THE PURPOSE OF THE AUTHORITY

HC Deb 04 May 1999 vol 330 cc741-59

Mr. Raynsford

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 110A to 113A and 120 to 122.

Government new clause 32—The general power of the Authority.

Government new clause 33—Limits of the general power.

Government new clause 34—Consultation.

Government amendments Nos. 126 and 128.

6 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

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

Mr. Raynsford

Part II of the Bill establishes the principal purposes of the authority, its general powers and functions, how those powers and functions should be exercised, and by whom. It deals also with the accountability and openness of the authority and its functional bodies, and the ethical standards it should maintain. Finally, it deals with the appointment of the authority's staff.

I do not intend to address all those issues today. Each of them was addressed and dealt with in Committee and none of the fundamental principles, or our intentions, were challenged successfully. However, important issues did emerge during our debates, and the amendments I am moving today seek to address the concerns that were expressed and, where necessary, to clarify or make more explicit our intentions.

The principal issues the amendments address are: first, the purposes of the authority; secondly, the general power of the authority; thirdly, consultations to be undertaken in relation to the use of the general power and the preparation of the mayor's strategies; and fourthly, the issues to which the mayor must have regard in preparing or revising those strategies. Our intentions in relation to each of those issues remain the same as in the Committee print of the Bill. So the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister seek simply to ensure that there is no confusion or ambiguity about those intentions, and to reassure Londoners and London organisations that the GLA will be an inclusive, not an exclusive, authority. To this end, amendments Nos. 109A, 110A and 111A delete clauses 25, 26 and 27 of the Bill which are replaced by new clauses 32, 33 and 34.

The principal purposes of the authority are integral to its successful functioning. Those purposes are threefold: first, promoting economic development and wealth creation in Greater London; secondly, promoting social development in Greater London; and, thirdly, promoting the improvement of the environment in Greater London.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

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

Mr. Raynsford

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I shall come specifically to that point in a few moments. The authority's general power is conferred to enable it to further one or more of those purposes, and those purposes will inform the preparation of each of its strategies. Because of concerns expressed in Committee, the drafting of new clause 32 makes it absolutely clear that, in exercising the general power to do anything that it considers necessary to further any one or more of these purposes, the authority must have regard to the effect that that will have on the health of people in London, and on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.

Where the authority does exercise the general power conferred by the clause, it is also required to do so in a way that is best calculated to create improvements in the health of people in London and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.

Other amendments that we shall discuss later—amendments Nos. 114 and 118 to clause 33—ensure that, in preparing or revising his or her strategies, the mayor must have regard not only to the principal purposes of the authority but to similar considerations relating to health and sustainable development.

Promoting the improvement of the health of Londoners and achieving the objective of sustainable development will, therefore—as we have always intended—be explicit and fundamental considerations for the authority. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this meets our White Paper commitments and the concerns expressed in Committee.

Mr. Simon Hughes

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

Mr. Raynsford

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman obviously did not follow closely the line of argument that we advanced in Committee. We clearly explained that the three principal purposes that I have described are the overarching purposes of the authority, but that, inevitably, they overlap with some of the issues raised by the promotion of health and the promotion of sustainable development. In order to prevent the possibility of any misunderstanding, we have chosen to give added prominence to the issues of health and sustainable development, but without compromising the architecture of the Bill, which has always depended on those three pillars or principal purposes—economic, social and environmental.

As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, sustainable development is obviously implicit in the environmental objective, but it also must be reflected in the economic and social development objectives. If it is not, there will not be sustainable development. Therefore, it would be confusing to set sustainable development as a separate objective.

We have responded to concerns that we were not giving sufficient emphasis to health and to sustainable development by tabling new clause 32, which makes it clear that these considerations are to be in the forefront of thinking in the new authority, but that they must fall in with the three principal pillars that sustain the new authority. We hope that no uncertainty or ambiguity remain on the subject.

I cannot accept amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others, which would add to the principal purposes of the authority the encouragement of equal opportunities". That is not because I do not think that the authority should encourage equal opportunities: on the contrary, we strongly believe that the authority should encourage and promote equal opportunities—it should and it must. We oppose the amendment because it is unnecessary to provide for it in this way.

I cannot conceive of a situation where the principal purpose of promoting social development would not include the encouragement of equality of opportunity. I say that in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who is rightly concerned about the matter. Social development obviously cannot be promoted if equality of opportunity is not encouraged.

