Lords Sitting of 26 February 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Lord Bagri
Raj Kumar Bagri, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Bagri, of Regent's Park in the City of Westminster, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord McColl of Dulwich and the Baroness Flather.
Lord Lloyd-Webber
Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, Knight, having been created Baron Lloyd-Webber, of Sydmonton in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Palumbo and the Lord Owen.

Sight Tests: Charges
2.56 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the cost of eye examinations has had an adverse impact on people over the age of 60.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, more people than ever before are having their sight tested. There is no evidence that people over the age of 60 suffer poorer eye health if they are not eligible for a free NHS sight test.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that some organisations cannot totally agree that older people are not suffering? Indeed, it has been shown that people over the age of 60 are at risk from developing eye disease. This can be prevented by testing. However, if they feel they have to pay to have their eyes tested, they do not bother to go. This is a serious situation and I beg the noble Baroness to have it examined.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are a lot of exemptions to the eye test charges. Forty per cent. of the population are exempt. Those who are suffering a disease—diabetes or glaucoma—or have a member of the family who suffers from glaucoma, are automatically exempt. We believe that the diseases are being picked up. As I have said, more people than ever are having their eyes tested.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, although there are free eye tests
1180
for those suffering from diabetes, more than half of those who are registered blind with diabetes do not take advantage of the free eye tests? Is it not perhaps a priority for the Department of Health to make sure that those who are most vulnerable to disease take up those free tests?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am not sure where that statistic arises from. We do not believe that people suffering diabetes are in any way adversely affected by these arrangements. We know that diabetes is a high risk and therefore immediately it is diagnosed we have made certain special provision for sight testing.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is it not a fact that some diseases can be recognised as a result of an eye test? That has very often happened. Is it not penny wise and pound foolish not to give people free eye tests but then to spend the money through the National Health Service on complaints that might have been recognised earlier?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if we removed all charges for eye tests it would cost the National Health Service £140 million. If we removed the charge for those over 60 years of age, it would cost £32 million. Translating that figure of £32 million, it is the equivalent of 4,000 cataract operations, which we know is an extremely effective way of preserving sight.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what is the make-up of the 40 per cent. who are exempt?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that 40 per cent. comprises children, students—that is those under 19 in full-time education—the registered blind or partially sighted; people who are diagnosed as having diabetes or glaucoma; those over the age of 40 with a close relative who suffers from glaucoma; recipients of income support; people on income-based jobseeker's allowance; recipients of family credit or disability working allowance; holders of a charges certificate for full help under the NHS low-income scheme and people who have been prescribed complex lenses.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister said that it would cost £140 million to provide everyone with a free eye test. Can she tell the House what is the cost to the National Health Service of treating people with glaucoma, which has not been detected because they have not had an eye test? Can she also say what is the cost to society of the blindness which results from the lack of early treatment of glaucoma?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is impossible to find those figures. The eye test costs about £16 and, as I have said, there are exemptions for those who cannot afford it. From the point of view of the National Health Service, I believe that the country as a whole would prefer to see cataracts corrected and other treatments offered to people rather than have to supply that money to those who can well afford £16 for an eye test.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Royal National Institute for the Blind—which

1181
is an organisation that I am sure she will acknowledge comprises very serious people who do wonderful work—states that over half a million people over 60 years of age are not having their eyes tested? Does she agree that that should be looked at as a very serious situation? The RNIB is very greatly concerned. I hope that the House will also share that concern, which is also expressed by our Royal British Legion and ex-servicemen—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what is wrong with the Royal British Legion? I am very proud to belong to it—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Molloy:—and I always will be. Having got that off my chest, perhaps I may now ask the noble Baroness whether she will be good enough to look at this awful problem of people who might be going blind because of the service that they have given to this great nation? Can that now be considered?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, of course I always consider anything that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, puts to me, within reason. I believe that the concern of the RNIB has more to do with the frequency of tests than with those who are not coming forward for them. The RNIB believes that there are people who are eligible for free tests who are not coming forward as often as they should. We all recognise the affection that the noble Lord has for the Royal British Legion. Some of those people can claim the money that they spend on eye tests.

Nuclear Arms Reduction
3.3 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are ready to enter into discussions with other states with nuclear weapons capability with a view to defining the conditions under which all such states would be prepared to contemplate adopting or continuing the present reductions of such weapons towards an ultimate aim of their elimination.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have regular contacts on these issues with relevant states. The continuation of the START process should, in our view, remain the priority. We have already made clear the conditions under which we would join in multilateral talks on the global reduction of nuclear arms.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that there seems to be a lack of urgency among the nuclear powers in their desire to get rid of nuclear weapons?
1182
Does she believe that her own Government are also lacking in a sense of urgency? The dangers that exist while the world is covered with nuclear weapons have been impressed on the House by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and internationally by the Canberra Commission, the Washington gathering of generals and so on.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no lack of urgency on our part or on the part of our NATO partners. But there is no doubt that the most effective reduction in the number of nuclear warheads worldwide will come through further progress on the bilateral START process. We all know that the United States and Russian arsenals are still by far the largest, and until we get Russian ratification of START II I do not believe that we shall be going forward as fast as we would like. But in the meantime, as I reminded the noble Lord on 31st October last, and then again on 11th February, the UK has already taken steps in line with the goals established by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We have eliminated our maritime surface tactical nuclear capability; we have withdrawn our nuclear artillery and Lance missiles, and the WE-177 free-fall bomb will be withdrawn by the end of the next year. Our deterrent will then be 21 per cent. smaller in terms of warheads and 59 per cent. smaller in terms of explosive power than in the mid-1970s. There is no lack of urgency on the part of this British Government.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that the world would be a safer place if it were possible to persuade the nuclear weapon states, both declared and undeclared, that, pending the reductions of which she spoke, they should remove all their nuclear weapons from alert status and separate the warheads from the delivery vehicles and have that verified as recommended by the Canberra Commission?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in one sense the noble and gallant Lord is right. But what I doubt—and what I believe most people who study such matters these days doubt—is that all the nuclear weapons-holding states would actually do that. Therefore, for some—namely, the West as the noble and gallant Lord would advocate—to reduce their defences at a time when others are not reducing theirs would be foolhardy.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following what the Minister has just said denying that there is any lack of urgency on the part of the Government, and following the commitment in the Queen's Speech to pursue negotiations on a convention to ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, can she tell the House what, if any, proposals the Government have made at the conference on disarmament in Geneva to secure a fissile material cut-off agreement?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand that there is some internal discussion going on about the question of the fissile material cut-off treaty. We

1183
have certainly supported calls for negotiations and have been working on that. But I cannot give the noble Baroness any more information at the present time. The matter has not been discussed in public. It may happen in a few months.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, given the importance of persuading the Russians to ratify START II, as the Minister has accepted, can she explain to us how negotiations between Russia and the West about NATO enlargement and CFE get in the way of the ratification process for START II? Do we have to find a package for dealing with the Russians or can we deal with things one at a time?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is very difficult to tell at the present time because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will surely know, there are a number of conflicting comments coming out of Russia from Mr. Rodionov, Mr. Baturin and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. They do not seem to chime together. Therefore, it is difficult to be exact. In this process of negotiation it is probably dangerous to formally link any aspect because we need to work in parallel on every aspect of achieving disarmament.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us in what possible circumstances would the United Kingdom use this terrible weapon?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I have said many times before in this House, it would be under very extreme circumstances and only in self-defence, but that does not undermine the importance of the role of deterrence. This House has discussed the matter on numerous occasions in the past. I cannot think that there is anything new to be said on this subject. I recommend that the noble Lord reads the speech that my right honourable friend the then Foreign Secretary made on 18th April 1995, when he went very thoroughly through the review and extension conference of the parties to the non-proliferation treaty on nuclear weapons. It will prove very good reading.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend also remain mindful of the threat that comes from possibly less stable powers than Russia, such as those in the Middle East, and the rising power of China? Does she agree that it would seem inopportune to render ourselves defenceless when others are increasing their capacity for nuclear war?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is not only the former Soviet Union of which one must be mindful but, as I said in answer to Questions last October and on many other occasions in your Lordships' House, the Middle East remains an
1184
unstable area. There are those there whom we believe to have a nuclear capacity. There is also the question of South Asia, let alone China.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it would be churlish to deny that progress has been made, but does the Minister share my hope that after the general election even faster progress will be made?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I always look for faster progress. However, I am quite sure of one thing: one does not make progress sensibly and in the best interests of the nation by giving away things before getting something in compensation from other states which should also be giving up their warheads, as Britain is doing.

"Sea Empress" Inquiry: Report
3.10 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to publish the inspector's report on the "Sea Empress" accident.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, subject to the completion of the consultation process required by the accident investigation regulations, the chief inspector expects to submit his final report to the Secretary of State at the end of next month. The report will then be published as soon as possible thereafter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Viscount bear in mind that we have now had a number of versions from him and his colleagues about the date of publication? On 27th November, we were told that the report was supposed to be submitted in February. On 18th February, the Minister's colleague, Mr. Bowis, said in another place that it would be submitted in a month. But then on 25th February he said in Committee that he did not know when to expect the report to be published. Bearing in mind it is now over a year since that very serious accident occurred, are not Parliament and the country entitled to see the report, to measure its conclusions and to learn the lessons from it before the House is prorogued, which, one assumes, is likely to be round about the end of March?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree that it is important that the report is published as soon as possible. That has always been the Government's position and that remains our position. However, the independent investigation is being conducted by the marine accident investigation branch. It is not under the control of the department or Ministers. It is for the chief inspector to conduct the investigation and to come to his conclusions and at that point to follow the statutory process for consultation with those who are affected.

1185
Different estimates of when we expect the report to be published have been given, but I can only give the House the information that is currently available.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, whatever the conclusions of the report, does the Minister accept that what transcends anything else in the view of the people of the area is the question of who will meet the cost of the huge bill for that remedial treatment? Can the Minister give an undertaking now that the Government will ensure that none of the cost is forced on to the local authorities in the area and therefore on to the local people?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as the noble Lord and the House will know, there is an international regime to cope with compensation for exactly such occurrences. I refer to the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. That fund has already paid out a considerable sum of money. I understand that it is currently in the region of £6 million. Claims are submitted to the fund which then evaluates their validity. At the moment, the fund is paying 75 per cent. of claims.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister give the undertaking for which I asked? He has not yet given it.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have described the international regime which provides exactly the compensation the noble Lord seeks. It is the Government's view that the limit will not be breached and that all relevant and valid claims will be met by the fund.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, in reality is not the Minister telling the House that the report will not be published before the House is prorogued—that is, before the general election?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have neither said one way nor the other. I do not know when the House will be prorogued so I cannot give the noble Lord or the House that information. Once the statutory processes are over and the chief inspector has submitted his report to the Secretary of State, we shall publish it as soon as possible thereafter. It is clearly in the Government's interest so to do—and in the interests of the wider maritime community.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the fouling of the haven (with which he is familiar, having been there and spent time there) is a very real and desperate tragedy, and that the time that it has taken to resolve some of these legal and legalistic problems only exacerbates the difficulties? That beautiful area of our land has some of the highest unemployment in the country. It is in the region of 33 per cent. in real terms. The area's basic economic survival now depends on people in both Britain and the world rapidly understanding that the area's tourism potential has not been permanently affected. We are all anxious to see the
1186
problems resolved and to be able to return to promoting Pembrokeshire, in all its beauty, as an attractive area for tourists.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's concerns and the thrust of his remarks. The clean-up operation was extremely successful. Over 1,100 people worked on it, and the main amenity beaches were open by Easter 1996. I believe that the clean-up has been better than most people envisaged would be possible. Tremendous efforts have been made. I agree that the first priority now is to get the accident investigation completed and the report in the public domain so that we can learn its lessons as soon as possible. Secondly, we must make sure that we talk up the tourist potential of the very beautiful area the noble Lord described.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, but does not my noble friend recognise that whatever the conclusions of the report, the accident will cost somebody a lot of money and that that should not be the responsibility of the local authority? My noble friend said that other sources contribute, but he has not ruled out the possibility (under the laws that we have established) of making that the responsibility of the local authority. I do not think that it should be the local authority's responsibility.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, local authorities have a significant role in this process. They are there on the scene, often with considerable expertise and assets at their disposal, to assist with the clean-up operation. I certainly commend the local authorities' work in this respect. They did not look for payment beforehand, but went straight ahead with the work in hand. They worked extremely hard and long hours in order to achieve the clean-up. However, as I have said, there is an international regime specifically to cater for exactly such expenses. After having performed an analysis of the total amounts that will be involved, it is the Government's view that all valid claims will be met and settled by the compensation fund.
Lord Clinton-Davis: But meanwhile, my Lords, is it not the case that the local authorities are bearing at least 25 per cent. of the financial cost? I hope that the Minister will convey to the chief inspector the disquiet that has been expressed in the House today about the urgency of the publication of the report. It should not simply be laid on the Minister's desk. Does not the Minister recognise that if there are criticisms—perhaps major criticisms—to be made of the Government's actions or inactions, it might not be in the interests of this Government to see the report published before the election?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I should think that I would be in the best position, as the Minister most directly involved, to say that the Government believe that the report should be published as soon as possible. We want to learn its lessons. It is an independent report. Ministers have not influenced—of course, we would not

1187
want to influence—the contents of that report. We want to see it in the public domain as soon as possible. However, statutory processes have to be followed to give those who are criticised in any way full opportunities to make sure that there is no injustice.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what contribution will the owners of the "Sea Empress" make?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the owners of the "Sea Empress" were insured and their insurers will pay the contributions up to the limit of the liability, as set out in international law, for the tonnage of the "Sea Empress".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Minister stated that the Government believe that the financial shortfall which is currently being borne by the local authorities will be met by the appropriate funds from outside. In the event that that is not the case, will the Minister give the House an assurance that those local authorities which acted immediately and without thought of the eventual cost—and have been praised by the Minister for that—are not left with the bill for any part of that operation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not able to give that assurance; but I can repeat what I have said. We have looked carefully at the figures involved. Those figures are in the public domain. I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness and provide detailed estimates of each category of claim: tourism, local authorities' preventive measures, and so on. We firmly believe that on the estimates that have been produced in the course of time the local authorities will be able to claim in full the costs that they have incurred. The Government have also incurred very substantial costs but they are prepared, as in the case of the incident involving the "Braer" to place their claim at the back of the queue.

Learner Drivers: Identification
3.20 p.m.
The Lord Campbell of Croy The Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proof of identity is now required to be produced by learner drivers when they take their driving test.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, at present a candidate for the written driving theory test and the practical driving test has to produce a valid signed driving licence to the examiner at the start of the test and on both occasions sign a form. The examiner checks the signature against that on the candidate's driving licence. From 1st March all test candidates will also have to provide photographic confirmation of their identity at the start of both tests.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. It is good news that a
1188
photograph is now necessary, as was foreshadowed in reply to my similar Question in May 1994. Does my noble friend now feel more confident that an episode at that time, when a learner driver failed the driving test 25 times and then arranged for an impersonator to take his place for the 26th test, will not occur again and that our roads are likely to be safer than they were?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is important to tackle this problem with whatever measures are at our disposal. We believe that the new photo-identity check will deter candidates from attempting such fraud and foil it if they do.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, while, on behalf of the Opposition, I express support for what has happened, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was not suggesting that Rory Bremner was one of those impersonators. I am quite sure that he would have been able to do it. Clearly, any attempt to ensure that fraud of this kind does not occur is to be thoroughly welcomed.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a watertight system is required to deter corrupt driving schools from continuing the practice about which I have complained?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not sure that any system can be completely watertight. If people are determined to commit fraud, albeit a very dangerous one in these circumstances, there is always a possibility that they will succeed. However, I am sure that a proper photo-identity check will help in the war against crime.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister able to finish the story begun by his noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy? Did the individual concerned pass on the 26th attempt?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as my noble friend tells the story, in that case the driving test was performed by an impersonator. Whether or not the individual passed the test will, I believe, require further detailed research.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.23 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl of Carnarvon set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debates, 6th March
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The effect of this Motion is that the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which currently appears at the bottom of the Order Paper on Thursday 6th March, will be taken before my noble friend Lord Henley's first Motion in the dinner break. This follows agreement within the usual channels.
Moved, That Standing Order 38(4) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday 6th March to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken immediately before the first Motion standing in the name of the Lord Henley.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Government
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon The Earl of Carnarvon rose to call attention to the case for a strategic authority for London; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, like other noble Lords I very much look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Tweedsmuir. In particular, I shall be interested to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, since his father's greatest book Greenmantle was based upon my great uncle Aubrey Herbert.
I should begin by explaining why I seek to bring the case for a strategic authority for London to your Lordships' attention. During 1994 and 1995 the All-Party London Group of your Lordships' House, of which I have the honour to be chairman, heard presentations from a wide range of bodies concerned with London about the work they were doing and the problems they were facing. One of the common themes, which was mentioned again and again, was the difficulties which were arising from the absence of a strategic authority for the capital. This point was strongly made by people from the business sector as well as from the voluntary and public sectors.
The London Group decided to address directly the question of creating a London-wide authority. During the first six months of 1996 we concentrated our attention upon it. As an all-party group, the London Group did not see it as its function to put forward a particular solution, which would inevitably be politically contentious, but felt that there was a case to be examined. We believed that the best contribution we could make was to seek an opportunity for your Lordships' House to debate the matter and provide a briefing paper which would assist peers wishing to take part in the debate. This paper, The Question of a Strategic Authority for London, has been available from
1190
the Printed Paper Office since July, and I hope that many of your Lordships will have found an opportunity to read it.
In the introduction to the paper I expressed the hope that discussion would concentrate on certain matters of principle whose resolution would determine whether a new strategic authority should be established and, if so, provide a basis for defining the body's powers and functions. These matters of principle would be relevant whether the authority took the form of an assembly, council, a group of commissioners, a mayor or any variation of these options. I expressed the key principles in three propositions. These are not recommendations by the London Group but they are expressed in positive form in order to give a focus to the debate. First, there should be an authority, whatever its form, responsible for dealing with those issues which affect London as a whole and that authority should be directly elected by, and be accountable to, the citizens of London. Secondly, the functions of the authority should be defined precisely and its powers drawn from those currently exercised by government departments and agencies, not those currently exercised by individual London Boroughs. Thirdly, the authority should have control of adequate financial resources.
The arguments for and against the creation of a new authority are summarised fully and, I hope, fairly in the paper. I believe that the principal argument in favour is that under the present arrangements there is no single body able to speak and act on behalf of all the people of London, and be accountable to them, across the whole range of issues which concern them; and there is no single body which can represent London in its dealings with the Government, other parts of the United Kingdom, the agencies of the European Union and other world cities. If we can trust opinion polls—obviously, that is a problem—this deficiency, which has been referred to as the democratic deficit, is felt by the people of London to be detrimental to their interests. It is also felt to be detrimental by many bodies that are currently concerned with promoting the well-being of London, notably London First and the London Government Association, which is the body that represents the London boroughs.
The principal arguments against a new body are that the present arrangements are working well, and that a new body would be an additional, unnecessary and expensive tier of administration. However, as I have indicated, some of the organisations most intimately involved in the operation of the present arrangements do not find them satisfactory.
If there is to be a new authority or group of commissioners, the fundamental matter to be determined is what, precisely, its functions are to be. There is general agreement among those advocating the creation of a strategic authority or executive that its powers should be powers which are currently exercised by the Government, by government-appointed agencies or quangos, or by London-wide bodies nominated by the London boroughs, such as the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority or the London Planning Advisory Committee, and that powers currently exercised by the boroughs individually should remain with the boroughs.
Most lists of functions produced by those favouring the creation of a new authority include strategic planning and transport, economic regeneration and promotion, tourism and support of the arts, information services, and public safety, including the oversight of the fire service and the police. When this last point was raised with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, we found that he was not averse to it. Last week, the London group interviewed Mr. Robinson, the Chief Fire Officer for London. He was of the same opinion.
Transport seems to head everybody's list, but it illustrates the difficulties which must be faced if the new arrangements are to be successful. The organisational structure for handling transport matters in London is extremely complex, and has become more so with the introduction of rail privatisation. The multiplicity of interests is such that much of the complexity would inevitably remain, even if a strategic authority with a transport role were to be created. The crucial questions are whether such an authority could more effectively discharge many of the responsibilities now exercised by the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment and the Home Office, and how far the government of the day would be prepared to allow the strategic authority to determine the scale and priorities of expenditure on transport in and for London.
In strategic planning a viable balance would have to be found among the roles of the new authority, the London boroughs and the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Transport and planning are especially pertinent to a point I particularly wish to make as chairman of SERPLAN, the London and South East Regional Planning Conference. While it may be appropriate to consider London as an entity whose government in strategic matters should be entrusted to a single authority, it would in my view be a gross mistake to regard London as a self-contained region. London's relationship with the counties of South East England—in transport, planning, waste disposal, business and employment, and culture and the arts—is too complex for that. Whatever new arrangements may be adopted they must provide for London to continue to work closely with the other authorities of South East England. The previous strategic authorities, the London County Council and the Greater London Council, fully recognised this important matter. They were prominent in creating and sustaining SERPLAN, to which all the London borough councils, the county and district councils, and the new unitary authorities of South East England belong. Any new strategic authority for London must be just as fully conscious of, and just as fully committed to, its role within the wider region of which London is the vital heart. This point has been well taken in Paris, where the arrangements for managing affairs which concern both the metropolis and the Paris Basin as a whole are well established and strongly supported. In fact the population of the Paris Basin region (18 million) is the same population as covered by SERPLAN.
I turn now to finance. London expenditure is about 14 per cent. of the UK total—a figure of £35 billion. It is self-evident that if a new authority were not adequately resourced to carry out the functions assigned to it, it would have no chance of success. Those opposed to a new authority argue that it will cause additional expenditure and indeed some say that the advocacy of a new authority is, in reality, a concealed demand for additional public expenditure. Those who favour a new authority argue that no net increase in expenditure is involved, since resources should be transferred to it along with its functions.
Members of the London group, and others, have argued that it is misleading to talk of "local government expenditure" in a situation in which 82 per cent. of the finance required is provided, and the remainder tightly controlled, by central government. I have much sympathy with this view, and would like to see the business rate returned to local government. This is an issue wider in its implications than the governance of London, but it cannot be ignored.
I should like now to say a few words about the form which a new authority might take. Opinion seems to have hardened in favour of a directly elected body but there are a number of options for its form. It could be an assembly, similar in form to its predecessors, the LCC and the GLC, and to existing local authorities. It could be a commission, of elected commissioners, each with a defined portfolio, or it could be a mayor, perhaps with supporting commissioners. At the moment, I favour this option, under which one scenario would involve an elected mayor, possibly two or three commissioners nominated by London First, two or three commissioners nominated by the Association of London Government, and two or three commissioners nominated by the elected mayor. The election of the mayor could be on the familiar basis of geographical constituencies or on a London-wide basis. He or she would not conflict with the Lord Mayor of the City, as the new mayor would be executive and have no ceremonial role.
I would not wish to recommend to your Lordships' House a particular format for a new authority, but I would hope the opportunity would be taken to consider fresh possibilities, rather than merely adopting the familiar format of an assembly of councillors elected from geographical constituencies.
There is support for a consultative forum, whose composition would include representation of the business and voluntary sectors, to work with the new authority.
Perhaps I may be permitted a personal comment. I love London: I was born in London and I lived there in the 'thirties and spent two or three years at Knightsbridge Barracks just after the war. Although my direct involvement in local government was in Hampshire, I worked closely with the LCC and, later, the Greater London Council in the development of Basingstoke and Andover under the Town Development Act. I was chairman of the South East Economic Planning Council for nine years, with an office in Marsham Street, which included London, and I am now chairman of SERPLAN. These appointments therefore

