinced they already know the answer? If so, in the Scottish referendum why was not the question: "Do you want an assembly with tax-raising authority?"? Why were the Scottish people asked two questions? First, they were asked whether they wanted an assembly, and, secondly, they were asked whether they wanted one with tax-raising authority.

Why in London are we not dividing those two questions? Why cannot we ask, "Do you want a tax-raising authority?"? Would it be a bad thing if the answer was "No"? At least we would know what the people of London thought. For the rest of the history of this Parliament and this Government are we only to have questions in referendums to which the Government know the answers they want and are convinced that they will get?

The noble Lord, Lord Archer, was kind in his reference to me. But perhaps I may make it clear to the Committee that on this occasion, as over the many years about which he spoke, he has not taken my advice.

I am wondering where this debate is leading. I say that because I can remember a certain government deciding that they did not like the Greater London Council. I cannot remember them thinking it necessary to have a referendum on whether or not to abolish, as they did. the only authority that looked after Greater London. I cannot remember the then government suggesting that there should be a referendum asking, "Do you like the Greater London Council? If not, would you like to have an assembly of borough heads to look after London? Or would you like to have a mayor? Or would you like to have an authority?" No such question was asked. I should have thought that that was a more grave constitutional issue than the one with which we are now dealing.

I listen now to those from the Opposition Benches who seem to be so keen on having a referendum and believe that it is right to do so. As I see it—I say this with the utmost respect—the issue is a simple one. A government take responsibility for policy. This Government could do what the Conservative Government did; that is, they could introduce a Bill which would pass through the Commons and your Lordships' Chamber, which said that there should be a mayor and an authority looking after the mayor, to use shorthand words. They could have done that. They could have said, as they said in the manifesto: "London is the only capital city of any greatness in the world without an authority to look after it. We are imposing this upon the country and the people of London because it is the right thing to do, and we said that in our manifesto". Instead, the Government are searching out public opinion in London in a democratic way, asking the one question, "Do you think our policy is right in having an elected mayor and an elected assembly?"

If the answer to that question is "No", then I believe I am right in saying—I have no power from the Back Benches to say this—that the Government will think again. That is what we have to decide today. What the Government are not prepared to do in thinking again is to have, even if they have it in the worthy hands of the noble Lord. Lord Archer, a mayor of London with dictatorial authority. They would never do that. Without the authority, without the assembly, they say, "No thank you". Is not that the simple issue?

This is indeed becoming an interesting discussion about what I too thought was a minor amendment. I had not intended to speak, but should like to say a few words.

We are partly talking about London and the government of London and we are partly talking about referendums. I repeat what I said in the Second Reading debate: we need to spend more time thinking about referendums. Contrary to my noble friend Lord Wallace, I feel that plebiscites are instruments to establish legislation—treaties or whatever—by the will of the people, whereas referendums are instruments to find out the will of the people. The normal process of representative government is then set in motion to put the will of the people into legislative form.

My thoughts about referendums—and I have given the matter quite a bit of thought—is that one must beware of turning them into politics or policies by multiple-choice questions. That cannot be the purpose of referendums and therefore governments should have the right, indeed the obligation, to put a proposal to the people to find out what the people think. If the proposal is a package, so be it; it is a package. If the Government are uncertain and do not want to do it in the form of a package, so be it. But it is for the people to express a view on the specific government proposal.

I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that if the answer is "no", the probability must be extremely high that the Government will think again and will not try to push the issue through the Houses of Parliament, as they could. I continue to see no difficulty in asking one package question and there fore see no reason to change the specific paragraph which we are discussing.

The debate has illustrated the difficulty faced in moving Amendment No. 3, which was to try to keep it self-contained so that it did not spill over into debates on Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 concerning the form of the questions in the referendum. On that basis I restrained myself from the temptation of talking about a two-question referendum. However, I am grateful for some of the comments which relate to that topic.

Perhaps I can make a brief comment. The Minister must address the issue of the Government's lack of confidence in their proposals. It will be up to the Government to advocate and lobby for their package, if the result of the Bill is that there is a one-question referendum. But we must also face the fact that the only excuse the Government can give for not having a two-question referendum is that they fear that Londoners may opt just for a mayor. The Government do not support that and therefore they say that they do not want the referendum to contain two questions. We should address that matter head on in a common-sense way. We know that the majority of people in London want an assembly. But as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said, it is the question of the mayor that is the controversial point and constitutional innovation.

I do not accept the description of "multi-choice". The reality of the situation is whether we should have an assembly or an assembly plus a mayor. It is unlikely that people would opt only for a mayor. They will think of a government, a parliament, an assembly or regional and local government as a collection of people and not as one person. That is what most people will think of when they say they want the return of an elected authority for London.