As I said in Committee, we have sought to ensure, in our discussions of the Green Paper, the White Paper and now the provisions of the Bill, that in our multicultural capital the authority will respond to all sections of the community and promote equal opportunities.

The GLA will have to observe the existing framework for equal opportunities which is imposed on local authorities. It will be subject to the Race Relations Act 1976, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and many of the Bill's provisions will ensure that the authority gives equal opportunities the importance that they deserve. The provisions and our amendments on consultation, transparency and accessibility are all especially important in that respect.

6.15 pm

Mr. Hughes

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

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman will recall from many hours of debate in Committee that provisions that have been implemented in Scotland and in Wales have not been adopted in the same way in London. Conversely, some provisions that we have adopted in the London legislation are not echoed in the Scotland and Wales legislation, for very good reasons.

Earlier, we discussed thresholds. We have made provision for thresholds in the Bill, but there is no equivalent in Scotland or in Wales. If we believe—as I thought the Liberal Democrats did believe—in devolution, we may feel that it is appropriate that there might be some differences in the way in which duties and powers are expressed in different parts of the country. However, I thought that I had made it clear to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—and I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town—that that does not in any way imply that there is not a commitment to equal opportunities. On the contrary, we have a total commitment to equal opportunities. It is implicit in the way in which the Bill is drafted. There are clear statutory obligations on the authority to pursue equal opportunities.

Moreover, as I have explained, the GLA will be a best-value authority, and best value will require local authorities to put equality and equality of opportunity at the heart of their policies. No authority could be said to be truly effective if it discriminated against one section of the community, or in favour of another, in the delivery of its services.

Of course, we do not intend to give the authority carte blanche to do anything that it chooses. That is why, in drafting the general power and purposes provisions of the Bill, we have sought to achieve a clear balance between the need to provide the authority with the freedom and flexibility to act, and the need to avoid duplication with the statutory responsibilities of its own functional bodies and other authorities, organisations and public bodies.

For that reason, the limitations that we sought to place on the use of the general power in clause 27 remain the same in new clause 33. Now, however, they are freestanding. The only new provision is set out in subsection (9). That gives the Secretary of State an order-making power to remove or restrict the prohibitions or limitations placed on the use of the power by the rest of the clause. The Bill already provides for the Secretary of State to add to these prohibitions—clause 27(10)—and we felt that it was right and appropriate and a suitable balance, not least because of allegations that have been made by Opposition parties that we were giving too many powers to the Secretary of State, also to provide the power to remove particular prohibitions or limitations.

Our primary objective in establishing the GLA's structure and its procedure is that it should be easily accessible to the people of London and that it should be able to respond to and reflect their interests, needs and priorities. An essential means of securing that objective is to ensure that effective consultation takes place. Londoners must be able to ensure that their views about what the authority does, or plans to do, are properly considered and taken into account.

For that reason, we included in clause 25 provisions requiring the authority, in deciding whether to exercise any of its powers, to consider consultations with bodies or people that it considers appropriate to consult—including in particular business interests. We also provided a requirement in clause 34 for the mayor to consult about the preparation or revision of his or her strategies.

These provisions were meant to be inclusive, but it was clear from debate in Committee and from representations that I received from interested groups that our intentions would be made clearer if some broad categories of interest were named in the Bill as consultees or potential consultees. We agree that clarity is important in this matter. New clause 34 and amendment No. 120 to clause 34 extend the consultation provisions to meet the concerns that have been expressed.

The general power provided for in new clause 32 can now be exercised by the mayor only after consultation with such bodies or people as the mayor considers appropriate in any particular case. Moreover, in determining what consultations, if any, are necessary, the mayor must consider whether to consult certain specified categories of interest.

Those categories are any London borough council; the common council; voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of Greater London; bodies that represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in London; bodies that represent the interests of different religious groups in Greater London; and bodies that represent the interests of persons carrying on business in Greater London.

Amendment No. 120 requires the mayor, in preparing or revising any strategy, to consider consulting the same bodies.

Some concern has been expressed that the amendments might in some way diminish the requirement to consult business. I can state categorically that that is not the case. The mayor must now have regard to the principal purposes of the authority—which include economic development and wealth creation—in preparing or revising any strategy, and as a consequence of amendment No. 120 must now consider consulting business about those strategies.