1193
have kept me keenly aware of London issues, and of the importance of London in the life of South East England and of the nation as a whole.
As chairman of SERPLAN, I have made official visits over the past two years to 19 London boroughs and I was very impressed with what I saw. It was these relationships, over many years, which in 1993 led me to convene the All-Party London Group of Peers and, with their support, to put down the Motion which is before you today. Whatever view one may take about the need for a new London-wide authority, it cannot be denied that the question has once again become highly topical and requires full and careful debate.
I conclude my remarks by simply listing the matters which need to be addressed in considering the case for a strategic authority for London, both in the debate which is about to take place and in the wider debate to which it will be an important contribution. Very briefly, those matters are: the functions, the format and the funding of a new authority; the mode of election; the geographical area to be covered; the function and organisation of a consultative body to work with the new authority; and the relationship between the new authority and the existing organisations and agencies concerned with London. I beg to move for Papers.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, I would first like to express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for inaugurating the debate. It was due to him that the All-Party London Group was first set up and continued from strength to strength. He is uniquely experienced in the problems of London and the South East, having been chairman of the South East Economic Planning Council and chairman of the London and South East Regional Planning Conference. I had the pleasure of working with him many years ago.
In making a case for a strategic authority for London, I should perhaps commence by declaring my past interests. Starting as a London Borough Councillor, I was subsequently also elected a member of the London County Council. As the LCC came to an end, I was elected to the Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority. This resulted in one unusual year when I served on all four at the same time. Later I had the honour to hold the office of leader of the council for six years and, due to unfortunate democratic pressure, leader of the opposition for two years.
In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I must make it quite clear that I am not saying, "Bring back the GLC". While I was leader of the GLC I was made well aware that its powers and responsibilities required amending or delegating elsewhere. But the drastic and unnecessary step to abolish the GLC has allowed a decline in many areas of London. The experience gained by staff and councillors over nearly 100 years was thrown away, and assets so carefully put together for long-term improvements were disposed of in a sale labelled "Everything must go". That is not the right way to get the best value. But now we must look forward and try and find a way of creating for London an authority which it undoubtedly needs.
1194
For millions of people London is a home. It also provides employment for millions, many from a huge area out side. Indeed, almost a quarter of the population of the United Kingdom is, in one way or another, London-oriented. It is one of the world's great financial centres and a concentration of wealth creation. London is a cultural magnet and a focus for tourism, and, in a unique way, the media capital. The Evening Standard and Mr. Simon Jenkins in The Times are to be congratulated on their efforts to bring to the attention of the public the urgent need to tackle the problem. I hope that they will continue.
It has become increasingly clear since the demise of the GLC that London, like so many other great cities, is threatened not only with the worldwide problems of city life, but also with specific difficulties. One has only to leave the central area of London and visit some of our suburban centres north, east, south and west, to see how tawdry, run down and depressing they have become, and how the physical and social environment is deteriorating. As part of that, private and public transport has become more congested and less reliable year by year.
Many Londoners do not like living here any more, but feel powerless to do anything about it, or know where to go to get action. To deal with those and other matters, numerous anonymous co-ordinating committees and other disparate bodies with partial responsibilities for them have been set up, but are increasingly regarded as lacking the necessary clout.
Two energetic bodies have emerged to fill the gap and in particular London First and London Pride, with my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Didgemere at the helm, have carried out valuable work in conjunction with others to identify and promote action. But these bodies in the long run cannot be a substitute for a democratically elected authority.
London needs a body which speaks with authority and responsibility for the interest of those who live and work there, and to fight for its share of resources. Too often in recent years London's interests have gone by default, a point made by the Lord Mayor of London, but the City cannot speak for the whole of London.
It is essential to create a body where citizens, the professions and business can go to obtain information and obtain answers which affect the whole region. The London boroughs are large and powerful, but inevitably they are more concerned with their own cabbage patch than the strategic needs of the region. What kind of organisation can be created which, to be successful, must deal with a limited number of important subjects, not to be in conflict with central government and London borough responsibilities and yet speaks with authority and responsibility for London?
A new body is urgently required for improved co-ordination and management of the capital: first, to study London's problems and needs; secondly, to bring forward solutions after consultations; thirdly, to fight for London's fair share of resources; and, fourthly, to set up an independent London information and intelligence centre. This is to be a centre for the continuous

1195
collection of the current facts about London. A government office for London will never break free from the Whitehall machine.
In addition to the London Planning Advisory Committee, several excellent bodies have evolved to fill the vacuum since the demise of the GLC and they have given evidence to the All-Party London Group. In particular, London First, London Pride and the Association of London Government have identified a number of key objectives, and drawn up a comprehensive and costed programme to promote the competitiveness of London as a world city, emphasising the importance of London to the United Kingdom as a whole.
The CBI London strategy group told our committee that London's economy is, in fact, larger than either Wales or Scotland, and whereas those countries are net recipients of public money London provided a surplus which is shared in the regions. Is that what the Government Office for London finds convenient, and what else does it do?
It has been suggested in some quarters that London should have an elected mayor with sweeping powers to rule the capital. In my experience, I believe that both suggestions, if implemented, would lead to trouble. The title "mayor" is ancient and well-known to everyone, being largely ceremonial. During their years of office, most mayors go out of their way to keep out of politics. The ancient office of the Lord Mayor of the City of London occupies a unique position with special powers and privileges but he cannot speak for London as a whole. There is also the Lord Mayor of Westminster and the mayors of all the London boroughs. Therefore, it would be very confusing to have someone called "mayor" running about all over London with executive powers and a strong political bias. I do not mind what he is called but he should not have the label "mayor".
It was clear from the evidence submitted to our committee that there is much preliminary work to be done before any new organisation can be established. I shall have a shot at the four main issues which have first to be decided. Should the new body be elected and on what basis? I cannot see how real public participation can be achieved unless it is elected. To ensure a strategic approach, representatives must not be elected on a borough basis. Secondly, how will it be financed and how will spending be tightly controlled?
What functions should it control? In that regard, I am wary of the long list of suggestions made by the ALG. If the new authority is to be kept to a small size, its responsibilities must be restricted or, as the noble Earl said, defined precisely, otherwise it will be the new GLC. Fourthly, where should the boundaries be fixed? Should they be the same as the old GLC? Should they be over the area of continuous urban development; but where does that stop? Or should they be within the area of the M.25?
There are many other hurdles to jump which require discussion and debate. But we should not be too long in doing that as London urgently needs its own strategic authority.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, first, I too am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for introducing the debate this afternoon. That is not merely a formal compliment, one of the usual compliments which we pay on such an occasion. My gratitude is wholly sincere because we have not had a debate on London for some time. Perhaps I may say that it was introduced with great conviction and eloquence by the noble Earl and I too look forward to the two maiden speeches which we are to hear this afternoon.
I should like to spend the greater part of my limited time on my party's position on local government for London but it would be wrong if I glossed over entirely the problems which our proposals are designed to meet. Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me for a moment or two while I briefly put those problems into two categories: the first is what I might call the present condition of London, following the noble Lord, Lord Plummer; and the second is what we regard as the unsatisfactory nature of London governance as it exists at present.
First, I take the present condition of London. As the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, pointed out, in many areas it is not good. I am well aware, as we are continually being told, that London is the fashion centre of the world, a magnet for tourists without parallel, and a truly delightful place to live. London, we are told, is—I use the current expression—"hip". But if your Lordships look below the surface, the reality is somewhat different. London is not healthy. The fact is that London has not come well out of the recession. Compared with other parts of the UK, London lost more jobs when the recession hit and has recovered fewer jobs in the interim. What has come to the rescue is the tourist trade; but there is nobody who knows anything about London who thinks that tourists move outside the central area of the city.
Leaving aside the tourist trade, which includes—in the sense of financial tourism—the City of London, there is at present little encouragement for those who actually live in London or, indeed, for those who come from outside London to work there. I hope I do not even have to mention the plight of London Underground; I hope that I do not have to cover yet again the catastrophe of the health and hospital services in London; I hope that I do not have to describe the pollution of the air that Londoners have to suffer. And those are only some of the burdens for Londoners. There are many others—homelessness, the need for new housing to meet the existing need, the high percentage of long term unemployed compared with the rest of Britain, the fall in manufacturing employment, the crime rate, the feeling of discrimination among ethnic communities. The list is long and, if I may say so, rather solemn. Outside the glitz, London is not in very good shape.
Now, to be fair the present Government seem to have come, albeit latterly, to a dim recognition of the London problem. Over the past few years or so there has been some understanding that there are many concerns which cannot be met by London boroughs acting alone. The

1197
solution offered has been that of a Cabinet sub-committee, comprising government Ministers representing their own departments. Underneath that committee, there is the Government Office for London. Then, apparently below that, there are the Joint Committees of the Boroughs and the Association of London Government. Interspersed between and alongside these bodies are a number of advisory forums of varying degrees of formality, such as the London Pride Partnership and the recently established Joint London Advisory Panel. Moving, as it were, in the interstices of that rather complicated structure, there is a largish group of quangos controlling, so I am told, some £9 billion of public expenditure.
I am sure that all those bodies do valuable work, and we must all be grateful for their efforts. But the problem is that Londoners have no means of approving or disapproving the decisions which are being made on their behalf beyond mute and sometimes incoherent protest. Above the level of the borough council, direct democracy ceases to exist. Whatever Londoners might try to do, they know that the final determination of strategic policy for London rests with the Cabinet sub-committee for London on advice from the Government Office for London and individual Whitehall departments.
Therefore, the real problem, apart from the complexity of the arrangements I have described, is one of legitimacy; and it is very simple. The future of London must lie, not with appointees—however distinguished—but with those who are elected on a democratic basis of one person one vote. And that is precisely what we shall propose. We believe that London needs, and should have, an elective voice of its own. But we go further. We recognise that there should be no monstrous bureaucracy. "Subsidiarity", to use that rather unpleasant word, should in our view apply not just between Brussels and Westminster, nor just between Westminster and a future London County Hall, but also downwards to the London boroughs and should, indeed, embrace those businesses and voluntary organisations which are involved in London's future. Those services for which the new authority will take responsibility, like the regular policing functions of the Metropolitan Police or the London Fire Brigade, might well be run by boards at arm's length from the authority itself.
We also accept—and here I take up a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the noble Lord, Lord Plummer—that the boundaries of the new authority's writ cannot be set in stone today. There will have to be much consultation and deliberation before any view on that is sufficiently firm to be put into legislation. Your Lordships will, I am sure, be aware that my party put out a consultative document on all these matters, and we are still in the process of considering the replies.
There are, however, two points on which I feel it would be right to move our position a little further. The first is on the matter of an elected mayor. For avoidance of doubt, as they say, I do not refer to the Lord Mayor of the Corporation of the City of London (whose electoral
1198
process, by the way, would certainly not pass any reasonable United Nations supervision). Your Lordships will be aware that the Leader of my party has advocated a directly elected mayor for London, with executive powers. This has not yet become the official policy of my party, as there are various formal procedures which are required for that to happen, but it seems, if I may say so, and in the context which no doubt your Lordships will appreciate, very likely that the proposal will be adopted as policy, although no firm decision has yet been taken.
Nevertheless, and this is my second point, it is no good any party trying to thrust ideas down the unwilling throats of Londoners. The transformation from centrally directed government to a broad consensus cannot be achieved simply by government fiat, whatever government may be in power. We will therefore be putting our proposals, when they have been properly considered and the process of consultation is complete and if (or rather when) we form a government, in their final form to Londoners for their direct approval.
I have no doubt that the Government's response to the noble Earl's debate will be to say that everything is all right as it is. We are getting used to such responses to any proposal for change in any direction, from whatever quarter it comes. But, as I look at the clock, I see that my time is up. I am comforted by the thought that, as I look at the polls, so is theirs.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I start, as other speakers have done, by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, first, for instituting today's debate, which I think promises to be a most interesting one; and secondly, I should like to thank him most sincerely for the way in which he introduced the debate. If I may say so, it was a most balanced and measured speech which very succinctly summarised all the major issues which we need to consider in London. However, I should like my thanks to go beyond that. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl for starting and for so ably leading the London Group of Peers. It does very useful work; indeed, the fact that we are having this debate today is an example of that work, but it by no means represents all of it. I have to say that the existence of that group and the work that it carries out contrasts very sharply with the absence of any similar group in the other place—a gap which I believe should long since have been filled but which I fear may never be filled.
We have today many well-informed and very experienced speakers who are knowledgeable in these matters. I fell to wondering what contribution I could make. I believe that I have perhaps one unique contribution to make in the debate; namely, that I can say without fear of contradiction that I shall be the only current London borough council leader to speak today, although my friend and long-time political opponent the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, (who, I am pleased to say, will speak later) has, I believe, slightly longer experience, although sadly no longer current, as a London borough council leader. Much though we agree on matters European, we have long disagreed on matters concerning London government.

1199
I have been a London council leader by coincidence exactly since the time of the abolition of the GLC. Prior to that I served 12 years as an opposition leader on a London borough council during the existence of the GLC. Therefore, I believe that I am fairly well placed to understand life with the GLC and life since the GLC. However, I do not want to dwell on that issue. My concern is that the debate has been so characterised by the battles and arguments of the 1980s and we are now at last moving into the 1990s.
London government has changed and changed significantly in recent years. The first message that I should like to bring as a London borough council leader is that London borough government is alive and well. Much though I opposed the abolition of the GLC—incidentally, my party was calling not for saving the GLC or abolishing it; but for reforming it—inevitably, in that polarised argument, it came down to an argument of "keep or abolish".
London borough government has done well. Although I hesitate to say that it has flourished in recent years, it is now, despite all the difficulties imposed upon it, in a stronger and healthier state than it was some years ago. What has changed most particularly is that real partnerships have developed. I have in mind real partnerships with business, with the voluntary sector and with local communities. No longer do London borough councils believe that they could or should do everything; indeed, they have learnt to work together with other representatives of the community and, in so doing, have learnt a great deal. It is fair to say that most business leaders involved in that process would accept that they, too, have learnt a good deal about the nature of local government and local government in London in particular.
I should like to stress what the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, said is vitally important. If there is to be a strategic authority, then it must take its powers from central government not from London boroughs. It is vital that the strategic authority adds value to London government and does not detract from what is already there and working surprisingly well. If I say that as a London borough leader, why is it that the overwhelming majority of London borough council leaders feel so strongly in favour of a strategic authority? The system works reasonably well up to a point, but local government has an extraordinarily good record of making things work. Indeed, local government even came very close to making the poll tax work.
Local government works but it does not work as well as it should. London borough government works in a strategic vacuum. Others have said what is wrong but I shall not add to that, save to say that such as might pass for strategic government is hopelessly fragmented. I speak as a member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, one of the joint boards to which speakers have referred. It is remote from the next tier of government—central government—in the form of a Cabinet sub-committee which, perforce, meets in secret. We do not know its agenda; we do not know its future agenda; and, indeed, we only know what
1200
decisions it may have reached when they are announced. That has been improved a little by the establishment of the Joint London Advisory Panel, but that is no answer.
So we now have a Minister for London whom I know. I sincerely believe that he cares deeply about London; indeed, I acknowledge that fact. However, when we see the Minister speaking about London on London regional political programmes, he is speaking either from his front garden in Suffolk or from the Ipswich television studio. That is not the place where a Minister for London needs to be.
We have seen a number of bodies established which are doing good work. For example, the London Pride Partnership in particular has carried out excellent work in making the case for London as regards seeing what is wrong and attempting to put it right. But that is not enough. It has no power; nor indeed should it have because it has no—and seeks no—democratic legitimacy.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and I are two of the three London councillors who serve on the Committee of the Regions. I shall not take time today to talk about London's voice in Europe but I believe that we are well placed to see that the voice that London has in Europe is not at all that which other major European cities have.
My party, the Liberal Democrats, has always supported, and continues to support, a strategic authority for London. We would see that authority based on present Greater London boundaries, not least because of the difficulties inherent in trying to change those boundaries. We see that authority directly elected by a system of proportional representation which I believe is important in trying to get an elected assembly for London which would be truly representative of all the views in London. We suggest that it should be elected by the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies, and we would go further and suggest that there might be eight constituencies each returning nine members. Therefore, they would retain some geographical connection (but not one which was dominated by the self-interests of particular boroughs) thereby enabling their members to take a more broad strategic view.
We would also—this is critically important—ensure that that authority had some tax raising powers. The power to control one's own resources and if necessary, and when necessary, to raise one's own resources is important. Its functions would be broadly those that have already been mentioned: strategic planning, transport, emergency services, economic regeneration and health purchasing. It would have a co-ordinating role in the fields of leisure, tourism, the environment, and grants for the voluntary sector.
There are many other proposals all worthy of consideration. The one which seems to be coming into greater and greater favour—I listened with great interest to the carefully chosen words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—is that of the elected mayor. I listened with interest to the procedures which the Labour Party has to go through before that becomes official policy. I can tell him—although I suspect he already knows—that one of those procedures will be to

1201
convince Labour councillors in London to be in favour of an elected mayor. I know of none who is in favour of elected mayors. My party does not favour that. I cannot think of any London borough councillors of any party who favour elected mayors, although I do not doubt that there are some.
Time does not permit me to go into all the reasons for that, but I think there is a danger that an elected mayor will be either a fairly pointless figurehead, which is not what is proposed, or will be someone with enormous democratic power. A mandate given by 5 million electors would probably be a more powerful electoral mandate than that enjoyed by anyone in the world, and certainly anyone in this country. We do not believe that that degree of democratic power should be centralised in one person, however distinguished, able or democratically elected that person may be.
However, my biggest concern as regards the debate on the elected mayor is that it acts as a distraction from the real issues that we ought to be discussing which are those of the powers and functions of the strategic authority. I want to conclude—as I must now—by recognising that there already exists a broad consensus that all is not well in London government. However, there is not yet a broad consensus about how it should be put right. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested that there should be a referendum. My party supports that view but we need to know what that referendum is about. Before we have that referendum we need to have a debate that goes beyond our individual political parties and engages with all the people in London life to determine what it is that we favour. Before there is a referendum we need a consensus on what we are for, not just a consensus on what we are against. London deserves that; our capital city deserves that; and Londoners deserve that.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carnarvon for introducing this debate and for the work over many months of the all-party group. I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak and to support the noble Earl in his quest. The proper organisation of London's administration is a most important topic.
If I understand the present sentiment correctly, there is a strong desire among the professions, the administration and other agencies to review and to revise the present institutional and administrative arrangements. The possible creation of a strategic authority for London relates to the fundamental objective of achieving good urban management. My experience as an architect and cultural heritage specialist in various cities of the world as well as in the United Kingdom, has given me a certain perspective on planning and urban development issues. I wish to review just six of certain generic types of objective a strategic authority needs to consider.
First, there is a need constantly to review and record assets and liabilities. Secondly, the available physical, economic and skills resource, and related opportunities
1202
must be assessed and the implications explained to an increasingly informed public. Thirdly, the use, growth and potential of those resources must be co-ordinated, planned and marketed to all sectors. Fourthly, institutional legal and administrative frameworks must be constantly reviewed and adapted. Fifthly, the appropriate education, training and skills must be encouraged for urban managers and professionals. Finally, democracy and ownership constitute an important question. Above all, the means must be constantly reviewed and developed whereby the stakeholders, of which the electorate is one of the most important, can be actively involved in a process that is respected, owned by, and reflects the interests of London's people and commerce.
The objectives I have outlined can only be fulfilled by some form of strategic authority. I believe also that to some degree all of the above objectives, which in my experience relate to most cities of the world, have at times been overlooked in the institutional and administrative structures that have been created since the abolition of the GLC in 1986. I would in no way advocate a return to the GLC formula. It would destroy private enterprise and initiatives which are a key to stakeholder involvement. It is more a question of the strategic authority giving essential support, essential focus and co-ordination to the different sectors of the metropolis. The form of the authority I cannot examine now, and that must, I think, follow later.
The legacy of London's history has given us one of the world's most powerful financial, commercial and cultural centres. It is a world class city. Its citizens have extraordinary skills and experience, and the city provides a magnet for people and commerce from all over the world. But the world is changing, and many people express concern that London's future may be vulnerable in the longer term. We should anticipate growing competition with other major cities in Europe. Radical changes over recent years have occurred in the world's economic, political, and trading balances. The continuing revolution of information technology has demanded changes in the workplace and scientific progress continues to modify our concepts of transport, housing, healthcare and patterns of trade and commerce. I do not believe that the response to these opportunities and threats can be safely left to the unco-ordinated efforts of the local boroughs, quangos and other agencies, nor can it be left to the market place alone.
I believe that to respond to world trends, and to respond to the threats and opportunities as they may affect London, we need a strategic authority. It is, I believe, the role of a strategic authority to develop policy, to promote compatibility and synergy among the different sectors of the metropolis and their often disparate aims and objectives, and to oversee the implementation of policy.
From the experience of my group of companies and my own particular observations from our work in Europe and further afield for the World Bank, the Overseas Development Administration and other international agencies, there is often not so much a problem for an administration to know what has to be done, but for an administration to know how to

1203
implement policy, and to do so fairly and with adequate consultation among the stakeholders—a particular problem in China.
I personally think that there is often a real degree of alienation felt by people in large urban areas such as London. This, I believe, arises out of the obstacles to their involvement in a democratic process. To some extent I think we have been unclear about how to structure our institutions, our administration and our democratic systems within the special context of London. The authority should have an important role in strengthening this democratic process with regard to strategic issues.
I wish to note four other relevant observations which complement and enlarge on what I have said. First, as the noble Earl stated, there is no single voice to represent the metropolis to adjacent regions of the country, or to the national Government, or to our partners in Europe. In consequence I understand that there is continued underfunding of the city relative to its contribution to the economy.
Secondly, there is no easily identified inward investment agency for London, and while the role of such an agency in relation to the local market context needs careful consideration, the Welsh, Scottish and other regions have adopted a more integrated approach to the problem of inward investment and perhaps with more success.
Thirdly, there is no single perspective on the more domestic issues of urban deprivation in London. This is a multifaceted problem requiring a strategic response on housing, social services, training and education and access to employment initiatives. With the present constitutional set-up of responsibility lying at the local level, initiatives tend to be localised, unco-ordinated between areas, and disparate. I believe that implementation should be at the local level but within the context of an overall strategic framework.
Fourthly, co-ordination is needed. The present unco-ordinated system naturally leads to competition for resources and investment rather than collaboration among the range of local agencies regardless of sector.
Since the abolition of the GLC, there have of course been many positive achievements. London has developed a culture of partnership between public and private enterprise. There has been considerable co-operation between various policy actors at the sub-regional level. Much mention has been made of the London Pride Partnership which has worked hard to develop a vision. Both the West London Strategic Framework and the Thames Gateway have made important initiatives. But they have been dependent on developing consensus and collaboration at every step. Perhaps we need to promote a stronger basis for the support and implementation of their strategies.
I submit the view that it is only a strategic authority for London, designed to enable, to co-ordinate, to complement and to add value to the existing political, economic and social structures that can defend and promote London's world class status. It must be capable of developing a vision in consultation with all interested parties, drawing on the abundance of experience and
1204
skills available within the capital. I believe that discussion should be devoted to further analysis and definition of the form and function of such an authority.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, on his maiden speech. We saw the skills of his design and architecture in the structure of his speech. His knowledge of the inner city and some of the regeneration issues are highly relevant. Perhaps a degree at London University was not entirely irrelevant. If he were nervous, as I was a few months ago, he did not show it.
To me London is a great economic success. Of course there is much to be done in London; of course there are areas of London which do not have the standard of living required. The issue before us is how to build on that success rather than a discussion on whether success has been achieved.
I begin by declaring not an interest but a passion for London, the city in which I was born, and I am not ashamed of that passion. I am honorary chairman of London First, a private sector group concerned with making London a better place in which to live, invest, and work as well as to visit. With councillor Toby Harris, I am honorary joint chairman of the London Pride Partnership. London Pride brings together business, local government leaders from all parties, the Churches, and other groups.
My contention, shared with my business colleagues in London First, is that a strategic authority, despite the best intentions, would inevitably hinder rather than help the task of making London a still greater success. Perhaps I may say why. It is apparent that such an authority would be sandwiched between the boroughs and central government. It would struggle, therefore, to find a useful and effective role. It would threaten to create another layer of bureaucracy and impede action and slow down progress.
But, importantly, such an authority would endanger the factor which is growing extremely fast in London—partnership. Partnership takes many forms. It may involve individual local authorities coming together to work on individual issues. However, another example—it is one on which I wish to spend a few moments—is London Pride Partnership. Noble Lords have heard that London Pride Partnership is not a conventional gathering of people. It cuts across all parties; and comprises people of all types of background, and so on. Yet it is our experience that we can reach agreement, sometimes to our own amazement, on most issues. How do we do that? Simply by focusing on the issues on which we agree and taking action, rather than focusing on spending time debating those on which we disagree.
Perhaps I may give three brief examples. As regards inward investment, we know that multinational companies can choose freely where they will relocate their headquarters or their activities. Since it came into existence a couple years ago, London First Centre, which is local government, central government and business, has attracted 70 overseas investors to London.