We have had part of the debate on a referendum. However, in recognition of the fact that the debate on the amendment has inevitably spilled over into later amendments, I am prepared to withdraw it on the ground that what we are really talking about—the nub of this issue—is the question in the referendum. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 1, line 9, leave out ("elected assembly") and insert ("assembly of the leaders of all the London borough councils and the City of London Corporation").

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, to the extent that the members of the greater London authority need to have a proper job. My noble friend and I have worked out that their acronym, GLAMs—Greater London Authority members—will give them something to live up to. However, that is a rather trivial point and considerably less important than looking at the detail of the job they are to do.

The restriction on the members of the assembly interfering in matters that are beyond the strategic is an issue for the Act and for the culture of the assembly as it develops. I would be very concerned indeed if London were to get a fifth-best assembly. That is not because of the quality of the individual leaders who might comprise it, as contained in this proposal, but simply that I do not believe it would be workable.

I do not believe that leading a London borough and taking a strategic role, as has rightly been described, in this great city are two jobs that can be run together. I do not believe that for any individual there would be the time. I do not believe that a borough leader could possibly make the London assembly his or her first priority. It is not practicable as regards time.

In using the term "parochial" I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, it is not because I am being patronising about it, but the job of a leader is to lead his or her borough to fight for what in those terms are parochial matters. It would be a distraction to have to deal with strategic matters and I do not believe that that could be done well. Getting a group of council leaders together might well mean that they start trading-off between themselves rather than taking an overall view.

I said at Second Reading that I have had a little experience of these issues in chairing a London-wide committee. I was very conscious of the fact that London borough members, with the best will in the world for the progress of that committee, nevertheless had to give the majority of their time to affairs in their own boroughs. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, is in his place. I suspect that he has had similar experiences in chairing SERPLAN, the South-East Regional Planning Conference. That was composed of members of London boroughs, districts and counties. The job at SERPLAN happened to tag along with jobs back home.

The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred to consultation with the boroughs. That is not ruled out by having a separate assembly. But what is most important in considering this matter, as well as the strategic overview of London, is that a group of London leaders could not act effectively as a check on the mayor. They would simply not have the time or the means to do so because they have to do another very important job. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue this proposal.

I find it fascinating that, after the debate that we have just had about the importance of choice for Londoners, there is the question of how many proposals and different variants of proposals should be put forward. In the first substantive amendment that the Opposition Front Bench puts forward we have one clear, simple question, to which the answer is either yes or no. That embodies the proposal which the Opposition believe to be the best solution for London government. That is precisely what the Government are trying to do, except that we have a different view of what is the best solution for London government. But it is certainly not a multi-option choice question as part of the referendum.

It is interesting to watch the evolution, if I may put it that way, of Conservative Party thinking on this issue. It has been evolving over months. In its manifesto for London it said:

"New Labour's plans represent a new danger to Londoners. A GLC Mark 11 and an elected mayor are the last things London needs … We do not need more government in London. If it ain't broke then don't try to fix it is the Conservative maxim".

I am glad that they have come round to the view that, as regards London government, if it is not broke, it is capable of improvement and that there is a role for a mayor and an assembly.

The proposition that we have before us, of course, gives Londoners the opportunity to vote on whether they are in favour of a mayor plus an assembly made up of the leaders of the 32 London boroughs. What it would not do is give the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, the opportunity to vote for their preferred option, which is no directly elected mayor at all but a directly-elected assembly and a leader taken from within that assembly. The proposition would not allow the Government the opportunity to put forward their view, which, as we have discussed before, is a package of the two. It would merely give the people of London the opportunity to vote on the proposition which is now Conservative policy.

So let us look a little at what that means. The leaders of the London boroughs do an excellent job in representing the interests of their areas. That is their rightful role, and that is the role that we would expect them to play in relation to the GLA. There is no way in which we would wish to exclude the boroughs from working with the GLA: it is essential that they do so if the whole thing is to work smoothly. An effective borough leader would be in regular contact with the GLA.

But the GLA should not be governed by local interests. It must be able to take a strategic overview for the benefit of London as a whole. That does not mean riding roughshod over borough interests, but weighing up different positions and reaching conclusions to the benefit of London. Only a mayor, working with a directly elected assembly, can do that job.

The assembly will have a vital role to play in the new GLA. It will monitor the activities of the mayor and work with the mayor to devise strategies for London's development. We are proposing that the assembly be able to choose London-wide issues and investigate them, producing reports and recommendations. It is simply not feasible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, to expect borough leaders, in addition to their heavy local duties, to play this role in their spare time. Londoners deserve an assembly wholly committed to working on a pan-London basis.