That, of course, means that consultation must take place in circumstances where business's interests would be affected. It was never our intention to give business, or any other interest group, the right to be consulted irrespective of the circumstances. That would be both impracticable and foolish. However, we believe it right that business should be consulted on all matters likely to affect business interests. That is what we have provided for.

I am sure hon. Members will agree that the mayor must have some discretion in deciding who he or she should consult. The mayor obviously cannot consult everybody about everything. These provisions mean that, where the mayor fails to give proper consideration to who he or she should consult, or fails to consult bodies representing groups with legitimate interests that will be affected by the exercise of the authority's powers and functions, the mayor's reasons for failing to do so could be challenged and tested. Our intention is to protect the legitimate interests of Londoners, while preserving the proper discretion of the mayor to decide who he or she should or should not consult.

Throughout our debates in Committee, there was a tendency for any hon. Member who came across a list, in any clause, to seek to amend the Bill by adding to that list some other item or consideration. We have resisted such amendments. In this case, however, we recognised that there was genuine concern to improve the way in which our intentions were expressed in the Bill, and legitimate reasons for doing so. We have therefore agreed to the inclusion of this short list in the Bill.

I should warn Opposition Members, however, that this is not an invitation for them to consider what they can add to that list. I note that in one of his later amendments—amendment No. 151—the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is already seeking to add a further category of consultees to those who should be consulted about the strategies. We will be resistant to further additions, because lists that are allowed to grow become unwieldy and, rather than being indicative, risk becoming exclusive, thereby discouraging wider consultation.

I have considered the comments made in Committee, and other representations that I received, about requiring the authority to establish a civic forum. However, I remain of the view that it would be wrong to require the authority to establish such a forum. It should be for the authority to decide how to conduct its consultations.

New clause 34(4) provides the authority with a specific power to make appropriate arrangements for undertaking consultation. Therefore, there can be no doubt about the authority's powers to establish a civic forum, if it believes that that would be the best way to proceed.

The other amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister are more modest in their scope. Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 make it clear that when and if new functions are transferred or conferred on the authority, they will be exercisable by the mayor unless otherwise specified. Amendments Nos. 121, 122, 126 and 128 are consequential, drafting or technical amendments.

I apologise for taking some time to introduce and explain the amendments and new clauses. I hope that the House will recognise that the issues are complex and that it is important for them to be spelt out in detail before we debate them.

Mr. Ottaway

We agree with the broad thrust of this extensive group of amendments and new clauses. However, I make one observation. If ever evidence were required that the Labour party had lost its soul, spirit and principles, the House need look no further than new clause 32.

For the Labour party, of all parties, to state that the primary objective—the objective that it puts at the top of the list—is wealth creation in Greater London astonishes me. As the Minister moved the clause, I saw the ghosts of the elder statesmen of the Labour party stirring in their graves. What they would make of those priorities, I cannot imagine.

We all know why the Government have done that. This is the Labour party of mood music and focus groups, which tells the public what they want to hear. That is cover for the fact that the Government have introduced compulsory union recognition, signed the social chapter, introduced a minimum wage and accepted the working time directive, all of which do nothing to help wealth creation in Greater London.

Mr. Livingstone

rose—

Mr. Ottaway

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

Mr. Livingstone

rose—

Mr. Ottaway

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

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

Mr. Livingstone

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to intimidate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) so that he would let me get in.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of any Labour Government who were not in favour of wealth creation? There has been a debate about the proportion of the wealth that should come to the central state for redistribution, but having been around some of the wilder fringes of the Labour movement over the past 30 years, I never came across anyone, apart from one or two complete nutters, who was not in favour of wealth creation. They just wanted some of it for themselves.

Mr. Ottaway

The hon. Gentleman misses my point. I cannot imagine any other Labour Government but the present one who would put wealth creation first. Although they have put it first, and they know that it will run well with the public, they do not know what it means. I gave a list of the measures that they have introduced which will do nothing but destroy wealth creation.

The clause is a facade. The Labour party has no idea how to promote wealth creation. Nevertheless, we look forward to its implementation by a Conservative mayor who knows what the expression means and how to put it into action.

Mr. Simon Hughes

That interlude from the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) suggests that he thinks that the Tory party's policy on these matters needs redefinition. I warn him that the more redefinition we get in the final fortnight before certain elections, the more unhelpful it may be.