1205
More importantly, it has about 100 on the books; they are coming in fast. They see London as potentially a great success.
Action by the London Tourist Board, fully supported by London Pride Partnership, has seen tourist income for London reach the world level. Of course it should be above that, but for each of the past two years it has reached 8 per cent. per annum. Let me give one example of partnership working in practice in tourism. In Southwark the local authority and business are working together to build hotels in what is central London—but no one had previously noticed that.
My last example concerns domestic waste recycling. Between them, local government, central government and the private sector have just launched plans to increase the recycling of waste in London from 7 per cent. to 25 per cent. over the next four to five years, thereby not only improving the environment but also creating green jobs. Each is an example of partnership in action. Many people state that what we need in London is a transport strategy. Yet it already exists, not in a vague or imprecise form but as a fully costed prioritised plan covering all aspects of transport over each of the next 15 years. That has been signed off by business, local government, ALG and the voluntary sector and is supported by the Government in their own transport strategy issued last year.
The issue as regards transport for London is not what needs to be done, but how to attract private investment to speed up implementation of the plan. It is encouraging to find that both the Labour and Conservative Parties are calling for ways of encouraging more private investment.
Perhaps I may turn to the key points. London does not need a new layer of bureaucracy. It would take time to implement and inevitably would enlarge itself, as government always does. By concentrating on points of disagreement rather than action, it would have the effect of stifling the very initiative for which its supporters call.
Partnership in London is up and running. It is action driven. It gets results. Why do we not focus our attention on promoting partnership rather than wasting resources by installing what would be a redundant strategic authority? Do not misunderstand what I say. We must not be complacent. In the business world I have observed that it is the companies that never cease to evolve which are the most successful. London must continue to evolve and improve. Once we think that we have made it, we are dead. Over the past few years London's record on governance has not been bad: a Minister for London, the Government Office for London, and a Cabinet sub-committee which now meets formally and regularly with members of the London Pride Partnership, with minutes fully published, are all examples of how the governance of London has successfully evolved over the past few years.
Nobody supposes that the system, or London itself, is perfect. Last year, London First conducted an in-depth discussion on the governance of London with its business members. Each member participated in a
1206
discussion lasting approximately two hours. Many changed their minds and firmed up their views during that time. There was consensus that much had been achieved as a result of the partnership drive that I mentioned, but that we had to find ways of building on that success.
Our members, after much serious discussion, expressed strong opposition to a new London authority. They did, however, express a strong view that London lacked a loud and effective voice to champion its cause abroad and stand up for its interests at home. One has only to have been involved in work on the Millennium Exhibition or the national stadium which we now hope is to be built at Wembley to appreciate that a London champion is very long overdue.
The champion, whether he or she is called a mayor or a chief executive—we used the title "governor" to avoid confusion with mayors—must have a clearly defined remit. He or she must give priority to action. Any bureaucracy inherent in the system must be minimised. Local issues must continue to be handled by the boroughs. Above all, the champion must encourage and promote partnership between political parties, and with business, the Churches, the voluntary sector, etc.
To meet that need, London First's proposal is for a directly elected governor with limited executive powers—limited because London already has directly elected local authorities, agencies and organisations to carry out everyday tasks. The governor's powers would be: to champion London with central government and within the UK—it is necessary to sell London to the rest of the UK; to promote London overseas; to make key appointments within London; and to plan strategically for London where that is appropriate, although there should not be planning for the sake of planning. Last autumn, London First published details of the proposals, including the precise interface with all the various agencies that exist.
I maintain that what London needs is not a strategic authority but a champion. That is the next logical step in the continuous evolution of our great city and its governance. If the Government have difficulty with the idea of an elected authority—I agree that 5 million votes must be rather frightening for a politician of any party—and if they are concerned that such an authority does not work, perhaps we need to test this opportunity by means of an appointed role. However, I believe that, in the end, the transparency of a direct vote will be needed.
I conclude my remarks as I began. I see London as a great success. My proposal is that there should be a champion for London.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I, too, give warm and genuine thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for introducing the debate in so admirable a way. I could carp about the use of the word "strategic" to qualify the idea of an authority for London, but I will not. Instead, I welcome the conversion of many Conservatives to the need for an elected authority, council or parliament for the people of London. I understand that there is joy in

1207
heaven when a sinner repents. As a result of this debate, I hope that heaven's cup of joy overflows at the swelling ranks of repentant Tory sinners.
In researching this debate I came across a quotation about my great, great grandfather, the second Lord Monkswell, who was a founder member of the LCC. It was reported in the Hackney & Kingsland Gazette of 29th May, 1893, that Lord Monkswell had an idea of a "practical socialism", leading men,
"to such a state of mind that private property might be usefully and considerably diminished and public property increased."
I believe that I have inherited the genes and I aspire to that noble ideal.
In considering the case for an elected authority for London there is a temptation to look at the history of London, of the LCC from 1889 to 1965 and the GLC from 1965 to 1985. However, there are other models that we might usefully examine. I refer to the English metropolitan counties and the Scottish metropolitan regions. In particular, I suggest careful study of the way in which the English metropolitan counties, in their short life from 1974 to 1985, developed differently. They did so because the people in those urban conurbations had different circumstances, aspirations and problems; and they developed different solutions to those problems.
I would argue that we should allow the people of London to elect their representatives to decide on matters for the benefit of Londoners. That will be a dynamic process; it will not be fixed, but will be a progression as time goes on.
I am very glad that all sensible people interested in the effective governance of London argue for the devolution of powers from national level rather than the centralisation of London borough powers. I support those sensible people.
Over the years there has developed a culture of denigration, of lack of respect, for one tier of governance by another. That has led to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties and to the antagonism between the UK and the European Parliament. It appears that it will provide a landslide win for our party at the next general election. That antagonism between different tiers of democratic interest is not good for our society. We need to think in terms of a hierarchy of democracy with elections at every level, for new local or neighbourhood councils, smaller than the London boroughs; probably keeping the London boroughs as they are; a new London authority; our national Parliament; and the European Parliament. We should try to devise mechanisms whereby each tier can work in harmony with the other tiers rather than in competition with them.
It is generally agreed that there is a good chance of having an elected authority for London. That authority should have a home, and its home should be in County Hall. County Hall was built by the people of London for the public administration of London. It should be used as such.
I have rather galloped through my speech. I drafted it as I sat here in the Chamber and did not know how long it would last. As I still have a couple of minutes in hand,
1208
perhaps I may use them for my peroration—a plea that we should allow the ordinary people of London, right across London, to decide. I believe it is agreed that what we mean by "London" is that part of our great country that exists within the M.25, generally speaking the old GLC boundaries.
I have heard criticism of the GLC, and the perennial cry that we must not recreate it. I was quite interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who said that, with hindsight, reform rather than abolition or status quo was probably a very sensible idea. That idea may not have been on the table at the time. I was on one side of the barricades and the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was on the other.
The thought that I wish to leave with the House is that we should think, not in terms of any authority for London being a "champion", one that can articulate a voice for London, as suggested by the previous speaker, but a mechanism by which the people of London can work together. That is surely the essence of all democratic activity. It is not just a matter of speaking for people, but of enabling them to live, work and develop together. I hope that will be the reason for installing a new elected authority for London. I hope that our national Parliament will trust the people of London to come up with a sensible scheme of activity and work which enables them to live and work together in harmony.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Tweedsmuir: My Lords, it is with a sense of exhilaration and at the same time some poignancy that I rise to address your Lordships as a new Member of this House. The exhilaration comes from the great honour which has befallen me and the poignancy is because I owe my seat to the death last year of a very distinguished elder brother who had no other male heir.
I am a writer. In fact, I have never sat on any public body and I must say right away that I cannot give the House the expert advice which it has received and certainly will receive from other noble Lords. On the other hand, I was born in London—in 1916, which was a fair time ago—and have lived in London for a great deal of my life. I offer the comment—and, incidentally, the admiration—of the man in the street, on something to which I have comparatively recently come, which is the meat of the submission to the House of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. So all I can do is perhaps recapitulate those points which would strike the man in the street as the most important so far that we have heard.
I imagine that noble Lords will all have studied the report of the House of Lords All-Party London Group. We are most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for bringing it to our attention. In it there is an immense amount of matter for discussion, all deserving the most serious and profound consideration, which I am certain it will receive at your Lordships' hands.
The report in question is concerned with the idea of establishing a strategic authority for London. I lived through the days of the old London County Council, then the Greater London Council, and the state of some

1209
fragmentation that followed. I was attached to the old London County Council for many reasons, one of which was that if one wished to research the ownership of old properties, it had the most magnificent system for doing so. I used it frequently. I just hope that that system is to be found somewhere even now. Since the abolition of the Greater London Council in 1986, London's various needs have been catered for by a number of different bodies, some of them originating with the Government. As we heard today, in addition valuable work has been and is being done by various independent organisations.
In preparing its submission, the All-Party London Group was able to analyse the results of a number of opinion polls, about which we may but do not need to be too sceptical. Those polls clearly showed deep dissatisfaction among Londoners with the state of their city and the methods of its governance. Further, it was strongly felt by the group that the present methods of governing the city were insufficiently democratic. That is a feeling shared by a great number of Londoners who have come to believe that they have little or no voice in what is being done in their name.
The report puts very clearly the reasons why a strategic authority might be desirable to control from a single source the destiny of one of the world's finest cities. One of many important points made in the report is that representatives of other major European cities and from other parts of the world have expressed amazement and voiced their regret that there is no single body representing London with which they may confer. It is because of a rather bewildering division of functions in London's present government that we have before us the proposal that the city should be governed by a duly elected London-wide authority, which should be led by a single figure, perhaps to be known, at least for discussion purposes, as London's mayor, prefect or governor—anything which might be suitable.
The All-Party London Group offered a concise exposé of its ideas and has even-handedly given the arguments for and against them. Very few Londoners would not agree that those ideas could have a truly significant bearing on their life and happiness. As I said, they deserve the most serious consideration. Not all proposals for reform are of equal value but I feel your Lordships will agree that here we have something of real importance in its conception and its possible benefit to millions of lives. These are urgent matters which require a degree of boldness and great breadth of vision both in discussion and implementation. It is not difficult to foresee what might happen in terms of argument and friction developing, which will have to be met.
There is a nettle here to be grasped. As many of us learnt in our youngest days, the harder one grasps a nettle, the less painful is the sting.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, first it is my pleasing task to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, on having given us—if I may allude to the title of his autobiography—not so much rags of time as riches of experience and ideas. He said that he is an author. He
1210
is now, in the tradition of his great family, an author and a public figure. We are fortunate in being able to listen to him as well as to read his works.
I rise to make one simple point only: to summarise the arguments for a directly elected mayor of London. The case for a strategic authority has been made persuasively so far as I am concerned by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for having introduced this important debate, and by the thoughtful maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. But such an authority will have the desired effect only if it is led by a mayor who is elected by and accountable to the people of London.
I am well aware of the counter-arguments, which are advanced by experienced representatives of local government. Indeed, some of them are not very far away from me and I have been wondering whether I should put more clear red leather between the Front Bench ahead of me and myself as I speak.
I love London. I regard it as my city. I suffer when it fails and I am delighted when it succeeds and does well. I believe that in order to do well it will need a champion who is more than a champion. Let me give your Lordships six reasons why I think so.
First, keeping a great metropolis going and moving it forward is more than its effective administration. As has been said already, large cities are, by their very nature, diffuse and even alienating. They probably cannot be run in any real sense at all and perhaps they should not be. It is all the more necessary that Londoners can identify a focus of responsibility. That focus of responsibility cannot be a building and cannot be a council, however distinguished and competent its members. It has to be a person who captures the imagination—and no doubt from time to time draws the ire—of the people of London. London needs a face as well as a voice to make the case for this great metropolis to the rest of the country and to the world.
Secondly, governing London is a task which cuts across party lines. In the nature of the case, it does not lend itself to national party politics. I say that as someone who firmly believes that political parties are a necessary (though wrongly maligned) instrument of gathering interests in the country. But London's citizens need something different for their city; perhaps the kind of partnership about which the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, spoke. No doubt most plausible candidates for mayor will be members of national parties, but they will and should appeal to their electorate with a London manifesto, even one which others in their own party from other parts of the country do not particularly like.
Thirdly, much needs to be done at all times to keep this great city going in the face of all kinds of pressures. Not everything can be done at the same time or, rather, in addition to the day-to-day administration; certain priorities have to be set. One person elected as mayor is more likely to stand for a specific set of priorities than any council or even party. It seems to me desirable that people should choose a mayor for his or her special interest—in transport, in law and order, in business opportunities, in parks and leisure facilities or whatever.

1211
Progress is more likely to result from concentration on specific issues at specific times than from trying to do everything all at once.
Fourthly, one of the strengths of the constitution of this country is that one knows who is in charge and how those who are in charge are checked in their actions. Without wishing to overstate the point, those in charge can, on the whole, be named, and what they are doing is accountable; for such accountability there are institutions. It is a pity that local government has not followed the national lead in that respect. It remains for most—I say this with humility and hesitation—a somewhat remote collection of often able and competent, but for most people, nameless individuals. For London, if not more generally, that is just not good enough. Londoners need to know both who is responsible and how they can call him or her and their team to account.
Fifthly, London has benefited greatly from some of the Lord Mayors of the Corporation of the City of London. In recent years in particular they have been well aware of the fact that the City and its financial institutions can flourish only in an environment which is attractive to inhabitants and visitors alike. Some Lord Mayors have therefore spoken up for London. However, as has been said before, their claims to speak for London are limited in more ways than one. What the best Lord Mayors have done merely illustrates the need for an elected mayor who can speak for London as a whole.
Sixthly, several European countries have, in recent years, discovered the value of directly elected mayors. In eastern Europe they were a central feature of the road to democracy, with Serbia only the latest example. More relevant perhaps, in Italy the law stipulating direct elections of mayors in all cities above 15,000 inhabitants has freed local issues from the constraints of national politics. In Germany, the south German model of direct elections has migrated north, even into the former British zone of occupation which had originally adopted the British model of local government. EveryWhere it has led to an increase in the commitment of people to their cities, in local pride and civic sense.
There are clearly many questions which will have to be answered if a constitutional innovation is envisaged like the direct election of mayors. How are they to be elected? What is to be their term of office? How do they relate to the authority elected, or chosen, in other ways? Some fear that an elected Lord Mayor of London would have too prominent a place in the national scheme of things.
Questions need to be answered, and I believe that they can be answered. We are often asked these days to envisage considerable constitutional changes. My view is that a directly-elected mayor for London is a constitutional leap which is at least as important as some of the others we are asked to consider. We should therefore prepare the legislative ground for an elected Lord Mayor of London.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Feldman: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for initiating this important and
1212
interesting debate, and for the great work he does patiently and regularly on the all-party Committee for London. I congratulate also the two maiden speakers—the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Tweedsmuir—and hope that we hear more from them in the future.
I hope that my experience of the GLC will be of interest today when we discuss the possibility of another strategic authority. Perhaps I can give your Lordships a little of my history.
In February 1973 I was selected as the GLC candidate for Richmond. It was mid-term in the Heath Government, and the Liberals were winning council by-elections across the borough. I campaigned hard and learnt a lot about the interesting tactics of the Liberals which, in a philosophical vein, should qualify me for a BA in community politics. With hindsight, it was my good fortune to lose, although I was not so sure at the time.
I found that very few Londoners knew anything about the GLC and, in my innocence, I used to tell the voters that the GLC had the 16th largest budget of any country or town in the world. I presented that as a plus point, but soon realised it was a negative.
I have learnt that there are two ways to predict the future: one is to create it; and the other is to learn from the past. A new Greater London authority would be a strategic leap forward—into the past—and a magical mystery tour leading to extra bureaucracy and costs.
As a consolation prize for losing, I became an adopted member of the GLC Housing Management Committee and a member of the GLC Arts Board. In housing, I learnt of the way in which it was controlled by Labour: the high cost of repairs by the direct labour force; the self-inflicted damage done to property by unhappy tenants; and the fact that no details were ever given at committee of rent and rates arrears. We changed that.
I remember walking down miles of brilliantly and expensively polished floors at County Hall and began to marvel at the cost of the 20,000 staff. No wonder the GLC had the 16th largest budget in the world! I was there when Ken Livingstone usurped Andrew McIntosh, as he then was. I must say that the GLC's loss was a gain for your Lordships' House. After abolition, very few people mourned the passing of the GLC while ratepayers celebrated the saving of the unnecessary costs involved.
Let me give your Lordships a financial picture. In 1985–86 the GLC spent £1 billion. In its last five years spending went up by 170 per cent. On that basis I calculate that it would today be spending well over £4 billion, which is equivalent to 2p off income tax.
We are told that the son of GLC is set to start up small, but can we believe it? I believe that the staff, the powers and the budget would all rise inexorably in time. And would we have a return to receptions for Sinn Fein, long campaigns on Nicaragua and the delights of a nuclear free zone?
Of late, an unrealistic nostalgia has hit Londoners. Opinion polls purport to say that the majority of Londoners want a return to a strategic authority. I must

1213
say that I do not accept the validity of such opinion polls at this time. Londoners are being made to feel that whereas, 12 years ago, when the GLC was there, London was a place flowing with milk and honey, the sun shone every day, it never rained, the traffic flowed effortlessly and the Underground was perfect, it has now become a democratic desert and a failure.
London is, in fact, a great success story, as my noble friend Lord Sheppard said. Tourism is booming. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, having served as a member of the English Tourist Board for many years, that London is a gateway for all parts of the country and that many parts of London have benefited from the work of the London Arts Board and the ETB. We have seen more hotels built, more jobs created and growing support for the arts and sport. Inward investment is developing and our museums, galleries, theatres, operas and sports arenas, as well as many other areas, have benefited from the lottery.
I suppose that part of the nostalgia stems from the hope of people that the new authority might spend more money. As a child I was taught that money did not grow on trees; that you cannot plant a tree in your garden and then go up and shake money from it whenever you need it. Surely we have learnt that money must be earned or taxed before it can be spent.
My noble friend Lord Sheppard listed the work the Government have done to emphasise the growth of London in the absence of the GLC. My noble friend was asked to chair the London Forum. His record in London, in the work he has done within London First and London Pride, bringing together all parts of the capital, is outstanding. And no mention has been made of the fact that we have a dedicated Minister for London. The affairs of London have been enthusiastically and successfully carried forward by a deeply committed Secretary of State, John Gummer, despite the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, that some of the television broadcasts may have come from other parts of the country.
We do not need yet another tier of local government with more bureaucracy slowing up decision making. We will just end up with the dubious privilege of a London version of the tartan tax. We have talked about the boundaries of the new Greater London authority, should it happen. Where will they end? They will have to go much wider—perhaps as far as Brighton, Grantham, Reading and further into the M.25. My own rather courageous PA commutes every day from Leamington. Will we have to include Leamington?
The proposal of a mayor, champion or governor of London is an extremely interesting one. I have considerable sympathy with the principle of a champion or host, though I find the title of governor much too pompous. A form of host or champion would be valuable. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I have thought long and hard about the possibility of having a mayor, host, or whatever, directly elected by up to 5 million people. I wonder what would happen if we had a strong new strategic authority for London and a strong directly elected mayor, governor or host with
1214
the democratic credentials of 5 million voters behind him or her. There would be endless hours of fun in the corridors of London.
My proposition is more simple. I propose that the role be filled by a full-time Minister for London, at Minister of State level, who can draw upon the existing resources of the department. That person could be a strong voice for London at home and abroad. At least he or she, whoever occupies the post, will already have been indirectly elected through a general election and will therefore have a strong democratic credibility.
To summarise, I am against a new strategic authority for London. Let us have this full-time, dedicated Minister for London at the department. That is the best and most cost-effective way of continuing to improve London, in the interests of all Londoners, which is what we all want to achieve.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, in the report of the All-Party London Group there is only one short paragraph on the policing of London. The paragraph includes a sentence that the present commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has indicated that he would welcome the establishment of a police authority for London. My own researches have confirmed that this is so and that most senior officers in the Met would welcome a police authority for London.
Since 1829 the Metropolitan Police Service has been accountable to only one person—the Home Secretary. All other police forces in the country are answerable both to the Home Secretary and to an elected police authority. A single debate each year in the other place is not sufficient to provide democratic accountability for this great force. It might be thought that this limited accountability would be to the advantage of the Metropolitan Police Service. But that is not so, as has been apparent for a very long time.
There is inevitably an uneasy symbiotic relationship between the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police Service and similarly between the Home Secretary and the commissioner. The lines of responsibility of decision making and of accountability are inevitably blurred. It is impossible for the commissioner to adopt a different line in public from the Home Secretary. It is not even possible to have a public debate about necessary resources for the Metropolitan Police. A shortage of personal radios, for example, in my time became a scandal. Many Metropolitan Police buildings are decaying. When I was responsible for building works in north-west London, I had police stations where the rain came through the roof and I had one which had a permanently flooded basement. It is not possible for the commissioner to say those kinds of things publicly. I do believe, to pick up a word that has been mentioned several times in the debate, that it is necessary for the Metropolitan Police to have an external champion who can stand up to the Home Office and act on their behalf. This single line of accountability to the Home Secretary also does a disservice to the public of London. There is a lack of democratic accountability.