We have set out a strong case to support our package of a GLA made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly, composed of those members elected to do a specific job. These amendments would create a lopsided authority, unable to deliver what London needs.

I have stated the case against an assembly indirectly elected and composed of borough leaders. I believe that, on consideration, the Committee will perhaps share our view that the roles of borough leader and assembly member cannot and should not be combined. The proposal certainly does not go with the spirit of offering choice and the amendments that will be put later to have more than one proposal put to the people of London. I beg the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.

I thank the Minister for her reply. I am delighted that she recognises the Conservative Party to be evolving. At least that proves that we are not destined for annihilation in some way: evolution is a salvation. Some things evolve much quicker than others.

This is not a proposition wrapped up as one question. Indeed, Amendment No. 10, to which I have spoken, together with Amendment No. 4, make it quite clear that we would be putting to the people of London a proposition for a directly elected mayor as one question and a proposition for an assembly comprised of London borough leaders as a second question. I am perhaps anticipating the debate on later amendments when I say that I do not believe that that will produce the consequences that the Minister fears.

I am concerned when I hear the Minister say that the Greater London assembly must not be governed by local interests. If the interests of Greater London and the capital are not the sum total of the interests of the towns and cities that make up Greater London, I do not know what their interests actually are. As I said, it is difficult to find London-wide issues which have the same impact on all the towns and cities within Greater London, one on the other. The relevance of an issue in Barnet is significantly different from its relevance in Bexley, if it has any relevance at all.

It is difficult to say that borough leaders would be unable effectively to do the job of representing their respective towns and cities because of demands on their time when we do not have before us the result of the consultation, the White Paper, still less the legislation, which detail the functions, powers and responsibilities of the Greater London assembly. If we decided in principle that the boroughs and the assembly should be made up of the leaders of the Greater London boroughs and the City of London Corporation, no doubt we would have a view about how the assembly should work and no doubt the legislation would be framed accordingly.

I am also concerned when I hear it said as a criticism that in an assembly the borough leaders would fight over their own parochial matters and would not be concerned with strategic matters. I have no doubt that any body comprising representatives, however appointed or elected, will have what one might call "constituency interests". However, it is unlikely that one particular parochial interest will be sufficient to outweigh the views of all the other London borough leaders who might conclude that they supported a particular proposal for the benefit of the whole of Greater London. There is not one single borough that does not have an interest in the affairs of at least part of Greater London and the neighbouring towns and cities.

As I said when moving the amendment, the London boroughs are not islands. They are all deeply concerned from an economic and social point of view with what goes on around them. It is a mistake to dismiss those who have the responsibility for the interests of the people who reside within the towns and cities that make up Greater London. One should not believe that such people will be unable to take a wider view in the interests of Greater London as a whole. In the majority of instances, I believe that they will be aware of the wider issues. Having said that, one should not condemn them for those particular instances when local constituency interests are important. As I have said, the problems of Greater London are the problems of the towns and cities that make up Greater London and of the people who live within them. One ignores that at one's peril. I cannot overemphasise how much frustration was caused under the previous structure of government in London by those top tier authorities which acted without regard for the interests of the localities which comprise Greater London.

I beg the Minister to appreciate that this is not a party political point. Once the authority is cut off from the roots of its towns and cities, I believe that it will be lost. I hear what the Minister says, but I believe that this is a matter of great importance. It is a matter on which I believe that we might conceivably be making a considerable mistake and I seek the opinion of the House on this amendment.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 1, line 11, leave out ("question") and insert ("question").

I speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. It will not surprise the Committee to know that I prefer the Conservative amendment to those proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There is no intention that this should be considered as a wrecking proposal. The amendment seeks to put the Government's proposal to the citizens of Greater London in two questions rather than one.

I read carefully what the Minister said in some detail on Second Reading. I am not convinced by her rejection of the proposal. If the Government are not prepared to take the risk that in a referendum people might not like the Government's proposals in their entirety, they should not be going down the referendum road. It has been said by other Members of the Committee and by myself that the Government have the ability and majority to legislate, if they so wish, subject to the parliamentary process. No one could have criticised them for doing that if that had been their choice. It was, however, their choice to say in their manifesto, and to bring forward proposals, that their plans should be put to the people of London. It is entirely appropriate that we should discuss and suggest that the question be framed in a way different from what the Government propose.

For anyone who wants genuinely to consult on the amendment there are no hidden risks. There is no hidden agenda. It merely puts the Government's proposals to the people in two questions. I do not believe that that presents the difficulties that the Minister outlined on Second Reading. If there were a "yes" to both questions, there would be no problem for the Government. If there were a "no" vote to both questions there might be a problem for the Government but not in the way the Minister foresaw. There is no constitutional settlement being imposed, as was suggested earlier today.