There are three substantive matters relating to this group of amendments and new clauses. The first was the subject of my first intervention in the Minister's speech. The Government are regrouping their clauses of old into their new clauses of today. Although they say that the entire London edifice must stand on three pillars, whatever we think of the order in which they are expressed—economic, social and environmental—all of which are fine, there has never been a convincing and logical argument against the addition of sustainability and health as primary purposes.

The pressure from outside the House, and the general view expressed by those who responded to the Green Paper, was that one of the functions of the Greater London Authority should be to promote the health of Londoners. It should therefore be a principal purpose. We do not think that the Government have any justification for downgrading it.

6.30 pm

On the second, sustainability, the Government's argument does not stack up either. Although the Minister is right to say that we need economic, social and environmental sustainability, none the less each of the three principal purposes listed in the new clause is interconnected; and it does not mean to say that we should not have economic development that is not socially or environmentally acceptable.

The Government remain unpersuaded. I am not even sure that the new drafting works much better. New clause 32(2) now lists the three principal purposes to be promoted, (4) adds health and sustainability and has slightly odd wording, and (5) contains another qualification, namely, that any action can be undertaken only if it is reasonably practicable. The draft people have been at work again. I am sure that there is a clearer way, even if the Government did not want to go the whole hog with us and list the five purposes.

The second matter on which the Government said they had responded was consultation. We welcome the fact that new clause 34 includes a list of groups of consultees. In Committee, we had an odd debate about when we should or should not have lists. The truth of the matter is that the Government have lists throughout the Bill, but they did not like it when anyone else wanted to alter them. The new clause is a result of pressure to list bodies that are properly to be consulted. We welcome the fact that the voluntary sector, racial, ethnic and national groups, and religious and business groups in London are to be consulted. We recognise and welcome the fact that the Government have flagged it up that if they were not consulted those groups would have recourse. They want to participate and be involved.

We share the Government's view that being over-prescriptive about the format in which the groups should be consulted would be wrong. Therefore, a provision that states that we should consult with these people is better than something called a civic forum, or some other definition of what may be a changing kaleidoscope of London organisations.

The only amendment to the Government's new clause that your predecessor in the Chair confirmed had been selected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the simple amendment (a) to new clause 32, to which I referred, and which was tabled by my hon. Friends and me. It would provide that the encouragement of equal opportunities should be expressly included in the power of the authority. I hope that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will understand me when I say that there would be a deficit in the Bill if the amendment were not included.

The Minister said that we believe in different solutions for different parts of the United Kingdom, and I understand the argument. It is a reasonable proposition. However, there is no reason why legislation that will set up regional or citywide government for London—whatever one likes to call it—where there is a wider racial and ethnic mix and a more diverse community than any other place in Britain, should not contain legislative guarantees that the Government agency for this part of the world should promote equal opportunities. The Government in Scotland will have certain powers in that regard. The Assembly in Wales will have fewer powers than the Government of Scotland, but the provision is written in there. The Northern Ireland Assembly will not have the full legislative remit, but it is written in there too.

London government will have powers that go beyond the local boroughs. It will act across that whole range of activity. I hope that the Government will reconsider and decide that it will be in their interest but, more important in the interests of the communities of London that the equal opportunities power be included in the legislation.

Stonewall has written to me in the past few days specifically commending the Bill. In the light of the incidents of the past two weeks, when two of our racial communities and one area of London that is popular with another of our communities have been under attack by whatever sort of person for whatever motive, organisations such as Stonewall, which are entirely credible and reputable, have been reminded that to have an equal society in London we need to ensure that legislation for London reflects that equality.

I hope that the Government will accept that proposition and the amendment. If they do not do so, we will force a Division to flag up the fact that the matter is of the highest importance. I hope that the provision will not have to go to the other place before it is changed. If the House does not accept the amendment, I have no doubt that the other place will want to reconsider the matter and change the Bill.

Mr. Wilkinson

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) I generally welcome new clauses 32, 33 and 34, which supersede clauses 25, 26 and 27. It is always heartening when Ministers listen to representations made in Committee and come back on Report with enhancements to the drafting and improvements to the Bill. I am convinced that the three new clauses would achieve those aims.