1215
During the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 we argued for a separate police authority for London and put down amendments to that effect. All that the Government were willing to offer was an advisory committee for the Home Secretary, to be appointed by himself, comprising a number of people whom I do not think anyone has heard of since then. Police authorities elsewhere in the country were established on a much more clear-cut basis, with direct responsibility for influencing the policing objectives of their police services. The non-statutory police committee that is appointed to advise the Home Secretary has 12 members who have been appointed by the Home Secretary and the chairman is appointed by the Home Secretary. It is very unlikely that they will be offering him unwelcome advice. The committee lacks clarity of purpose and inevitably the servicing of its needs requires a great deal of expenditure, time and effort by the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and other officers in the Metropolitan Police. But it has done nothing for the public of London.
The Metropolitan Police Service therefore supports the concept of a police authority under the umbrella of a strategic London authority so that there are clear, effective and visible lines of accountability to the people of London which are so necessary for policing by consent. A police authority embedded within the structure of a London-wide strategic and elected authority would offer an opportunity for consultation with the body which formally represented the people of London. It would make it much easier to establish London-wide partnerships for tackling crime and, under the umbrella of such an authority, it would be able much more effectively to deal with strategic problems such as traffic control. Under the much-maligned GLC the London-wide system of controlling traffic lights and effectively running the whole of London's traffic, was set up and maintained by GLC officials and it is extremely difficult for London boroughs to operate such a London-wide scheme.
Relationships with the other emergency services—the fire brigade and the ambulance service—could be made much more effective and, by being responsive to modern technology, could form part of a unified system of emergency services for the citizens of London. Considerable thought would need to be given to the constitution of a London police authority, which might indeed have some appointed members with particular skills. One of the values of the Home Secretary's advisory committee has been the business knowledge that some of the members have brought to it, which has assisted with the strategic management of resources in a large organisation. The Metropolitan Police employs something like 42,000 people and business experience and background does assist with the management of resources and personnel on that scale.
The Metropolitan Police has national and international responsibilities. This has always been the excuse for retaining the present system and for saying that the Home Secretary should be the only authority for the Metropolitan Police. But I do not believe that that is sufficient. The great majority of policing is to do with on-the-ground, everyday beat patrolling throughout the
1216
boroughs of London. The consequence of having the Home Office and the Home Secretary as the single police authority for London has tended to be to draw resources, manpower, office space, equipment and so on, into the central squads and away from the ordinary, everyday policing of the streets of London. These national and international responsibilities would probably require some Home Office representation within a police authority for London, but I do not believe that that should be the only consideration when policing this great capital.
A police authority for London could represent, for example, ethnic minorities within London and other minority groups who at present feel disenfranchised and resentful of the way that they are policed. Great strides have been made by the Metropolitan Police through the consultative groups and with the London boroughs, but I believe that there should be a strategic representation as well for the people from many different parts of the world who live in London.
The time has come for London to have a strategic authority which would include a police authority providing democratic, public accountability for the people of London and a counterbalance to the muffling and bureaucratic powers of the Home Office.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, as a London resident of long standing I would like to express my thanks to the All-Party London Group for producing the admirable report which we are debating today. I must declare another interest. I have the honour to be the president of a charitable association established some years ago to safeguard a conservation area in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
I have to confess that I have no experience whatever of local government or local politics, and I do not feel competent to express any worthwhile view on the major issues discussed in the report. Indeed, it is with some hesitation that I take part in this debate at all. There does, however, appear to be expressed a widely-held belief that there ought to be brought into existence some form of overall strategic authority for London with a closely limited remit.
On that basis I have canvassed the views of certain members of the charitable association over which I preside in order to ascertain whether there are any functions which might usefully be performed by a strategic authority for London, if one were set up, in addition to those identified in paragraph 24 and the later paragraphs of the report.
I would like first to mention road traffic as distinct from public transport. Transport is mentioned in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the report. However, it is submitted that the regulation of road traffic and its associated parking and waiting problems, is a heading sufficiently distinct from transport to warrant separate consideration. At present, the major part of the regulation of road traffic, parking, loading and waiting is, I understand, carried out by the boroughs separately and individually. I suggest that more co-ordination of their activities would be helpful. I am told that particular

1217
problems arise where a much-used street crosses the boundary between two boroughs or has such a borough boundary running down its centre line.
A strategic authority could be given powers enabling it, quickly and uniformly, to reconcile differences in policy of the two boroughs over such matters as permitted parking days and parking hours, permitted waiting periods, lorry prohibitions and discouragement of use by through traffic. I am sure that more uniformity generally over these matters would be appreciated by the public.
I would also like to touch on one other problem suggested to me; namely, pollution, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Measures to combat pollution, whether generated by vehicle exhausts or by effluent from works and buildings, again would benefit from co-ordination and common action. London probably has more severe problems from traffic pollution than any other part of the country, but it is quite impossible to suppose that boroughs acting individually could do very much about it. Apart from the two areas which I have mentioned—road traffic and pollution—the excellent report of the All-Party London Group would seem to cover all the issues that have to be addressed.
I close my very brief contribution to this debate by thanking my noble friend Lord Carnarvon for raising this matter and I venture the view that, whatever faults may be ascribed to the old GLC, it did possess some raison d'être, which might perhaps usefully be revived for reasons mentioned in the report.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I should also like to add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for initiating this debate and at the same time to apologise to him most sincerely for missing the first two minutes, I believe, of his introduction. I feel that particularly strongly since at my introduction into the House he welcomed me so kindly both to the all-party group and on previous occasions to SERPLAN. So those of us who are involved in London local government very much appreciate the keen interest which he takes in all these matters.
I have to declare my interest as a member of a London borough council and as a former London borough leader. Since former interests are apparently the order of the day this afternoon, I also declare my interest as a former member of the London Residuary Body, which was charged with winding up the affairs of the Greater London Council and, latterly, ILEA. In passing, I must advise my noble friend Lord Plummer that there can have been no body which was more closely watched by Government, Opposition parties and the public to ensure that its property was disposed of at the very best price possible. I give my noble friend the assurance that things were not sold off in a hurry, regardless of price.
Like my noble friend Lord Feldman, I do not think that we should look backwards; we should remind ourselves of what has gone before. Having declared my interest, I appreciate that my views on the matter might
1218
be suspect. Therefore, to remind your Lordships of the climate that existed when the GLC was still in existence, I turned back to some of the newspapers of the day. In 1983, The Times stated:
"The case for scrapping the GLC in its present form existed long before Ken Livingstone turned it into a personal socialist fiefdom. The bureaucratic wastefulness of a local authority which had already lost many of its most important functions to the borough (not to mention the operation of the unaccountably and unrepresentative ILEA which is responsible for education … demanded … reform".
In 1984, when the campaign for abolition was under way, The Times stated:
"Despite multi-million pound propaganda campaigns, elective support for the GLC and metropolitan counties is minimal. Functions, boundaries and relations with district authorities are ill-defined. Problems of finance, urban renewal, transport, housing, environment, education and training, youth and community, have been badly tackled.
London has been without strategic roads planning for more than 10 years. GLC sites take even longer to develop. Integrated transport is non-existent".
I must advise noble Lords opposite that since the author of that was Mr. Reg Freeson, the Labour MP for Brent, East, those words might have more credibility than anything that I can say to remind your Lordships' House that, despite the myths of today, the GLC was not a popular or successful authority.
I oppose the creation of a new authority because I believe that it is also a myth—however sincerely believed by those who proposed it—that a new strategic authority will assume the functions of central government rather than the functions of the boroughs. I also believe that it is a myth that it will assume the resources of central government rather than those of the existing local authorities. I believe that it is a myth that a new authority will be able to speak for London as a whole, however it is defined. That point needs to be settled, but it remains unclear.
I really cannot accept that the perceived or real problems of London will go away by creating a new authority. Indeed, frequently the problems that are perceived to be the problems of London are quoted by those who support the creation of a strategic authority. They appear to forget either that the problems existed when the GLC existed or that those matters were never the responsibility of the GLC in any event.
As a former chairman of the London Boroughs Association, I, together with my colleagues who were Conservative borough leaders, called for the abolition of the GLC before the Government thought that it was a good idea. One of the reasons that we did so was precisely that the GLC had become redundant and its functions had ebbed away. We also believed that one of the key issues facing London was transport. We believed that many of the calls for a London-wide authority arose because of particular problems, real or perceived, which related to transport and the recognition that in the capital city and in a place the size of London those problems would have to be dealt with by central government with their powers and resources. I believe that our call for a Minister of Transport for London was a great success. I believe also that the appointment of Mr. Norris to that position vindicated the calls made by Conservative borough leaders at that time.

1219
I feel that there is a problem in that we tend to speak of London as one city. I am not attracted to what I see as a cliché, "a collection of villages", but London is made up of a number of different towns and villages. Its history, development and physical size make it different from other cities in the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe. Indeed, we perpetuate that in our very language when we refer to the "Lord Mayor of the City", the "Mayor in the City of London" and the King and Parliament sit at "Westminster".
London is different and it is equally true that the systems of governance of other countries, which are often quoted, are not quite as one believes. London is different things to different people for different purposes. Very often, those who call for London-wide solutions seem to think that they have left London when they cross the Thames in a southerly direction.
I have no doubt that major infrastructure projects need the involvement of central government. We should have no reservations about that whatever. However, what we do not need is another tier of local government or another local government reorganisation, yet that is precisely what the creation of a new authority would bring about. The proposal for a mayor, governor or chief executive (appointed or elected) and supported by commissioners (appointed or elected) is in my view a recipe for frustration. Indeed, the public would see their expectations dashed because there would be conflict and no resources.
I would be the first to admit that immediately after the abolition of the GLC the boroughs tended not to countenance co-operation and groups because they feared joint structures. They feared that that would lead to keeping the GLC in exile, as it were, but the position has already changed dramatically. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to the co-operation that exists between the different boroughs. That is something on which we ought to build. We ought not to be looking backwards to find a different variation of the old theme; we ought to be looking forwards to see how the co-operation of the principal units of local government in London can be improved and encouraged. In European countries, specific powers are given to enable authorities to work jointly with others, sometimes with different partners for different activities. I refer to the French experience of communautés urbaines and its district arrangements where towns work together within a statutory framework. That bears examination. Even if London is geographically too large for that to happen here, I believe that we could work on a system based on sectors coming together in the centre.
However, I also believe that the mechanisms for the government of London, however defined, must remain firmly in the hands of the boroughs. I totally reject that the boroughs are undemocratic. Their members are elected by, and to serve, the people of the towns and areas that make up the whole of our capital. I do not know how those representatives can be perceived to be undemocratic. The boroughs are much more democratic than would be a body elected across the whole width and breadth of greater London but bearing no allegiance to any part of it.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I join in the congratulations which have rightly been paid to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, until he must be getting rather tired of them. However, my congratulations are genuine because I agree largely with his approach. Indeed, I congratulate the noble Earl and his committee particularly on producing what was a genuine all-party solution. The noble Earl avoided a number of matters which have surfaced here recently, but he understands and faces the fact that if we were to have a Bill seeking to implement that solution, those differences must again arise. That is the place for them, not this attempt to find a wide area of agreement.
I was particularly impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, who spoke from experience. He knows that, although the GLC has become a whipping boy since it has been disposed of, it fulfilled a valuable and essential function. Whatever we do here, we must try to ensure that that function is properly carried out in future. It is not being carried out at the present time and that is the reason for the situation in which we find ourselves. This matter has been glossed over by a number of people, but at the moment in many respects, traffic among them, London is in a mess. One of the reasons for that is that the work formerly done by the Greater London Council is no longer being done. Certainly, there has been an attempt to replace it: some of it has been devolved to the boroughs and some to various joint bodies. However, it simply does not work. For example, the bridges of London have been overlooked. It was not until they began to collapse and had to be repaired that someone discovered that no provision had been made for looking after them. Certainly, there is not the necessary manpower or machinery to do it. The regular inspections that used to take place somehow fell by the wayside. That is just one example of the fact that London badly misses the work previously done by the GLC. We should not allow the denigration of the GLC that has been voiced to some extent this afternoon to obscure the fact that the abolition of that body was drastic and unnecessary.
The GLC did a number of things: it was quite good at tourism; it played an important part in the arts. Perhaps I may speak from personal experience, although from a long time ago. As Winston Churchill once said, the purpose of reminiscing about the past is to enforce action in the present. As long ago as 1958 I was elected with David Pitt and Barry Payton to represent Stoke Newington and Hackney North on the then London County Council. In my election address I told the people of that constituency that my two main purposes were: first, to see that a national theatre was built; and, secondly, to abolish the Civil Defence Corps. They are the only two endeavours to which I have set my hand that have been achieved, although I hasten to say that they were not achieved by my efforts alone.
Ike Hayward, whose name is commemorated on the South Bank, was a great supporter of the arts. He provided the land on the South Bank and, by so doing, forced the Government on this side of the Thames to cough up the money which was already available for that building. As for the Civil Defence Corps, every

1221
member on the council, irrespective of political opinion, knew that it provided no defence against nuclear weapons and that it was a chronic waste of money that could be devoted to other much more important purposes. The LCC soon terminated its contribution to the Civil Defence Corps. A little later both this House and the other place took the same course and the Civil Defence Corps disappeared.
I should like to draw attention to two particular matters. First, I shall deal with the first principle set out in the document produced by the committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon: there should be an authority responsible for dealing with those issues which affect London as a whole, and that the authority should be directly elected by, and accountable to, the citizens of London. Those are very carefully chosen words. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Plummer. A powerful and executive mayor would not fit the pattern of London. Mayors cause enough trouble in New York, so we do not want to have any over here. Such a mayor, who is in effect a force on his own, can be an awful nuisance. We would do well not to tread that path.
Secondly, I am worried about the second part of the principle put forward in the document. In effect, it is said that the new body, whatever it is, shall not take away anything from the boroughs; its powers shall be drawn from other sources, but the boroughs must be sacrosanct, powerful and elected as they are. I have some experience of serving on a borough council. I am by no means opposed to the metropolitan boroughs, but there are some matters that should be dealt with by a central authority. If not, they will probably not be done or, if they are, they will be done badly. In my view, some functions that were carried out by the GLC in the past should be carried out by a central body. I do not want to exclude the possibility of removing some powers from the boroughs. Conceivably, they could be compensated by the award of powers more suited to boroughs if they felt that they were missing out in some way. At the moment some powers are not being exercised at all. In some cases boroughs would be glad to get rid of powers that they were not exercising anyway.
I have been speaking for nine minutes and it is about time that I sat down. I am not a member of this committee. Eight years ago, when I was 80, I decided that some things had to go, and committee work was one of them. That does not prevent me from having considerable admiration for the work that is done by this and other committees of the House.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly declare my credentials for the debate. In two weeks' time it will be my birthday, for those who wish to be reminded. I will also celebrate 55 years of living and working in London. During that time I have commuted by bicycle, car, train, and, for the benefit of the young to whom I can give an explanation subsequently, tram as well. For my sins, I was lumbered much later in life with some responsibility for London Transport and British Rail.
1222
The problem with the current debate on London is that it is bogged down with the Labour Party firmly committed to a new elected tier—and we now understand an elected mayor—and the Government basically defending the status quo, with John Gummer chairing an advisory council which includes no fewer than 12 Ministers. There is a point at which the more Ministers one has, the less attention one will get from them.
There is room for a new look in rather greater depth at the problem which, I suspect, is a matter for a Royal Commission, but I shall come back to that later. It demonstrates also that the traditional confrontational relationship which has always been a feature of London government in a very big way will continue to dominate any new elected body as it has dominated local government in London in the past.
The idea that there will be an elected mayor who will be neither a Labour candidate nor a Conservative candidate is a happy thought, but I do not believe that it is at all likely with all that that entails.
I think that it was Lenin who said:
"All problems have the seeds of their solution within them".
That may be an exaggeration, but, as a general rule, it is not a bad idea to start with an analysis of the problem before moving on to possible solutions. We have become tied down by a limited solution to a massive problem. I make that point, because the problems facing London are not just massive, deep rooted and highly complex, some of them are literally insoluble. We have to face that.
The fundamental problem for London is that the shape and size of London has evolved without interruption or anything resembling a serious plan over 700 to 800 years. Comparisons have been drawn with other capital cities. In the mid-19th century Paris was completely replanned by one man—Baron Haussmann—who demolished the slums, built a new road system, seven new bridges and a complete new sewerage system. One hundred years later West Berlin was completely rebuilt, because there was no alternative, regardless of expense.
There is a simple test. One has only to take—I make this suggestion—a street map of Paris and a street map of Berlin, and compare them with the City of London to see why the problem in London is insoluble. We are the prisoners of history; the prisoners of the design of a city which has grown in that way.
The solutions to some of the problems of modern cities are just not available to London. It is that which worries me. The problem is much greater than we believe. People believe that it is basically a political problem, when there is primarily a need for a highly sophisticated, mathematical planning exercise to make the best use of the resources in the situation in which we find ourselves.
London is unique. It is not just a very big city, it is New York and Washington combined, and then some. It dominates this country economically, it is the international financial centre, and the home of 40 per cent. of our major companies.

1223
Just to add to the problem, London's transport system, for example, serves a commuter network 200 miles wide from Worcester to Folkestone. That does not exist anywhere else in the world. It is no good thinking that there is a neat Labour Party solution or a neat Conservative Party solution. For a lot of it, there is no solution. That is the size of the problem, and, we are stuck with some aspects of that problem for the foreseeable future, while the others require a long-term and massively expensive investment programme.
With the establishment of the Government Office for London and London Pride under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, we have the basis upon which we can at least begin to analyse the problem and begin to move to a structure which would come into place relatively quickly, which would enable us at least to refrain from making a bad situation worse. In those two examples we are taking tentative steps in the right direction. But because—this is a key point which has been mentioned by others—of the unique role of London and the level of public resources involved, we have to face reality.
London is and will remain highly dependent on central government approval and finance. It is cloud-cuckoo-land to believe that any party will allow to exist indefinitely a structure over which it does not have control, with the vast sums of money and the impact on the rest of the country which are involved in London.
There has been a great deal of talk about the GLC's winding up. I do not think that it did a lot of harm. I went to some incredibly good parties there. They were not as good as those which the LCC used to throw, but they were quite good. But do not let us delude ourselves that we are simply trying to solve a problem which began when the GLC was wound up. The problem is much deeper than that.
Using the infrastructure already in place, which is already conducting surveys in the areas in which we are interested, a restructured GOL could provide the back office for a strategic authority. The regional director's role would be upgraded—call him a chief executive, a director or a commissioner. This concern with titles to define fashionable gladiators of the moment I find strange. It does not change much, but it makes people happy. He would be a major figure immediately. It needs taking out of central government but given the status of a department.
London Pride, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, has already set out its priorities for London: first, business growth; secondly, raising skill levels; thirdly, improving transport; and, fourthly, improving environmental quality. They are all very much the type of things that we all want.
Many of the key players with London Pride are also members of the Government's advisory panel. Among them, they represent all the key organisations, including the political parties. So what about the democratic deficit? I must say that with over 2,000 elected local authority members, 74 MPs and 10 MEPs, I find that problem exaggerated. We need to approach the problem in a new way.
1224
I suggest that we look at Commons Select Committees. They have a considerable reputation and unique powers. Under chairmen such as Terry Higgins at the Treasury and Frank Field at Social Affairs they are major and influential bodies. They have the power to order Ministers to attend, and they do attend. If we approach the matter in that way and use the structures which already exist with a London Select Committee in the House of Commons, that would give us time to set up a Royal Commission to take a serious look at the problem.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. I had the pleasure and the honour of sitting on a committee of this House to consider the Croydon tramlink Bill which was under his able chairmanship. It was also a great pleasure to hear the two model maiden speeches.
I do not have the credentials of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, but I have one credential which he did not mention. Although I often ride a bicycle in London and drive almost daily because I do not live near an Underground station, from time to time I ride pillion on a motorbike. I have lived and worked in London not for 55 years but for 47 and I hope that that gives me the necessary credentials. Furthermore, I have been a committee member of the Automobile Association for 15 years.
I am personally frustrated by the traffic congestion, the lack of co-ordination and the ubiquitous roadworks which appear like a virus without warning or apparent plan on London's busiest roads—for example, on the Strand—and by the arrogant and arbitrary rearrangement of one-way streets without reference or notice to the local residents, let alone concern for their convenience. However, I wish to go beyond personal considerations.
The recent Blackwall Tunnel incident is one of the practical manifestations of the transport problems which exist in London today. Perhaps I may refresh your Lordships' memories. About a month ago an over-height vehicle became stuck at the entrance to the Blackwall Tunnel. It caused a traffic jam for three hours. East London came to a standstill. There was no one to take overall responsibility for the emergency. Another manifestation of the problem is the confusion over funding and timing, which year after year bedevils the repair work to the Hammersmith Bridge. Who is responsible for emergencies, as in the former case, and for funding and management, as in the latter? Nobody! As the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said when making his fourth point, we need a responsible and accountable person to exercise control.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a few statistics. There are more than 40 highway authorities within the M.25 which are responsible for roads. They include 33 London boroughs, the Home Counties, the British Airports Authority and the Secretary of State for Transport. There are trunk roads, designated roads, local roads and a primary route network. Under reserve