Let us for a moment assume that there is a vote in favour of the assembly but against the directly elected mayor. That would mean that people were either against the idea of a mayor or had been convinced by the arguments that will be deployed by others that the mayor is better drawn from the assembly itself. Either way, that result would not commit the Government to a particular course of action. But, clearly, they would have to think again and bring forward different proposals. Whether they chose to consult the people on those different proposals would be a matter for them. That would have happened because it was the view of the people whom they had set out to consult.

If the people vote for the mayor but reject the directly elected assembly, the arguments are the same. The Government's apparent unwillingness to accept the concept of two questions suggests that they are not prepared to argue the case for each and to trust the people to whom they are putting the question. They will not take the risk of putting the proposals to the people in a meaningful way. It is take it or leave it. If that is so, I wonder why the legislation road was not chosen rather than the referendum road.

It is possible for the electorate—it is sophisticated enough to look at the Government's plans as they may be available at the time of the referendum—to consider those plans and to say that it does not like part of them. When we see the White Paper it may reveal plans for a mayor who is perceived to be too powerful. There may be insufficient safeguards. The proposals for the assembly may be perceived as giving the assembly too many functions at potentially too high a cost. The people may reject the part of the proposals they do not like. That would not be end of the Government's plans to reform the government of the capital, but Ministers would need to think again in the light of the people's verdict on a particular part of the proposal.

I have not taken part in debates on the Bill, but I have come strongly to the view that there should be two questions. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that we had a few minutes ago on Amendment No. 3 when we were covering the same ground. There was a good deal of debate foreshadowing this amendment.

I believe that the people of London may well take the view that they would like a mayor. I hope that I am not disclosing Cabinet secrets, but perhaps I may point out that the longest single debate which we had in the Cabinet which decided to abolish the GLC was on whether there should be retained in some form or another what was then called and has been called since "a voice for London". Such were the enormities which the GLC had been getting up to, the huge extravagances and the highly damaging policies that it had pursued, the view prevailed that if one was going to get rid of it one should get rid of it lock, stock and barrel. Therefore, there was no voice for London.

I understand how opinion has moved. I enormously admire what has been done as regards collaboration between the boroughs and the various public/private sector partnerships which have grown up over London. One can understand and have sympathy with the view that what is missing is a voice for London. Therefore, I believe that it is possible that the public will say yes. They might think of the mayors of Paris and New York, for example, and that a single powerful executive voice can represent London as a whole.

At the same time, they might well believe that it went wrong last time with the 1962 legislation and with the GLC in 1964 and that what began as a reasonable division of powers between the upper tier authority of the GLC and the boroughs became a monstrosity which in area after area was totally overriding what most people regarded as being the proper function of the boroughs. Therefore, the people might well say that they will have a mayor, but in the light of experience I do not believe that we should again risk a directly elected assembly.

The argument which the Minister deployed—that the referendum is not about that, but about whether the public agree with the Government's package—is arrogant. I believe that the people of London are capable of examining the proposal and saying, "There are two parts to it. Yes, we want a voice for London, but we do not want to risk a second GLC". Of all the arguments that I have heard and in which I have taken part as to what should be the future of the governance of London, a common note has emerged from across the political spectrum; "We do not want a second GLC". That has been reiterated and echoed across the spectrum. The risk which people might see in the directly elected assembly is that in time it could be looking for things to do.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He makes great play of the current situation, believing that the people of London should be asked two questions. Why did not the same view come to the minds of those in the Administration which he served? Perhaps the noble Lord is nit-picking at the procedure, but he said that it was a case of killing the GLC stone dead, or reforming it, or winning the next election. However, without direct consultation with the people of London, he and his colleagues took away the GLC. Of course it had blemishes, but they could have been improved.

The noble Lord will no doubt wish to make his own speech. I ask him to bear in mind that when the proposal was first put forward in the 1983 election and during the months immediately following there was an overwhelming desire to get rid of the GLC. There is ample evidence of that—

No, no!

What happened after the expenditure of some £40 million or £50 million of ratepayers' money on propaganda was that the argument moved the other way. I do not deny that, but that is not my point. My point is that it is possible to envisage that in a referendum on the issue the London public might say, "Yes, we want a good powerful voice for London, but we do not want to risk a second GLC".

I have never forgotten canvassing in what was my constituency in the local elections during the first year of there being no GLC precepts. During that local election, I had a warmer response on the doorsteps of Wanstead and Woodford than I had had during any election I had ever fought. The people suddenly saw that they had got an incubus off their backs and they were paying only the borough rate.