On the principal powers that the authority is to pursue, I, like my hon. Friend, wholeheartedly applaud the unequivocal statement that the promotion of economic development and wealth creation is to be an objective of the authority. It is sad that Labour policy under this Government to date has militated against this objective. It is to be hoped that the mayoralty, under another colour—a Conservative colour—may genuinely and wholeheartedly pursue and succeed in achieving the objective of wealth creation.

I am never clear what social development means, but I have an idea of what the Government have in mind. Of course, improvement of the environment is important. However, the key is the reasonable balance stipulated in new clause 32(3)(b). Pursuing economic development at the expense of the environment has done much damage in London, as has the neglect of social development in the pursuit of economic objectives. That balance must be at the heart of the authority's powers, which it is. I hope that, in the execution of those powers, the authority will genuinely secure reasonable equilibrium between those three main objectives.

The beneficial side effects will be the promotion of the health of persons in London, which is well and good, and contribution towards the achievement of sustainable development. I confess to still being somewhat at a loss as to what sustainable development entails in a London context. I can only presume that it is a consequence of that balance which is mentioned earlier in the new clause.

The limits are equally important. They are heartening and they are part of the reason why I applaud the new clauses. New clause 33 states unequivocally that The Authority shall not by virtue of"— the general powers— incur expenditure in providing … any housing". The old-fashioned Greater London council housing estates were some of the most damaging housing developments for the environment in London and they brought about a division in housing provision that has had adverse social consequences to this day. [Interruption.]

I welcome the statement that the authority shall not incur expenditure on "any education services". The Inner London education authority is not a body which we would want to be resurrected in any shape or form and it cannot be under new clause 33.

Likewise, social services are obviously best provided at the most local level possible, which is the borough. As for health services, although provision is inadequate in London—I know that the Liberal Democrats have concerns about it and believe that the authority should have a fuller role—health is a professional matter which is best dealt with by professionals. I do not believe that the authority would have such skills.

Mr. Bercow

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

Mr. Wilkinson

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

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson)

I am determined to nail the canard that any utterance of mine from a sedentary or standing position is not entirely comprehensible to anyone in the Chamber. I never chunter.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will, on mature reflection, agree with me that Labour policies on social housing transformed the life of thousands of Londoners by taking them out of the squalid slums in which decade after decade of Conservative Government had regrettably left them. The housing provided was a benchmark for the kind of housing that transforms not only people's lives but their health and the lives of their children.

Mr. Wilkinson

I agree that the hon. Lady never chunters. Her diction and elocution are a model to us all. If we all projected our voices as well as she does, we would do a better job.

Social housing had its usefulness in its time, but it created ghettos. Decay was not remedied in many instances. Lady Thatcher's policy of enabling tenants to buy their homes did the good which was delayed for so long and transformed Greater London council estates.

I referred in Committee to new clause 33(4)(b). I seek a renewed assurance on the Floor of the House that the power to acquire existing housing accommodation shall not be abused. The subsection refers to "a temporary basis". The power could be abused, especially if compulsory purchase powers were invoked.

I welcome the broad balance of the consultees who are specifically listed in new clause 34 and the fact that the authority will be able to work out with the consultees the best manner of formalising any arrangement. The Government have done a good listing job and generally improved the Bill.

Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East)

I did not intend to speak, but I have been sorely provoked, not least by the little tantrum from the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), which exerted him so much that he had to leave. He then came back bright and recovered; whatever he went out to get, can I have some of it please? The hon. Gentleman spoke abject nonsense. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that no Labour Government were ever against wealth creation of any description.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) seems to have great difficulty understanding overarching principles and qualifications of those principles in relation to health and sustainable development. He shows naked opportunism when it comes to equal opportunities. It is interesting that, this time round, he seemed to eschew lists. He may remember a classic little list from the Liberal Democrats in Committee that had about 20 organisations on it. Sadly, five never existed; three were wrongly named; and two had already been abolished. That is the strength of little Liberal Democrat lists.

Mr. Simon Hughes

A slight exaggeration.

Mr. McNulty

Well, I am allowed poetic licence to some degree, surely.

New clause 34 deals with consultation. It is right that it contains short lists of core bodies that should be consulted, such as the London boroughs and the common council. The new clause gives the mayor and the democratically elected assembly powers to consult whomever they see fit, as and when they see fit. That must be true democratic practice.