1225
powers, the London Traffic Control Systems Unit is responsible for computer controlled traffic lights and variable message signs within Greater London. A statutory traffic director for London, appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport, is responsible for the implementation of the Red Route network. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner is responsible for parking enforcement on Red Routes, but not on local roads, and for traffic law enforcement. A statutory London Parking Committee is responsible for co-ordinating London parking policy matters. A lorry ban is run by a statutory committee from the boroughs. I have not even mentioned the fact that there is a Minister for Transport in London and that John Gummer is overall Minister with special responsibility for London. Involved in transport decision making in London is London Regional Transport, the London Planning Advisory Committee, the South East Planning Conference, Railtrack and franchised rail services which are responsible for mainline and regional services. No wonder there is confusion on London roads. No wonder we who live in London are bewildered and frustrated.
There are two tiny glimmers of hope. The Automobile Association's public affairs director has asked the Minister, John Bowis, to review in particular how the London-wide effect of incidents such as Blackwall could be better managed. I understand that the Government have accepted the AA's advice to look at incident management on Britain's motorways and are now consulting on regional traffic control centres. Those will cut across the boundaries of the highway authorities and the police.
I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, that there is a transport strategy for London. That is very good news indeed and I only hope that we can find a co-ordinator to implement transport planning for London and the South East. That might be a strategic authority for London, an overall mayor and elected executive or the noble Lord's champion.
I cannot help thinking of Dr. Johnson. I assure your Lordships that I am not tired of life but I am heartily sick and tired of transport confusion. The present fragmentation of responsibilities is unacceptable. Today I have heard of the democratic deficit in London. I believe that it is in urgent need of some democratic credit.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the fact that we are having the debate, so powerfully introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, is a sign that the abolition of the GLC created a vacuum. I liked the GLC. I was not among the seething masses of elected borough councillors of many parties, nor a Minister. However, as an ordinary London person who does not drive a car and is too afraid to travel by bicycle or ride pillion, I believe that the fares fair policy was the only economically rational way of running public transport. Indeed, it was profitable. How many people remember that?
1226
London transport used to work in those days. Ask any taxi driver to learn that the traffic problem in London has worsened! No doubt the Minister will say that that is a result of prosperity, but other world cities try not to have traffic problems despite prosperity.
One might say that the GLC was useless and expensive. However, I imagine that if someone added up the financial cost of all the quangos and the cost of Ministers' time in forming committees, to say nothing of the invaluable time of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere—no doubt the cost would be hefty—we are not saving much money having abolished the GLC. Furthermore, we are wasting a great deal of time in not achieving good results.
I should like to put in a good word for ILEA which does not receive much praise. Three of my children went to comprehensive schools run by ILEA and had a very good education. ILEA did a lot for music which is very difficult on a borough-wide basis. Children's music requires economies of size. The London Institute, which has co-ordinated the colleges of art in London, is another achievement of ILEA. Therefore, it should not be denigrated. When the GLC was abolished, it may not have been popular with borough councils. However, a poll showed that 75 per cent. of people favoured its continuation and only 25 per cent. were against.
We must consider the GLC as one of the many solutions proposed over the past 200 years for the running of London. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, say that we should not think so much of solutions; rather, we should find out what the problem is and what the problems are. We should determine which set of problems can be solved by a strategic authority and which remain insoluble.
First, I should say that in a sense, when looking at the problem of London, we should not think of it so much as a city but as a region which has different boundaries depending upon which function of London we are thinking of. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, mentioned the 200-mile transport corridor. People come into London; they commute. Therefore, London's health needs during the day are different from those at night. London businesses have a global reach. If there was a power breakdown in London, it would have worldwide consequences. Therefore, we must think of London as being of different shapes and sizes and we must try to see which solution is appropriate for a particular problem.
I should perhaps draw the attention of noble Lords to a document I found called Creating a sustainable London which is published by something called the Sustainable London Trust. It is very interesting because it looks at the problem of London within the environmental framework of sustainability. It asks how London can be made sustainable for people who live and work in London as well as from the point of view of transport and finance and other such matters. It makes a wide variety of suggestions, especially about local participation. It proposes a London citizens' forum for discussing matters. Far too often, when we think of a democracy, we think of people being elected to sit on

1227
councils. But that means election only once every four years. We need to have the continual participation of London's citizens.
London generates something close to £80 to £90 billion of the GDP of the UK. It is larger than Saudi Arabia from that point of view. We think of London as a city but we should think of it as a region. We have had many debates on devolution. London does not have a separate ethnic population so that it is treated slightly worse than Scotland or Wales. If we think about it, there are Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales but there is no Secretary of State for London. Why not? A Secretary of State for London might be a quick and dirty, as it were, solution to the problem. We have a Minister responsible for London but he has many other responsibilities. When one thinks of the size and importance of London and the particular financial problem which it poses, then I do not believe that it is adequate to have a Minister who has a responsibility for London among other things. We need to think about that. It may be that that would be a better solution than an elected mayor for London. It is not a bad idea to have an elected mayor but if he is to be a chief executive he must have a supporting cast of a small body of efficient commissioners, or something like that. That can perhaps be achieved by elevating people who are already dealing with such matters as road traffic problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said. But the position of mayor in itself is not the solution; it is only part of it. We must think much wider than that.
We need to have something like the Abercrombie Plan and we must think at that level. We have new tools and new needs. Information technology has changed quite a lot of things. It may be that a strategic authority for London should not be a body but a series of functions and solutions, some of which could be co-ordinated either through a Secretary of State for London or through some sort of revived M.25 area authority or by a single mayor.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that there is not a single solution because finance will always be a problem. No large city ever finances itself because, while it generates a lot of income, it is difficult to capture that income into taxation without killing a lot of activity in the city. Therefore, London will need a central transfer because Londoners contribute in other ways to the national economy.
Whether or not London gets its fair share is a matter of rather tedious calculation, and perhaps a Royal Commission might do that. But more important, any solution must incorporate recent developments rather than make a break with what has happened in the past 10 years. Secondly, it must harness a lot of the private energy, from both business and citizens, which exists in London. Far too often we think in terms of elected councils and elected people. The rank-and-file of London citizens have a lot of energy and they may be able to generate some of the solutions we are looking for.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I do not think that the British particularly like planners or planning. They do not seem to have any great love for them. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, one casts one's mind back to the Great Fire of London. Sir Christopher Wren produced a great radial plan for rebuilding the city of London which would, I suppose, have made it rather like Paris, which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, also mentioned. But the city fathers choked on that and immediately started rebuilding along the old dense and cluttered building lines. Today, they may be charming but they are clogged with pedestrians and transport.
To advert to more modern times, the County of London Plan conceived during 1944, and later, had the idea of green fingers of land coming radially into inner London. But the only one that was ever built—or perhaps a better word is laid out—was the Lea Valley Park and that runs parallel rather than inward.
Next, we had the Greater London Development Plan of the early 1970s which took several years to produce. In fact, it took so long that perhaps the reason that it was never deeply implemented was that it was out of date by the time it was published. It was certainly a monumental read.
To me, the two central issues of strategic planning for a strategic authority for London are traffic and transport and land use. I believe that those are seminal and I do not wish to return to a debate on the merits of the return to an old-style GLC which, by the time of its abolition, had a finger in every pie.
I start with traffic and transport. It is a fact that in broad terms, 60 per cent. of London transport, which is mainly cars and vans, brings in only 15 per cent. of the workforce. Measures must be taken to limit the use of the car and travellers must be persuaded to use the buses and the Underground. But the former are often very slow because of other traffic and the latter is chronically under-funded as at present constituted. Privatisation may relieve that but there are now too many unpremeditated hold-ups due to such matters as defective trains, signal failures and so on.
I am a dedicated tube user partly because I have no sense of direction. I get lost in large shops and, indeed, even in other people's houses. With the tube, I always know where I am and there is the opportunity to read the paper or a book, which is not possible in the car.
But it is necessary to move back from those particulars to the general. First and foremost, strategic planning of traffic and transport in London can be organised only on a global scale by an authority encompassing all London. If, for example, we want to build a freeway across London, at present up to 33 local authorities are involved. What happens is that Hackney may perhaps not want it so it pushes it on to neighbouring Islington which, in turn, shoves it on to neighbouring Camden. Colossal debate and delay follows. I have always been an admirer of the French in that aspect who seem just to hand down a route and it gets built. Hence the TGV network, or perhaps I should say "tay jay vay", has rapidly spread over much of the country, bringing immense savings in travelling time

1229
which benefit the economy. We do not seem able to do this. The Englishman's home is his castle, not to be threatened by anything from authority above. I wonder whether part of that is due to the fact that we are perhaps parsimonious over payments for demolition or disturbance.
Traffic and transport in London need a bird's eye view. Perhaps the only example is the red routes which have a director of transport, but his brief extends only to those routes. I know a little about them because the original pilot red route passed some 50 yards from my front door in the Republic of Islington. But that pilot was partly an abortion, intended to extend from Archway into the City—that is, north of the borough into the City. It had to stop prematurely at the Angel traffic lights because the further part was not an MoT Highway as classified but under local authority control, and Islington council was firmly against red routes. Strategic planning of traffic and transport by a strategic authority might have overcome that obstacle.
We all know that London is slowly clogging up with traffic and it is small consolation to know that average speeds in London are, I believe, 2.1 miles per hour faster than Paris. A red double-decker bus will carry 72 passengers, which is the equivalent of about 50 cars as the majority of cars are single-person occupied. Park-and-ride schemes have brought a little relief, but that is often spoilt by a disproportionately high charge being levied for the parking at fringe stations. Neither is British Rail financially a particularly economic way to travel. It is said that the tube is the most expensive transportation system in Europe. Certainly to travel a mile or two on the tube at £1.20 does not compare favourably with the present 60p. on a bus.
I turn now to land use. London is a big city because of its vast sprawling suburbs unlike, for example, a city like Sheffield which has a dense centre within which the Derbyshire dales are accessible practically within walking distance. In the same way as we have green belt for the countryside with its strategic planning and rules and regulations, we need a detailed strategically planned overview, perhaps an urban belt, for London.
At the highest level a body is needed to decide where developments may take place and what type they should be—for example, houses, shops, supermarkets, green space—and where alternatively regenerating existing stock should be paramount. "Ah", I hear some noble Lords say, "each local authority has an approved unitary plan". I should like to give noble Lords an example as to how effective one such plan may be. In the north of Islington there has been a large derelict site off the Holloway Road for many years. A leading name supermarket put in an application to build a superstore. That was turned down by the planning committee in that it contravened the unitary plan. But the proposal was hijacked by a meeting of the full council which, nonetheless, gave it the go-ahead. Appeals to the Secretary of State then gave it the thumbs down but all that involved residents in much anxiety, endless pressure group meetings, demonstrations and, no doubt, large legal fees. It was all wasted effort because we have ended up with a large derelict site with no agreed use,
1230
which is what we started with. A famous victory, but so much exhausting effort to get back to where everyone started. A strategic plan with teeth might have avoided all that, to coin a favourite French word, brouhaha.
Unitary plans have their undoubted uses but, in the end, are 33 jigsaw pieces—one for each local authority. They are drawn up largely to meet local needs and are far from being a strategic plan for London as a whole when assembled together. In a way, they are a series of ivory towers. The general land use of London may not be at all attuned to what a given borough thinks is best for its residents. There is of course a place for a unitary plan, but it should be developed after a general planning strategy for London has been evolved, not in isolation.
I return to my opening point. The British do not like authoritarian plans. Hence people protesting in tree-houses, which is rather old-hat now that "Swampy" has gone literally underground with his fellow Troglodytes. The originally brilliant previous Prime Minister failed in the end largely, I believe, because of her authoritarianism in a country where, for example, in many pubs there is a choice of jug or straight glass for drinking your beer out of. God forbid that the landlord should lay down one or the other.
We are historically a nation of amateurs and dilettantes. Yet a strategic authority would do so much good for London. The main problem is getting people to realise this. As Sir Hugh Casson observed, London is like a sock with holes in it. But, he said, to mend it we need the best quality darning thread and the best needlework for, unlike an old sock, the one thing that we cannot do with London is throw it away.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I have no wish this afternoon to go into the whys and wherefores of a possible strategic authority as most noble Lords have done. However, I feel that it is necessary to point out some of what is successful in London at present, in addition to some of those activities already mentioned, and to establish where we are coming from. I wish to talk a little about the City of London. After all, the City co-existed with the LCC and the GLC for many years and there were no problems then and, indeed, no problems are foreseen in the future. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to mention some of the City's work, which is totally inseparable from that of the Lord Mayor himself whom many see as performing purely a ceremonial role, which is untrue.
It may surprise some noble Lords to know that the City Corporation predates Parliament. It is very different from the boroughs, which of course are statutory creations. The corporation's duties and powers rest on its position as a common law corporation. The constitution is unique, and I should declare an interest in that I am a member of a livery company in the City. The City Corporation's rights are derived from prescription, custom, charters and Acts of Parliament. The Court of Common Council exercises the functions of a local authority and a police authority.
Transport is of course a very important factor. It is very important for the whole of London, and that is one of the reasons why something has to be done. Moreover,

1231
maintenance and enhancement of the world's leading international finance centre is vital. The City has introduced many innovations, in co-operation with other institutions like the Bank of England, such as the Financial Law Panel, the City Disputes Panel and the City Research Project, to name but three.
Perhaps I may draw on a little experience relating to the City Disputes Panel. At the time of some earlier decisions there was nothing like it. In April 1484, in the reign of Richard III, there was an enormous dispute between the Skinners Company and the Merchant Taylors Company as to who should have precedence. At that time, Mayor Billesden was asked to give a verdict. The verdict was that they should alternate between the 6th and 7th at every Easter but that they must give each other a dinner every year. Well, that has happened ever since 1484 with a few interruptions for wars, but that is where the expression "being at sixes and sevens" derives.
The City also provides arts facilities, markets, open spaces, port health services, housing, drug combating services and enormous charitable activities. It helps with the regeneration of inner London; tourism; it has a cross-river partnership; the Pool of London partnership; and a fringe partnership especially for the northern and eastern fringes of London. Some of those partnerships were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sheppard. In all aspects, I am quite sure that the City will seek to work effectively with any strategic authority, or whatever comes about.
The Lord Mayor goes overseas quite a lot and acts as a roving ambassador not only for the City but for London and the United Kingdom as a whole. This is nearly always done in consultation with the Treasury, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the DTI, the Bank of England and many others. On his visits he is normally accompanied by business delegations. He opens a great many doors for industry and commerce. Shortly the Lord Mayor will go to Pakistan and India. This will tie in with the visit of "Britannia" and will help to celebrate the 50 years of independence of those countries. I think the Lord Mayor will assist in opening new business opportunities there.
It can only be beneficial to the United Kingdom to ensure that opportunities to promote the interests of this country overseas are maintained and if possible enhanced. The interface between any future strategic authority and the existing Lord Mayor should ensure that the role of the former adds to and complements the existing efforts.
As has been said by many, the City cannot always speak for the whole of London, important as it is. So whether what results is an enlarged partnership, a statutory body or something else, the two roles of the City and whatever emerges can work together and harmonise their efforts for the good of all people in each and every borough of this great city.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, first of all, I wish to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for not being
1232
present at the beginning of the debate because I was attending a conference at the Royal College of Physicians on the relationship between poverty and health. I have come from Regent's Park on a bicycle at some risk to life and limb, but I am here.
The conference that I have just attended has some relevance to our topic, the need for a strategic authority for London. I suggest that there are problems and mechanisms which are associated with poverty and poor health which would benefit from a cross-borough perspective. Some of these problems are concentrated particularly in the inner London boroughs which have much higher levels of deprivation and its associated problems of homelessness, rough sleepers, alcohol and drug abuse, prostitution and high crime levels, and greater numbers of mentally-ill people living in the community. That section of the population makes higher demands on the National Health Service at primary and secondary levels but it also makes high demands on the social services, housing departments, crime prevention and criminal justice systems.
The people I am talking about are no respecters of borough boundaries. I think of Christopher Clunis, the mentally-ill patient who killed Jonathan Zito. He moved around from one borough to another and from one health authority to another and each one divested itself of responsibility. The authorities were not sure whether he was a social services responsibility or a health authority responsibility. Is it right that the 12 or so inner London boroughs should each have to cope separately with these social problems? I am aware that the inner London boroughs receive an augmented central government support grant because of their special socio-economic problems, but is that enough? Is it efficient to replicate the services 12 or more times over? Some boroughs are struggling—some would say all of them are—with these problems and sometimes fail altogether to provide help or sometimes provide help which is of too low a standard.
That is not merely a question of lack of financial resources but also of skilled people. It is not easy to find the right skills to cope with some of the more difficult people in our community. I suggest that a strategic authority could provide support and monitor the extent of and variations of these problems. If it had a good financial base, perhaps levied by a precept from each individual borough—as was the case with the GLC—staff, buildings and other facilities to deal with these problems could be located where they were most needed, regardless of the ability of the borough concerned to initiate them.
Of course health services as such are provided by the National Health Service. The needs of the population of each district health authority or commission—in London the health authorities are usually but not always coterminous with two or more adjacent boroughs—are theoretically determined by that authority and the required services purchased by the health authority from community and hospital trusts. That arrangement is good in principle but leaves much to be desired in practice. I do not intend to discuss that in this debate; that is for a health debate.

1233
The role of the regional health authorities—the next higher tier—has been diminished and their number has been reduced, but they still provide an important monitoring role on the overall needs of their population, particularly with regard to the tertiary, more specialist, hospital services. It has always seemed illogical that London was split into four separate regional health authorities. Now they have been reduced to two—North Thames and South Thames—which is an improvement but the reach of these authorities goes far outside London itself and includes the Home Counties. There are historical reasons for that arrangement but these have largely changed. I think that if a strategic authority for London were established it should be matched—or could be matched, at least—by a regional health office which dealt with all London's health problems together. The Home Counties could possibly be joined on to their adjacent contiguous regions. London would thus have coterminous boundaries for monitoring its overall health and social needs.
It makes sense to consider bringing social and health services closer together as all health problems of course have social connotations. I favour much closer links at a lower level also between district health authorities and the social services departments of the boroughs they serve, at the same time as having the much greater accountability of the district health authorities to their local populations. That, of course, is a part of Labour's health policy.
When the Inner London Education Authority was disbanded, a dedicated and effective network of special educational services was taken apart and almost destroyed. Some of it has been put back together again but it is patchy. Schools and other centres for blind, deaf, physically, mentally and emotionally handicapped children are often not viable if they are based on the population of a single borough. Attempts to return statemented children—that is, children with problems—back to mainstream education because some of the special schools have had to be closed may have been the right policy for some of these children but for others it has been found to be inappropriate. Some schools now have to contain disruptive children because the out of school units which were available to refer the children have now been closed. Those special schools were expensive to run, and transport which sometimes involved crossing borough boundaries was not cheap either; but the service was widely admired by visitors from all over the world and much appreciated by the children and parents. A strategic authority would be able to identify how many special schools and centres were needed. Often only one for blind and deaf children is required for several boroughs.
Other noble Lords have talked about transport; I shall not follow down that road. However, I shall refer briefly to the London Ambulance Service. It was once London's pride. I do not refer simply to the Daimler ambulances which were ordered in 1946 so that ordinary citizens should have the best. Although the Daimler ambulances only did seven miles to the gallon, they clocked up half a million miles of service before being sold, some to families who have used them since as
1234
mobile homes. Since transfer to a trust, there has been a series of hiccups in the London Ambulance Service due to inadequate management and an unwise premature switch to communication and control technology which failed dismally on a number of occasions. I suggest that it would be far better under an accountable elected authority.
Others have spoken about the Metropolitan Police. It seems logical to bring them under an all-London authority rather than central government. While I have always been well served by London police, I believe that it would serve London's citizens better if its senior officers were accountable to an elected local body rather than to the Home Secretary.
I believe that a new, slimmed down elected strategic body should be created, with a limited number of functions but with the clout and financial basis to carry out those functions effectively.
6.31 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I must apologise to the House and the noble Earl for my somewhat tardy arrival in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I fear that I am sometimes becoming known as "the late Lord Stockton".
While welcoming the broad thrust of the ideas that have been outlined in the debate, I share the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about the undesirability of over-egging this particular pudding. However, I wish to raise some issues about the relationship between any new authority, ministry, or whatever solution, and the existing local authorities in the boroughs and the City of London. Perhaps at this point I should declare an interest. I am a member of the court of two of the livery companies in the City.
In looking at the future of a government for London I think that we should look equally carefully at the past. We all know that unlike many other cities that have been planned or rebuilt with a single vision, London started out as a collection of two towns either side of the downstream ford across the river and a series of villages and hamlets that grew up alongside the Thames, as well as in the higher and more salubrious ground to the north and south of the marshy basin that is central London.
Each of these communities has retained and developed an identity that transcends the mere administrative boundaries that have been imposed over the years. If noble Lords were to ask a New Yorker where he is from, he will reply, "New York". If one asks a Londoner he will say Stepney or Poplar, Highgate or Clerkenwell, Chelsea or Dollis Hill. A few years ago I was in Israel, sitting on a bus, and tried to strike up a conversation with my elderly neighbour. My Hebrew is, I fear, very limited and was clearly not getting through, so I tried in German, French and Spanish to no avail. Finally, I said very slowly and clearly, "Have you ever been to London?", and was rewarded with a nod. I asked, "Do you like London?" to which he replied, "No, I hate the bleeding place. I was town clerk of Shoreditch for 15 years".

1235
As the founding chairman of the Central London Training and Enterprise Council, and one-time representative of London on the Secretary of State's consultative body, the TEC National Council, I endorse the need for more cohesion in the decision-making process, in particular for things like education and employment. It would be appropriate at this juncture to recognise the remarkable efforts that have been put into this work by my noble friend Lord Sheppard as the first chairman of London First.
However, there is a risk that in looking at the macro picture of London, we lose sight of the role and importance of the very local community. Like many, I have always lived in the same neighbourhood—in my case within less than a mile of Victoria—have tended to use the same shops, market, and restaurants, and have an abysmal ignorance of the bus routes outside the half a dozen that I use. In developing the strategic picture, we must recall that it will work only if it is made up of a mosaic of neighbourhoods.
Another area of concern is the representation of London abroad and in the rest of the country—a role carried out for centuries by the Lord Mayor of London. That has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Newall. I suspect that few Londoners see anything of the work of the mayoralty beyond the Lord Mayor's Show and are unaware of his function as ambassador abroad, which needs to be understood so that the potential for friction between him and any new authority, mayor or leader (or whatever we call him) is to be avoided.
The economic importance of the City is now widely appreciated as is the fact that the financial sector operates outside the boundaries of the square mile. In 1995 the net overseas earnings of this sector exceeded £20 billion. The fact that the Lord Mayor is not a party politician but the head of an authority which has represented the commercial heart of this country for 800 years has a much greater impact abroad than at home.
I do not think that Londoners want to be represented by an expensive "supermayor" any more than they voted to be represented by the honourable Member for Brent East in another place. And in any event the Lord Mayor does the ceremonial job for the whole of London very satisfactorily and at absolutely no cost to the boroughs or the majority of the people of London.
The Lord Mayor and the Corporation of London form a unique institution. There is no other local authority like it, but before we throw it out in the current bizarre spirit of constitutional change for change's sake, let us examine the reasons behind the City of London's governance. Curiously, I should have thought that it would be more to the taste of noble Lords opposite than it would appear. The Court of Common Council, and the Court of Aldermen have always been elected by the residents in the wards that go to make up the square mile, and the sheriffs, the Lord Mayor and a number of other officers of the Corporation by the members of the 100 livery companies.
The first of those companies emerged during the Middle Ages as combinations of people engaged in the same trade in order to protect their livelihood, ensure
1236
proper working practices and maintain quality of product and consumer protection as well as standards of training, commercial propriety and ethical practice. The trades of the guild built and funded schools, many of which survive to this day; constructed alms-houses and set an example of charity and care that is still significant in the modern welfare state although it pre-dates it by some 600 years. In many ways the constitution of the City is a forerunner of that of the Labour Party, with representation elected by both the citizens and what was in effect the first trades council.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that while the future government of London must reflect the demands and the needs of the next 100 years, it is worth bearing in mind that old Yankee maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
It has been an interesting debate, as wide-ranging as London itself, and reflecting as many concerns as there are Londoners. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for providing your Lordships' House with the opportunity to discuss the future of what is after all the nation's capital city.
6.38 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for initiating this important debate. In an article in the Independent on Sunday on 11th February 1996, Neal Ascherson says,
"To be a city requires more than houses and people. It needs an … 'imagined community', or the conviction that other inhabitants in distant streets, whom one will never meet or see, share elements of a common culture and react to events as one would react oneself. Looking at London and Londoners, it is not easy to have faith in that sense of cohesion … London can seem like a predicament rather than a place".
A city needs to hear its own voice; and as a Londoner myself I want to hear the voice of the city. Yet I cannot assume what this voice sounds like, as I cannot assume what together we would mean by the term "common culture", or predict and prescribe what form any "cohesion" might take. Yet I believe that individual people, in hearing the voice of the city. would more clearly hear their own voices; then suddenly finding that they themselves are joining in a conversation.
An individual person, a group of people, a city, a nation: a multitude of conversations together, working at and between many levels (the true definition, I believe, of government), building into a network of primarily cultural connections.
The French philosopher Gilles Deleuze, approvingly quotes the famous dictum of the film director, Jean-Luc Godard: "Not the just ideas, just ideas".
The whole question which underlies this debate is the relationship between scale and power. A German artist, Leif Liebenschutz, who lives in London, has suggested to me that the lack of London's awareness of its own culture in relationship to that of other city cultures (including, most importantly, its own) is its culture. For power is still maintained, filling the vacuum caused by the absence of these conversations, whilst the blanket-like "grand plan" of the free market subsumes culture, replacing it with the static common culture of consensus.