I believe that those memories will live long and that when people are asked whether they should have a London-wide body they will be looking for something like a voice for London. I believe that the referendum should give the people of London an opportunity to express their choice. Under the Government's Bill, they will not have the right to do so. Indeed, the whole issue will be muddled together in only one question. I totally support the proposal and I hope that when my noble friend advises us on how to respond we may support it in the Division Lobby.

I wish to repeat a question put to the Minister. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, withdrew her amendment she had no opportunity to answer the particular question and I do not apologise for raising it again. I support the proposal that there should be two questions. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of today's debate is that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is convinced that London does not want a mayor but wants an assembly—

No. Perhaps I may respond immediately. I am not convinced because I do not presume to know what the whole of London wants. That is why I want Londoners to be consulted on both elements.

I am sure that it is understood that that is what she would want. I do not change my argument. That is what many of the Liberal Democrats want, although there were one or two interesting diversions among the speeches from those Benches. However, it seemed to be their party policy that they would like not a mayor but an assembly. We hope that that pleases the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. On the other hand, over here we have my noble friend Lord Jenkin who tells us that he believes it quite possible—I put it no higher—that Londoners will say they want a mayor but not an assembly.

Perhaps that proves to the Minister that we should find out what the people of London want; we have heard the argument for that clearly today. The Minister is convinced that we should have one question because that is the Government's package. Perhaps the Government are not prepared to go ahead unless they can have the package that they want. I hear the Minister. But I should like an answer to the Scottish question. Why was there not one question in Scotland which asked, "Do you want an assembly in Scotland with tax raising authority?". Why were they not asked in one question. first, whether they wanted an assembly or a government and, secondly. whether they wanted tax raising authority? I bring back the question to the Minister. Why were we in London not asked if we wanted tax raising authority? That could have been a third question for us. I repeat that I should have liked the answer to that to be "no", but it would not have stopped me wanting to ask the question of the people of London.

If there can be two questions in Scotland, why cannot there be two questions in London? I hope that the Minister will not, as she did on Second Reading and as she has mentioned today, refer to it as a half-considered alternative. I hope that the Minister realises that some of us have spent weeks thinking about this and it is not a half-considered alternative.

On Second Reading the Minister described those who could not understand this as "naive". She accused us of lecturing her. I wish to apologise immediately to the Minister. I am not lecturing; I hope I am not naive; but I hope that the Minister will give us a convincing answer beyond saying that the question is on the paper because the Government know the answer they want.

I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, that I made the most terrible Freudian slip when I was writing my notes in preparing for this and I did not spell Weston-Super-Mare correctly. However, we all do terrible things in anxiety states.

I am happy to forgive the Minister on this occasion.

The noble Lord says that he has given weeks of thinking to this issue and what is the right form of government. Some Members of your Lordships' House have given years of thinking to it.

That is insulting. I sat on the Greater London Council and that was my first political appointment. I had the privilege and honour of fighting against Sir William Fiske. I have spent my life time thinking about politics. But since this Bill has been published, I have considered its wording.

I do not wish to denigrate the contribution to public life in this country made by the noble Lord. However, I wish to point out that the appropriate form of local government for London has been considered for many years by Members of your Lordships' House after the decision made by the Conservative Administration—described by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—to abolish the Greater London Council.

In dealing with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, perhaps I may deal with the Scottish issue, and I apologise for any discourtesy in not responding to it, but the debate moved on. As regards the issue of two questions in the Scottish referendum, there were two questions in the Scottish referendum because we were addressing two distinct issues: whether or not there should be a Scottish parliament; and whether that body should have tax-varying powers. The Government were testing assent to each of those propositions. They were stand-alone propositions and had the answer to tax-varying powers been "no", it would not have destroyed the constitutional settlement that was proposed in the first question.

The reason that we included the second question is that we take a different position from that taken by the noble Lord, Lord Archer. We do not believe that we should ask questions to which, if we receive the answer "yes", we should not then implement what was being supported because we do not think it the right way to go forward. That is precisely why there was not a second question in the Welsh referendum about tax-raising powers. I hope that answers that specific point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked for a considered response and I shall try to give a considered response and set out once again the reasons that the Government do not believe that two questions are appropriate. The reasoning falls into two parts. I shall deal first with the fundamental issues and then deal with some of the technical issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said quite clearly—and I think he was right—that we are dealing with two major issues here, one of which is the nature of the referendum and the nature of the exercise which this Bill is trying to set up. That was a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, alluded. The other issue deals with the appropriate and best form of government for London.