6.45 pm

I wish to nail the canard that, without the Liberals' sixth-form little amendment, the Bill will contain no reference to equal opportunities. That is utter nonsense. By any reading, equal opportunities and cultural diversity pervade the Bill. If people do not realise that, they should read the Committee proceedings in detail. During those glorious two months up in Committee Room 12, hon. Members from all parties stressed again and again the importance of equal opportunities and cultural diversity. So it is a shame and beneath contempt that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey implied that, without his amendment, equal opportunities would not be dealt with in the substance of the Bill.

Despite the hon. Gentleman's reference to Stonewall, it is a sheer and utter disgrace to pray in aid the bombs that have gone off in London in the past week in support of his amendment. To say that we must accept his silly little amendment because any real notion of cultural diversity and equal opportunities is absent from the Bill is shameful naked opportunism.

Mr. Simon Hughes

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

Mr. McNulty

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

Mr. Bercow

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

Mr. McNulty

Happily, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was not a member of the Committee for two months. If he had been, it might have been all the more painful an experience. I am grateful for his guidance. I am mindful of the fact that I have a tendency to understate my case when I speak in the House, so I shall take his advice on board. He is right that, when hon. Members table an amendment, it is their amendment, wherever they take their inspiration from. Time and again in Committee, as members of the Committee will know, when Liberal Democrat members were in a corner they used the little refrain, "It's someone else's, not ours, guy," rather than claiming their own words. The proceedings are littered with that refrain, however much the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey may shake his head.

I am pleased that new clauses 32, 33 and 34 move us on to greater clarity, not least on the general power of the authority—despite what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey says. Clearly, the Liberals would rather have some first-year undergraduate essay of 20,000 words covering every little aspect of what the GLA may or may not do, but we seek to legislate for a strategic body; to give it the broad strategic framework within which to operate; and to elect a bunch of people to run it and tell them to get on with it, both in terms of fulfilling its functions and in terms of deciding who it should consult and how.

Happily, despite the protestations of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, we know that there will not be a Liberal Democrat mayor. Equally, we know that—unless the Conservatives secure a proper candidate rather than the current front-runner, who likes to give £2,000 to strangers at Paddington station every now and again—there will not be a Conservative mayor. I merely ask hon. Members to embrace not just the essence of new clauses 32, 33 and 34, but all aspects of the GLA.

As I said in Committee, I believe that five or 10 years from now the beast that will be the GLA and the mayor will be entirely different from what is currently in the legislation. That should inspire us with relish rather than anything else, but I will not indulge, or allow the House to indulge, in the naked opportunism indulged in by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It is a disgrace, and I thought that someone should say so.

Mr. Raynsford

We have had an interesting debate on what a number of speakers have recognised to be an attempt by the Government to rephrase and clarify the previous drafting of the Bill, to ensure that its purposes are clear and unambiguous.

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

Mr. Ottaway

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

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman obviously has not been reading his history. The Labour Government of 1945 inherited circumstances in which an enormous number of people were returning from the armed services without employment, and ensured that they left conditions of virtually full employment to the Conservative Government who succeeded them in 1951. That was a remarkable achievement—rather different from the achievement of Conservative Governments during the 1980s and 1990s, who presided over a massive increase in unemployment as a result of two recessions that their ill-conceived policies visited on the country.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is still wedded to the view that he expressed in Committee: "If ever we see a list, let us add an item to it". The hon. Gentleman seems unable to break that habit. We will keep trying, but I fear that the habit is deeply ingrained, probably as part of his party's policy.

The hon. Gentleman was a bit confused about subsections (4) and (5) of new clause 32. Let me explain, so that there is no doubt at all. Subsection (4) confers a duty on the authority, when it is considering whether—and, if so, how—to exercise its power, to have regard to the effect which the proposed exercise of the power would have on the health of Londoners, and on sustainable development objectives. A second duty, under subsection (5), binds the authority, when it exercises the power conferred on it by an earlier subsection, to act in the way that it considers best calculated to promote improvements in health. That imposes an obligation both to consider the issue and to act in a particular way. Subsection (5) also imposes a duty to act in the furtherance of sustainable development. I consider that an appropriate way in which to describe the duty involved in both the contemplation and the implementation of policy.