1237
But a multitude of conversations—this other possibility—is always in flux; it is dynamic and unpredictable in form. I hear bits of conversations, but I am not aware of a multitude of them. By the standards of most other European cities, London is a remarkably multi-cultural city; yet there is no real connection between the different parts, or cultural regions.
Any culture in isolation, whatever level we might identify it with—a person, a group of people, a city, or others—is not an independent culture: it is unable to contribute to a conversation. It remains hardly a culture, for culture is created through these conversations, by reaching out and making connections, transforming itself and others in the process. The reverse is also true. London cannot even talk to other cities in the United Kingdom, let alone abroad. Yet a city will be able to participate in conversations with other cities or regions, and with other levels, only if they also have a significant political and financial autonomy, creating at a larger scale a network of regions, a city-state culture.
As Neil Ascherson says,
"A disconnected city is a provincial city"—
and I believe that that is so, irrespective of the commercial might that a city has. In London, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the emphasis lies in the preservation of cultural experience—even, or perhaps particularly, of culture which is brand new, or at least newly packaged, since the prevailing ideology, that of the economy, sees culture primarily as product. So many artistic projects, to take that as an example, despite their seeming potential, are treated in that way—bought, sold (perhaps), and then are gone: they appear, to disappear.
We live not in a direct culture but a deferred one. We wish to create culture rather than be controlled by a heritage of power. That is why the United Kingdom has a Department of National Heritage and not, as it should have, a "Ministry for Culture".
There is a sense in which all people are in government, not in terms of the vote every few years, since there is now a feeling in the air that that may in the end be only a small part of what government might become, but because of the growing identification between culture and government. Certain voices and projects are in their own way, as much as, for example, the road protests in the West Country and elsewhere, direct actions which deliberately circumvent the power of Westminster in order to make a connection with others. In some ways the lobbying aspect of the road protestors, although clearly important, is their least interesting aspect. More significantly, they are a form of creative self-government, or an attempt towards the possibility of government.
In order to come to meet these attempts, there needs to take place an extension of government, which is quite different from what is variously called dispersal, spread or devolution. Many people and groups of people have to be directly involved in governmental decision-making and, in particular, people outside the orbit of mainstream party politics.
1238
I agree very much with the idea of a single London government—and as part of a deeper, wider and more uncertain political network. I take issue with the use of both the terms "authority" and "strategic"—"strategic" because that already implies a prescribing of a common culture; "authority" because, once prescribed, that culture is maintained or preserved. I prefer the idea of an assembly, which, at its most real, might become a physical manifestation of the imagined community, an uncertain meeting between all levels of government, not a characteristic of an assumed common culture, but government as an event—a multitude of conversations.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I, too, am a Londoner: I have lived here continuously since 1958. In "living" I include weekends. I enjoy living in London, but there are pluses and minuses in doing so. If you work in London, the absence of the daily commute is a real plus. So, too, is the availability of well-stocked stores and restaurants from every country in the world. A summer evening in London is still a joy; so, too, is a walk along the Thames towpath. Looking back, I remember the Clean Air Act, which got rid of the smog in the late 1950s and meant that, instead of net curtains turning yellow, they went slowly brown and thereafter, if not washed, turned black.
That brings me to a recital of the minuses in London life. There is still a lot of pollution in the London air. Traffic makes it worse. And traffic which is stationary due to congestion makes it lethal. Ten years ago London was relatively quiet. Today, every police car, fire engine and ambulance seems not only to be fitted with the loudest possible bell and siren but to be in competition with New York to see which city can make most noise most often. You can often tell which district you are in simply by the amount of litter in the streets, and while bus services seem to be improving, to be sure of arrival on time you need to add another 15 minutes if you travel on the Underground.
It is time for me to declare my interests. I am a member of the all-party Lords London Group. I propose to talk about transport. I believe in the need for a champion for London to add the weight necessary—not just to improve the minuses which affect us, the residents, but also to ensure that London remains attractive to visitors. A quarter of a million people commute daily into the City; 7 million tourists visit it annually; and 90 per cent. of all those people use public transport. Will that continue with a deteriorating Underground and congested roads? What is the future for UK invisibles if our clients avoid the City of London?
We need a better London strategy for transport. We need someone to shout our wares: to remind the nation of the importance of the City, to wake people up to the part that London plays in the fortunes of the rest of the nation and to do something about the motor car in London. We need a "personality"—let us call him "governor", so that we do not confuse him with the Lord Mayor of London. Let us give him a think-tank, but avoid adding a third layer to London's governance.

1239
I am president of ITS Focus. ITS stands for intelligent transport systems. Such systems pass messages to and from moving vehicles. Let me offer examples. Some noble Lords will be familiar with the variable message signs which tell people that the M.25 is blocked or with the camera that records the number plate when motorists break the speed limit in the suburbs. They may know about Scoot, the world-beating traffic light system which maximises London's traffic flow. They may also have heard, as my noble friend mentioned earlier, about regional traffic authorities. There is one in Scotland called Scotia and another in what is known as the Birmingham envelope. They exist as a result of the existence of intelligent transport systems.
There are some intelligent systems of which noble Lords may not know, either because they do not show up or because no one has yet ordered them. It is possible to obtain in-car systems using maps, audio, or both, to direct people on their route. The service tells them, while they are still in the car, which car parks still have spaces. A multi-modal trip planner is emerging to encourage people to use public transport where it is bound to be quicker. There are already information systems that tell people at a bus stop when the next bus will arrive. London Transport's Stopwatch indicators already do that on some routes. But the system can be extended; it is possible to find out on your PC before you venture out into the rain. Systems also exist which stop over-height vehicles. I can tell my noble friend Lady Brigstock of a documented case of a Czech driver about to enter a Swiss tunnel who was stopped by an intelligent transport system before he hit the tunnel. He was removed and fined heavily. So they are around and they can be used.
The bus uses road space at least 20 times as efficiently as a private car on average and could do even better if we worked at it. Use of contactless smart cards will mean no more waiting to board the bus while the person in front searches for the right change. Buses can travel down red routes, receiving automatic priority at traffic lights. As for cars, they can probably be charged for entering each section of London.
Surely, the combination of all those measures ought to improve traffic speeds, reduce congestion and hence reduce pollution, make public transport more attractive and allow the emergency services to reach destinations faster and with less noise. So why is that not happening? To be fair, some of it is. But in my view it is happening in an unco-ordinated way and without that focus on London's needs which someone whose sole responsibility is to London would bring.
The most well known transport need for which such a person would be fighting is capital to maintain and enhance London Underground. The City of London would ballot City firms for the right to raise capital for the improvement of London's rail and Underground network if it had any confidence that the Treasury would leave that ring-fenced for London's transport needs. I may say that France and Germany already raise money specially for transport alone.
But there are other less well known improvements which would also attract a sharper focus from a champion. I mentioned some of the improvements to
1240
make buses more acceptable. There are five or six different schemes at the moment in differing stages of progress, for completion at different dates between now and, say, 2005. I am convinced that, if those were properly co-ordinated for a common launch, they would achieve a far greater effect than they would do piecemeal.
Let us not forget what was, in my view, a GLC triumph. It cut Underground fares by nearly half and promptly increased its usage significantly. The problem was that the service was not good enough to hold the new traffic and so the effort was eventually wasted. I believe that buses, which are already improved through better routing, can improve services further through their new systems and can then hold their increased passenger levels.
Cameras are exciting. Not only have speed cameras cut the accident rate in the 40 mile an hour suburbs by 30 per cent. or more, but in the City of London—a single authority with its own police force—public cameras and private security cameras are now networked together and cover the whole area, street by street. The so-called "ring of steel" is said to be responsible for the reduction in crime, while the camera network has clearly helped the increased rates of conviction. Both those initiatives come from a single authority with the power to act for itself. That seems to me good evidence for what can be done by one authority acting for London.
Finally, I turn to what I consider to be the most important matter of all. I submit that there is a need to charge private vehicles variable rates depending on the part of London in which they wish to travel. Smaller cities already do so. For example, Oslo raises £60 million per annum based on £1 per car day. Edinburgh contemplates doing the same to raise some £50 million. Of course, London is much larger. The Department of Transport says that that is why charging will not work and that its consultant confirms it. It adds that the public will not accept congestion charging. Therefore such a policy is unenforceable.
I disagree on both counts. The executive summary of the MVA consultancy report, referring to charging a vehicle for crossing a boundary, states that,
"the necessary technology for a system which would meet the needs of London is not yet proven, though in live use elsewhere".
The DoT took that as a good reason not to proceed, but I suggest that a London-only authority might at least have researched that further and perhaps even sanctioned a small technical pilot scheme based on intelligent communications and a dummy accounting system. Incidentally, I should add that electronic car number plates would solve a great number of problems. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Sheppard will have some of those things considered by his partnerships with London Pride.
As to public acceptance, I and thousands of others who live in London are accustomed to paying an annual levy for the privilege of parking our cars outside our front doors or, indeed, as near to them as we can get. We are properly hounded by ever more efficiently networked traffic wardens, by clamping units and, in

1241
Westminster, by lorries which remove our cars when we transgress. I have not yet heard of riots in the streets because of those law enforcers. It is true that electronic tolling is still relatively unknown and some citizens would certainly look for ways to beat the system. But I do not see enough evidence of experimentation, and the current policy, which seems to rely on motorists giving up if the congestion gets too bad, is both a policy of despair and environmentally daft.
I have seen university papers which argue about whether the cost to the whole of the UK from congestion—based solely on time of travel and thus excluding the cost to our health and the environment—is £20 billion or £10 billion per annum. Separately, I have seen the CBI reported to have estimated £15 billion. Even accepting the £10 billion lower figure, there are massive potential benefits to be obtained from reducing congestion, increasing travel by public transport and ensuring that the City of London remains pre-eminent, not least because it has excellent communications of every type, including road and rail.
I maintain that there is a better chance of such an achievement with a champion for London.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for introducing the debate and the All-Party Group on London, which is a very welcome move, as also for providing the opportunity for two quite different and excellent maiden speeches. The noble Earl's introduction to the debate represented the strand of intelligent, non-party political concern which characterises the debate right across London at the point we have now reached.
There seems to be widespread consensus that something must be done. I differ from the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, in that I believe that the public thinks that London is broken and does need fixing. Certainly, the latest opinion poll which I have seen, conducted by MORI toward the end of last year, suggested that about the same proportion of people as in 1986 felt that we needed a single authority and that that authority should be elected; but that now, one in two residents of London says that London has become worse since 1986.
The noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Tope, referred to the functions of an authority. In progressing this debate, I hope we can show that we have learnt from the recent reorganisation of local government that function and structure cannot be separated. The committee of your Lordships' House on central and local government relations, touching on these matters emphasised the need for fund-raising powers for any level of government to be effective. That too is not an issue that one can set aside. It has to be addressed quite squarely.
It is right also not to be diverted by boundary issues. I agree with the noble Earl that London is not a self-contained region. But, then, nowhere in our country is self-contained and, indeed, Britain is not self-contained and apart from the rest of Europe.
1242
I do not believe that what we have now is the best for London, either for business or its residents. I happen to believe that what is best for business is best for its residents and vice versa. For instance, of the present authorities, the Government Office for London has as its first objective to:
"meet operational requirements of departments and ministers".
I quoted from its annual report. That is not a criticism of the efforts of the officials there. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when he spoke about the Cabinet subcommittee and the advisory panel, that too many ministers tend to spoil the broth.
London Pride has done fine work and continues to do so. I was interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, that its members tend to find bases for agreement. I suggest that that may be because London Pride has very little executive power. For eight years I chaired one of the committees formed after the abolition of the GLC—the London Planning Advisory Committee. That committee has no executive power, though it works better than anyone had any right to believe it would when it was established as a rather poor substitute for a proper strategic planning authority for London. I acknowledge the contribution of your Lordships' House in ensuring that it was formed; but the question must be asked whether having only advisory powers or the right to discuss, instigate, debate and so forth, means that there can be more consensus because the issues are easier to face. Perhaps if London Pride had more powers, reaching decisions might be a little more difficult.
When I chaired LPAC one of my impressions was that one of its deficiencies was that it was no one's first priority. Its members were not directly elected and, though they worked hard—we all did—and took issues forward in an appropriate way, it was not their first responsibility.
Anxiety has been expressed this evening about NIMBYism leading to stagnation: about the problems of elected representatives looking to their constituencies. My noble friend Lord Tope spoke of the use of different electoral systems—these Benches would advocate multi-member constituencies elected on a proportional representation basis. Wider constituencies mean that there would be a wider geographical base. I do not believe that problems of NIMBYism—of being concerned with one's local parish pump—should deter us from going forward to a London-wide authority. Every level of government has to deal with issues of how its members reconcile their local interests with the interests of the whole authority; a parochial point of view does not preclude strategy.
We have been talking—rightly so—about government at the right level, not about the duplication of functions. We have heard about taking powers from Whitehall and Westminster, notably in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon. It is quite impertinent of Westminster and Whitehall to claim that London strategy is theirs and theirs alone. We need a clear and well understood home for strategic responsibility, just as we need a home for the local responsibility—I include in that neighbourhoods and parishes.

1243
We also need a centre for expertise. The GLC—like my noble friend, I was not an advocate of keeping it in the form in which it was—provided a centre for expertise. To some extent that has been lost. The London Research Centre does good work but it keeps going by marketing itself to private as well as public sectors and that must affect its planning and the work that it carries out.
I am by no means suggesting that we should lose what we have learnt since 1986. I was one of the early members of London First and felt that watching the coming together of representatives of local government and business—and of the voluntary sector, which has not been much mentioned tonight and does not have centre stage to quite the extent that business does—was a fascinating process. Each was learning of the constraints, aspirations and frustrations that the other suffered and that is something of which we must not lose sight. Watching and listening to captains of industry say, "That is a good idea. Let us take a decision. Let us do it now"; and leaders of local government saying, "That is a good idea. Let us go out and consult and we will come back in six months", enabled us to reconcile those two approaches and we must hold on to that.
But those bodies are not accountable. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, and do not believe that changing those arrangements would mean losing the partnerships that had been built. A new authority should not be a stranglehold on partnerships. Indeed, the value of partnerships is widely accepted right across government.
We heard about the need for a voice for London. There is indeed a vacuum in that regard. But I am not one of those who believes in the magic of a mayor; I particularly do not believe that we can solve the problems of democracy by substituting personality politics. Instead, we must make democracy work better. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, talked of a mayoralty being a recipe for frustration because expectations could not be fulfilled. Certainly the financial constraints on a mayor must be an issue. A mayor with an adequate budget would be quite a challenge to central government and a mayor without an adequate budget would be a puppet. Neither is likely to be the right solution.
I was fascinated to read recently a report of a successful mayor in San Diego. The article said:
"[She] isn't rate-capped from far away. The thought of a Whitehall (or Washington) letting her raise only 15 or 20 per cent. of the cash she spends on the priorities she chooses would be laughed into [the] Bay".
The article also asked what it described as,
"some … questions for closer to home".
It said,
"Will Labour's new London mayor be able to show Mr. Blunkett the door?".
The article was not specifically aimed at Mr. Blunkett; it was any Government Minister.
It may have taken a couple of hours in this debate for divisions to appear, but there is a wide and ever-growing consensus about the need for a strategic London authority, though I hope we will all be able to continue to move on in our thinking in response to the debate.
1244
I echo my noble friend Lord Tope. The debate needs to be on the "how"; to build on the broad agreement as to "what"; to bring together the voluntary sector, religious and community leaders, commuters and so forth as well as local government, industry and business. If I refer to a constitutional convention it may provoke a knee-jerk reaction among some noble Lords; it is not intended to do that. The work in Scotland was not invalidated by what happened later. That might be a model to be considered as to how we move forward. I should like to see some mechanism for bringing all those exciting thoughts together with a view to an effective outcome. It is vital that London's government is underpinned by consensus and by democracy.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, on initiating this debate; for his clear and excellent introduction to our discussion; and for the excellent work that he has done on the House of Lords All-Party London Group, of which I am a member though I joined it too late in the day to have any influence on the excellent document the group produced. Perhaps I can say also that there is a companion volume produced by the Labour Party, A Voice for London, which has had less publicity this afternoon but which also makes an interesting contribution to the debate. I congratulate also the two maiden speakers this afternoon—the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Tweedsmuir—for their important contributions to our discussion.
London is an exciting city. One of the challenges we face is to make local government exciting and relevant to the people of this country. Many people outside local government seem to think it is rather dull. I have been a councillor and do not believe it to be dull. But the way in which we look at the future of our capital city can make the government of London seem exciting; it can make it more interesting and relevant to the people of London. That is one of the challenges.
I was not happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, say that in his view some of the problems of London were insoluble. That is a counsel of despair. The noble Lord quoted Haussmann in Paris. I took the trouble to find out a little more about Haussmann. I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord. I assume that he knows more about Haussmann than most people, as he quoted him. Haussmann was summoned to Paris by the Emperor Louis Napoleon in 1853 because of his abilities and because of his political loyalty. One of the objectives given to Haussmann by the Emperor was,
"to establish a secure seat of government by facilitating the suppression of collective violence in the streets".
I am not sure whether that model is appropriate for our city!
I take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, who held up the City of London structure of government as a model on which the Labour Party should be keen and which might interest us in looking at the future of London as a whole. There is not time to go into detail on the City of London, but I do not think its democratic structures are quite up to the standards that we would

1245
wish to see. Perhaps no democracy is better than false democracy. But there we are. We have to leave it at that point.
I was delighted to see that a majority of those who spoke in the debate supported some form of strategic authority for London. Only three noble Lords said that they were fundamentally against the idea. However, I do not put the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, who has made an important contribution in his work for London First, in the "against" category because he supports the idea of an elected governor. Although I do not like the phrase "elected governor", the noble Lord supports the idea, and so I put him in the "in-between" category.
When the Bill to abolish the GLC was going through Parliament, I remember watching with excitement what this House would do regarding important amendments to that piece of legislation. However, that is history, as is the fact that in 1963, under the Local Government Act, the Conservative Government abolished the LCC and created the GLC, in order, some of us believed, to facilitate a Conservative majority at County Hall. In a democracy we should accept that there should be important and power-elected bodies other than the House of Commons. It is not unhealthy if there is tension between democratically elected bodies. It is a sign of a healthy democracy that there might on occasions be different views. The wish to suppress such views is a sign of an unhealthy state of affairs.
Why do we need some form of strategic body for London'? We are the only capital city of any comparably sized country in the western world that does not have a strategic authority to speak for it and its people. It is wrong to suggest that somehow we can do better without such a body when all other major cities in democratic countries have such bodies. We surely need some voice to speak for Londoners and to represent London not only in this country—to speak out for London vis-à-vis Whitehall, whatever shade of government there is there—but in Europe and the wider world. We need such a voice to link the people of London with business, the voluntary sector and public bodies. Surely that is a worthwhile aim in itself. It is therefore no wonder that 75 per cent. of Londoners when asked—I have no reason to think that the question was not properly or honestly asked—support such a body and that even 68 per cent. of Conservative voters—they were Conservative at the time the question was asked but perhaps there are fewer now—also supported having a strategic body. The business world overwhelmingly appears to want such a body, as does the voluntary sector.
At the moment we have a large number of bodies operating London-wide. Some such as LPAC, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, are effective, despite earlier predictions, but lack powers. Some of these bodies operate largely in secret. It is not proper for us to suggest that individual borough councillors, worthy people though they are, can really speak for the whole of London. That is not a reasonable proposition. I do not think it is reasonable to say that the Secretary of State, who may occasionally be a Londoner—the next
1246
one may well be but the present one is not—is the appropriate person to speak for London. What we need is to have some form of structure which can at least attempt to tackle at a strategic level the many problems of London.
I say most emphatically that a Labour Government would not recreate the GLC. We have in mind a small body—the staff might number no more than a few hundred—to do strategic work for London. It would be nothing large and there is an absolute commitment that we would not recreate the GLC. Furthermore, there is no intention that the work of such a strategic body would detract or subtract from the work of London boroughs. It would have strategic functions, including the oversight of certain other agencies which currently work in the capital.
Many contributors to the debate have gone through the topics which would be the responsibility of a strategic body. I shall not go through them all but I would mention: developing an overall economic strategy, linking business, the voluntary sector and public authorities; attracting funds for investment from the private sector, including those needed for infrastructure; land use planning and environmental protection improvement; transport co-ordination, to which many noble Lords referred; community safety, including the police, on which my noble friend Lady Hilton spoke so clearly and from deep experience; the arts, to which my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney referred; and the wider health needs of London, which were dealt with by my noble friend Lord Rea. Those and some others would represent the agenda of a strategic body. They would not be operationally handled by such a body, so the references that were made to the GLC dealing with housing improvements, and so on, before it got rid of its housing stock are simply not relevant to the type of body that we are discussing.
I turn briefly to the question of money. In 1991 the London Boroughs Association estimated that abolition of the GLC had led to savings of £100 million. It is perfectly clear that since then the expenditure on London through the different bodies that exist, particularly the Government Office for London, has meant that the savings have been eroded and that there has in fact been increased expenditure. Perhaps I may elaborate a little on that. In 1995–96 the Government Office for London had a budget of £1.06 billion. Some of that was clearly not an overall London expenditure. However, it has been estimated that some £220 million represented London-wide revenue spending.
In addition, GOL had some capital money. It has been estimated that at least £170 million has been spent in cross-borough programmes. We are talking about an existing expenditure of £390 million plus the operating costs of the Government Office for London, which are not inconsiderable as that body has grown. It is our firm commitment in the Labour Party that a strategic London authority would represent no increase in spending but would use existing money already allocated to London as part of its strategic functions. That answers many of the concerns that have been expressed about such a