Perhaps I may repeat—I apologise if I am restating some of the earlier debate—that the nature of the referendum is not some sort of mega opinion poll. It is not an oversized market research project, canvassing a range of constitutional options. It is not the largest focus group ever seen by any spin doctor. It is a proposition to test the assent of the people of London to the proposals which the Government are putting to them.

I must suggest to the Committee that it is not arrogant to say that as a government. It is responsible of a government to make absolutely clear what are the proposals. Perhaps I may illustrate that. Earlier this afternoon, the Committee voted for an amendment that said we should publish a Bill with the White Paper weeks before the referendum takes place. If we have two questions on the ballot paper giving, as I shall suggest later, not two possible answers but up to five possible answers, what will the Bill say? The Bill could not describe the detail to enable Londoners to be clear as to what they were voting about because there will be several different propositions to be voted upon. There is the proposition that we have talked about. There is the proposition which the Liberal Democrats would like of a directly elected assembly without a directly elected mayor. There is the proposition referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, of a directly elected mayor without a directly elected assembly. How could that be expressed clearly and definitively within the Bill when there are several different propositions?

I return to how we see the referendum in the process. It is a staging post in our proposals to bring forward a strategic, city-wide authority for our capital. We made clear our commitment to a balanced and accountable constitutional settlement of a greater London authority comprising a separately elected mayor and a separately elected assembly in our manifesto. We made it clear also that we should test support for that proposition through the mechanism of a referendum.

The Government's conviction is that for London to have the best from its authority, it is necessary to have both a mayor and a separately elected assembly. That is why we have put forward a clear and comprehensive single question. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, suggested that there are two parts to the question. If we had not explained what the authority comprised, we should be accused of not giving the detail that people needed to understand what they are voting on. We have put forward a clear and comprehensive single question that allows people to express a view on that package.

To argue for more than one question both misunderstands the nature of the referendum proposed and threatens the integrity of the greater London authority that we are proposing. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that in his view, there was a great theme of not wishing to recreate an elected authority like the GLC. We have made it very clear earlier that we have no intention of recreating the GLC. However, the noble Lord's view was that public feeling was that there should not be another elected assembly.

I should point out that another theme has emerged as a result of the views expressed regarding the proposals; namely, that we should not have a mayor untrammelled by any form of democratic accountability to a separately elected assembly. That is a very serious and fundamental part of the package that we believe to be the best for London. Indeed, London needs both the visibility and the advocacy of the elected mayor and the accountability and the balance of the elected assembly. The authority will be an interdependent whole, not two separate entities which could exist successfully independent of one another. For those reasons I believe that the amendments before the Committee today are fatally flawed. They threaten both the nature of the referendum that we are suggesting and the absolute essence of the authority that the Government believe to be right.

It has been said during the debate that there are no hidden risks in the proposed questions. I have to challenge that view. I believe that the questions, which look so simple, about offering choice do not do so. Clearly and simply, there are two choices and two questions. I certainly do not dispute that there are a number of views, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, which illustrate differing opinions as to how London should be governed. Today we have discussed the views of the Front Benches in this Chamber. However, I am sure that there are other views about other constitutional arrangements that could be made. I should like to prove to Members of the Committee that even the limited range of options expressed from the Front Benches in this Chamber as regards the best form of London government would not be clearly and unambiguously addressed by the two questions proposed in either amendment.

Let us start with the Government's position. It has been stated that the Government's proposal would be voted on by way of these two questions because people could vote "yes" to both of them. However, as I have made clear, the dual elements of the mayor and the assembly are two parts of one proposal. How, with the amendments, would I as a London voter be able to express my choice—and I stress "my choice"—that I want a mayor and an assembly and that, if I cannot have both of them and the checks and balances are not in the package, then I would rather have neither? How do I express that view with those two supposedly simple questions?

I move on to the Liberal Democrat position which, I understand, is that the best answer would be an assembly that is directly elected and a mayor who is not. How would one differentiate when people vote for a directly elected assembly but say "no" to a directly elected mayor? How would one know whether those people wanted a mayor elected by, or in some way coming out of, the membership of the assembly rather than some sort of collective leadership which did not have a mayor?

The mayor without an assembly—or, to be more specific, a mayor with an indirectly elected assembly comprising borough leaders—is of course the position of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and his party. Indeed, that is what we voted on earlier. But how does the Londoner who agrees with the proposition that, as well as an elected mayor, there should also be an assembly but indirectly elected, differentiate himself on these two questions from the Londoner who wants an elected mayor but no assembly at all? That is not such a wild position. In the process of evolution of the noble Lord's party, I believe that that was its position for a little while. It is possible that some of its supporters in London still adhere to that view. How does that voter make it clear on these two questions that that is what he is looking for?