As for equal opportunities—as I have made clear, and as has been reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)—we are entirely committed to them. We want the authority to be exemplary in the pursuit of such opportunities: throughout the Bill are provisions requiring the authority to act in a way that will enhance them for all sections of the community in London. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey makes the mistake of assuming that one token reference is better than a Bill that establishes a series of duties and obligations that will achieve the effect that he wants. That is tokenism, rather than the pursuit of policies that will have an impact—and I have to say that it is one of the besetting sins of the Liberal Democrats.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for his kind comments about what we have done to try to improve the drafting of the Bill. In regard to housing, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London rightly expressed concern about his remarks denigrating the London county council's record of providing good-quality homes for hundreds of thousands of Londoners; but, rather than pursuing that, perhaps we should focus on the purpose of the provisions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman approved of the effect of subsection (3) of new clause 33, which does not allow the authority to incur expenditure in providing housing. The reason for the provision is, quite simply, that we do not consider that there should be a duplication of powers that already rest with the London boroughs. The position has changed dramatically since the LCC was the major housing authority for London. The boroughs are now the principal housing authorities, and we do not want an overlap or a duplication of responsibilities.

The hon. Gentleman was, however, worried about subsection (4), and the possibility that the authority would acquire existing accommodation. It is clear that that would be only in support of additional purposes—other purposes that the authority has power to pursue. For example, in the case of an economic development objective, the GLA could be asked by a borough or a public-private partnership in an area of London to act in a way that would further the development of that area, and to acquire certain properties. It would have the power to do that, ancillary to other uses.

Mr. Wilkinson

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

Mr. Raynsford

I can envisage circumstances in which, in support of a local regeneration scheme, the GLA might act to support a local authority in carrying out the decanting of people in need of rehousing, but that would be ancillary to its principal objective of furthering regeneration. It would not be able to pursue its objectives purely for the sake of housing. That is the distinction. It is there to act in partnership, and to support others; it may not itself act in pursuit of housing objectives, and it has no compulsory purchase powers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East rightly reminded us of the Liberal Democrats' tendency in Committee in respect of lists. He rightly pointed out that equal opportunities pervade the Bill. I hope that the House will not be tempted to follow the Liberal Democrats in showing a tokenist adherence to the principle of equal opportunities, but will support the Government, who are keen to ensure that the authority acts in the interest of all sections of the community in London, and genuinely enhances equal opportunities.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Simon Hughes

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 37, in clause 31, page 18, line 3, at end insert— '(da) the Greater London Regional Health Authority;'. No. 38, in page 18, line 12, at end insert— '(ba) the Greater London Regional Health Authority,'. No. 39, in clause 57, page 31, line 13, leave out 'and'.

No. 40, in page 31, line 14, at end insert 'and (e) the Greater London Regional Health Authority.'. New clause 12—Greater London Regional Health Authority— '(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Greater London Regional Health Authority. (2) The Greater London Regional Health Authority shall have the functions conferred or imposed on it by this or any other Act, or made exercisable by it under this Act, and any reference in this Act to the functions of the Greater London Regional Health Authority includes a reference to any functions made exercisable by this Act. (3) The Greater London Regional Health Authority shall exercise its functions

1. (a) in accordance with such guidance or directions as may be issued to it by the Mayor,
2. (b) for the purpose of facilitating the discharge by the Authority of the duties under this Act, and
3. (c) for the purpose of securing and facilitating the implementation of the health strategy.

(4) The Authority may issue to the Greater London Regional Health Authority—

1. (a) guidance as to the manner in which it exercises its functions,
2. (b) general instructions as to the manner in which it is to exercise its functions, or
3. (c) specific instructions as to the exercise of its functions.'.

Amendment No. 41, in clause 305, page 158, line 37, leave out 'or'.

Amendment No. 42, in page 158, line 38, at end insert 'or (e) the Greater London Regional Health Authority;'.

Mr. Hughes

The amendment proposes that health should be one of the matters that the authority should try to improve, as part of its objective to promote economic and social development. One of the strange omissions in the Bill is the Government's refusal to give the authority more than a limited role in relation to health. We debated it in our earlier discussion, but apparently it is not to be included in clause 25.

7 pm

We have never understood, and still fail to understand, why the Government have not taken the great opportunity to put what is now the newly constituted regional health office for London—it has been in existence since the beginning of April, was formed out of the previous north and south Thames offices and is the obvious body to look after regional health strategy—under the umbrella, as it were, of the Greater London Authority, making it one of the functional bodies, to use a phrase in the Bill, and one of the tools with which the GLA would work to achieve its purposes throughout London. We are going to end up with the GLA planning things to do with the promotion of better health—we discussed them in the previous debate—but not being given the link to the obvious body to do that.

New clause 12 would set up, under that umbrella, the Greater London regional health authority. It would effectively take a body that is led by appointees—secret people, whom the public barely know—and is a remote part of the NHS, and bring it across, so that it could be accountable to the people of London.

Controversial decisions about the closing of hospitals, the planning of strategic health services or the amalgamation of great teaching hospitals should be taken in the open, by accountable people who can be kicked out of office if they get the decisions wrong and who have more than a local view. That is a strongly felt view in London.

We hope that the Government, having resisted the proposal in Committee, will, even at this late hour in the proceedings on the Bill, have second thoughts. The move is strongly supported by those outside the House who, however disparaged they are by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), seek to persuade us to advance arguments with which we agree, on their behalf.

Mr. Ottaway

I shall comment briefly on the Liberal Democrat proposal to establish a regional health authority. It seems to us that, when the London regional office of the NHS executive was created in January, it was intended to fill the gaps in the strategic management of health care in London. That office was intended to work in partnership with local government social services, not under local government direction.

The London regional office was given five key issues to deal with: developing an understanding of health needs across London; improving primary care; developing intermediate and community care; putting a new focus on the most vulnerable Londoners; and modernising London hospitals. In the judgment of the Conservative party, direct provision of health care is best left to the professionals, rather than to those in local government.

Mr. Wilkinson

I broadly support my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), but at the same time express a certain sympathy for the objectives behind the Liberal Democrat amendment. I think that all of us will have had experience, in our daily duties as constituency Members, of the problem that is caused by the undemocratic nature of health authorities that take decisions on behalf of our constituents.

Those decisions seem at times totally irrational. They certainly have been in the Hillingdon borough with regard to Mount Vernon hospital. If things go wrong, that may also be the case with decisions on the future of Harefield hospital. However, the problem extends well beyond London.

I am not clear how a body that is specifically directed to bringing forward a Londonwide health policy, under the control of the Greater London Authority, and thereby making it accountable would be the model for the nation as a whole. The London executive of the national health service has to disburse funds that are raised nationally. The London region allocates resources in competition with bodies that allocate resources elsewhere in the country. We have seen how resources have been taken away from London under the old RAWP—resource allocation working party—formula, to the benefit of the provinces.

There needs to be a re-examination of how to achieve better democratic accountability for the NHS as a whole, nationwide. I do not believe that the Bill is the way in which to do it. It would cause a distortion of administrative processes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South has said, it is an area of public policy that is best left to the professionals.

Mr. Hughes

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

Mr. Wilkinson

I am not sure that the Labour Government are yet disposed to what the Liberal Democrats propose. It may come to that, but the Minister shakes his head. I am sure that some of the older members of his party who are behind him will be shaking their heads even more vigorously.

I appreciate the intentions. In our part of London, decisions have been driven through against the clear, majority will of local people. Huge petitions are raised and not a blind bit of notice is taken. However, it is not a purely London phenomenon. It is one that other Members have suffered elsewhere. We must acknowledge that fact and say that, laudable as the objective behind the amendment is, it is deficient.

Mr. Raynsford

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has returned to the issue at this stage of the Bill. I thought that I had made it clear in Committee that the Government had no intention of establishing a Greater London regional health authority under the direction of the Greater London Authority.

We want the GLA to have a clear and genuinely strategic role in considering the underlying determinants of health. We want it to have a duty to take action, as I have described, in promoting improvements to Londoners' health. That is what the Bill provides for, but there is no justification for another tier of health administration.

There are no regional health authorities in other parts of the country; they were abolished in 1996. Since 1 January, there has been a new strategic health body for London, the London regional office of the NHS executive. It is concerned with strategic health issues for the capital, as well as strategic management of health services. We expect it to work in close partnership with the GLA for the benefit of Londoners.

I detect a certain difference between the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who speaks for the official Opposition and who broadly concurs with our policy, and that of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Perhaps the rethink going on in the Conservative party about its role in relation to health is an active debate, in which those two Members are on different sides, but I will leave their private grief to them and their party.

We are setting a clear provision for health to be at the forefront of the new Greater London Authority's mind when developing its services, but it should not be engaged in the administration of the NHS, which is better dealt with by other means.

Mr. Simon Hughes

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.