1247
body. It would be small, it would be strategic and it would not impose any additional financial burdens. It would use existing money.
I turn briefly to the constitutional side of the issue. It would be right to consider an area probably the same size as the old GLC. Only in that respect would the body resemble the GLC. If we wanted to look at which sized body would be the most appropriate, there would be a long period of time for consultation procedures. It is not feasible to consider from square one what the boundaries should be. We might manage it, but it would take a long time. It makes sense to say that we should use the old GLC boundaries as a starting point. As one speaker said, London attracts people who travel long distances every day. London's problems extend beyond the GLC's boundaries. It makes sense to have a starting point and the old GLC boundaries would be a reasonable one. It also makes sense to consult the people of London on this point; and that the Labour Party will do.
The question of an elected mayor is an option—preferably, I would suggest, an elected mayor with executive powers. That still has to be thought about, and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, spoke eloquently in favour of that idea. I have already referred to the London Pride idea of a directly-elected governor with a small supporting office.
The people of London deserve and need a voice on the national and international stage; an organisation and authority which, in a strategic sense, can act on behalf of the people of London and do for London what is not being done properly at the moment. London deserves that.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, like all other noble Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, on initiating this debate and on the very clear and concise way in which he has made his points.
His extremely able chairmanship of the House of Lords All-Party London Group, of which I am glad to be a member, must have contributed substantially to the content of many of the excellent speeches we have heard today. As the noble Earl told us, the very helpful paper, The Question of a Strategic Authority For London, was produced by the group and apart from that, the noble Earl has managed to bring an excellent array of speakers to inform all of those privileged enough to attend the meetings.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers is sorry that, due to ministerial duties in South Africa, he cannot be here today. However, I know that when he reads the debate he will want to join with me in congratulating the two maiden speakers, the noble Lords, Lord Tweedsmuir and Lord Hankey, on their valuable contributions. Every cloud has a silver lining and his regrets are my pleasure as I am glad to have had the opportunity of listening to this excellent debate and it is really a privilege for me to be able to wind up.
Like many noble Lords who have spoken today, I was born, educated, conducted my business and political careers in London and have always lived here. With no
1248
disrespect to whatever may be any of your Lordships' own favourite cities, I consider London to be the greatest city in the world.
I was interested to hear that the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, loves London; that my noble friend Lord Sheppard has a passion for London; the noble Lords, Lord Tweedsmuir and Lord Dubs, love London. I have no intention of singing "Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner", but those are my sentiments. I may very well invite the other noble Lords who have said those wonderful things about London to join me tomorrow for a little sing-song.
Some of your Lordships may know that I was for three years the chairman of the Greater London Area Conservatives, having previously served for three years as joint treasurer. In those six years I was in constant touch with many London MPs, but not the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, because in those days and now my honourable friend John Bowis is the Member for Battersea. I met London MPs, councillors and voluntary workers and I believe that I can speak with some authority on what a very large body of Londoners think about and want from their local government.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, said that he visited 19 boroughs. I visited 32 continually and 84 constituencies continually, chatting all the time. I believe that I have a view. Most people told me that what they do not want is a body like the GLC, which had much more comprehensive policies for Nicaragua and Northern Ireland than it ever had for housing in Hackney.
What they do want is what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister promised for London—a flourishing and successful capital city. I simply cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Plummer that London has somehow declined since the abolition of the GLC. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, reminded us, London is a true, world city. It is the enterprise capital of Europe. London accounts for 15 per cent. of Britain's GDP. It is the leading world financial centre with over 500 banks, more American banks than New York and more Japanese banks than Tokyo. There are 64 companies from the "Fortune 500" and 108 of Europe's top 500 companies are headquartered in London.
London's position at the heart of international business and trade means that the fortunes of the business community and the citizens of London are closely linked. Neither can afford to ignore the other. Yet for far too long their interests were presented as being fundamentally opposed to one another; their potential ignored in favour of narrow political ideology. Now we see a network of partnerships across the capital bringing together public, private and voluntary sectors and doing sterling work promoting and improving London. It is thanks to the policies of this Government that London has rediscovered the benefits of working together.
In the 1992 manifesto the Prime Minister promised, and we set up, a special Cabinet sub-committee on London to co-ordinate policy for London and to ensure that the capital's interests were heard right at the heart

1249
of government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, John Gummer, became Minister for London. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that he really does have a commitment to the capital city, working right across it, even if he represents Suffolk.
The pioneering private sector organisation London First was also established under the successful leadership of my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Didgemere. It now numbers some 200 of our most successful companies, working together to promote London and to improve the capital. In 1993 my right honourable friend Mr. John Gummer helped to establish London Pride and we have heard a lot about this from the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. London Pride has succeeded in establishing a vision for London which crosses political divides. The London Pride partners now have direct discussions with Ministers from the Cabinet sub-committee on a range of issues in a grouping called the Joint London Advisory Panel. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is unfair to the tremendous efforts of this group. Many initiatives have been launched including work on transport, waste management and housing. Those are just a few examples.
We now have a Minster for Transport in London. At first it was my honourable friend Mr. Steven Norris and now my honourable friend Mr. John Bowis. Alongside the development of this new culture of achievement, there has also been an important shift in the focus of Government policies and programmes encouraging local initiative and local action rather than central direction and priority.
The Single Regeneration Budget, for example, has encouraged local people to identify the key issues in their area and to form partnerships between public and private sector players and to develop local solutions. This year alone the Single Regeneration Budget third round has committed £280 million to support 48 schemes, attracting a further £800 million of additional investment and will help to create 29,000 jobs over the lifetime of these schemes.
In many other areas partnerships are emerging to tackle specific problems. In regeneration, for example, partnerships in the east, west, north-west and central London and the Cross-River Partnership are already getting to work, the latter uniting the City, Westminster, Southwark and Lambeth, working together in a way that would never have happened in the days of the old GLC.
In the debate on the constitution in the other place last Thursday, the right honourable Leader of the Opposition, invited us to see what the absence of proper strategic planning has done. We waited with bated breath to hear what it was, but as so often happens, the right honourable gentleman immediately changed to another subject without explaining himself. I am reminded of the character in, I think, one of Lewis Carroll's books who asked a riddle, and when Alice said that she gave up, replied, "I only think of the questions—not the answers". But, of course, the right honourable gentleman was wrong anyway. The Secretary of State for the Environment already prepares
1250
strategic planning guidance for London, published in May last year, to set a planning framework within which individual authorities can draw up their own development plans and make local planning decisions. In that role, the Secretary of State has regard to the advice produced by the London Planning Advisory Committee, which was set up as a committee of all the London boroughs. The Secretary of State also consults London directly about the guidance. The process is open, and rightly the subject of public debate. It is generally agreed to have worked well. The wider perspective of government enabled the Secretary of State to publish last week strategic guidance for much of the Thames stretching from Windsor to the sea. This is important: London is part of the South East and strategic issues such as the Thames, transport and planning need to be looked at over a much wider area than the old GLC boundary. Other issues occupy a more limited area—three or four boroughs make up "theatreland", for example. The present voluntary arrangements allow for flexibility.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, suggested that we need a strategic authority only to deal with transport and planning matters, it is difficult to see how a strategic authority could do more than that. My noble friend Lady Brigstocke said that there is a lack of co-ordination in terms of transport, but there is a formal consultation structure with local government, providers and users. Here, the Minister for Transport in London has published a transport strategy for London and there is widespread acceptance of the strategy.
Although we believe that the co-ordination of the provision of transport services is vital, we do not think that that can be imposed from above. The Government also believe that responsibility for designing solutions to local transport problems should rest with the boroughs and that they in turn need to involve local communities and businesses much more actively in debating such issues.
Voluntary partnership has helped to deliver major benefits for Londoners; for example, all 33 London boroughs are co-operating, together with government to deliver the 1,200 mile London cycle network. Of course, when it comes to major infrastructure projects, such as the Channel Tunnel rail link, central government have, and always will have, a major role to play, given the strategic importance of such projects, and the implications for public finances.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Bowness that that would be the case even if responsibility for delivering major projects were to fall to a local or regional authority. No government can afford to hand over to any form of local government the final word on major investment or policy decisions which have implications for the nation as a whole, and a regional strategic authority would not add anything to this process, other than cost and delay. I would remind your Lordships that a substantial portion of the country's transport budget is already spent in London. Would any government allow decisions on such vast sums of money to be taken without their consent? And if the authority cannot take decisions, why have it at all?

1251
Of course, most people want to see ever more investment in public transport in the capital—and the Government recognise that an efficient transport system is essential to maintaining London's position as a great commercial, financial and cultural centre. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport yesterday announced the privatisation of London Underground. Unlike the party opposite and sections of the press, the Government have had to make the hard decisions about how much the nation as a whole can afford to invest in London. That announcement will ensure that London Underground can find the money it needs without competing with education or hospitals. Wholly new investment will be available to put into the infrastructure.
I listened with great interest to all noble Lords who have spoken, but particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, as he set out the policies of the party opposite. I congratulate him on his efforts because I do not believe that that is a particularly easy task. Indeed, it is still not entirely clear what it is that the Labour Party wants to impose on Londoners. Is it an assembly? Is it a strategic authority? Is it a GLC mark II? Is it a mayor? I was interested when he said that the leader of his party says so, but that has not yet been confirmed. In a way, it depends on what one reads—the party's official consultation paper or its unattributed briefings to the Evening Standard. It also depends on who you ask—Mr Dobson or Mr Blair.
However, one thing is clear: the Labour Party would burden Londoners with a new London tax; it would lead to slower decision making, eroding London's competitive position, and it would destroy the culture of partnership. I cannot accept what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said when replying on behalf of the Opposition—that it would cost very little and be slimline. Like Topsy, it would grow and if Labour councils around the country are anything to go by, I do not think that such a body would achieve what the noble Lord has suggested.
The public do not want more bureaucrats, bigger bills and slower decisions. What they want is local government that works with the private sector and adopts private sector standards of efficiency and customer service—the sort of service that London has benefited from in the past 10 years. The lesson of London during the 1980s and earlier—and not even the noble Lords opposite will deny it—was too much government—too much government, too much waste and too much bureaucracy.
I should like your Lordships to consider the following scenario of a London-wide authority setting out strategies for such diverse matters as the design of furnishings to meet the needs of cleaners, a national minimum wage, setting up democratically controlled nurseries—
Noble Lords: Rubbish!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I know that noble Lords opposite do not like this—collectivising unpaid work in the home, involving itself in textile design, supporting co-operatives in the clothing, food and printing
1252
industries, opposition to cable, developing plans for healthy food, and most sinister of all political education—
Noble Lords: Rubbish!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, if your Lordships consider that these ideas are too fanciful, let me tell you that they were exactly what was propounded by the GLC in its series of booklets called "London Industrial Strategy"—I shall show them to noble Lords opposite if they continue to shout "Rubbish".
For those who argue that their own particular sort of authority would be different—heavily circumscribed by the powers delegated to it (and my noble friend Lord Sheppard has eloquently warned of the dangers of creating an over-large, over-powerful bureaucracy)— I think it is reasonable to point out that none of the nonsense I have just described was the GLC's business either. It just grew.
Apart from that, as I have tried to demonstrate, there is already ample government in London and clear and enhanced roles for central and local government as well as the business and community sectors. They work well together with the providers and users of services in the capital to ensure that London gets the best. I agree with my noble friend who said, "If it's not broke, don't fix it" even if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, does not. The current arrangements do work and they give us what we need and want. The benefits of the current approach are demonstrated by the city's continuing success. Public life is characterised by the private and public sectors working together for the benefit of London as a whole.
We have heard a lot in this debate about the need for an additional tier of local government in London—whether in the form of a local authority, a strategic authority, a mayor, a champion or an executive. I shall try to answer those points and if I cannot do so in the time available to me, I shall write to those noble Lords who made those interesting points.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that London is the only world city that does not have a single strategic authority. That is not so. London is not the only world city without a single strategic local authority for the whole of its built-up area. Paris, Tokyo and New York have a range of structures for city governance, but all have more than one authority for the whole built-up area. Cities with a single authority are very much smaller than London. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and with my noble friends Lord Bowness and Lord Stockton that in many respects London is different because of its history, size and structure and the way in which it grew from small towns and villages. Therefore, it has to be dealt with differently.
My noble friend Lord Plummer was worried that London subsidises the rest of the United Kingdom. That is so. It is right that the richest part of the United Kingdom should contribute more than some of the other areas. That is what we would expect. London's GDP per head is 25 per cent. higher than the average for the rest of the country. However, my noble friend also said that

1253
we need a strategic voice to ensure that London gets more of our resources. But we do get large resources. We received £35 billion last year and we also do well in the discretionary programmes, with 27 per cent. of the Single Regeneration Budget and over 50 per cent. of the Estates Renewal Challenge money coming to London. It is difficult to see how a strategic authority could get more than that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that it is absolutely right that we ensure that the proponents of the strategic authority know exactly which problems they wish to identify.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, on his excellent maiden speech and I welcome his appreciation of the many active partnerships in London. The noble Lord was concerned that there is no inward investment agency. That is not true. The London First Centre, which is jointly funded by local authorities, central government and the private sector, is now highly successful in selling London's strength overseas and attracting new inward investment. It is a real success story for the voluntary approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, mentioned six functions that he believed could be dealt with only by a strategic authority. Every one of the functions that he mentioned is being dealt with either by the Government Office for London, for example strategic planning training, or by other departments, for example education, tourism, voluntary groupings, London First or the boroughs. Co-ordination is very important and it now happens to a much greater extent.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Sheppard that London does not need a strategic authority. I also agree about the way in which the partnerships are taking this forward. But I disagree with his view that if there is a mayor, champion or whatever you call it, everything can be kept as it is. It is an inherently unstable position. It will want power and conflict with government. It sounds seductive, like so many other matters about which my noble friend speaks. I do not believe that it would work. I am also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is against having a mayor.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said that he would like to have an elected mayor. He recognised that that would represent a constitutional leap and he drew parallels with Europe, including Serbia where conditions and practices are very different. He speaks from the heart, but I believe that he is mistaken. An elected mayor would be a political figure and would almost always be in opposition to the Government. The conflict and tension that this would create—which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, thought might be a good thin—would be bad for the capital and destroy the carefully constructed web of partnerships that do so much for London.
I should also like to deal with contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, my noble friend Lord Bowness, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said. However, I do not share his pessimism; nor does the
1254
noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We believe that only by working together—central government, local government, business and the community—can we tackle the problems of London. We solved the air problems of the 1950s. We put in place legislation to clean up London's air in the 1990s.
I have three more minutes, but I do not want to overrun my time. I am sorry that I cannot deal with every point. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that based on a LBA report the Government Office for London was expensive. That report points to a saving of £1.3 billion between 1986 and 1991.
The machinery of the government of London is in excellent shape. The Government do not want to put all this at risk with a return to structures which would again encourage the conflict and crisis of the 1980s. A strategic authority for London would not add one iota to London's efficiency, wealth, success or position as a leading world city. To return to a GLC mark II, however modified, reformed or—dare I say it—repentant, would be a step backwards to old ways, old waste and an old London. London is special. Over the past 10 years London has blossomed. Let us keep it that way.
7.44 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, this debate shows your Lordships' great interest in London and its governance. Many new suggestions have been made, and particularly there was enthusiasm on the part of most speakers for an elected mayor or champion. As a local government man I believe that I am gamekeeper turned poacher in my suggestion that there be a small group composed of a mixture of elected and appointed members. But that is only one of several suggestions that have been made today.
I was very pleased to hear the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Dubs, say that there would be public participation in any discussions on London before a decision was reached, should their party be returned to power. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is against a mayor and in favour of a strategic authority for London. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller—I wish I had a racehorse as fast as she went through her brief—was not in favour of a new authority and was very much against a mayor. She spoke of the Government Office for London. I have much admiration for that body and its senior officers. They have done a great deal in getting money for London. I should like to thank noble Lords on the Cross Benches for allowing this debate to take place on their day and all noble Lords who have spoken in praise of the All-Party London Group paper. On behalf of that group I should like to thank its secretary, Mr. Brian Buckle, for the editing of the paper and all his help.
The time allocated to the debate was five hours. We have broken all records by finishing well inside that time. It is only right for me now to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sex Offenders Bill
7.47 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to he printed.

Film Production
7.48 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the systems and safeguards in place for the proper distribution of National Lottery funds for film production would be the same if these funds were in the form of subsidy from central government.
The noble Viscount said: This is a short debate. I wish that it had more participants. I thank the two other other noble Lords, the Front Bench speaker, Lord Donoughue, and the Minister who is to answer my Question. I am particularly thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, because I know that he has given up an important part of his busy and attractive social life tonight to be here. I am sure that his contribution will be extremely helpful.
I do not begin this debate with any antagonism towards either the Government or the Arts Council, although the framing of my Question may indicate otherwise. I wish to debate with your Lordships tonight the arrangements that are now in place, many of which are fundamentally good, for the film industry. Possibly now is the time to reflect on whether matters might have been done differently if more time had been given to consider the needs of the British film industry in relation to an unexpected amount of lottery money. When the announcement was made that money from lottery funds would be available for film production my friends in the film industry were genuinely astonished. Over the past 10 years it has become unfashionable to pursue government, perhaps out of total exhaustion, for anything other than like support mechanisms through tax relief and so forth. The idea of subsidy has become completely lost.
When I first began to talk about film in your Lordships' House shortly after I entered this place in 1984 the Films Bill was being debated. At that point the British film industry was at an extremely low ebb. Cinema attendances in this country were at an historic low; the production of British films was negligible; and many of the contributions made during the course of that legislation were, to say the least, dispiriting.
I seldom like to read what I have said in your Lordships' House but I did thumb back through to the Hansard of 1984. My speaking was somewhat muddled, and it probably still is. But, if I may claim some kudos, I made a prediction then that there would inevitably be a recovery but that it would have to be led through exhibition rather than any subsidy for film production.
I had no idea at that time—it happened some three or four years later—that the American concept of multiplex cinemas (multiscreen cinemas) would be introduced into this country, mainly by American and Canadian
1256
companies, and would have such an immediate impact on filmgoing. The multiplex system of film exhibition is very much an American idea. Any noble Lord who has been into one of these multiscreen cinemas will notice that not only is there a great deal of choice, a service aspect, a great deal of American-type food available (hamburgers, popcorn and so forth), but that most if not all the films in, say, a 10-screen multiplex, which is not unusual, are American.
British films, which are usually of a specialist nature, and foreign language films are rarely shown there because they do not sit easily with the American culture of exhibition. Exhibition and distribution—the two are often linked—are hard, competitive businesses run by hard-headed businessmen. One hardly ever hears anyone in distribution or exhibition, in this country or the US, talk about the cultural imperative, which is something one might hear among film directors, writers and so forth in both countries. They are interested in making money. They are the motor of the success of the film industry.
When one looks at it, no one made money out of producing films. The money is made out of distributing and exhibiting films. However good quality it may be, it is no good producing a film if it is not going to be shown and people are not going to see it. There are all kinds of reasons why a film may fail. I shall enumerate some of them in a second. Many films made in Britain with extreme difficulty and on a slender budget are good films in terms of their production values and in the way in which they create interest in their audiences. There are all kinds of elements which may affect their success, but fundamental to their success is that they must be shown.
Just under 50 per cent. of all British films fail to find distribution in cinemas. It is no accident that two of this country's leading film directors—this country is full of creative talent—generally fail to find distribution for their films. Ken Loach who is generally acknowledged within the film community—he is the director's director—is hardly known in Britain. He is known on television, but his films are seen by more filmgoers in Belgium than in the whole of the UK. The reason is that our distribution/exhibition system is not geared up for such films.
We are desperately under-screened in this country. There are just over 32 cinemas per million of population, which is just over half of what is available in France and about a third of what is available in the US. It is no accident that the film which will probably win the Oscar nomination—"The English Patient"—which has been seen by almost everyone in the world, has not yet been seen here. I think it is opening next week in London. It is a film which I would recommend to all noble Lords. It is an extraordinary success, with a British director and a British writer and yet it is not a British film: all the money comes from American sources.
When films have the ingredients to attract money, which is rare, because it is difficult to obtain finance for films, and when it is a property that people want, it is inevitably the Americans who jump in first. So it is no

1257
surprise that much of our young talent and some of our older talent too—we have many excellent older technicians as well as creative people—tend to go to America. Some tend to stay there if they can bear to live in California, because there is consistent and continuous work for them.
I am glad that I am speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, as Minister with responsibility for film in the Department of National Heritage, because in the past I have spoken mostly to a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. Although I have spoken to some of the Minister's charming and helpful Front Bench colleagues, I got nowhere because they were the wrong people to deal with the issue. Since its creation a great deal has been done by the Department of National Heritage to address many of the problems.
I would just ask the Minister whether we have rushed too quickly to help the British film industry by focusing on film production as a means of using what is a relatively generous allocation of lottery funds. To date I believe that about 150 films have received lottery funding. The understanding in the film industry and my understanding—the Minister may say that I am wrong—was that 15 per cent. of all arts funding would be allocated to film. In fact I believe that about 7 per cent. has been allocated to those 148 films. I do not quarrel with that because much of that has gone to films which should not have been made.
In passing—I do not want to be sour about this—it was testing the Royal Family a little to put on the film "True Blue", which had been knocking around for a long time, for the Royal Command Film Performance, because it was an intolerable production. It is the only film in my memory which was put on, obviously because it was a Royal Command film, in one of the few big cinemas in Leicester Square, which could not complete its run. It had to be taken off because it generated so little interest. It was a project which probably fitted into the criteria of the Arts Council of England. I do not blame it for that, because it had all kinds of things: it was British; it had many aspects which might have related to the public good, something which I believe is mentioned in its guidelines, but, my goodness me, what a boring film!
Many other films have been put up for lottery funding and have been unsuccessful. Surely we are arriving at the time—because the time will surely come when people will see how much money is being put into films which have no chance of achieving—to take an overall view of the film industry from beginning to end, to look at every aspect of it, to see where funding is needed. I have no objection in principle to subsidy where it is needed, and where there is usually a cultural imperative. There may well be a cultural imperative in this country. I have argued that in the past, but it can only be part of a larger context. The larger part of that context must be a commercial cinema which creates employment and draws people into cinemas to see and enjoy those films.
I understand that the conditions for lottery funds are limited, but I suggest that a better way of dealing with funds would be, for example, to examine the development of films. Major American studios which
1258
produce 20 films a year usually have more than 100 films in development. It is an expensive area but the Americans can do that because they have a proper industry. A large proportion of those films will never be made. Development means obtaining scripts, rewriting them, getting treatments done and bringing the project to the point where it can be presented for finance.
In this country things are done on an ad hoc basis. You are lucky to get funding from wherever you can claw it. You make your film, you hope that it will be successful, but if it is not you go back to gather a few colleagues and try again. I suggest that we want to correct that procedure. I also suggest that the Department of National Heritage and the Arts Council agree because otherwise they would not have sanctioned the idea of franchises. The applications for the first of those will be decided this week.
I hope that other noble Lords speaking tonight will back my desire for a proper study covering everyone involved in film; the Government, the Arts Council, producers, directors, the Writers Guild and all those who have an interest. I suggest that the priorities are distribution and exhibition; development; training, which is extremely important because the cost of making films is enormous and if untrained people make films a great deal of time and money will be lost; and, finally, production. I believe that we have started at the wrong end. If the Minister agrees with me, how quickly can we put the situation right.
I have spoken for far too long. We have some interesting speeches yet to come and I look forward to hearing them.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for asking this important and complex Question. As the noble Viscount has a Scottish title, I hope he will approve of the Scottish flavour of my brief contribution. I must also declare an interest as I have a brother-in-law who appears regularly on the stage, in major feature films and on television. For those interested, he played the difficult role of Prime Minister Pitt in the stage and film version of "The Madness of King George".
Since the Scottish Arts Council lottery fund for film production was introduced in 1995 it has made a huge impact on film-making in Scotland. In just the last two years 16 feature films, 31 short films—and here I must declare a further interest as three of these were made at my family home—and 15 documentary programmes have been funded from this source in Scotland, representing awards totalling £9.3 million invested in production worth £38 million—a very large amount of money!
These funds represent a major public investment in the creation of a viable and vibrant film industry in Scotland, but it is now right to build on this success by improving the system to allow money made from these funded films to be ploughed back into the industry for further production. This is how the film industry should be enabled to make a real contribution to its own growth, and to the economy in general.