Both versions of the questions do not offer clear choices to voters. They raise the prospect of people's votes carrying the day for a package with which they do not agree. That is not good for democratic choice, for clarity or, indeed, for an effective authority. It is a recipe for confusion. Two questions would force people to guess what the outcome of their vote would be and then oblige them to vote accordingly.

The British people showed some sophistication as tactical voters in the last election in their determination to get rid of the last government. However, I do not believe it to be proper to rely on them to do so again in a referendum on the governance of London.

As I explained, there are a range of possible outcomes to the two sets of questions—a mayor and assembly together, a mayor without an assembly, and an assembly without a mayor. But even these outcomes do not reflect the essential detail of the preferred positions either of the Government Front Bench or of the Liberal Democrats which are, respectively, a mayor with an indirectly elected assembly and a mayor indirectly elected from a directly elected assembly.

Given the range of possible outcomes that two questions could produce, we must also consider just how voters would make an informed choice. Great play has been made about the importance of clarity over the issues in the referendum. I support that; indeed, that is what we were talking about in terms of having a debate and in terms of the White Paper spelling out most clearly the implications involved. However, it would be practically impossible to provide clarity and certainty if the two questions were posed on whether to have a mayor and an assembly separately with all the variations and permutations that I described. I do not believe that people would find the choice on the ballot paper clear and comprehensible; indeed, it would be extremely confusing if a White Paper had to show alternative versions of what was actually on offer for Londoners as regards the alternative permutations that might be the result of the referendum.

There are severe technical deficiencies with a two-question referendum. However, the crux of the matter to which I wish to return is that the proposed amendments offer the possibility of outcomes which the Government believe to be wrong and unworkable. I do not believe it to be correct or justified to accuse the Government of arrogance in that respect. It is not the arrogance of power; it is the responsibility of power of a governing party. It is wilfully to misunderstand both the nature of the referendum that we propose and the strength of feeling of the Government that it would be wrong to put to the people of London a package which they would not be willing to implement.

I can do no better than to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, expressed on Second Reading when he said that,

"referenda should not be exploratory and open-ended. They should test the views of the people about government proposals. The first duty is therefore that of government to make such proposals and to argue for them … If the people … do not like the Government's proposals—for two separately elected components of the Greater London authority—the Government will have to think again".—[Official Report, 15/12/97; col. 430.1]

That is absolutely right. That is a risk that the Government are prepared to take. We have been accused of not having the courage to put our proposition to the people and allow for a range of options. That really is an unreasonable construction of the position in which the Government find themselves. We intend to seek the consent of the people to a considered package—an entire framework for government. Londoners will have been fully informed of the Government's proposals in a comprehensive White Paper to be published well in advance of the referendum. They would then be able to vote in the full knowledge of what they are voting for, or what they are voting against. That is clear, fair and democratic. There has been some talk about the possible totalitarian nature of referenda and plebiscites. It is not totalitarian to put one question: it is totalitarian to have only one possible answer.

The Government accept the possibility that the people of London will not agree with the proposition placed before them. We favour a mayor and an assembly as a complete framework—a mayor to provide a voice for London and articulate London's interests both at home and abroad and an assembly to provide essential checks and balances. Those two elements are the cornerstone of our plans for a new authority for London. It is on that package that we intend to seek the consent of Londoners.

Our proposed single question will deliver a decisive referendum outcome. If there is a yes vote, we can get on with delivering our proposals. If Londoners vote no, we shall not implement those proposals. It is as simple and as straightforward as that. But there will be a clear expression of public opinion, one way or the other. That, as I said earlier, is exhibiting not the arrogance of power, but the responsibility of power in preparing workable proposals which, if approved, the people can trust—we have had talk of trust—will be implemented.

We have consulted widely on these proposals and we are paying close attention to the views put to us. This referendum now seeks to establish the consent of the people of London to those considered proposals. It will underpin London's new democratic settlement. We are willing to subject our proposals to the verdict of Londoners. What we are not willing to do is extend to Londoners unworkable, ill-advised propositions that we would not be prepared to implement. I do not believe that any responsible government should do that. For that reason I urge the Committee to reject these amendments.

The Minister remarked early in her reply that the proposals for London government had been debated by parliamentarians for years. That is, of course, right, but they have not been debated by the people of London who have not been given that chance. They have had to say yes or no or to have their vote for particular parties at particular elections interpreted, indirectly, as an indication of their preferences. That is why it is right to have a referendum as people may have voted Labour in the general election last May for a host of reasons. They may not have focused on the proposals for London government. That is why it is right to test those proposals in a referendum. What is not right is to create a take it or leave it situation. Many of the Minister's arguments are forced and artificial. There is a danger that her arguments may be turned on their head.