1259
The fact that these funds are available has meant that in Scotland, since their introduction there has been a 42 per cent. increase in projects that went into production and a 20 per cent. increase in feature films that went into production. These are indeed impressive figures.
Tax incentives for the film industry would also make a difference to the level of business attracted to the UK and especially to Scotland. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am going to talk about Ireland. The Irish government, after they introduced tax incentives under the now famous Section 35 provision, saw film making in that country rise from almost nothing in 1989 to a production slate of over 40 major features in 1996, and a state of near overheating which has necessitated a certain tightening up of the rules of eligibility.
The Irish sensibly attach strict conditions to their scheme which has meant that any film awarded moneys under Section 35 has had to employ a shadow Irish crew in all the major positions, thus ensuring that Ireland benefits in real terms not only from the inward investment, but also from on the job training, enabling them to build up well trained and experienced film crews which are so vital for the long term future of the industry.
Similar schemes for the UK must be considered if we are to compete on a level playing field with our Irish neighbours. Although I acknowledge that the lottery funding for films has made a real impact, if we could add to that tax incentives or business development schemes to encourage both public and private investment in film, with the private investor being able to recoup first, there is no doubt that we could seriously compete for the international business which is presently passing us by.
To give but one example, the film "September", adapted from the Rosamund Pilcher book of the same name, is set entirely in Scotland, but the production company did not even consider filming it in Scotland. Instead, it went directly to Ireland to access the funds available under Section 35. What a shame, my Lords, what a terrible shame! I beg of the Government to look at this situation.
Business incentives schemes to attract private investment would have the added attraction of allowing slates of films to be compiled, featuring films with certain box office appeal, but also allowing for the more unusual or experimental films coming from young and hitherto unknown film makers to be made. This has the advantage of ensuring that the investor gets a good return on his money, and young talent gets the chance to be seen, and thus develop their skills. As the noble Viscount said, an investment in the future is surely well worth making.
In short, the film and television industry must be allowed and encouraged to compete at every level. As people have more leisure time in which to view the wealth of television channels now available to them, as more multiplex cinemas open around the country requiring greater levels of quality British production to keep them supplied, and thus as more homes have
1260
computers on which to view the vast amount of multimedia entertainment now available, we must support the industry which can and must be encouraged to supply this ever increasing demand.
This is an industry for the 21st century, which secures employment for a great many people. Today there are more people employed in the UK in the film, television and the moving media industry than there are in the car manufacturing industry. This statistic alone shows the vital importance of this industry to the UK economy.
Lottery funding for film and television has made a serious and quantifiable difference to this industry and to the economy of the country. Now is the time to consider further incentives to ensure its continued growth and prosperity.
I do hope that the Minister's noble friend Lord Lindsay and my right honourable kinswoman the Secretary of State for the National Heritage and their departments will take note of this debate tonight. This industry needs all the help it can get both from the Government and from the National Lottery.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this very timely debate about the most sensible way of funding the British film industry.
A number of people in the film world to whom I have spoken have expressed the same anxiety; namely, that although film-making in Britain is thriving, there is no proper distribution to enable these films to be seen except through the American studios. These naturally favour their own market-tested products along with the best of the independents. Indeed, at the moment, 92 to 93 per cent. of the box office goes to American movies. The American studios are in effect distribution companies, and control distribution. The money is in distribution and the cost is in production.
Thanks in part to lottery funding, film production in the UK is undergoing a mini-boom. In 1989, 33 films were made here, while in the first 10 months of 1996, the figure was 108. However, the fact that over 50 per cent. of those will not get distributed in cinemas and will therefore not reach audiences is a terrible market failure. Are we wise, therefore, to put so much emphasis on production? As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland said, the distribution and exhibition of films are crucial. Exhibition includes films being received through satellite television, terrestrial television, video, CD-ROM or whatever. It is a huge market, something which the Americans got hold of and got the hang of very early on. Ultimately, the British film business has to be a distribution business as well as a production business if it is going to survive, and this is something we must try to embrace as part of our film policy.
It is the argument of many people in the UK film world that although lottery funding for film production has had a huge effect and increased the number of films being made, it is not geared to helping the industry as a whole in a way that funds in the form of subsidy from central government could do.

1261
Recent reports have suggested that what is needed is an integrated system; namely, the creation of "integrated" British companies like small Hollywood studios, which are capable of distributing films as well as making them. However, critics of this system are nervous that such companies would become cosy cartels hoovering up handouts.
Perhaps more satisfactory, and less liable to collapse with the failure of individual films, would be the suggestions put forward by Wilf Stevenson, the Director of the British Film Institute. He proposes two initiatives that could only be created by direct funding—perhaps £20 million per annum—of film production via subsidy, and which would not be possible via the lottery.
In the first, a UK film distributor could be set up to try to link audiences to production. This fund, perhaps using half the annual tranche, would invest in prints and advertising for all films made in the UK judged to have commercial potential but not picked up for distribution (50 per cent. of films made in the UK fall into this category); and invest in production (by acquiring rights) when suitable projects are in development. No one currently does this in the UK, but it is the business in the United States.
Secondly, a guarantee fund could be established, to reduce the risk to commercial funders in UK films. At present, equity investment in such films is just too risky, and City money is never attracted. A guarantee fund, profiting from successful films, would greatly enhance City investment. If that could be combined with some form of tax break it could be a winner.
However, I must emphasise that any increase in UK film-making will come to nothing if all we are doing is creating a celluloid mountain. If the lottery money is going to have any lasting, rather than short-term, effect on the UK film industry, money must be found for distribution as well as production.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for bringing before us this important subject. Ironically, the great social occasion of which I am deprived this evening is in fact a film première about an obsession with football, an obsession which I share. Therefore it has been painful but I have slowly convinced myself that the quality of speeches as well as the short list of speakers has made it worthwhile. The knowledge and lively presentation of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, make it a pleasure to hear him on this subject. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made his home life sound like a Hollywood of the north. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, was as perceptive and well informed as ever.
We must begin by celebrating the present success of the British film industry. Film production in Britain is at a very high level. British film makers are receiving international awards. Cinema audiences have doubled since the early 1980s. We should all cheer that. Indeed, it is a great improvement on the situation a decade ago
1262
when the Tory government inflicted grave damage by changing the tax status of films and abolishing the box office levy.
The present good times must be put in the longer-term context. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, most films produced here are not British, however defined. They are Hollywood films. This is a feast year and, periodically, we have always had them. But, historically, they have always been followed by famine years and will be again unless and until our film industry is put on a sounder commercial footing to encourage sustained investment.
Looking specifically at the role of the Arts Council, we note that in a couple of years it has part-funded some 57 films involving £30 million of its investment and meeting more than 25 per cent. of the costs. It is well advanced with its scheme for four studio franchises financed by lottery money. It is on course to assist well over 100 British films. I hope that it can define "British" more succinctly than the Films Act 1985 did according to various criteria.
It appears that many in the film industry—and I suspect that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was reflecting them—do not like much of that and certainly do not like the franchising concept. On this side of the House, we are not so opposed to it, especially in the short term. That is not to say that it is a perfect process or that the maximum of £8 million per film will ever change the film world; nor indeed that the Arts Council is perfectly equipped to make those judgments. I felt that the noble Viscount made a number of very telling points in that regard.
To me it is not clear what quality criteria the anonymous film panel on the Arts Council will apply. I am especially worried about bureaucracy and cronyism in the process and even whether the concept of national film is sustainable in a global industry, although I hope that it is.
The experience of the French film industry certainly demonstrates the capacity of central subsidised institutions to make films which even French nationalists do not want to see. Certainly we do not want the celluloid mountain, which was referred to nicely, of worthy but unseen British films.
In a practical world and wanting to help our film industry in the short term, it is not dazzlingly clear to me who is better than the Arts Council to handle that side of the matter. It is not clear that the industry itself would immediately agree on an acceptable body which was not seen by the media and the public as what they would call a cosy luvvies' tea-party. At least the Arts Council is there with a reasonable reputation and a track record in lottery distribution. And it has brought in industrial expertise, however secretly—I do not believe that we know their names—although the commercial production sector is still probably under-represented. If we are in government, we shall want to look at whether there is a better long-term solution to that which meets some of the reservations of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. His suggestion of an inquiry and the priorities which he puts forward would be a helpful start.

1263
In the end, it is a question of how to select and back successful films. Obviously "True Blue" was not a good example. I saw it and I felt that the title was against it since they are losers. But nobody has solved the dilemma of selecting and backing successful films in a systematic way. In the world film industry the problem of selection is usually solved by individual mogul geniuses with a nose for a winner. Even the best of them in Hollywood, as was suggested, need to have many films on the boil, finally making only a few of them including some flops. We remember that even Lord Grade went down with his "Titanic". So the Arts Council process is imperfect but it is practical.
I should now like to look a little wider into the future of the film industry. It is clear that what we want our policies to achieve is a strong and expanding film production industry which produces successful British and international films on a sustained scale. We do not have that yet, despite the recent boom. Actually, we make fewer feature films even now in a boom than we should, given the rich talent that we have, much of which, as has been pointed out, is working almost permanently overseas. We also make too few British films about British subjects, although "Trainspotting" and "The Crying Game" show that we can succeed. It is certainly a crying shame that so many successful so-called British films—for example, "A Fish called Wanda", "Braveheart" and "Pride and Prejudice"—were in fact foreign financed, which means that their profits were not retained here.
Yet, as has been said, we have some of the world's best talent displaying great creative, technical and animation skills. Too many of them have been lost in the talent drain to America. So what do we need to do to keep them? Certainly, we need to strengthen our film industry infrastructure by improving training and raising the standards of weaker training courses to the high levels exemplified, say, in the National Film School or at Bournemouth, and we need to nurture regional production.
We should also look particularly at the foreign control of our film distribution and exhibition—I noted that the noble Viscount made that the first of his priorities; and I totally agree with him—and look to see how that relates to the fate of our domestic industry. As has been said, well over 80 per cent. of the current record cinema takings are for American films and will return to the US and nearly 50 per cent. of British films made, for example, in 1994, were still not released in British cinemas a year later. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any proposals to investigate the question of distribution and exhibition?
We can of course do other things to help. For example, we can take a more positive role in Europe by rejoining the Council of Europe's "Images" scheme which could lever up to £50 million per annum of production investment for a mere £2 million subscription. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why the Government ignore that benefit. We must also maintain the support for British Screen and for the Greenlight Fund and we should actively support the fast growing multi-media CD-ROM industry which currently is mainly US controlled in this country.
1264
However, we really need more than those micro policies, although they will help. I believe that we need a complete change of attitude by government, with more enthusiasm and energy to fly the flag for the British film industry. As has been mentioned, the dramatic growth in the Irish film industry—which has increased 30 fold in five years—is as much, I believe, because of the enthusiastic leadership of the culture Minister, Michael Higgins, as because of the fiscal incentives under Section 35. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, though a Scot, that Ireland, as in many cultural things, does it very well. I should add that I include horseracing in culture.
Even so, fiscal incentives need further and sympathetic investigation, not as a permanent regime or as a debilitating subsidy, but, perhaps, over a short fixed term, as a way of kick starting investment. Moreover, faster write-offs for failed investment would encourage financial backers to take the risks.
So our film industry is a complex one which is doing well in the short run but which needs to be put on a better commercial basis to thrive in the long term. The role of the Arts Council is only a small part of that process. Perhaps we should give the council longer before judging it as being inappropriate or as having failed. It is to be hoped that new eyes will, before long, have the responsibility for viewing the council and making those judgments.
8.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, in his opening remarks, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, promised that we would focus on quality and have a quality debate. The contributions that we have heard this evening vindicate that hope and, indeed, indicate the prescience of the noble Viscount in introducing the debate.
The past 18 months have been an exceptionally successful period for the British film industry. One has only to look at the success that has been achieved at some of the major film awards during that period to see that that is true. Clearly, with film making in Britain flourishing, the advent of the National Lottery has come at the right time to give the industry a further stimulus. How appropriate it is that, in a year when we are celebrating the centenary of the cinema, the National Lottery should fund more than 100 films and that on a day when the Secretary of State visited the National Film and Television Archive at Berkhamsted (which has just received a £13.8 million lottery award for its restoration and preservation work) we discuss film and the National Lottery in your Lordships' House.
I am sure that we would all agree that the National Lottery has been a tremendous success. It has certainly had an enormously beneficial effect on the British film industry, as in so many other areas of life. To date, more than £81 million has been awarded to film and cinema projects. That includes about £40 million for some 109 film productions, including features, shorts and documentaries. That is a tremendous amount in so short a time, which I know is welcomed by the film industry.

1265
Of course, even more will be available over the next few years. The Arts Council of England plans to invest more than £150 million in the sector over the next six years through its film production franchise scheme and there will also be money available for individual projects, as well as money from the other three Arts Councils. With a forecast gearing ratio of 2:1, the lottery could generate additional investment of some £450 million in the UK industry over the next six years.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked whether it was right that 15 per cent. of lottery money for the arts should go to film. I can tell the noble Viscount that the figure of 15 per cent. is an unofficial aim for the Arts Council which has been suggested from within the film industry. In itself, it is not any kind of official target.
What I have found most encouraging is that the lottery has allocated its resources across the widest possible spectrum of film makers. Awards have ranged from £10,000 apiece for the production of a number of short films by the Scottish Arts Council up to £2 million for the feature film "Amy Foster". The latter was one of a small number of films financed through the Greenlight Fund, to which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred. This important development in the administration of the lottery proceeds was established by the Arts Council for England and British Screen Finance Ltd, initially on a trial basis for one year, with up to £5 million of lottery funds. The aim of the fund is to support established film makers in producing larger scale films which will be able to compete in the international market. That distinguishes it from British Screen's usual finance which is aimed at helping develop new talent. Grants are made in the form of loans which will generate a return when films are successful. Support will be limited to a maximum of 30 per cent. of the film's total cost, up to a maximum of £2 million. I am delighted that the Arts Council and British Screen have recently decided to extend the Greenlight Fund for a further year.
What we see in operation here is the lottery being used both as seed-funding to develop new talent and as a means of helping our established talent compete in the international market place. It is, of course, too early to make any judgments about the commercial success of films funded from the lottery—only a handful have so far been released. But we should not forget that the Arts Council will benefit from those films that are commercially successful. Any profits will be returned, pro rata, to the Arts Council and may be used to fund further film projects. The National Lottery will, therefore, not only help to discover the stars of tomorrow, it will also further stimulate excellence in the sector as a whole.
Both the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in asking about the systems and safeguards for the allocation of National Lottery proceeds, raise an important point. While it is one of the underlying principles of public support for the arts (and I include the lottery in this) that the bodies responsible for distributing funds operate at arm's length from the Government, situations could of course arise which might lead to questions being asked about the
1266
objectivity and disinterestedness of those taking decisions on awards. The UK film industry is a tightly-knit community and those advising on lottery applications might also have projects of their own which could qualify for lottery funding or have close links to other applicants. It is essential, obviously, that the best advice is secured on the use of public money but it is equally important that clear arrangements must be in place for dealing with conflicts of interest. The four Arts Councils have introduced such arrangements to ensure that they have access to advisers and film panel members who are actively working in the industry without undermining the objectivity and fairness of their decisions.
Lottery distributors are required, under the financial directions made under Section 26 of the 1994 National Lottery etc. Act, to put in place codes of conduct covering both their members and officials. These cover arrangements for dealing with conflicts of interest. Lottery distributors, as non-departmental public bodies, must also abide by the guidance issued by central government on these matters. This requires that registers of interest are open to public inspection. I am confident therefore that there is little or no potential for "cronyism" in the award of grants to film.
On the particular question of safeguards, the National Lottery financial directions also require that grants for film from the lottery must be accompanied by a comprehensive set of terms and conditions. These conditions ensure that the funds are correctly applied and allow grant to be recovered by the lottery distributors should those funds be misapplied or other material conditions infringed. All grants are subject to regular monitoring and evaluation to ensure that work is being carried out within the conditions specified and the strategic objectives of film funding are being achieved.
Lottery moneys, while additional to and outside the control total, are public funds. In terms of accountability they are treated as if the funds were directly voted by Parliament. The systems and safeguards I have outlined for dealing with conflicts of interest and for policing grant, are consistent with those that would be applied to a direct grant from public funds.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has rightly pointed out that the difficulty of securing adequate distribution is one of the main obstacles to the growth of the British film industry. That point was echoed by the other speakers this evening. The Advisory Committee on Film Finance, which the Government set up last year under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Middleton, identified this as a key strategic issue. The Middleton Report noted that the industry in Britain largely comprises small independent producers, whereas the distribution and exhibition sectors are dominated by multinational companies. In this context, competition policy applies and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has looked at the exhibition sector in this country. There is no restriction on anyone being a film distributor in this country; it is part of the general warp and weft of commercial life.
The Middleton Committee recommended that a studio or several mini-studios should be established to help link production more effectively with distribution, for the

1267
reasons we have all touched on this evening. The National Lottery franchises provide an opportunity to take forward the spirit of the Middleton recommendations and to formulate a strategy to influence structural change within the industry. The overall aim of the franchises is to correct the current structural imbalance within the industry by strengthening the independent production sector, so that it can more easily attract investment, spread risk across a slate of films, and build up better and more long-lasting working relationships with the distribution and exhibition sectors. The Arts Council of England drew up its franchise plans after in-depth consultation with the industry.
The franchise arrangements allow for up to 10 per cent. of annual allocations to be spent on development projects, and additionally for money to be spent on pre-production expenses. The conditions of lottery grant also stipulate that all productions must make a contribution to the independent production training fund and employ trainees recruited from a recognised training body. The council has invited bids for up to four film franchises which will allocate lottery funds to companies over a number of years to part finance slates of films.
As has already been mentioned, the deadline for applications is this Friday. No doubt your Lordships will have read comment in the press about some of the applications that may be being made. Clearly I am in no position to comment on the way in which that process is going forward. However, I am encouraged by the reports that many leading players from all sectors of the industry are working together on bids.
The Arts Council's guidelines on the franchises make clear that it is seeking to attract new and additional investment and not to substitute for existing finance. The guidelines also specify that the inclusion of credible plans for achieving theatrical distribution will be one of the key criteria for assessing bids, which I trust will encourage those of your Lordships who have spoken this evening. Partnership between producers and those involved in distribution and international sales is encouraged, and I understand that many of the bids which are coming in will involve distribution companies. I very much hope this will help to allay the concerns which have been expressed.
The Government are also taking forward other recommendations made by the Middleton Advisory Committee on Film Finance. These include the establishment of a forum for discussion between representatives of the film industry and the City. The Middleton Committee itself demonstrated how useful it was to bring the film and financial sectors together. Traditionally there has been little dialogue between them and we hope the new Film Finance Forum will be an excellent way to establish it. Some financial support to help get the forum off the ground has been included in my department's budget for the next two years. We are delighted that Sir Peter Middleton has agreed to act as chairman of the new forum and continue the excellent work he has done to date. We shall be making an announcement soon about the membership of the forum.
1268
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, raised the issue of further tax incentives for the film industry. The Middleton Report put forward a well-argued case for further incentives of this kind, but this of course must be looked at in the context of wider economic policy. Government policy is to maintain a neutral tax system with as few distortions as possible, thus enabling tax rates to be kept low. That policy has delivered the right climate for business growth across all sectors of the economy, with low taxation, low inflation and low labour costs, greatly improving our international competitiveness. On the question of investment schemes, I note that the Middleton Committee concluded that benefits which might accrue from such a scheme would not justify the additional cost to the Exchequer.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about rejoining Eurimages, which I believe is the communautaire way of describing it. As I have explained to your Lordships on a previous occasion, the decision to withdraw from Eurimages was difficult but one we felt we had to make to make necessary savings because it was seen as the weakest element of our films expenditure.
I should also at this point like to refer briefly to the recent efforts of my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield to develop the film industry in Northern Ireland. In December of last year my noble friend announced a £4 million development package. Part of this will go towards establishing a pilot Film Commission to market and promote Northern Ireland locations, talent and facilities. A Film Development Fund will also be set up, which will act as the primary incentive to locate productions in Northern Ireland. A final part of the package will be directed towards training.
I understand that the publication of the guidelines for the new Film Development Fund will take place before Easter. There will also be an announcement about the setting-up of a company to undertake new responsibilities for the development of the film industry in the Province.
The British film industry should look to the future with confidence. Last year, for instance, some 127 films went into production in this country, the highest number for 40 years. Between 1990 and 1994 the UK was one of only 4 countries among the top 20 film-making nations to show an increase in the number of films produced. Although there are still obstacles to distribution and profitability, which we are addressing, as I have described, the potential for further growth is clearly there and it is an exciting prospect. We have in Britain the best technical crews and studio facilities in Europe, one of the lowest effective rates of corporate tax, and the lowest labour costs in the EU's main markets. With production booming and our studios full, Britain is starting to achieve commercial success commensurate with the creative talent that we have always had in abundance. Let me reassure your Lordships that the Government intend to do all they can

1269
to sustain and build on this success. The continuing expansion of the National Lottery as a source of finance for film production and distribution will be a major factor in the continuing growth and well-being of the British film industry.
Britain is once again becoming a major player in world cinema. I leave your Lordships with one very striking statistic: in 1996, the most successful film worldwide, in terms of profit to cost ratio, was a British film—"Trainspotting". The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, declared an interest in the film "The Madness of
1270
King George". I should like to end by wholeheartedly endorsing these sentiments from another performer in that film, Nigel Hawthorne:
"May the spotlight be pointed in our direction for a change, and let us show the rest of the world why they should envy our rich and unique talents".

Civil Procedure Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before nine o'clock.