The Minister said that if we adopted a two question referendum, either our version or the Conservative version, if people were unhappy about the links between the assembly and the directly elected mayor, they may be driven to vote no, no. I put it to the Minister that if there is only a single question for the package, those people who are unhappy with one element of the package—let us say that they do not want the assembly, they only want the mayor, although that is the opposite of what I believe—will be driven to vote no and the Government will not know why they have voted no. Therefore the same arguments apply to the Minister's package as apply to splitting the question into two elements.

On the same point, the Minister said that people might be driven to vote no, no because they did not know the details of the relationship we are discussing. That reinforces the arguments that were dealt with earlier this afternoon for putting a great deal more flesh on the bones of the proposals as regards the checks and balances of the assembly on the mayor. That is precisely the reason we want Londoners to have those details before they vote; namely, so that they will know the relationship between the mayor and the assembly. It is precisely because it is salutary for parliaments and governments to have to address the concerns of the people that it is wise to give people an opportunity to have a real debate and real choices.

The Minister placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that the Government find these proposals convincing. If I may say with respect, that is neither here nor there. It is the people of London who need to be convinced by the proposals. The Minister defended herself against the charge of arrogance. I feel that she must be sensitive to that charge if she addresses it at all. That charge could be made to stick if Londoners are not given a choice in this matter. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, about Scotland, the Minister said that in the case of Scotland there had been two questions because there were two distinct issues—the parliament and executive for Scotland, and the tax raising powers—and that an answer of no to the tax raising question would not have destroyed the constitutional settlement because the aspects were separable. I suggest to the Minister that that is precisely the case as regards the Government's proposals for the government of London; the two elements of mayor and assembly can be separated. We see that in practice. In Paris, for example, there is an assembly which elects the mayor. In Paris there is not a directly elected mayor. It is perfectly practicable to have an assembly which elects its own mayor, leader or whatever.

I believe at one point the Minister said that people would not know whether there would be collective leadership or one leader of the assembly. I believe that she is in danger of entering the realms of fantasy. The norm of government in this country is to have a leader elected by an assembly, parliament, council or whatever. I have called some of her arguments forced and artificial. I refer to the question: why will you not allow the people of London to choose? Her only real answer to that question is: we do not want them to have the choice because we believe that we are right. The Minister does not have any credible answers and she has been forced into giving incredible responses.

I am afraid that I am guilty of the charge that was levelled by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, at my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It was I who said that I thought that the people of London would not vote for a directly elected mayor only. I could be proved wrong and I am ready to be proved wrong. I cannot say I would be happy to be proved wrong. However, that gives me, as it gives others, the strongest incentive to campaign before May to convince people according to our beliefs on what would be best for London. It is in precisely that context—and not in the context of a take it or leave it package—that Londoners are likely to be most engaged and most involved in the outcome. The people of London did not agree with the Tories when they abolished the government for London. The word "stability" has been mentioned on several occasions this afternoon. I believe there is a common wish in this Chamber to create a system of government for London which will last a long time, will be stable and will deliver good government for London. The best basis for securing that is to allow Londoners to have the maximum debate on the options.

I have paused to see whether there are any further contributions. My noble friend has responded to a number of points made by the Minister. When she asked what Londoners might expect by way of leadership if they voted for an assembly but not a directly elected mayor, I wrote down "Blair". As my noble friend has said, most government bodies and parliaments have a leader who is a voice of that body. It is quite reasonable—of course this would be part of the debate—to allow Londoners to make that assumption.

The Minister said that we must not have a mayor untrammelled by an assembly. That was pretty much the same point as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, earlier. We are still not convinced that it is possible for an assembly to have sufficient control over a directly elected mayor. That is why we want to have a debate on this matter and that is why we wish to present the two points separately to the electorate of London.

The Minister also said that if the answer is a clear no, proposals will be dropped. I fear that that could lead to shelving something which the voters want—one element of that package.

I do not think that the Minister addressed the point that the amendment proposes a preamble to set the context. However, I shall read Hansard to check whether she addressed that point.

In introducing Amendment No. 6 I said the matter is so serious and capable of continued debate that I shall be prepared to consider it again. It is an issue to which I believe we must return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I call Amendment No. 7. If the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, intends to move it, I must point out that if the amendment is agreed to it will pre-empt Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and I shall not be able to call them.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 7:

Page 6, leave out lines 3 to 7 and insert—

("Question 1: Are you in favour of a directly elected mayor for Greater London?

Put a cross (X) in one box: