Lords Sitting of 7 July 1999

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

Begging
Lord Gladwyn Lord Gladwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking any action to discourage begging in London.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government recognise that many people feel intimidated by people begging on the streets and in other public places. Begging in a public place and much of the behaviour associated with it are already offences. The Metropolitan Police have a dedicated unit dealing with rough sleepers and begging. Joint operations are also run with London Transport Police, targeting begging on the Underground. The clear message is that if people want to help those in need, they should give to one of the homeless charities, not to individual beggars.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I accept fully that the police cannot prevent a certain amount of begging and that their resources are limited. But is he aware that it is the perceived increase in the numbers of babies and children used in begging, as confirmed by the social services departments of several inner London councils, on the streets and on the London Underground system which distresses Londoners most? Last winter, the Home Office stated that such practice would not be tolerated. Since it is obvious that the women holding the babies are highly organised, is there not a case for a more co-ordinated approach to that problem, indeed to begging as a whole, along the lines of the Rough Sleepers Initiative?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, are sound. In 1998, almost 1,600 offences of begging were recorded. Last year, the Metropolitan Police recorded only 27 cases of using a child for the purpose of begging—a distinct criminal offence—but recognise that there are likely to be many more. In terms of co-ordination, there has been a well-organised and co-ordinated exercise dealing with beggars with children on the Tube lines between Mile End and Tower Hill. The Metropolitan Police, Bethnal Green division, worked with social services and the NSPCC because all have an extremely relevant interest.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recently in Knightsbridge I was stopped by a young girl who tapped me on the arm and produced a placard saying, "Money for food. I am from Kosovo"? When I arrived here and informed people of the incident,
870
they told me that the Tube was full of such people and they were not from Kosovo. Will the Minister elaborate further on what he has already said?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, anyone who importuned the noble Baroness in Knightsbridge or anywhere else is a better man than I am, Gunga Din! I know of that practice because it happened to me also, but not in Knightsbridge. It seems to me that it is doubly wicked for people to pretend to be from Kosovo and to prey on public sympathy when they are not from there. As I said, it is an offence to have a small child with you for the purposes of begging. Very often, if one offers the price of a sandwich and offers to deliver the sandwich, one is spurned. That is because, I am sorry to say, what is wanted is money, not food. The police are aware of that. Certainly, there is an intensive operation in the Charing Cross area which is starting to work.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, many years ago, my training taught me that collecting alms was not begging if a service was provided with it, for example, singing or music. There is a growing tendency, particularly on the Tube, for people to "entertain" the prisoners travelling by that means. Does my noble friend agree with me that the way to proceed against those people might well be under the Trade Descriptions Act, in view of the quality of some of the entertainment?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend was wrongly instructed by his superior officer. As is well known, there are offences relating to the pretence of singing, playing, performing or offering anything for sale if that is being done with a child under the age of 16. As the noble Lord will doubtless recall, they arise under Section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what is being done about another nuisance, another kind of begging; namely, the practice commonly called "squeegee" performed by "squeegee merchants"? You have stopped in your car at the lights when somebody suddenly appears, cleans the windscreen when you do not want it cleaned, and then stands beside the vehicle in a somewhat intimidatory fashion and suggests you might like to give them some money? I ask what is being done about that, particularly in view of the fact that the Home Secretary said that when his party came into power that matter would be dealt with as a matter of great urgency.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is indeed a matter of great urgency, but it has been overcome in the urgency stakes by reform of this House. What I do with squeegee merchants—and I have the cleanest windscreen in the western world—is just sit there and say, "I haven't got any money".
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, not long ago—and not for the first time—I saw a woman with a small child sitting begging at the foot of an escalator on the Underground. On my rather amateur reading of the Children and Young Persons Act, I am in some doubt

871
whether she was committing what is still technically an imprisonable offence under that legislation or whether she was covered solely by railway by-laws. Can the Minister resolve the point? Further, is he in a position to say what policy the transport police follow in dealing with these very difficult cases?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is a potential criminal offence, both under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and also under the Vagrancy Act 1824. I am happy to reassure your Lordships that the policy of the London Transport Police is to target particular problem areas and to deal with the matter in as sympathetic and firm a way as possible. Some people who are begging are genuinely destitute, but I am afraid that many of them are not.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, following the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government have considered how many of the beggars, or what percentage of them, really are genuine refugees in real need?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, many of them are not. Indeed, quite a lot of those who pretend to be homeless have settled accommodation and many carry misleading literature, as indicated by the noble Baroness. This is a confidence trick on the public and an offence of dishonesty.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the work of the 12 officers of the Homeless Persons' Unit in the Charing Cross area who are widely respected by agencies working with rough sleepers? Is he aware that their remit has now been extended beyond the West End to the whole of Westminster and that it is felt by them, and many others, that they can no longer do their job effectively?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that tribute. In fact, the Rough Sleepers' Initiative, which was launched by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, is focusing entirely on this matter with the intention of reducing the numbers of the homeless and those who sleep rough by two-thirds by the year 2001.

Justice for All: Litigants' Resources
2.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross asked Her Majesty's asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in the legal system wealthy litigants have an unfair advantage against litigants of modest means; and, if so, whether this is consistent with their aim of justice for all.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I am afraid that, across the whole of life, superior resources can secure advantages over those who are not well off. The legal system is no exception. However, the
872
reformed legal system that I am trying to deliver aims to prevent litigants with superior resources gaining unfair advantages in litigation. That is a major objective of the new unified Court Procedure Rules, which require judges to ensure that cases are conducted in a manner proportionate to the issues in dispute and the means of both parties.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer. The Question occurred to me some weeks ago when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in announcing limits to trial by jury said, when speaking about the present arrangements:
"Delay pollutes the system".—[Official Report, 19/5/99; col. 363.]
Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, characterised as "manipulation of the system" for the purposes of delay does not apply only to remand prisoners electing for trial in the Crown Court? Will he acknowledge that such "manipulation of the system" can also arise in civil cases, and in higher courts, where a wealthy litigant can "prolong interlocutory proceedings"—I believe that is the phrase—in order to delay the full trial of an action, with the effect, if not the intention, of exhausting the resources of a poorer litigant?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the most fundamental change brought about by the recent civil justice reforms is the introduction of active case management by the judges, with timetables set and policed by the courts. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said, namely, that the civil system can be sought to be manipulated in the same way as my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn acknowledged the criminal system could be. But the object of active case management is to prevent that happening. The court can, and should, apply strict sanctions for non-compliance with its timetabling orders; for example, it can strike out a statement of case or order costs against a non-compliant party. The financially stronger party will no longer be able to dictate the pace of litigation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware how very welcome and encouraging his answers to this important Question have been? Further, will he concede that it is possible to take early action as regards this abuse of proceedings whereby very rich men can exhaust the resources of those much poorer than themselves?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, one of the objects of "hands-on" case management by judges is that it will deal directly with that situation. It is intended to bear down firmly on the twin evils of the law, which are excessive delay and excessive cost. This really puts the judges on trial to make case management work and deliver. However, I acknowledge that it requires a substantial culture change and a judicial determination

873
to impose tough sanctions to ensure that timetables are strictly observed and that unnecessary procedures are not indulged in for reasons of forensic advantage.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, may be referring to is an action of defamation in which a wealthy individual, the defendant, appears to grind down a plaintiff of more modest means. Can my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor say whether the law in any way assists a plaintiff of modest means to bring or defend an action of defamation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a very particular question in relation to defamation. I know not whether the noble Lord who tabled this Question had in mind an action of defamation, but I can appreciate that in an action of defamation a wealthy defendant could seek to manipulate the system so as to grind down the plaintiff. As I say, case management is now designed to prevent that. Of course, the legal costs of bringing or defending defamation actions are high. I intend to bring into force early next year an important provision of the Defamation Act 1996 to help those of modest means involved in defamation proceedings. There will be a new summary procedure. This will enable a judge to decide a case—where the defendant has no reasonable prospect of success whatsoever—without a jury and to decide it without the high costs of a long-drawn-out litigation. The remedies include an order that the defendant publish a suitable correction and apology and pay compensation of up to £10,000. Defendants of modest means will also benefit from this procedure because a judge can strike out a hopeless claim; that is, one where there is no reasonable prospect of success.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that his proposals to remove legal aid from personal injury actions permit wealthy insurance companies to grind down their opponents and that they have shifted the balance in favour of the insurance companies when personal injury actions are brought'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not accept that. I have to say to the noble Lord—as I think I have said to him before during our debates on the Access to Justice Bill—that this Government won the general election on a pledge that they would heat schools and hospitals as their major spending priorities. We did not pledge that legal aid should be our number one spending priority. Lawyers who have vested interests in maintaining the slack old ways of conventional legal aid will simply have to learn to live with that fact. Most personal injury cases which are worth while can be funded perfectly well through conditional fee agreements provided by the private sector. Scarce public funds should not be allocated to funding cases which can be effectively pursued by other means.

Residential Care Homes
2.53 p.m.
Lord Laming Lord Laming asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the responsibilities of local authorities for the continuing care of the elderly people they place in independently run residential homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, local authorities have an ongoing responsibility for people they support in residential care. We are aware, however, that local authorities do not always keep placements of older people under regular review. In our White Paper Modernising Social Services we have made it clear that when people are admitted to a care home case reviews should be carried out by the local authority within three months, and thereafter at least once a year.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. Does she accept that local authorities have moved from being the dominant providers of residential care to being principally purchasers of care? That being so, does the Minister agree that it is important to remind local authorities that they have a continuing responsibility both to ensure that a placement is appropriate for the needs of the individual and of good quality, and also regularly to review an individual's needs, as these change over a period of time?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord obviously speaks with a great deal of experience in this area. In 1990 policy guidance was issued to remind local authorities that they should review the needs of people in receipt of services, whether those services were provided by local authorities or commissioned by them. The noble Lord is right to point out that we should recognise that regular reviews offer benefits both for the individual and for the service as a whole. Under the fair access to care services initiative, we are taking steps to ensure that local authorities will be required to undertake regular reviews. We are consulting on the details at the moment and we intend to issue draft guidance to them in April 2000.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what can be done to help those people who undertake to pay for their own care in a home—they may choose to do so because they want to be independent or they may do so for some other reason—but find after a time that they run out of money? As I am sure the Minister knows, these people find themselves in a difficult position because local authorities can be unwilling to accept responsibility for these people who have tried to be independent. Can the Minister say how we can make life simpler and more seamless for these people?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the responsibility to review care will apply to the care needs of all people, whether they are in local authority homes or in

875
independent residential homes, when they are funded by a local authority. However, as the noble Baroness rightly points out, not everyone is funded by a local authority. The House has considered some of the problems that can arise in that situation, most recently when we considered the Statement that accompanied the report of the Royal Commission on long-term care. Some of the fundamental, underlying problems of the funding of long-term care have to be analysed in the context of that report.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, what has been the fate of the report of the committee which looked into standards of residential care in homes for the elderly, which I believe was submitted to the department in January? Further, what progress has been made by the national beds inquiry into the whole issue of delayed discharge from acute beds into residential homes which has been caused by the lack of clear eligibility criteria?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pinpoints a number of areas. He is right to suggest that we have to make sure that we have in place proper hospital discharge policies that take into account both the need for adequate hospital care but also the need for adequate provision of non-hospital care when that is most appropriate to the needs of the individual. That entails co-operation and partnership between local authorities and health authorities. It also entails—I come back to the issue of reviews—ensuring that placements continue to be appropriate. I believe that the reviewing of a placement after three months is particularly important. We are interested in fostering independence. We have to consider whether placements—which are often allocated as the result of an emergency situation—are still appropriate or whether they might be more appropriate for others. We do not want placements to become permanent by default.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many independently run residential homes are being squeezed by government in two ways? On the one hand, they are constantly being told to raise their standards of care but, on the other, they are told by local authorities to accept below inflation levels of fee increases, notwithstanding nationally imposed pay increases for nursing staff that are well above inflation? Does the Minister acknowledge that this squeeze is placing many residential homes in a very difficult financial position indeed?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are pressures on those providing services, whether in the public or the private sector. However, I do not think anyone would think it acceptable for us to abrogate responsibility for ensuring that standards in private placements are of an adequate quality, especially when—as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, reminded us—many of those placements are commissioned and paid for by local authorities.

The Post Office
3 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to privatise the Post Office, or any part of its operations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Statement on the Post Office made by Peter Mandelson on 7th December last made it clear that at present wholesale privatisation would not be a realistic option. It would take a long time to introduce, cause massive uncertainty and diminish the chance of immediate reform. Further details on the full package of reforms will be announced in the White Paper on Post Office reform which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry expects to publish tomorrow.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his, as usual, courteous and helpful reply—although I am sure he will admit that on this occasion it was not very informative. Perhaps the Minister can assure the House of one matter which surely is not affected by any Statement on the Post Office. Will he reaffirm the undertaking that it will remain the Government's policy for the rest of this Parliament that there will continue to be one universal rate of postage, with daily collections and deliveries at no extra charge for remote rural areas?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I always try to be courteous to the House. However, if I am informative, I apologise. I have no intention whatever of being informative when a Statement is being made tomorrow—and that applies to the noble Baroness's second question.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I should declare an interest in that I am a national honorary life member of the Union of Communication Workers. Does my noble friend accept that there is absolutely no commitment in the Labour Party manifesto, on which we were elected to power on 1st May 1997, to privatise the Post Office or any part of it? Does he further accept that all the statements made between the 1st May 1997 and today have indicated that there is no intention to privatise any part of the Post Office? Can my noble friend assure me that that will continue to be the position of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in my first Answer I quoted directly from the Statement made by Peter Mandelson on 7th December, which was that at present wholesale privatisation would not be a realistic option. That remains the position.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, without revealing the details of any Statement which may or may not be made tomorrow, or of the White Paper which is to be published tomorrow, can the Minister say whether consideration has been given to changing the

877
Telecommunications Act so that the Post Office can not only, as now, receive items by electronic means, but also dispatch them by the same electronic means?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that may or may not be one of the issues which will be covered in the White Paper tomorrow.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the question of ownership of the Post Office is perhaps less relevant than the question of whether the Post Office can operate as a fully fledged commercial operation? Since the last Statement by his colleague in another place, is he satisfied that the Post Office has the power to have the appropriate pay structure in place to operate on an international scale, as it clearly seeks to do? Does he accept that there is inadequate transparency in the operations of the Post Office, in particular with regard to the prices that are being paid for international acquisitions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord may think that; I cannot possibly comment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, whatever gloss the Minister puts on it either today or tomorrow in the Statement, is not the creation of a plc with share capital the first step on the route to privatisation? Before the noble Lord dismisses that question, perhaps he will discuss the matter with his noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury, who will confirm that that is the way BP was privatised. Are we not right in thinking that the Post Office will join the Tote, air traffic control and BNFL on the list of Labour's privatisations now that it is a convert to privatisation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to make any assumptions he likes about tomorrow's White Paper and Statement; I shall not add to his speculation.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does not the noble Lord accept that the question I asked was whether consideration has been given to a particular area of Post Office activity, not what the result of that consideration will be?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, subject to the Statement made on the 7th December, consideration is given to all options.
Lord Monson: My Lords, given that first-class letters habitually take two days to cross London and that correctly addressed letters are being delivered to the wrong addresses with increasing frequency, can the Minister say what steps are being taken to improve Post Office efficiency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if that question is relevant to the original Question, I shall not answer it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the White Paper being published tomorrow, I realise how difficult it is to
878
ask the Minister a question. None the less, does he agree that the Post Office has performed extremely well in recent years? Does he further agree that this area has become a competitive market, with other post offices around the world building their businesses? Whatever may or may not be in the White Paper, is it not desirable that the Post Office in Britain should be put in the same position?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not at all difficult either to answer or to fail to answer these questions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his first statement; the Post Office has done a good job.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does not the Minister concede that what he has told the House this afternoon is in direct contrast to what the Prime Minister said yesterday?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think he dealt with this.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, can my noble friend explain what he means by "no wholesale privatisation"? What does the word "wholesale" mean in that context?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I have said anything new, it was entirely unintentional. The words "wholesale privatisation" were spoken by Peter Mandelson on 7th December. I assume "wholesale" means the whole of the range of Post Office services. My noble friend could have asked that question on 7th December.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on Libya.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 237 [Appointment of members by the Mayor]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 326C:
Page 129, line 28, leave out ("Mayor of London") and insert ("Greater London Authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 326C, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 326D, 327, 328A, 330A, 353 and 354, all of which stand in my name and the names of my noble friends.
I and many of my noble friends have battered our heads against the wall of the Government in an attempt to increase the authority of the assembly and to involve it more in the activities of the Greater London Authority. In this particular instance we are doing so in relation to the appointment of the board of the London Development Agency, but I should perhaps advert to the basic problem as I do not expect to get a hopeful or optimistic answer from the Minister on this particular issue. I should say to him at this stage that I am minded to attempt a different approach to the problem. That will be after the Committee stage has been completed because we have gone past the parts of the Bill to which my remarks apply.
The problem arises because the Government have borrowed a part of American practice. The terminology that goes with that practice is somewhat in conflict with the terminology that goes with standard English practice. In standard English practice the authority is a democratically elected one—and across the United Kingdom that happens to be the council.
The difficulty that we have in relation to the Greater London Authority is that there appear to be two authorities: one is the mayor and the other is, in English practice, the assembly. We have bashed our heads against that problem on many occasions. It seems that a resolution will be brought about by amending the Bill elsewhere. A satisfactory solution might be found by making it clear that the Greater London Authority is in fact the mayor, and he has an assembly alongside for convenience to provide some monitoring and supervision in regard to what he is doing.
To return to Amendment No. 326C, the problem with the appointment of the whole of the board of the London Development Agency being entirely in the hands of the mayor is that it concentrates power too strongly into one pair of hands without there being adequate power for the decisions to be monitored and checked in advance. We believe that that is wrong. We believe that there should be more people involved than simply the mayor in a matter as important as the appointment of the board of the London Development Agency. Therefore, we have suggested a change in the wording to leave out "Mayor of London" and insert "Greater London Authority". According to Clause 2, the Greater London Authority will consist of the mayor and the assembly. The amendment is consistent with that. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: A number of amendments in my name and those of my noble friends are grouped with this amendment. We, too, are concerned about the respective roles in London. When examining this clause, I wondered whether it would be appropriate to try in some way to replicate the role of the Chambers outside London. I was not nearly so ambitious as to have a go at that kind of provision. I recognise that the assembly has been given a
880
role in the matters of appointment and so forth with which the amendments in this group are concerned.
For example, in regard to Amendment No. 327A dealing with appointments, I acknowledge that the Bill gives the assembly the role of acting as consultee. We seek to provide the assembly with the opportunity also to say no to appointments. We have said throughout our debates on the Bill that an opportunity will be lost if the scrutiny role of the assembly is down-played. We are told that that is not what the Government have in mind in their modernisation programme, and that they believe that a scrutiny body can scrutinise, as it were, in advance. To down-play the assembly's role would represent a great loss of opportunity as regards the talent that we hope will be available in the new body. While this is not the model that we would wish to see, with a mayor who will almost certainly be elected substantially on the basis of personality as well as politics—or possibly personality more than politics—it would be right for the 25 assembly members to play a restraining and a constructive role. The amendments that we have tabled in this group continue that thread in our argument.
I have referred to Amendment No. 327A. Amendment No. 333A relates to the appointment of chairmen of the new authority. Amendment No. 348A relates to the disposal of land for less than the market value, or acquiring an interest in another body. We believe that the assembly as well as the mayor should give consent in such a situation. Amendment No. 350A would allow the assembly a role in the period within which a public meeting is to be held following the publication of the annual report and provisions for the conduct of the meeting. I suspect that that whole area, bureaucratic as it may be, is one to which we may want to return in general with regard to the assembly at a later stage. Its good and effective workings depend on such provision.
Amendment No. 350B adds a requirement for the assembly to give consent before the LDA issues a compulsory purchase order. That could be an important part of its activities, Amendment No. 351A deals with a major matter—namely, if the LDA changes its name, it will be required to tell the assembly that it has done so. If the Minister tells me that I am being rather prescriptive, I shall accept his criticism. Amendment No. 351B would require the assembly to approve by a simple majority the decision of the mayor to remove a member of the LDA whom the mayor regards as unfit to carry on the functions. It would also give the assembly the power on its own to vote to remove an unfit member from office.
These are in themselves small matters, but they amount to important indicators as to the respective roles of the people who will have the responsibility to make sure that London, and London's regeneration, work well.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: This part of the Bill deals with the London Development Agency. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognised explicitly, and to some extent also the noble Baroness, the amendments in this grouping relate back to the constitutional part of the Bill and how it feeds through into this section. Although they

881
may be related to matters dealing with the LDA, they stem from a difference of opinion on the respective roles of the mayor and the assembly.
In that context, I find it difficult to tackle the amendments each and severally, because they all stem from a fundamental difference. We propose that the mayor should play the executive decision-taking role in this as in other areas, and that the assembly should provide scrutiny of the mayor's actions. The majority of the authority's functions will be exercised by the mayor. They include all of the functions that are dealt with by these amendments: consenting to the appointment and remuneration of LDA staff; consenting to the acquisition of company shares; and approving the LDA strategy. Those are all functions exercisable by the mayor. It is not appropriate that those decisions should be exercised jointly, or partially jointly, with the assembly. That would not be a recipe for efficient and effective government, and it is not what we have discussed from the very beginning, prior to the referendum, in terms of how the authority operates.
The role of the assembly is very important. It is to hold the mayor to account for the way in which his executive functions are exercised. That is a model for good, accountable administration. All of these amendments seem, to suggest some degree of joint executive power in areas which we would reserve for the mayor. If we give joint executive power, how can the assembly then effectively scrutinise its own exercise of that executive power—and in particular, in relation to these amendments, with respect to the LDA? If the assembly is already party to the decision, or has second-guessed the mayor's decision, how can it then exercise an independent scrutiny function?
I do not wish to go any further, but the amendments undermine our essential approach. We believe that they would be unworkable, particularly in this area which relates to important economic decisions. If there were a difference of opinion on the nature of the regeneration plan for all or part of London and the assembly and the mayor could not reach a compromise, how would we be able effectively to operate the LDA's function? That is not a recipe for good government and, equally importantly, it is not a good recipe for improving the economy and prosperity of London.
I am open to pressure from the noble Lord to go further on particular amendments. However, I do not believe that it would shed any greater light on the group of amendments. This is a fundamental constitutional matter to which the noble Lord indicated he wished to return on Report. This kind of amendment is probably best dealt with in that context, not this. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply which was neither more nor less than I expected. As I said when I moved the amendment, we have had this debate on a number of occasions. The Government have been firm in their view, but the root cause of the difficulty is that there is a difference in terminology between the place from which this idea
882
came and the practice in this country. We need to recognise that, but that recognition cannot be achieved through the amendments.
I do not propose to press the individual amendments. However, in response to one comment made by the Minister, it seems to me that we should all be concerned if there was no agreement between the mayor and the assembly. The Minister posed the rhetorical question: How would we then obtain action? Democratic practice in this country has been that we proceed by agreement. In the new authority, if there is no agreement but there can still be action, we may find that at some point we are stepping into dangerous territory. With that slight hesitation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 326D to 327A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 328 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 328A not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 328B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 329 or 330.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 328B:
Page 129, line 33, leave out from ("effect,") to end of line 38 and insert ("the membership of the London Development Agency shall include—

(a) at least two elected members of the Assembly, and

(b) at least two elected members of a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London.

() In this section a reference to elected members shall refer to their being elected members at the time of their appointment.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 329, 330, 331, 332 and 352 in the names of other Members of the Committee. I should be happy if Amendment No. 328B were accepted without discussion, but that is probably an unrealistic ambition. I am sure that the Lord Chairman's warning about pre-emption will not preclude discussion of the matter.
Clause 237(9) provides for the mayor to make certain appointments. They include four members of the agency who are, for the purpose of my amendment members of the London assembly, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London. Whether they are or were such at the time of their appointment is an irrelevant distinction. For most purposes in the Bill, the latter is grouped with the London borough councils.
My amendment proposes that rather than being able to appoint four members from any one or a group of those categories, the mayor should appoint at least two members of the assembly and at least two members of a London borough or of the Common Council of the City of London. The London boroughs have an interest in the issue of regeneration. It is obviously accepted in the clause that it would be a good thing if members of a London borough council were able to be appointed to the new agency. However, the mayor could take the view that no London borough councillors should be appointed because the appointees could all come from

883
the assembly or, conversely, that no assembly members should be appointed. This takes us a little into the area of the respective roles, which we have been discussing. I confess that I am a little puzzled that members of the assembly are eligible for appointment to the London Development Agency, after the description given by the Minister of the assembly's role in all this.
However, I accept that the people concerned should be members of the assembly and members of London boroughs, and my amendment would ensure that that happened. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Grouped with Amendment No. 328B are my Amendments Nos. 329, 330, 331, 332 and 352. They have somewhat similar but not quite identical purposes to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment No. 329 seeks to ensure that the members of the London Development Agency who come from the London assembly, the Common Council of the City of London or a London borough council are there as of right. Thus it would not be possible in the first instance to appoint four members from that category in the Bill from one particular authority. So the amendment ensures that the representation comes from a wider area than would be possible under the drafting of the Bill, as I understand it.
Amendments Nos. 331 and 332 seek to delete from Clause 237, page 130, lines 1 and 6, the words, "appear to the Mayor to be persons". The mayor has to appoint people who are businessmen and not, as the wording of the Bill loosely puts it, "people who appear to be businessmen". I find that wording passing strange. That is the reason for the amendments.
Amendment No. 352 takes us to the relevant sub-paragraph of Schedule 20 towards the end of the Bill. Its purpose is to ensure that membership of those outside bodies is the prime qualification for serving on the London Development Agency. If the persons concerned cease to be members of the body from which they are appointed, they cease to be members of the London Development Agency and a successor must be appointed. Again, the purpose is deliberate, it is to ensure that the members appointed from the bodies—whether from one of the London borough councils or from the assembly—are active members of the body from which they come rather than someone who was, at the time of his appointment, a member of such a body.
As I understand the current drafting, someone from the Greater London Assembly could be appointed to serve on the London Development Agency and continue to serve on that body until the mayor chose to appoint his successor. That could take a long time and might go beyond the next election. That individual might have been away from the assembly for 10 years but would still be eligible if his appointment was continuous and it was not revised in that time. The Minister may say that that is an unlikely scenario, as it may well be. However, the fact is that under the present drafting that is a possibility. We should try to improve the drafting. It may be that the wording of my amendment is not as precise as the Minister or—perhaps more importantly—the parliamentary draftsman requires. Nevertheless,
884
I ask the noble Lord to give serious consideration to these particular issues. I would be very happy if he was prepared to look at them and see whether some tightening of the drafting was desirable.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: There is a certain element of déjà vu in relation to these amendments for reasons that are entirely different from the previous group. We went into many of these issues when we debated the Regional Development Agencies Bill, which is now an Act. Although we wish to have a minimum spread of experience on the agency board, we want people who can contribute to the aims of the board, in particular its economic ones, and who can act together with the various private and public institutions within the region. The same applies to London. People on the board are not representative in that sense; they are there because of their talents and experience.
Amendments Nos. 352 and 352A would allow the mayor to make it a condition of appointment that a member must resign, or cease to be chair or deputy chair, if he ceases to be an elected member of a local authority. We debated this matter at length in considering the RDA Bill. That kind of rigidity would not be conducive to the good working of the agency, and somebody of great experience could be removed directly if that happened. Clearly, the mayor must exercise a degree of judgment, but that rigidity is not appropriate. Nor is it desirable that local authority members should lose office automatically on ceasing to hold elected office. Presumably, former members of a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the assembly, will still be able to bring valuable experience to the board's deliberations.
The Government have thought carefully about this in relation to this Bill and the wider context of RDAs. Clause 237 ensures that if there were only three such members on the board of the LDA the next appointment would have to be an additional member of such a council. This achieves much the same end, in that the representation of local authorities will be maintained but in a manner that is flexible and not too prescriptive.
Amendments Nos. 331 and 332 replace the requirement that half the board members including the chair must be persons who appear to the mayor to have experience of running a business to an absolute requirement that they have such experience. We have implemented the general policy on RDAs so that in London the LDA should be business-led, using a practical test which follows the model adopted for the Welsh Development Agency with some success over the years. At least half the board, including the chair, must be people who seem to the mayor to have experience of running a business. We do not wish to see anyone on the board who is there to represent a particular interest group, as would happen if Amendment No. 331 was accepted. Board members are there to use their skills and experience for the common good.
It is true that there may be many views as to what constitutes experience of running a business and the appearance of so doing. Nevertheless, this is a fairly

885
common phraseology which indicates that the mayor is left with a degree of discretion in this area. I believe that it would be inappropriate, certainly on the face of the Bill, to remove that discretion. We are looking for people with experience and a balance of backgrounds, but the requirements in this set of amendments would be inappropriate from both points of view. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister appeared to deal with the group by starting at the end and finishing at the beginning. I am not sure that he has answered my point. My concentration may well have lapsed. My point was not related to subsection (10), to which I turn in my next amendment, but the division between members of the assembly and members of local authorities. Perhaps I should read the Minister's reply in Hansard and see whether the point has been covered.
Lord Whitty: In my opening sentence I indicated my belief that Amendment No. 328B and some of the other amendments fixed the requirement too rigidly in relation to local authority representation. I also indicated that we had been over these arguments once or twice before. I recall that the noble Baroness was herself involved in some of those exchanges. Perhaps I took a shortcut, for which I apologise.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not believe that I have been involved in this debate before because, by definition, it could not have arisen in the development agencies in the other regions. Hoy/ever, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 329 and 330 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I must point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 330ZA is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 330A to 331A inclusive.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 330ZA:
Page 129, line 39, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Baroness said: Grouped with Amendment No. 330ZA is Amendment No. 331A, to which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will speak. Amendment No. 330ZA is again about the business experience of members of the new agency. I have heard the observations of the Minister about the need for business experience and I do not ask him to repeat that part of his explanation. I take this opportunity to ask how and if that provision fits with Section 2(3) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. As the Minister said, we spent a great deal of time on that Act and Section 2(3) was amended during the passage of that legislation following some very energetic work on the part of Members of your Lordships' House.
In making appointments under that section, the Secretary of State shall consult—I do not suggest that he appoints on the basis of representative capacity—those who represent local authorities, employers and employees within the area and individuals who may
886
represent the interests of those who live, work or carry on business in rural parts of an agency's area. I accept that London is not comparable with, say, the south west, although my noble friend Lord Beaumont and I both made the point during the passage of the RDA Act that London should certainly have regard to the relationship with its own hinterland. In view of the way in which both the authority and the London Development Agency will operate, they need to be very much aware of the effect of what happens in London on surrounding areas. London of course has a few areas that are slightly less urban than others, but that is a different issue.
What happens to the consultation, given that, for instance, those who represent employees working in the area may well have particular views about business which are different from those of employers? I should like to be reassured that those interests will be taken into account in the appointments. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 331A. Earlier, with reference to Amendment No. 328B, the noble Lord the Minister said, with what I think was a slightly wry smile, that we might all have different opinions about what running a business means. This amendment goes to the heart of that matter.
The mayor, for instance, may have no experience at all of business. He or she may have no reference point by which to judge the candidates wishing to be on the LDA. Indeed, he or she may well have rather a different opinion about running a business from that of the existing members of the LDA. I have been involved in business for 25 years, and I probably have some strange ideas about what running a business does and does not mean. So it is not necessarily the case that even those involved in business have all the answers, but they will probably have a better idea than the mayor, who may well have been immersed in politics for a number of years. That is no slur on any candidates for that office who are present today.
However, we suggest a rather different model. It seems to us sensible to have a shortlist of three drawn up by the London Business Board, which is effectively a triumvirate comprising the London Chamber of Commerce, London First and the CBI. We on these Benches suggest that that would be an effective way of making sure that the best candidates were sourced and then identified, so that from that shortlist of three the mayor could pick the appropriate candidates.
Lord Whitty: To answer the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the mayor is under a duty to consult in all of his functions, including this one, and with regard to the range of people and representatives to whom the noble Baroness refers.
Read literally, Amendment No. 330ZA would in effect remove the requirement that the board be business-led, and would therefore have almost the opposite effect to that which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks. We have indicated that we want the RDAs to be business-led, and have implemented that policy in the RDAs generally. At least half the board, including the chairperson, must comprise people who have had experience of running a business.

887
Once we stipulate the organisations that will nominate and put up a shortlist of three to the mayor—rather as, I assume, the Church of England puts up nominations for Bishops to the Prime Minister—they become representative of those who put them forward.
I recognise the importance of the three organisations that make up the London Business Board. Nevertheless, neither they nor anybody else should be regarded as having somebody who is representative of them on the board; representative of the kind of experience that their members have, certainly, but not nominated through a formal process as stipulated in Amendment No. 331A. Although I note the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I do not believe that the way in which he is seeking to achieve them is appropriate. I hope that the noble Baroness will seek leave to withdraw her amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may say that I am somewhat disappointed by what the noble Lord the Minster has said. I had hoped that he could, without accepting a need for the amendment to be on the face of the Bill, give a rather better nod in the direction of the way in which the organisations in question might be involved. I can think of few better people to be involved in rigorously examining the potential members of the London Development Agency than, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, before whom a number of candidates have quailed in the past when seeking chief executive jobs. There is expertise there and it should be recognised. Simply relying on the mayor's judgment in those circumstances is not adequate.
Baroness Hamwee: Applicants may have quailed before the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, but my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was not here the other night when the noble Lord reassured the Committee, in a debate on chairs and chairmen, that he had always insisted on being called Allen, so they should not have quailed.
I accept that if we removed the requirement for business appointments, that would sink my noble friend's amendment, but we are exploring the whole area in general terms, so, although there may seem to be an inconsistency, there is no inconsistency in our inquiries. The point linking my noble friend's amendment and mine goes back to the Regional Development Agencies Act. The mayor is to be required to consult those who represent, employers in the agency's area. I hope that we shall at any rate receive an acknowledgement from the Minister that the organisations to which my noble friend referred will be among those consulted.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: If the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is to ask whether this is a parallel form of consultation to that which is in the general RDA Act,
888
the answer is "Yes", because subsection (10) effectively transposes that provision, with the exception to which the noble Baroness has referred.
Baroness Hamwee: We have exhausted this subject—for the moment, at any rate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 330A to 332 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 333:
Page 130, line 7, at end insert—
("() Proposed members shall complete a declaration detailing their business interests, whether they have been made bankrupt, been a party to voluntary arrangements, whether there are any judgements against them, whether they have been convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty or an offence under legislation (whether or not of the United Kingdom) relating to companies (including insider dealing), building societies, banking or other financial services, or if they have been disqualified as a director or of any other material information, and this declaration should be publicly available for inspection one month before appointment"").
The noble Lord said: I hope that with this amendment we move on to what might be considered to be slightly more fertile territory.
The amendment proposes that members appointed to the London Development Agency shall complete a declaration similar to that made by company directors of listed plcs. This would provide a considerable safeguard against the possibility of misappointment.
It may be a matter of regret, but things have occasionally gone wrong in local government, so I believe that we are entirely right to insist on the highest possible code of ethical practice in this area, especially as the LDA will be dealing with the disbursement of public money.
The amendment is certainly worthy of consideration. The noble Lord the Minister may feel that it is a sufficient defence to say, "The Regional Development Agencies Bill did not have such a clause". That is, of course, a plausible defence, but if something could have been done to improve that Bill, which we did not see at the time, it would be entirely appropriate on this Bill, when we are dealing with a parallel arrangement, to insert the improvement. That is the purpose of the amendment. I hope that the Government will consider it very seriously. It is unexceptionable and should be welcomed. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment requires proposed members of the LDA board to complete a declaration covering certain issues which might render them unsuitable to serve on the board. But it does not provide for what should happen at the end of the month during which the declaration is made publicly available. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is apparently seeking to have publicity without seeking to use the classifications in his amendment as a means of debarring people from appointment.
We believe that the appointment process consists of the mayor seeking the views of interested parties on who might be appointed, then appointing the candidates of his or her choice. The suggestions made will inform but not constrain. The mayor will no doubt wish to vet

889
potential appointees, but we believe that it would be inappropriate to specify in the detail proposed in the amendment as to how that should be clone.
It is fundamental that the mayor is given the responsibility for making key decisions and we do not wish to be unduly prescriptive. We believe that the amendment would be so. The mayor is answerable to the electorate for the quality of his or her decisions, and any mayor must be very well aware that public confidence in the LDA board is one of the preconditions for its success.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggested, there is the constraint that if a member of the LDA becomes bankrupt" that is a valid ground for removal from office. That is one of the conditions that we accepted during the recent passage of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. We believe that that is sufficient, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: Having listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and to the Minister, I do not know whether I am alone in finding the Minister's response disappointing. There is considerable merit in the noble Lord's proposals, because board membership is an important job and half the board will be composed of business people. It is important that they are seen not to have conflicts of interest and that they have the confidence of Londoners in the running of the LDA.
The Minister did not suggest any alternatives and she did riot mention any drafting objections to the amendment. She said that the amendment was not appropriate, but she gave no real assurance that there would be a robust system for declarations of interest in any form. Perhaps she could explain the process as she envisages it. The situation can be tricky if people have wide business interests with some geographical overlap. It is important that those who belong to the LDA and become board members understand the considerable public transparency that is required of them. The amendment would go a long way to serve that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is referring to two different issues. The amendment deals solely with prescribing on the face of the Bill the mechanism for identifying a particular set of past actions that we may all expect the mayor to take into account; it does not deal with the declaration of current interests. The issue to which the noble Lord spoke is dealt with elsewhere.
Lord Clement-Jones: I hope that the Minister will excuse me for intervening again, but the amendment states:
"Proposed members shall complete a declaration detailing their business interests".
Then it continues by describing the other aspects.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, but the issue to which the noble Lord spoke—and the important issue at this stage of the Bill—is whether publicity is
890
given to the declaration of interests. The noble Lord will find that other parts of the Bill deal with declarations of interest.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I regret to say that I found the Minister's response disappointing, although I would accept that perhaps the amendment we have proposed is deficient because it does not propose a specific line of action as a consequence of an aspect of the declaration revealing, shall we say, a flaw in a person's curriculum vitae that should disbar him or her from sitting on the board of the LDA. I wondered for a few optimistic moments whether, if we could come to an agreement on the additional words that would be necessary to bring that about, the Government might be willing to accept the amendment. Subsequently, the Minister left me with the view that I was being wildly optimistic.
Whether we put the point on the face of the Bill or not, the mayor would be wise to require such a declaration of anybody he was proposing to put on the board of the LDA. It could be argued that that is a different matter that should be left to the mayor's discretion, but our job is to secure a situation in which only the highest ethical and business standards apply in the management and direction of the LDA. Without a mandatory provision, such as contained in the amendment, the process will not pass muster when we consider whether we have done our best to safeguard the future of London.
Lord Clement-Jones: I suspect that Schedule 2, paragraph 8, of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 was the subject of the Minister's comments when she said that declarations of interest were dealt with later in the Bill. That paragraph simply requires declarations of members' interests case by case, after the event, but that is not as full a requirement as that envisaged by the amendment.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: No businessman who should be considered for such a nomination would find it strange to agree to such a declaration, because we sign such things all the time for the Stock Exchange and for other purposes. We would not put off anyone who should not be put off by the process.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Sheppard on this important issue. I invite the Minister to consider what has been said. I shall also consider what has been said, but we will need to return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 333A not moved.]
Clause 237 agreed to.
Clause 238 [Delegation of functions by Ministers to the Mayor]:
The Chairman of Committees: I have to point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 334 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 334A to 334C inclusive.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 334:
Page 130, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: The amendment is in essence a probing amendment, and I expect that the Government will be relieved to hear that. It is our view that in general the Bill will give too much power, in respect of the mayor and the new London institutions, to the Secretary of State.
Clause 238(2) would undermine to a certain extent the possible activities of the LDA and should therefore be deleted. The LDA should have absolute certainty about its likely role and responsibilities, and should be accountable to, but independent of, the mayor in the conduct of its operations. The business community, too, should have a clear idea of the role of the London Development Agency. We believe that the subsection which we propose to delete confuses that clarity and could result in functions that ought properly to be exercised by the regional development agencies, and which would indeed be exercised by the regional development agencies anywhere else in England, being exercised by the mayor, who, as was said in response to earlier amendments, might for very good reasons have no business experience at all. We do not think that that would be appropriate. We believe that deleting the subsection would help to clarify matters. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendments Nos. 334A and 334B seek to exercise some constraint on the considerable powers given to the mayor. Our amendments provide for the assembly to have a role in that its approval would be required.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In replying to the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will allow me to put on the record that we always read and consider very carefully the points that are raised during debate on any of the amendments.
Section 6 of the Regional Development Agencies Act provides for the delegation of certain functions, described as "eligible" functions, by Ministers to RDAs and lays down the conditions under which such delegations can be made, varied and revoked. Clause 238 amends Section 6 so that a Minister may delegate any eligible function to the mayor or, with the mayor's consent, to the LDA. Such delegations are to be under the same terms as delegations to RDAs outside London, which includes making the delegation subject to such conditions as the Minister sees fit.
Any such delegated function can be further delegated by the mayor to the LDA under Clause 31 of the Bill. However, if it is delegated to the LDA in this way, the mayor is obliged to attach conditions to this delegation to ensure that the conditions attached by the Minister to the original delegation are satisfied. Amendment No. 334 would ensure that Ministers could only delegate economic development functions, under the Regional Development Agencies Act, to the LDA and not to the mayor and that the mayor's consent would not be
892
required for that. Therefore, the amendment would undermine our proposals.
Amendments Nos. 334A and 334B would require the assembly's consent for ministerial functions to be delegated to the LDA or to the mayor. It is fundamental to the model of government that we are proposing that the mayor should play an executive decision-taking role and the assembly provide scrutiny of the mayor's actions. The role of the assembly is to hold the mayor to account for the way in which his functions are exercised. That is a model for good, accountable administration and is the principle that runs through the Bill.
Amendment No. 334C seeks to delegate to the LDA a miscellany of functions and funding regimes. The first of these is, in fact, already provided for in Section 36 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. This allows the Secretary of State to direct the Urban Regeneration Agency to transfer to RDAs appropriate properties, rights and liabilities as a consequence of the RDAs carrying out the functions of the URA in their regions. I can assure the noble Lord that we intend to make such a transfer, when the LDA is established, on 3rd July next year.
The second would go beyond the functions delegated to other RDAs and, indeed, was debated during the passage of the RDA Bill. Assisted areas define where government can give specified financial support to industries, and we have decided that this should be reserved for Ministers as at present. The RDAs will, however, have an important role in advising on applications for assistance.
The third would allow for Ministers to delegate to the LDA the administrative functions of the structural funds, currently carried out by the Government Office for London. Like the RDAs elsewhere, the LDA is likely to be a recipient of structural funds and it would therefore be inappropriate for the LDA to allocate as well.
The fourth would specify that administration of the SRB in London should be delegated to the LDA.
Baroness Hamwee: We have not reached Amendment No. 334C. I certainly do not want my noble friend to feel that he cannot make his point, although he is listening intently to the answer.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise to the Committee. Two things have happened. First, my noble friend the Minister is at present appearing before a Select Committee and, secondly, the amendments have been ungrouped. Therefore, I was not as fully prepared as noble Lords could reasonably expect for this group of amendments. I apologise to the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones.
Baroness Hamwee: I was responsible for the degrouping. I did so so that my noble friend could make his point with great eloquence and with his customary brevity.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: As I understand what the Minister said and what has been said elsewhere, the

893
property role of English Partnerships will be picked up within the LDA. If I am right about that, it is really a question of the detail of how that is to happen. Some key sites in London are sensibly handled nationally with English Partnerships. The Dome, the whole of the Greenwich peninsula and the Royal docks are examples. When those property functions are delegated, those will presumably come back within the orbit of the mayor and LDA.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps it would help the Minister if I made my speech on Amendment No. 334C at this juncture as it is a probing amendment. That will give the Minister an opportunity to consider the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard.
It is extremely important that certain powers are delegated to the mayor and to the authority. It is important that we get regional government right. This will be the first of what we on these Benches hope will be a model to be followed elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the delegated powers that are passed down to the mayor will be of great importance.
There is no doubt that the current powers of the DETR are of considerable importance. The Government Office for London exercises considerable powers. I was a director of Brixton Challenge for a number of years and I know that the financial power that was exercised by GOL was considerable and was often extremely beneficial. But it is important that we ensure fairly and squarely that the mayor and the assembly have the resources that they need to tackle the problems of London.
I said that this is a probing amendment. We have tried to pick the four most important elements that would be needed by the mayor in order to have a proper regeneration strategy for London. For instance, the strategic sites owned by English Partnerships—the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, mentioned this point—are extremely important. Unless the mayor has the right to control those, he will have one hand tied behind his back when he is trying to devise a regeneration strategy for London.
Secondly, if one does not have the right to consider the assistance given in assisted areas which are relevant to London, one will not have the ability to regenerate in some of those key deprived areas of London. Thirdly, the allocation of European Union structural funds have been for many years an important resource. Fourthly, the fact that boroughs fight greatly over the resources represented by the single regeneration budget—until recently called the challenge budget; it is now a much broader animal—indicates the importance of those resources to London. Assurances by the Government that those are the kinds of powers that they plan to delegate to the mayor would be useful and important. Indeed, it would be interesting to hear about other powers the Government plan to delegate.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I shall attempt seamlessly to move from the start of my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, before he spoke without repeating the answer.
894
The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, asked whether the LDA will have responsibility for the English Partnerships' areas in London. Yes, but not for the Dome and the peninsula in particular. The other examples he gave were different. The LDA has a broad range of functions. The delegated functions are intended to allow a delegation of funding regimes such as SRB or other particular functions that fit within the general framework of RDA powers. It is fundamental to the style of government being created that the mayor is given responsibility for making key decisions. The LDA is an executive body working to and supporting the mayor. In the end the mayor is answerable to the electorate for the quality of his or her decisions. To give the LDA board the power to take on extra functions, possibly against the mayor's wishes, would be a recipe for conflict and would undermine the close working relationship between the two.
I hope that in reading Hansard the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will feel that in total the points he raised have been replied to. If not, I shall be only too pleased to write to him in detail so that we can ensure that his questions are answered properly; and I shall of course send a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply in two parts. I recall to some degree the former replies. I hope that at Report stage the Minister can give somewhat more concrete assurances. The noble Baroness gave assurances over SRB. She gave some welcome assurances in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. I suspect that the replies over EU funding and assisted areas funding were not so satisfactory. We shall read Hansard, mark the reply out of 10 and return to the issue at another time.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Having moved the original amendment, I shall study with interest the subsequent debate. I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 334A to 334C not moved.]
Clause 238 agreed to.
Clause 239 [The London Development Agency strategy]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): If Amendment No. 335 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 335A through pre-emption.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 335:
Page 131, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 4 and insert ("submit to the Mayor, the Assembly, the London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 337, 338, 340, 341, 344 and 346.
Amendment No. 335 is designed to diminish somewhat the power of the mayor to direct the London Development Agency. That power is at the expense of many other elected and legitimate business interests

895
across London. If the LDA is to take forward a development strategy for London, it has to be done in partnership not only with the assembly of the GLA but also with the boroughs, borough councillors and members of the Common Council of the City. All those people have their place and part to play in the total administration of London. If they are not part of that process, the Bill will not work to the best interests of Londoners.
London is sometimes described as a collection of villages or communities. "Villages" has a geographic connotation which is not particularly appropriate. There are communities of interest between industries and aspects of commerce as well as the geographic location. All those people have to be involved. That is the background to Amendment No. 335.
Amendment No. 337 seeks to place a little more responsible activity into the hands of the assembly. I imagine that I am butting my head against a wall; but we shall continue to do so and to find a solution.
Amendment No. 338 is an interesting amendment. It puts the modification of the LDA's plan into the mayor's hand, placing the mayor in a scrutiny role, which is the role of the assembly.
Amendment No. 341 is somewhat novel. It states that if a third of the boroughs are not content with the LDA strategy, it should go back to the mayor and the agency to be reconsidered. That may seem drastic action, but for the reason I have explained, we seek to make London work as a community. If a large section of the important local administration of London is not content with the strategy, then perhaps it should be reconsidered.
Amendment No. 344 removes the mayor's power to direct the LDA in arriving at its strategy. He could give it guidance. If the mayor has power to direct, he might as well be the London Development Agency. I cannot think why we need to bother 15 or 18 good men and true with the problem of running the London Development Agency if they can be told exactly what they have to do and how they have to do it. That may be held to be an unreasonable view, but I do not think that it is. If we can confine the mayor to providing guidance, we shall give him a genuine job. If we leave him with the power to direct, we may not. That is the reason for Amendment No. 344.
Amendment No. 346 returns us to the same old theme of knocking our heads against the wall. My father used to say that the only good thing about knocking one's head against the wall was that it was pleasant when one stopped. I think that we shall be able to stop and do something else when we reach Report stage. In the mean time, this is quite a considerable grouping of amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We may stop banging our heads against the wall, but the pain will not go away if we have not convinced the Government to tweak their model and leave London with the form of authority that we think would be best. Of course, there are varying views across the Chamber.
896
I shall speak briefly to my amendments in this group. The first amendment, Amendment No. 335, takes me back—it may not do so for others—to the debates that we had about consultation on the mayor's strategies, of which the London Development Agency strategy is one. During those debates, I was worried about the distinction between creating a strategy and exercising the functions so far as consultation is concerned. In most business organisations, a strategy is determined before one does something that one has identified as being necessary in the strategy. The noble Lord's speech in support of the amendment provides a good example. It is important that the strategies obtain as wide a consensus and support as possible through a consultation process in order to reduce the areas of dispute when the functions come to be exercised. In that sense, I agree with the noble Lord's approach to the matter.
Our Amendment No. 335A in this group makes a similar point by saying that the LDA should have regard to the views of the assembly when it presents its strategy to the mayor; in other words, there should be some co-operation. Amendment No. 336A requires the submission of the strategy—the previous amendment referred to the draft strategy—to the assembly. Amendment No. 347YA seeks to remove the requirement that the mayor should have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance when it is referred to in this context in relation to the exercise of the LDA's functions.
I wonder whether that is necessary as we have been told on other occasions—possibly in the context of consultation rather than guidance, but it begins to blur slightly—that those who will carry out these offices must act reasonably and follow guidance, consult or whatever. Having done that, they must then have regard to any comments in response or, in this case, have regard to the guidance. I am a little unclear as to whether some inconsistency runs through the Bill. However, the noble Lord's central point is important—and perhaps not just with regard to the LDA's strategy.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: If the Minister is not certain about which of the amendments I am commenting on, that probably makes two of us! I refer to the general area of delegation and input into the strategies.
The Government may have to consider one area of strategy against the background of the recent White Paper on the subject of skills. We shall clearly not achieve economic regeneration in London or an inclusive society unless we do dramatically better than we have done in the past 50 years in the area of skills development. The Government's RDA guidelines call for a regional skills strategy. That is not laid down in the strategies, but it is implicit in them.
While they are reviewing other authorities and inputs, will the Government examine the recent White Paper, Learning to Succeed, which attempted to carry forward the debate a long way and to achieve inputs on that subject? Will the Government consider whether that has any implications for the GLA Bill? How will we ensure that the mayor and the LDA are involved fully in that skills improvement?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 335 would require the draft strategy to be sent to

897
the assembly, the boroughs and the City of London. That is unnecessary because such consultation is required already by virtue of Clause 34 to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred. The noble Baroness recalled from our debate in Committee on Clause 34 that persons whom the mayor is obliged to consult about any proposed strategy include the boroughs and the Common Council. We recognise their special role in taking decisions on an economic development strategy for London, and they will be consulted by the mayor.
In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognised the wider theme of partnership. If people have a legitimate interest in the strategy—as the local London authorities will certainly have—it is inconceivable that they will not be involved fully in the development of that strategy. Unless there is a dialogue with the interested parties, the LDA's strategy will not secure support and will not be successful. That does not mean that these bodies should have the right to veto or to vet the strategy. In some cases, the LDA, will have to take hard decisions. However, at the same time, it will aim to carry the bodies with it if the strategy is to be meaningful.
The noble Baroness referred also to the removal of the mayor's power of direction over the LDA as proposed in Amendment No. 344, which would possibly increase the likelihood that the draft strategy would fail to meet the mayor's requirements. If this amendment were agreed to, it would be unhelpful to the agency and would put great stress on the power of the mayor to modify the strategy. The mayor's power of direction—covering contents, preparation, submission and review of the strategy; this point is relevant to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—parallels the power of the Secretary of State to direct RDAs outside London on their strategies. It will provide a framework within which the LDA, which is essentially an executive arm of the mayor, can produce its draft. There would be little point in the LDA producing a draft strategy that did not reflect the mayor's views as the mayor is ultimately responsible for the strategy and has the power to modify the draft.
However, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have raised an interesting point and we shall consider whether the mayor's power to direct is too heavy-handed. In saying that and in agreeing to consider this point, I must stress that the mayor must be happy with the strategy for which he or she is responsible.
We believe that Amendments Nos. 3.35A, 336A, 337, 338, 339A, 340 and 346—I read those out most carefully to ensure that we are considering the same grouping—would undermine the separation of powers on which the GLA's structure is based and would require the mayor and assembly jointly to agree what modifications should be made to the LDA's draft strategy. If the assembly took part in the joint exercise of these executive functions, it would be unable to perform its scrutiny role with respect to the LDA strategy.
Amendment No. 341 would require the assembly and the mayor to modify the strategy, if it were rejected by a third of the boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London. However, it does not provide any mechanism by which the assembly and the mayor could jointly agree
898
on the revisions to be made. In any case, we believe that the provision would be unworkable. It seems a little undemocratic if the wishes of two-thirds, who would presumably be supporting the strategy, were overridden by the views of a minority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the issue of directions from the Secretary of State. We have proposed that the Secretary of State should be able to give guidance on matters to be covered or issues to be taken into account in the strategy. That would be possible only if this ran counter to national policy or could cause detriment to areas outside London. That point was raised in earlier debates by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We believe that these are the minimum central controls necessary to ensure, first, that the mayor has power to act and, secondly, that the mayor is not able to compromise issues of national importance or of importance to other regions.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, mentioned the skills strategy. It is a key function of all the RDAs, including the LDA. Amendment No. 347YA would remove part of that minimum framework which guarantees the structure in which the various powers come together. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I understand the noble Baroness's comment about tweaking. However, I am sure that she recognises a coherence to the proposals before the Committee.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I am ready to accept the fact that there is a coherence, but I hope that the Minister will accept our need to record that it is a coherence we do not support and that we are doing so increasingly briefly.
In dealing with the mayor's regard to guidance, the Minister referred to complying with national policy and the directions that are given if the Secretary of State believes that there will be a detriment to an area outside Greater London. Will the Minister confirm that those points would limit in Clause 240 the new Section 7B(1)? It states:
"The Secretary of State may give guidance … with respect to … the matters to be covered by that strategy or … the issues to be taken into account in preparing or revising that strategy".
On the face of it, that seems very wide.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is my understanding that that is the case. Should I be mistaken, I shall inform the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had an interesting debate. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the slight hint of give in her approach to directions by the mayor. I shall study them with care and I shall need to study everything that has been said in the debate before deciding what to do at the next stage of the Bill In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 335A not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 336:
Page 131, line 5, at end insert ("which shall respect and take full account of the differing economic interests of the London boroughs and the City of London").
The noble Lord said: The Bill as drafted is primarily concerned with the relationship between the Secretary of State, the mayor and, in this part, the London Development Agency, which the mayor controls, influences and is responsible to and for. However, in our view, the Bill does not pay sufficient attention to the other elected authorities in London which represent communities and interests within London at large. The strategy ought to take into account the views of those authorities in so far as it is possible to do so.
We are back in the business of consultation, what is and is not on the face of the Bill, and what is and what is not conceivable. In an ideal world, we could probably manage without the Bill and leave London to run itself. That is not the way we operate in this country; we operate by law and, because the law is finite, we must get it right. It is our view that in this part of the Bill not sufficient regard is taken of the wider interests in London. That is the sentiment behind Amendment No. 336.
Amendment No. 339 returns to a theme which we have pressed in a number of other areas. It is that the strategy of the London Development Agency and its previous draft should be available on the Greater London Authority Internet website. That is a common theme and I am not the only Member of the Committee to press it. Whether or not we obtain agreement to providing for such a website on the face of the Bill, I am certain that there will be one. I do not apologise for pressing the matter today.
Amendment No. 342 is a "chicken and egg" amendment. The LDA strategy will require wider notice to be taken of it if it is to succeed, and the amendment gives effect to that. In doing so, it is more likely to make the strategy succeed.
Amendment No. 343 deals with a separate issue. The other executive parts of the Greater London Authority—police and fire services and so forth—must comply with the strategy. The amendment requires not only that they comply with the strategy but that they report that they are doing so and how. There is no point in having the strategy and obliging the constituent bodies of the GLA to comply with it without them having to report back. Therefore, the amendment requires them to report what they have done to the mayor and assembly.
Amendment No. 345 opens up the criteria under which the LDA might be granting financial support to other institutions or individuals. It requires that that shall become public in the interests of open government and everybody having confidence in the system.
Amendment No. 347 is aimed at changing a situation in which the mayor can alter the strategy of the London Development Agency without there being any requirement for him to explain why he is doing so. That is not an acceptable way forward. If the mayor wants to change the strategy of the London Development Agency—he has the power to do so—he should be required to explain exactly why and to reveal his
900
reasons. The mayor can act with regard to a number of aspects of this Bill without his actions being open to public scrutiny. We do not believe that that is appropriate. This amendment deals with one aspect of that general problem. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We have tabled three amendments in this group: Amendments Nos. 341A, 341B and 347XA. The latter amendment is consequential on the first two.
Under new Section 7A(5), when the London Development Agency and three of the functional bodies named exercise a function they should have regard to the London Development Agency's strategy. I can see the obvious connection between the regeneration activities, the LDA strategy and what Transport for London may be doing.
The relevance to the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority is less obvious. In any event, I wonder how appropriate it is to require that the emergency services, in exercising a function, are to have regard to an economic and regeneration strategy. I have some trouble in seeing a connection. If there is one, I might question it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, now understands that he is not alone in occasionally being slightly unsure as to which point we have reached. Amendment No. 336 would require that the LDA strategy should take account of the different economic interests of the boroughs and the City. It is not necessary, and it would look rather odd, to put the LDA under a statutory obligation to take account of the differing economic interests of various areas of London. Given its diversity, it is not credible that any such agency, led by experienced businessmen and women, would do otherwise or would be blind to their needs.
Amendment No. 336, together with Amendment No. 347, would require that the strategy, as revised from time to time, and all drafts of the strategy, shall be published together with an explanation of any revisions. The mayor will have to publish the revised strategies—there would be little point to them otherwise—and they will therefore be in the public domain. It would be undesirable and unnecessary to introduce special provisions for publishing previous drafts of the strategy. That could lead to great confusion. In time, when the strategy is revised, the new strategy could hardly gain the confidence of those whose co-operation is required for its realisation if reasons were not given for important changes. We are sure that the mayor would want to do that.
Amendment No. 336 requires that the LDA strategy takes account of the differing economic interests of the boroughs and the City. It is not really necessary to specify that and it would look rather odd.
As regards the amendment obliging the MPA and the LFEPA to have regard to the LDA strategy, that would remove a cornerstone of our design for the GLA; namely, that the strategies should all come together within a coherent framework within which the work is

901
conducted. It is just as essential for the LDA strategy to reflect consultations with the other functional bodies, as we have provided
I appreciate the point that the noble Baroness has raised. There may be issues on which that policy is not relevant concerning, for example, many operational matters. The police are frequently involved in regeneration projects such as crime prevention and state security. So there could be over-arching strategies where that is relevant. I hope that I have covered the points raised.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: As regards the connection between the LDA, the police and others, I wonder whether that is to reflect the role of the police in crime prevention and the comments that they might make in advising on whether large-scale regeneration was appropriate and that there might be inherent problems. I very much support the moves to be made at a far more local level than is anticipated to "design out" crime. I believe that is the current terminology. That work is very important. Because it is important, I remain a little anxious that the relationship puts the London Development Agency in a dominant position. In other words, the police and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority may have good advice to offer, but they have to have regard to the strategy of the LDA.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe the position may become clearer when we reach Amendment No. 347WA. We believe that the proposals being put forward by the noble Baroness are too detailed to be effective. We understand the points that she has raised, but they are covered.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply which I shall study with care. I believe that matters would be a little clearer if we heard how the executive agencies were complying with the LDA strategy in the requirement that we have put on them to report to the mayor and the assembly on how they are complying. That might relieve some anxieties. I am not certain that the noble Baroness has responded adequately to that point. None the less, I am grateful to her for her reply which I shall study with care. I beg leave to withdraw the: amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 336A to 347 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 347WA:
Page 131, line 32, after ("publishing") insert ("or revising").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 347WA requires that the mayor shall consult before revising the LDA strategy. Amendment No. 347ZA, the second amendment in the group, removes the provision which says that the mayor does not have to consult if he revises the strategy. Those matters are linked.
We believe that the revision of a strategy is potentially as important as its creation. The Minister said that she would be able to satisfy me on various points. When she said that I felt that I should say,
902
"Oh, I've forgotten Amendment No. 347WA." I look forward to hearing what she has to say on the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am afraid that we are unable to agree to these amendments. Amendment No. 347WA would require consultation before the mayor revises the strategy. Subsection (7) of the proposed new Section 7A to the RDA Act, introduced by Clause 239, requires that revised strategies are published which ensure that consultation takes place by virtue of subsection (8). The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary, as the effect is already achieved.
The noble Baroness did not mention Amendment No. 347XA. Perhaps she did so earlier.
Baroness Hamwee: I spoke to it in one sentence earlier.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 347XA adds Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority to the list of consultees in subsection (8) of the new Section 7A of the RDA Act. That subsection adds only to the list of consultees in Clause 34 of the Bill and the functional bodies are included in Clause 34. So we have already made the provision which the noble Baroness seeks.
Amendment No. 347ZA would require the mayor to consult on a strategy which had been revised following a direction from the Secretary of State. A direction can only be issued after a strategy has been published. It is very much a reserve power. Before publication, the strategy must have been the subject of consultation. The amendment would therefore require a second consultation in the rare circumstances of the direction being issued. We cannot see that that would be appropriate or constructive. I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 347XA takes us back not just to earlier provisions of the Bill but to the provisions of the Regional Development Agencies Act in which the clause in question, in effect, means that before publishing the LDA strategy, the mayor has to consult the people under the RDA Act whom she or he has to consult in making appointments, which is not the same as formulating the strategy. Those two groups of people are representatives of employers and employees.
At the end of the Committee stage I shall read all that has been said about the various connections. I wonder whether I shall be able to understand the connections without drawing charts, given the cross-references to different pieces of legislation originally drafted, as I have just illustrated, for other purposes. I anticipate that I may not succeed—perhaps I am arrogant to suggest that I would apply a reasonable degree of intelligence to such a task—in drawing up such a chart. I believe that it will be extremely difficult for the authority, comprising the mayor, the assembly and the various functional bodies, together with the responsibilities in this case of the London Development

903
Agency, to operate. It will be extremely difficult to keep track of whom, under the legislation, they are required to consult, whose views they are required to have regard to and whether they are required to consult about appointments or little bits of their activities.
We have already said how concerned we are about the prescription in the Bill. We accept that this is the Government's way of dealing with matters. We believe that there should be broad obligations for consultation and broad obligations for having regard to people's views. If we get to the end of this stage—I do not believe I speak only for myself as I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith is nodding—and we are still confused, there will have to be some effort made to make life simpler for those who will operate the system.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 347XA adds further to the list of consultees. I understand the concern raised by the noble Baroness. I see the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, nodding. If it would help, I shall write to the noble Baroness on this matter, with a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, so that we can seek to clarify the situation. I agree to consider carefully any points that they raise.
Baroness Hamwee: That would be extremely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 347XA not moved.]
Clause 239 agreed to.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Libya
4.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on relations with Libya, which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement on relations with Libya. I am grateful to the Opposition for agreeing to this important Statement being made on a supply day.
"For over a decade two separate issues have prevented us from maintaining normal diplomatic relations with Libya.
"One of these was the refusal by Libya to hand over the two men charged with responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. As the House will be aware, the diplomatic stalemate over this issue was broken by our initiative in offering a
904
trial under Scottish law in the Netherlands. Intensive and patient diplomacy produced an agreement by Libya in April to hand over both suspects. The two accused are currently held in the court complex at Camp Zeist where we expect their trial to commence early next year. This will give the relatives of those who died and the public their first opportunity to hear all the evidence we hold.
"UN sanctions were imposed on Libya in 1992 as a result of its refusal to comply with the investigations into the Lockerbie bombing and the parallel UTA case. Following the surrender of the two accused, sanctions on Libya have been suspended.
"However, diplomatic relations between Libya and the United Kingdom had already been broken off before the Lockerbie bombing. They ceased in 1984 when we broke off diplomatic relations over the refusal by Libya to co-operate with the investigation into the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who was shot while carrying out her duties in front of the Libyan People's Bureau in St James's Square.
"In the weeks since the handover of the two Lockerbie suspects, we have been engaged in repeated exchanges with the Libyan Government in an attempt to secure their co-operation with the police investigation. Throughout these negotiations, over some weeks, we have consulted fully with the Metropolitan Police and through them with the Fletcher family. Earlier this afternoon, I met with Mr Obeidi of the Libyan Government and we have finalised a joint statement.
"In that statement, Libya accepts general responsibility for the actions of those in the Libyan People's Bureau at the time of the shooting. They express deep regret to the family of WPC Fletcher for what occurred and offer to pay compensation now to the family. Libya agrees 'to participate in and co-operate with the continuing police investigation and to accept its outcome.'
"I have placed a full text of the joint statement in the Library of the House. It fully meets the objectives pursued by successive British Governments since 1984 and it is supported by the Metropolitan Police and the Fletcher family. No amount of payment can ever compensate the Fletcher parents for the loss of their daughter, but the agreement to make compensation now is a welcome recognition by Libya of its responsibility.
"The way is now open for the police to pursue their investigation into the killing of Yvonne Fletcher. That investigation will be pursued as far as it can and we expect Libya to co-operate at all stages.
"The two agreements we have secured also open the way for us to resume diplomatic relations with Libya. I am upgrading immediately the British Interests Section in Tripoli to embassy status. We will, as quickly as practical, appoint an ambassador and bring the embassy up to full strength. As a result, the 4,000 or so British citizens resident in Libya will have restored to them full consular protection and we will be able to provide appropriate support to British commercial interests. Full diplomatic representation

905
will also enable us better to monitor Libyan co-operation with the Lockerbie trial and the police investigation into the killing of Yvonne Fletcher.
"Today's announcement brings to an end 15 years throughout which relations between our two countries were suspended. I should like to record our thanks to the Government of Italy for their assistance throughout those years as the protecting power of British interests in Libya.
"Before concluding, I would ask the House once again to pay tribute to Yvonne Fletcher, a young woman who gave her life to the service of law and order. Her family have suffered not only her loss but the added pain of 15 years in which its investigation has been blocked. They have borne it with dignity and fortitude. I would express on behalf of the whole House our deep sympathy to them. I hope that the agreement we have secured today will open the way for them to learn more about what happened on that fateful day."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place, giving details of the Government's joint statement with the Libyan Government. Front these Benches, I should like to welcome the progress in Anglo-Libyan relations contained in the document. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assist me on one point. I was not completely clear whether one of the two agreements to which she referred when repeating the Statement included the full text of the joint statement. If it does not, can the Minister clarify what the two agreements mentioned in the third paragraph before the end of Statement refer to? If they are separate from the agreements that she has already agreed to make public, will the noble Baroness ensure that both of them will also be placed in the Library of the House? It will be very important for your Lordships to read them.
From these Benches, we have always been of the opinion that Libya must accept responsibility and express regret for the appalling murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, as well as providing compensation agreeable to her family. It has always been our view that Libya must co-operate fully with the investigation into her murder. The Minister has said that the Government now expect Libya to co-operate at all stages with this investigation. Therefore, can she tell us whether she expects this will entail efforts by the Libyan authorities to identify and specifically bring to justice the murderer of WPC Fletcher? If so, would the same procedures as those currently in place for the trial of the Lockerbie suspects also be used to try any person accused of her murder?
The relatives of those killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 will be following these developments closely. Can the Minister tell the House what discussions the 'Government have held with them concerning today 's announcement and what their reaction has been to the agreed compensation to the family of WPC Fletcher, which is symbolic of the guilt of the Libyan regime?
906
The Minister also referred to the UN sanctions against Libya. As she is aware, those sanctions are currently suspended, not lifted. Does the Minister envisage that the UK will now press for those sanctions to be lifted? It would be helpful if the Minister could inform the House what discussions have been held on this matter with our partners in the Security Council, in particular with the United States Government.
There has been undisputed evidence in the past of Libyan support for terrorists, particularly the IRA. Can the Minister assure the House that all training of terrorists and material support for their activities has now stopped, including support of rebel groups in West Africa?
In view of the highly successful business mission led by my noble friend Lord Prior in his capacity as chairman of the Arab-British Chamber of Commerce some three weeks ago, on which I understand my noble friend Lord Trefgarne accompanied him, and given the newly restored bilateral links and the opportunity that this presents for the development of both cultural and commercial contacts between our two countries, can the Minister clarify the status of the business delegation proposed by the British-Libyan Business Group'? Following the confusion earlier this week between the Foreign Office and the Department for Trade and Industry, does this delegation now have the support of the Foreign Office? From these Benches, we hope that the restoration of full diplomatic ties will prove to be a turning point in our relations with Libya and, critically, in Libya's relations with the rest of the world.
Finally, I should like to associate these Benches with the tribute paid by the Minister to the dignity and fortitude of the Fletcher family. We are very pleased that this outcome has their full support. Although today's Statement marks what we hope is a new chapter in Anglo-Libyan relations, no one in this House will ever forget the bravery of the young WPC who in doing her duty paid with her life.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I should like to say how delighted we are that diplomatic relations have been resumed with Libya; indeed, that will open very real opportunities for business people and others in the United Kingdom. I should also like to express a few words of thanks to the Government of Italy for the conscientious way in which they carried out the representation of British interests in Libya over a long period of time, which they could not have envisaged when they first agreed to do so.
I have three questions for the Minister. The first goes further into the subject of the killing of WPC Fletcher. I fully share and endorse every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and by the Minister about the extraordinary courage and conscientiousness of this young woman who lost her life in serving law and order in this country. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government know the names of those who were present in the so-called "People's Bureau" at the time

907
and whether their names have been made available to the Metropolitan Police? Compensation is one thing, but trying to find out who perpetrated this terrible crime so that nothing of the kind can ever happen again is, if anything, even more important.
Given the willingness of Libya to co-operate over the Lockerbie air crash after a long period of negotiation, I wonder whether consideration could be given to whether Libya would be willing to extradite anyone who might be soundly suspected of involvement in the murder of WPC Fletcher. Perhaps I may also pay tribute to the endurance and the great patience shown by her family.
My second question concerns the debts still owing to British firms from the period before the breach in diplomatic relations. My understanding is that some hundreds of millions of dollar-equivalents are owed to British firms from the period prior to the breaking off of relations after WPC Fletcher's murder. Can the Minister give any enlightenment at all on the issue of whether those outstanding debts are likely to be settled at any foreseeable time?
My third and final question concerns the issue of diplomatic relations between the United States and the Government of Libya. The Minister will be aware that Helms-Burton still applies, although it is somewhat more honoured in the breach than in the observance by many American business interests. Can the noble Baroness say whether any representations are being made by Her Majesty's Government in Washington for the reconsideration of Helms-Burton, which I believe has caused quite a lot of strain on diplomatic relations not only with Libya but also with many other countries with which we in the United Kingdom would wish to see much happier and closer relations in future?
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their warm welcome of my right honourable friend's Statement today. I thank them not only for what they said but also for the way in which they said it. I join with them in paying tribute to the family of WPC Fletcher. I echo in this House the sentiments expressed by my right honourable friend in the Statement and by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the dignity and bearing of the Fletcher family during what must have been an anguished time for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the agreements. The relevant agreements relating to the initiative for the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands have been placed in the Library, as has the text of the joint statement agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Libyan Government. There are two separate agreements—two separate pieces of paper, if I can put it that way—and both texts are available for inspection in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked me about the way in which the Libyans will be expected to give some practical impact to their undertaking to co-operate with
908
the investigation. The investigation will be carried out by the Metropolitan Police. It is envisaged initially that the investigation will take the form of a commission rogatoire; that is, an investigation in writing. The Metropolitan Police will send questions to the Libyan judicial authorities who will bring individual witnesses before them to answer those questions. The agreement does not rule out further investigations being carried out under other procedures. That is what I am able to tell the noble Lord at this stage about the way it is envisaged that the investigation will begin. Its development will be a matter for the Metropolitan Police. We are extremely pleased to have the commitment of the Libyan Government and the Libyan authorities to continue with their co-operation throughout that investigation. However, as I say, that is the way that it will begin.
The noble Baroness asked whether we had the names of those who were in the People's Bureau at the time. We do because they were accredited diplomats. I cannot tell the noble Baroness whether that is a full list of who was there on the day. However, we would certainly know the names of the accredited diplomats at that time. That information will be available to the investigating authority. It is a matter for that authority as to how it pursues individuals. We have the basic statement from the Libyans that they accept what the coroner's court said about where the shot came from. However, that is not the same as establishing who was responsible for the shot that was fired.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the procedures that might be used to prosecute anyone who might eventually be accused of this appalling crime. He suggested that they might be the same as were established for the prosecution in relation to the atrocity committed on Pan Am Flight 103. The regime in the Netherlands at the moment was set up under a UNSCR. I believe that it is a unique measure. However, I point out to your Lordships that the proceedings in the Netherlands are subject to Scottish law whereas the matter we are discussing would be prosecuted under English law. I rather doubt whether the same mechanisms will be available to us simply because the case in the Netherlands was established under a UNSCR and because we shall be dealing with the case of WPC Fletcher under English law and not Scottish law. However, the way in which any prosecution would be carried out is a matter that we shall have to consider as the investigation proceeds.
The noble Lord also asked about discussions with the Lockerbie families. Officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have discussed the statement on WPC Fletcher, but, more importantly, the re-establishing of diplomatic relations, with all the families of the British people involved in that atrocity. I am sure that individual families are either more or less enthusiastic about that but none has expressed any fundamental misgivings about the re-establishing of diplomatic relations, given what we have been able to establish in both the documents detailed in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord also asked about the lifting of sanctions. The noble Baroness asked about the relationship of the Americans vis-à-vis Libya and the

909
fate of the Helms-Burton legislation. I shall try to draw those two threads together. Her Majesty's Government believe that it is for the Americans to decide how they take forward their bilateral relationship with Libya. We met the Americans and the Libyans on 11th June, together with the UN Secretary General, to discuss how to move forward on the remaining requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions so that sanctions can be finally lifted. The UN Secretary General reported on 2nd July that there had been what he described as significant progress, but not yet full compliance with the Security Council resolutions. We shall continue to meet to discuss the matter. There will not be any hidden agenda. When Libya has fully complied Her Majesty's Government will not oppose the lifting of sanctions. However, as the noble Baroness knows, on the rather different question of the Helms-Burton legislation, Her Majesty's Government have always opposed the extra-territorial nature of the Helms-Burton legislation, not only in relation to Libya but also in relation to other countries where the Americans have introduced such legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about Libyan support for terrorism. I believe that when he has had the opportunity to study the agreed statement in the Library of your Lordships' House, he will see that the Libyans have said unequivocally that they are opposed to the use of terrorism. They have condemned terrorism and have pledged to co-operate in the international fight against it. As regards the worries which have been expressed in certain quarters about their previous relationship with the IRA, the previous administration stated on 25th November 1995 that they were satisfied that the Libyan Government had met expectations with regard to ceasing to have that kind of relationship with the IRA.
The noble Lord also referred to the trade group. I do not believe that there has been what the noble Lord described as confusion over this. The British-Libyan Business Group first approached us in May when our discussions were at a sensitive stage. At that time I believe that it would have been premature of the Government to endorse participation of MPs in that venture. Advice was given through the Whips' Office which reflected that view. In recent days we are aware that there has been more positive progress in our negotiations and we have clarified that there is no objection to participation by MPs in this matter. As the noble Lord would expect, throughout all this we have kept in close contact with our colleagues in the DTI to ensure that we are indulging in joined-up government.
The noble Baroness referred to debts. Now that we have restored diplomatic relations we can open up discussions on a full range of outstanding issues. I know that the question of debt is a worrying one. It will, of course, be included in those discussions. I join with the noble Baroness in expressing thanks to the Italian Government for the way they have looked after our interests over the past 15 years. My right honourable friend made that clear in his Statement but I am sure that my own Benches in your Lordships' House would wish me to add my voice to those thanks.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the full Statement. I hope that she can clarify a point on compensation. I may have misheard the relevant part of the Statement in that regard. First, is there an agreement at present in principle to pay compensation, or has a definite amount been agreed already? If it is a question of principle, who is to adjudicate on the issue of the quantum amount in relation to that payment? Will the Fletcher family be fully consulted about that and given access to legal assistance paid for by the state? Whether or not legal aid is available to them, will they receive very full advice about that matter?
Secondly, would it not be appropriate for this very brave young woman's memory to be perpetuated? There is already, of course, an indication in the square where she fell, but perhaps my noble friend will think it appropriate to consider the possibility—I do not ask her to be definite at this stage—of a more lasting memorial than that which exists at the present time. It would be much appreciated by the country as a whole.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as to the question of compensation, I should point out that we are now in a different position from the one before when an ex gratia payment to a charity was offered. The Libyans have now offered compensation to the family. That is a very important distinction. The noble Lord asked about the way in which the compensation was to be fixed and about the advice available to the family. The family of WPC Fletcher have asked that the arrangements surrounding the compensation—and in particular the amount—remain confidential. I believe that the amount is irrelevant; it is the principle involved that is important. It is the fact that the Libyans have acknowledged that this is not an ex gratia payment but compensation that is important. I would ask your Lordships to respect the wishes and confidentiality of the family. It has been a desperately painful time for them and if we can help to alleviate that by not being too intrusive, that will be to the good.
My noble friend is right to say that there is a memorial to WPC Fletcher. Quite rightly, and rather movingly, it is often adorned with flowers. Whether it is appropriate that some other memorial should be considered is a matter I am sure everyone will wish to consider. Again I would point out to your Lordships that it is not just a matter for the country, as my noble friend put it, but one where we should take into account the wishes of WPC Fletcher's family, her friends and the Metropolitan Police.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as someone who has been involved on the extreme fringes of this matter for a number of years, I share the welcome expressed by my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for the Statement. Perhaps I may ask one question. The Minister has said that it is intended

911
we should shortly appoint an ambassador to Libya. Is it intended that the Libyans should appoint an ambassador in London? If so, when might that happen?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is intended that we resume full diplomatic relations. Resuming full diplomatic relations implies that not only do we deploy ambassadors in each other's country but that we bring our diplomatic strength up to full volume. The timing is a matter we will have to synchronise. It is important to choose the right people to do these jobs. They will be very skilled jobs, on both sides, involving the full range of the diplomatic repertoires open to the Libyans and to ourselves.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that I have visited Libya twice in recent years. I therefore give a particular welcome to the Statement. The Minister will also be aware that one visit was in the company of Dr Jim Swire of the Lockerbie families' group. On one occasion we met with Colonel Gaddafi. The object of each visit was to try to move forward good relations between our two countries. The creation of the third country trial at The Hague provided the first step of that way forward. The announcement about compensation and the investigation into the case of WPC Fletcher is the second part of restoring good relations.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to emphasise one point that she mentioned. It is perhaps not widely understood in this country that there are between 4,000 and 5,000 British people working in Libya—mainly in business, some in education—who are greatly relieved that diplomatic relations and transport links are to be restored. I wish the trade delegation all success. As I was to be a member of it before I took up my present responsibilities in Scotland, I hope that it will be successful, both politically and commercially.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that we all hope that it will be a success, even without the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to see it on its way.
I am aware of the visits to which the noble Lord referred and of the dedicated way in which Dr Jim Swire and others of the Lockerbie families' group have conducted themselves over recent years. I, too, have met them. I was deeply impressed by the tenacity and wisdom with which they pursued what was a painful and difficult issue for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, is quite right. He reminded us of the 4,000 or so British nationals who live in Libya. I hope that they will welcome the resumption of full diplomatic relations: I hope that their lives will be greatly eased, not only by the improving trade relations but also eventually—we hope it will be sooner rather than later—by the lifting of the UN sanctions. They will be able to enjoy also the full protection of the consular activity which will be afforded to them by the restored embassy.
Lord Imbert: My Lords, I welcome the resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya. In particular
912
I welcome the opportunity it gives to continue the investigation into the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. I know that that will be welcomed by all police officers throughout the country, as much as it will by Queenie Fletcher and her husband, the mother and father of Yvonne Fletcher.
Can the Minister give an assurance that the investigation will be as thorough as it needs to be? She has mentioned that it will take the form of a commission rogatoire. The offence took place in 1984, some 15 years ago. It is absolutely essential after that amount of time that forensic examination of the suspects and the weapons takes place. Can the Minister assure the House that the weapons which may well have been in the embassy at that particular time have been preserved? Or will we find that the investigation will not be deep enough to provide the absolute proof of who killed Yvonne Fletcher?
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the IRA and the support of the previous regime prior to 1985 for IRA terrorism. Many of the weapons which we believe, with good reason, came from Libya are still in the hands of the IRA today. Can the Minister assure the House that if those weapons come to light in terrorist incidents we will have the co-operation of the Libyan authorities to forensically examine them and establish their origin?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, for his welcome for the announcement. I can assure the noble Lord, as my right honourable friend's Statement indicated, that we have maintained a very close relationship with the Metropolitan Police throughout the negotiations with the Libyan authorities.
The investigation will be as thorough as it can be. I remind the noble Lord of the quotation by my right honourable friend from the joint statement, which is in the Library, that Libya agrees,
"to participate in and co-operate with the continuing police investigation and to accept its outcome".
That last phrase, "and to accept its outcome", is a very important part of the undertaking.
I described to the House how the investigation would begin as a commission rogatoire. I hope that I also made it clear that that was not the end of the investigation. If the Metropolitan Police believe that their investigations need to proceed in different ways, I am sure they will make that clear.
We cannot anticipate the outcome of the investigation. I am sure that the police will be as thorough as they believe it necessary to be. The noble Lord, Lord Imbert, knows far more about these matters than I do. I am sure that the Metropolitan Police, who have a very close interest—a right and proper interest—in investigating this appalling murder, will want to pursue the matter as rigorously as possible. They will enjoy the support of Her Majesty's Government in doing so.
The noble Lord raises a rather different question about IRA weaponry that might or might not have come from Libya. I am afraid that I shall have to write to him

913
on that rather specific question. I know that it is related to the matter under discussion, but I should like to give the noble Lord a specific answer to the point he raised.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as one who has fairly often criticised successive governments, including the present one, for their conduct of our relations with Arab countries, I most warmly congratulate them on the achievement of these two agreements, these two ends to the quarrels. Perhaps I may ask one question which it may or may not be possible to answer. How much did the intervention of Mr Mandela help towards this fortunate solution?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend describes himself as one who has often criticised the Government. I am delighted at the refreshing change on this occasion. I shall have to write to the noble Lord about Mr Mandela's interest in what has happened. We all know that Mr Mandela has had a close interest and has been extremely helpful in oiling the wheels of the relationships.
The two agreements that we have, over Lockerbie on the one hand, and over the murder of WPC Fletcher on the other, have, been negotiated directly between the British Government and the Libyan Government. There has not been any third party involved in those negotiations. If my noble friend's question is, "What facilitated the start of those negotiations?", I am bound to say to him that there has been some desire to move this matter forward for a very long time. I certainly do not discount the effect of the kind of visit that was detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and the way in which the families have conducted themselves. They have been extraordinarily patient and sensible. United Nations sanctions have also played their part in what has now been facilitated. A great number of people have lent a great deal of weight in trying to get us to where we are today. We thank them all warmly for the help they have given us. But I do not think it is help from any one source in one country that has enabled us to get to this point.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, the Minister has expressed the Government's thanks to the Italian Government for having effectively protected our interests in Libya over many years. Am I right in thinking that the Saudi Arabian Government also deserve some credit for having very effectively, and in quite difficult conditions, represented Libya over the many years during which we have had no diplomatic relations with Libya?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord knows a great deal more about the history of this matter, given his former incarnation as Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office. He is entirely right in suggesting that our thanks are due to a number of different governments, including the Government of Saudi Arabia.

Greater London Authority Bill
5.34 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 240 [Secretary of State's functions in relation to the strategy]:
[Amendments Nos. 347YA and 347ZA not moved.]
Clause 240 agreed to.
Clause 241 [Audit]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 347A:
Page 132, line 40, at end insert ("and the Chair of the London Assembly"").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 241 makes provision for the audit of the LDA and provides for the agency to send a copy of its audited accounts to the mayor. Government Amendment No. 347A would require the LDA to send a copy of its audited accounts also to the chair of the assembly. The amendment meets a commitment given by my honourable friend Nick Raynsford in Committee in another place.
Amendment No. 347B, tabled by noble Lords opposite, would also require the LDA to send a copy of its audited accounts to the assembly. I am pleased that we are both thinking along the same lines. I hope that Amendment No. 347A will achieve what noble Lords intend. I beg to move this amendment and invite the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I am happy with the amendment proposed by the Government in the other place. It was argued that our amendment was unnecessary because the accounts would be published and made available to the assembly on request. The step that the Government are taking is a very helpful one. I shall not move Amendment No. 347B.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 347B not moved.]
Clause 241, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 242 agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 348:
After Clause 242, insert the following new clause—
ANNUAL DEBATEON LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPORT AND ACCOUNTS
(" . The London Assembly shall debate annually the report and accounts of the London Development Agency.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment requires the London assembly to debate annually the report and accounts of the London Development Agency. The Bill as drafted does not provide a forum in which the performance of the LDA can either be challenged by elected representatives or, indeed, be discussed. The assembly should fulfil that essential role in order to ensure proper scrutiny and proper accountability.
The assembly provides the best London-wide forum in which to scrutinise the performance of the London Development Agency. The impact of the LDA on the life and economy of London, if it works as the

915
Government expect, will be significant. It is therefore right that the elected representatives of London should be able, indeed required, to examine that performance at least annually. They, in turn, are then accountable to the electors of London for the work of the London Development Agency, as is the mayor in his other capacity in relation to the agency.
The amendment stands in its own right. I should have thought that it ought to be entirely acceptable to the Government. Of course, the Government may say, "The assembly will do this. You don't need to tell its members to do it". The members may do it, but there again, they may not. It is to prevent the latter situation that I propose this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The new clause obliges the assembly to debate the LDA's report and accounts each year. The assembly has a duty, under Clause 49, to keep under review the exercise by the mayor of the statutory functions exercisable by him or her. Given the powers of appointment and direction which the mayor has over the LDA, its activities will fall within the compass of the assembly's duty under Clause 49. Accordingly, the assembly will be able to hold regular debates concerning the LDA, whether on its general performance or on particular matters and will no doubt do so. Adding particular obligations to the assembly's general duties could serve only to cloud its responsibilities. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness said. Keeping under review is keeping under review and it may well be that the assembly will debate the deeds and, rarely we hope, the misdeeds of the London Development Agency from time to time.
However, the amendment specifically relates to the annual report. That report is more significant than just keeping a subject under review. It is for that reason that we proposed the amendment. Nevertheless, I have heard what the noble Baroness said and will study it. I do not believe it will satisfy me, but I will decide what to do in the light of what she said and what I think. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 20 [Further amendments of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998]:
[Amendment No. 348A not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 349:
Page 274, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
(""(4) This section does not apply in relation to London where the London Development Agency shall have regard to the views of and regularly consult with small, medium and large businesses in London and with their representative bodies."").
The noble Lord said: As drafted, the legislation ignores the important relationship which the London Development Agency will need to develop, and succeed in, with the business community. The agency should be
916
required to consult businesses of all sizes and their representatives. It is for that reason that the amendment is advanced.
There seems to be some hesitation in official circles as to the exact number of businesses that exist within London. I suppose that it is because, among other things, there is a shifting population, which may include barrow boys. Some might debate whether they run businesses but I am certain they do. I have heard figures of half-a-million separate businesses in London and have seen figures as high as 700,000. Whatever the figure, it is large. Not only is it a large number, but by far and away the greater proportion of the businesses are small. If we take small and medium-sized businesses, it is likely to be 99 per cent of the total.
Large business has no difficulty in getting its views and interests well understood by official bodies such as the London Development Agency. It is a much greater problem for smaller businesses. They do not have either the administrative back-up, the time, or, all too often one has to admit, the inclination to become involved with officialdom in the way that would be required to get their views across to the London Development Agency. Nevertheless, we believe it is important that they are properly taken into account because they are a significant aspect of the total community of London and of the total economy of London, small businesses though they may be. It is in that sense that we have put the amendment forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: This amendment continues the debate we were having before the Statement about the rather complex network of consultations. As I read the provision in the schedule—the two lines which the noble Lord seeks to omit—it proposes that Section 8 of the Regional Development Agencies Act is not to apply to the London Development Agency. The section deals with consultation and subsection (3) deals with the position where there is no regional chamber. It provides for guidance for carrying out appropriate consultation in relation to the exercise of its functions. That is omitted and, for once, it seems to me to be quite a safeguard. People who might not be at the right place in the cobweb would be caught—
Lord Dixon-Smith: If the noble Baroness would allow me to intervene, I accept that the amendment takes out lines, but it also inserts them. Perhaps she is looking at the lines taken out, but not those inserted.
Baroness Hamwee: No, I was using the noble Lord's amendment as a hook to hang the argument on. If I had reached the end of the sentence, the noble Lord would know that I supported him.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 empowers the Secretary of State to designate a suitable body in a region to be a regional chamber. He can then require the relevant RDA to have regard to its views on the formulation and review of strategy and to consult it on the exercise of other specified functions. Schedule 20 removes this provision for London. Business representation on the LDA board

917
and requirements for wider consultation on the LDA strategy have an equivalent effect with respect to the functions of the LDA.
Businesses, large and small, will benefit from the targeted approach of the LDA. Given the importance of small businesses to London's economy, I fully expect the LDA to consult them on the strategy and also expect the mayor to insist on it. They must be consulted if their interests are to be affected and that is provided for.
In addition, the scrutiny powers of the assembly provide a key channel for local views to be fed to the LDA and Clause 25 requires the GLA to consult businesses and others on, the exercise of its functions which have an impact on the interests of those businesses. The results of the consultations will no doubt, where relevant, be fed to the LDA board. The Committee has already considered and approved those measures.
The amendment would place small, medium and large businesses, together with their representative bodies, in the role of a regional chamber. This is not necessary to ensure that business views are taken into account by the LDA; it has already been provided for. It would also be undesirable to give businesses in London a role which is given elsewhere to a body representative of all those who have an interest in the agency's work. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am becoming accustomed to being urged by the noble Baroness to withdraw my amendment. She does it with such superb eloquence that it is an irresistible temptation. I am grateful to her for her reply which I will study with care. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 349A:
Page 274, line 22, leave out ("In").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment and, with it, speak to Amendments Nos. 349B and 349C. The amendments correct a lacuna in the grant-making provisions of Parts III and V of the Bill. Part V currently deletes from the Regional Development Agencies Act the power for the Secretary of State to make grants direct to the LDA, in line, with the general policy that all government grants should be made to the mayor.
Part III contains a general power for the Secretary of State to make grants to the GLA for its purposes and those of the functional bodies. But it does not allow sums to be earmarked for particular purposes.
It has always been our intention that the functions of the LDA could be financed by specific grants if Ministers thought that that kind of funding was appropriate. The alternative would be to provide the necessary funding as part of the GLA grant. These amendments achieve that by inserting into the RDA Act the power to make grants to the GLA for the purposes of the London Development Agency. The amendments are framed so that Clause 88 of the GLA Bill will oblige the mayor to hand over these grants to the LDA.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 349B and 349C:
Page 274, line 22, at end insert ("shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the beginning there shall be inserted "(1)".
(3) In the subsection (1) so formed,").
Page 274, line 24, at end insert—
("(4) After the subsection (1) so formed there shall be inserted—
"(2) The Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, make to the Greater London Authority grants of such amounts, and on such terms, as he thinks fit.
(3) Any grant made under subsection (2) shall be made for the purposes of the London Development Agency."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 349D:
Page 274, line 25, leave out paragraph 6.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to the borrowing limits of regional development agencies and is intended to ensure that I understand the regime as it relates to the London Development Agency. Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 20 to the Bill provides that Section 11 of the Regional Development Agencies Act is not to apply in relation to the London Development Agency. In paragraph 6(2) above a lower collective borrowing limit is applied to the agencies on the face of the Regional Development Agencies Act. Am I right in thinking that this provision is included because the regime provided elsewhere by the Bill deals with the borrowing that is required for the purposes of the LDA? Can the Minister say something about the collective borrowing limit, and in particular the amount which it is anticipated will be available for London?
The implication of paragraph 6(2) is that £200 million, less £177.77 million (possibly recurring), is the amount that the Secretary of State has in mind for the work of the LDA, given that provision is made for a lower limit for all the other agencies. The Minister looks puzzled, in which case I was right to raise the question. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness may have been right to ask the question, but I am not sure that I follow her arithmetic sufficiently to provide an answer. We do not wish to see this clause modified. We decided to remove the LDA from the controls related to the other agencies in the RDA Act because of the special circumstances of the LDA, which effectively operates within a local government structure. If the noble Baroness asks whether the reason for it is that we are providing the borrowing structure for the GLA as a whole, the answer in general terms is yes. The borrowing controls relate to the GLA and the functional bodies within the local government financial regime, not the system of borrowing controls designed for non-departmental public bodies.
I shall read the remarks of the noble Baroness related to the arithmetic and see whether I can provide clarification. I did not recognise her final figure. Perhaps

919
she will allow me to reply to that part of her observations in writing and, on that basis, withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: To avoid any confusion, I referred to paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 20, which in the Regional Development Agencies Act substitutes a collective borrowing limit of £177.77 million in place of £200 million for all the development agencies. I asked whether £200 million, minus £177.77 million, was the amount that we could be assured the Secretary of State has in mind for the LDA, perhaps not as the borrowing limit given its particular structure, but for the work of that agency. I hope that that makes the point clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 349E:
Page 275, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—
(""(4) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to the London Development Agency as if the reference to the Secretary of State was a reference to the Mayor of London and the London Assembly.
(4A) Subsection (2) has effect in relation to the London Development Agency as if the reference to the Secretary of State was a reference to the Mayor of London.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 349E in my name and that of my noble friends is grouped with Amendment No. 350 in the name of the Conservative Front Bench. Amendment No. 349E is a simple amendment which requires that the LDA sends a copy of its annual report to the assembly. I hope we shall be told that not only is it inconceivable that it would not be provided, but that somewhere the point is covered in the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Amendment No. 350 is coupled with Amendment No. 349E. The specific aim of our amendment is to achieve openness so that everybody can understand the way in which the London Development Agency works. The amendment provides that,
"The report shall include the criteria used by the London Development Agency for granting financial support to other institutions".
The LDA will have considerable financial power and influence, and it is important that the public at large understand and have confidence in the management systems which the agency uses, particularly when it handles sums of public money and makes them available to institutions or individuals. The amendment requires that the criteria used are open. I believe that if that was stated on the face of the Bill, it would represent a considerable improvement.
Lord Whitty: The first of these amendments is unnecessary and the second is inappropriate. Amendment No. 349E is unnecessary because it is already provided for in the new subsection (6) which has been added to Section 17 of the RDA Act by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 20 to the Bill. Obviously, the noble Baroness should have known that, but there we are.
920
As to Amendment No. 350, it would oblige the LDA and the mayor to include in the LDA's annual report notice of the criteria to be used for the grant of financial support. There are two issues here: clarity for the benefit of potential recipients and propriety. The LDA will, in the main, be dispensing money for the achievement of functions delegated by Ministers. There will normally be criteria in the public domain for each of these, at least in broad terms. The single regeneration budget is a good example. Here we have national criteria that are widely known. At present, the Government Office for London, subsequently the authority, publishes its more specific guidelines which tailor the national guidelines to the specific circumstances of London. No doubt the LDA will wish to do likewise.
The LDA will have a chief finance officer and monitoring officer following local authority practice in this instance. Its accounts will be audited annually, which is a check on the use of defensible criteria for dispensing funds. But the amendment will not help either objective. The annual report is not the appropriate vehicle either for detailed bidding advice as to criteria against which bids can be set or audit information. In any case, bidding guidance needs to be issued when bids are being sought and should not wait for the annual report. Therefore, in the terms it was put I do not believe that this amendment is appropriate, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I welcome the noble Lord the Minister back on to his perch. I assure him that he has been adequately substituted for in his absence. I shall not say that he has not been missed; it is nice to see him back again.
I heard what the noble Lord had to say, and I shall study it with care.
Baroness Hamwee: I am glad to be assured that my amendment is unnecessary. I realise that the Official Report will not record that when the Minister told me that I should of course have realised that paragraph 11 applied, he did so as a humorous comment. I say that now to protect my good name. I thank the noble Lord for pointing that out, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 350 to 350B not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 351:
Page 276, line 1, leave out paragraph 14.
The noble Lord said: the amendment raises an interesting point: What is the economic region that comprises "London" and should it be for ever as it is described in the Bill? It seems to me that if paragraph 14 stands, the opportunity to change the boundaries of the region will no longer exist. If I am wrong in my interpretation, no doubt the Minister will tell me. I well remember that under a previous Labour government the south-east region was judged to include Hampshire and

921
everything eastwards through Kent, northwards towards Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire, and coming round to include Hertfordshire and Essex. In many senses there, is a reason for saying that that is a more valid economic development region—if one wants to consider economic development in the context of a city and its environs—than having the boundaries of the London Development Agency cast in stone as the boundaries of the Greater London Authority.
The question of economic influence is always important. I accept that what the Government are doing now is in a sense but a first building block in a process that they hope will create some rationality out of a putative regional structure. However, this country's economy does not work like that. Any regional structure that is arrived at is unlikely to have genuine validity in the economic context. It may make sense from other points of view, but it is not likely to make sense from the economic point of view.
We do not think that it is right that the boundaries of the London economic region, which is what the London Development Agency should be dealing with, should be set in stone. There may well be a time when opinion is different; and if that is so, there may well be a valid case for amendment. However, as the Bill is drafted, such amendment is not possible. We do not think that that is sensible, and that is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As the noble Lord says, the amendment raises an interesting issue. Nevertheless, on balance the argument is against the noble Lord. It is true that the RDA Act allows the Secretary of State to alter the boundaries of Me RDA areas in the rest of England, but it would not make much sense in relation to London, where the LDA is responsible to the mayor. Indeed, if the amendment were accepted, it is at least notionally possible that the mayor of London would extend his power, at least in the economic area, over the whole of Essex. I am not sure that that would be desired by the noble Lord's former constituents in the county of Essex.
Although it is true that some flexibility is necessary, that can best be achieved by co-operation between the RDAs, as we spelt out in some detail during the passage of the RDA Act. Clearly, the mayor and the LDA will have responsibility for acting, for example, on the Thames gateway with the east and south-eastern RDAs, and it is very important that they do so. If one were to extend the power of a body controlled by the mayor to territories outside his own territory, I believe there would be serious political repercussions. I hope, therefore, that on balance the noble Lord will see the wisdom of not pressing his amendment, and I ask him to seek leave to withdraw it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. I accept that I was somewhat extreme in the way in which I expressed the case for the amendment. None the less, I am reassured by what the noble Lord said about the need for co-operation between regional development agencies across their boundaries, particularly in the south-east of England. That is essential.
922
I shall study what the noble Lord said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 351A to 353 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 353A, I have to inform the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 354:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 353A:
Page 277, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
("(6) In paragraph 4 (staff) after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Appointments to the position of Chief Executive of the London Development Agency shall be made as follows—

(a) the first appointment shall be made by the Mayor of London after consultation with the chair (or chair designate) of the agency and with the approval of the London Assembly decided by simple majority vote,

(b) subsequent appointments shall be made by the Agency with the consent of the Mayor of London and the approval of the London Assembly decided by simple majority vote."").

The noble Lord said: I think we all agree that the role of the chief executive will be extremely important, particularly in the early years of the London Development Agency. If some of the responses that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, gave about the types of powers to be delegated to the LDA and the mayor are fulfilled, clearly the LDA will have considerable powers and significant resources at its disposal. In that case, the chief executive will have a very responsible job for the regeneration strategy for the whole of the Greater London area.
We believe that it is therefore very important to have the right mechanisms for the appointment of that chief executive. Those mechanisms should include the assembly; it should not simply be the mayor who has an involvement in the appointment of the chief executive. The assembly should be explicitly included to ensure that the chief executive has the full confidence of the authority as a whole.
As does paragraph 19 of the schedule, the amendment would amend Schedule 2 of the Regional Development Agencies Act, which deals with the question of staffing. We believe that by including the assembly in this we are being wholly consistent. We realise that the Government have in a sense adopted their own consistency in the other direction, but in many respects this is even more important than the way in which board members are appointed. The chief executive will be the agency's day-to-day head. He or she will be responsible to the board as well as being responsible for a very large undertaking.
We very much hope that in this case the Government will consider making an exception to one of their tenets which runs through the Bill, which appears to be that it

923
is for the mayor to decide, not for the assembly and the mayor to decide. We believe that there would be considerable merit in this proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has indicated that the amendment relates to previous discussions of the division of powers, and, although it is correct that the assembly will have a role in relation to its staff and the authority's staff, the LDA is the executive arm of the mayor in the economic and regeneration field. We believe that it should be the mayor who makes the appointments and takes the decisions in relation to the LDA, as we have discussed more generally. It is the role of the assembly to hold the mayor to account for his exercise of his executive functions.
The principle that functional bodies are the arm of the mayor is one that we have consistently pursued. I know that the Liberal Democrats, by and large, disagree, but for logic's sake I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that not unexpected reply. I certainly could not accuse him of inconsistency. We obviously have a difference of view about the role of the assembly in such circumstances and I suspect that it will be irreconcilable during the passage of the Bill. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 354 not moved.]
Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 243 [Establishment, membership and duty to maintain police force]:
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354ZA:
Page 133, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 134.
The noble Lord said: The amendment moves us on to Clause 243 and Part VI of the Bill, which deals with the Metropolitan Police. I admit that this is a probing amendment, which has been crudely drafted. It is by no means the sort of finely honed legal text that I prefer to put before the Committee, but I hope that it has the value of permitting us to discuss—at least briefly—the fundamental step that is being taken in the replacement of the Home Secretary as the police authority for the Metropolitan Police area by a joint authority on more conventional lines with elected representatives, magistrates and independent members.
The change is one of the most important in the whole history of the Metropolitan Police. That is evidenced in the Bill by the repeal of the statutory basis for the Metropolitan Police—Section I of the Metropolitan Police Act 1829. That is of course the famous Act of Sir Robert Peel, Home Secretary, which set up the world's second modern constabulary, or police force as we know it. The first was the Irish Constabulary, which was also set up by Sir Robert Peel in 1822. As the noble
924
Lord, Lord Molyneaux, is in his place, I remind the Committee that that force was the predecessor of the Irish Constabulary, later the Royal Irish Constabulary, and of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—a force that has been and remains vital to democracy.
Before 1829, the duties that we think of as police duties were carried out, in London and elsewhere, by watchmen and constables, who worked directly under city and town councils and the local justices of the peace. In a general conceptual way, the Bill will reverse the 1829 Act by putting elected representatives and magistrates back in charge of the policing of London, as they have been elsewhere throughout. Modernisation is not always what it seems: sometimes it harks back to earlier times.
Since 1829, the Met has been different. In part, that is simply a reflection of the size of London, but it also reflects the force's national responsibilities. The Metropolitan Police have taken a lead in many sensitive and important areas. That consideration is still, as the Bill stands, reflected in the provision that the Home Secretary can appoint a member of the new Metropolitan Police Authority and can also appoint, directly and indirectly, some of the members of the selection panel who will appoint others. The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment on the question of the Home Secretary's representation and we will reach that later.
In general, the Home Secretary will withdraw from his role as the Metropolitan Police Authority. I support that move, but it is a significant change that needs some explanation from the Minister of the reasons for it. The move has had the support of others over the years, including the Commissioner and his predecessor. It will bring the Metropolitan Police Authority nearer to, although it will not make it identical to, other police authorities.
The reasons for the change are not so much argued as asserted. It is said that greater democracy must be a good thing, although the Bill's provisions are a long way from total democracy for the Metropolitan Police Authority. The fact that the Home Secretary, who is answerable to Parliament, has been the police authority all this time is in itself democratic. The frequent debates on the Metropolitan Police, especially in the other place, emphasise the democratic control that has been exercised.
Therefore, the Bill will not mean a step to democracy from no democracy at all. It is a much more subtle move than that—from one partial form of democracy to another partial form of democracy. However, it is difficult to avoid the idea, more usually implied than expressed, that in recent decades it has somehow become less acceptable to have a single politician acting as the Metropolitan Police Authority. I do not mean that as any criticism of the present Home Secretary or his predecessors. Politicians as a group, and I speak as one, have become less trusted to act in a quasi-judicial role one day and a political one the next. The prestige of politicians as a group has diminished. We are nearly as lowly rated as journalists. We are right down the bottom with lawyers and persons of that class.
Of course, a majority of the new police authority will also be politicians and some of the rest will be chosen by politicians. Any blame going—and there is bound to be some at times—will be more widely spread. It will also prove true to say that the chairman, never mind the members, of the Metropolitan Police Authority will be largely unknown to the public, certainly in comparison with any Home Secretary. That may be another clue as to why the change is being made. It will help to lower the visibility and hence sometimes the political temperature of the authority, and I believe that to be desirable.
I hope that the change will also lower the perception of political interference in policing matters. I emphasise the word "perception", because I am riot trying to make the case that either the present Home Secretary or his predecessors improperly interfered politically. In any case, even if they had, successive commissioners would have resisted them.
We are in difficult waters. Ministers and elected councillors are expected to use their powers on behalf of the public, because that is our system of democratic control.
All in all, I think it is desirable to transfer responsibility from the Home Secretary to the police authority somewhat on the lines suggested in the Bill, although we shall have some modifications to suggest shortly. However, I think that the Committee should ask the Minister to explain the Government's reasons for bringing about this historic change. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the noble Lord, whose name so resembles mine that I occasionally receive his post, for explaining why he has moved separately from the other grouped amendments an amendment which he described rightly, if I may say so, as a rather crude amendment. In fact, if the amendment were passed it would leave us with a Metropolitan Police district and some form of unspecified Metropolitan Police Authority. We shall debate those details later on and so I shall leave any comments I have on those details until the proper time when we deal with those amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said that it was for the Minister to give the Government's reasons for why there is to be this historic change and why we are to revert to the situation that applied more than 170 years ago. I suspect that London has changed a little in 170 years. I happy to let the Minister do that. However, I want to place on record the strong support of the Liberal Democrats for the setting up of a Metropolitan Police Authority and for the authority no longer to be the Home Secretary. We shall come to the details in a few moments.
Why should it not be the Home Secretary? Why do this? It should be done not only because we have supported it for years and the Labour Party—now the Government—have supported it for years, but the most important reason of all in many ways is that for many years and publicly the Metropolitan Police, and particularly its commissioner, have been advocating such a change. With such powerful forces in support of it, it must be a good Idea.
926
Why is it a good idea? First, the Home Secretary has a huge range of duties and powers. The amount of attention that that one Minister, however able, can give to the affairs of the largest police force in the country must be very limited. Whatever good advice he or she may receive, it is still very limited. The degree of accountability, therefore, for the Metropolitan Police service is perhaps limited to the annual debate in the other place, annual or twice yearly meetings with the representatives of the London boroughs and, more recently, the meetings of the Metropolitan Police Committee. All of us are agreed that that is inadequate. For that reason alone, it is important that we are to have a body of people—a police authority—that is able to give more time, detailed knowledge and attention to the strategic work of the Metropolitan Police.
However, I think it goes beyond that in that it also brings about certainly the possibility—and I very much hope the reality—of a greater degree of community accountability within London for the Metropolitan Police, its strategic priorities and so on. That in itself must be desirable. How the members of the authority will work and how they will relate to London's communities is perhaps a debate for later today.
The other aspect of the matter that is less often mentioned is the whole financial regime of the Metropolitan Police with which I have occasionally had some dealings in my role as a London borough council leader. The Met has made strenuous efforts in recent years to try to bring its financial regime a little more up to date than it was. However, had it been similar to a London borough council in financial accounting and accountability terms, these moves would have happened a long time ago. The Met has a huge budget. Were it to be receiving rather greater public scrutiny than is now the case, I am sure that greater and less damaging savings would have been found than has had to be the case in order to meet the other restrictions that have been placed upon it.
We on these Benches very much welcome the historic change that is taking place. I acknowledge that it is a historic change. It is long overdue. It is time that the metropolis, like everywhere else in the country, had its own police authority which is not the Home Secretary but is more directly related to and accountable to Londoners.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This amendment would remove the police authority's status as a body corporate; it would remove any enabling provision for it to have any members; and it would remove any provision for it to have any name. But apart from that, the short reasons are these: first, it is inappropriate for a single political Minister, however distinguished, to be in charge of such a large authority; secondly, it will improve accountability; thirdly, it will improve openness; and, fourthly—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope—it will enable local involvement in a way which is exactly parallel, for instance, with the thinking behind the Crime and Disorder Act and is long overdue.

927
Furthermore, it is Liberal Democrat policy; it is also Conservative policy; and—the clincher—it is government policy.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful for that legal advice on the drafting of the amendment. It is much appreciated. The debate has enabled us to hear at least some of the reasons that lie behind this historic change. In view of the legal consequences of the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 243 agreed to.
Schedule 21 [The Metropolitan Police Authority: Schedule 2A to the Police Act 1996]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354A:
Page 277, line 31, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: I sometimes find the numbering system for the amendments slightly confusing, but that is a question for another day.
We are now dealing with the composition of the new authority. The first suggestion—it was made in A Mayor and Assembly for London—is that the Metropolitan Police Authority should reflect the model of other non-metropolitan police authorities throughout the country. That is what we were expecting, not necessarily in every detail but in principle. In normal circumstances, each non-metropolitan police authority has 17 members. Nine are appointed by the county council or, in areas of the country such as where I live where there are unitary authorities, the district council; five independent members are appointed by the authority from a shortlist drawn up by the Secretary of State; and there are three magistrates.
This amendment addresses the question of the council representatives. In the case of other authorities, they are the councils principally responsible for the major services to the citizen. However, the Bill proposes 23 members for the Metropolitan Police Authority: 12 members of the new assembly, to be appointed by the mayor; seven are to be independent members in the same way as the other authorities; and four magistrates. Therefore, the proportions are roughly the same but the amendment concerns the 12. Our contention is that those 12 should not be wholly drawn from the new assembly but that six of them should come from the assembly and six from the London boroughs.
The important point is the representation of the boroughs. We shall come later to the question of whether the members picked from the assembly should be chosen by the mayor or whether they should be appointed or elected by the assembly. In some of the amendments proposed by myself and by the Liberal Democrats there is a distinction over whether to use the word "appointed" or "elected". I do not think that it makes any difference. The only way an assembly can appoint anyone is by a vote. It is a verbal difference without a distinction. The real distinction is whether the mayor or the assembly picks the assembly members. On this amendment, the issue is whether the boroughs
928
should be represented as well as the assembly. At present the boroughs are not to be represented; all representatives are to come from the assembly.
The Minister referred to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the importance of local links with the police and local consultation. Section 5 of that Act imposes a duty on London borough councils, as well as others elsewhere in the country, together with the commissioner, to formulate strategies for the reduction of crime and disorder in their areas. The underlying philosophy of the Crime and Disorder Act is to develop and enhance partnerships between, in this case, the Metropolitan Police and other agencies involved in the criminal justice system, but, above all, with local government. In London, those agencies are, and I believe will remain, the boroughs. The boroughs will still have most of the powers to do the things which the citizens want from local government. They will still have the responsibility under the Crime and Disorder Act for formulating strategies and liaising with the police; but they will not be represented on the authority.
That does not seem to be a sensible arrangement through which to implement the Crime and Disorder Act. With a large number of boroughs, it is difficult not to get into a situation where one makes the new police authority too large and unwieldy. With 23 members, it is a little larger than similar bodies in the rest of the country. I do not think that it would matter if the size were increased a little. The proportion should remain the same, but it would not matter if the number of members were larger. That would permit a few more representatives from the assembly than the six we propose, and a few more from the boroughs. I am not hung up on specific numbers. The important principle is that the boroughs should be represented.
The arrangements we have suggested for electing those borough representatives mirror those in the schedule to the Police Act 1996 for local councils or, in some cases where necessary, joint committees of local councils to appoint members to other police authorities. We envisage that similar joint committees would operate within London so as to arrive at the representatives of the boroughs. However, we are concerned about the principle that boroughs should be represented on the authority. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: Perhaps I may preface my remarks by saying for the benefit of anyone in the Chamber who may not be aware of the fact that I am, and have been for the past 13 years, a London borough council leader and may therefore be thought to have some natural sympathy for this group of amendments. I do not. I understand that the amendments arise from the Conservative approach, which is that the assembly should comprise entirely London borough council representatives. That is a view we have debated previously. It is one that I do not share. For that reason, I cannot share this view.
The Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority are supposed to be strategic in their roles. Therefore, it is right and appropriate that the

929
democratic representatives should come from the strategic authority and the assembly rather than the London boroughs. I fear that were six, or some such small number, to come from the London boroughs, inevitably that would detract from the strategic role and transfer some of the emphasis to a more local role. That is the wrong emphasis.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, makes an important point in relation to the crime and disorder strategies. It is important that those are fed clearly through to the deliberations of the Metropolitan Police Authority. But the implementation and development: of each London borough's strategies are primarily matters for that borough, and the partnerships and consultation within that borough. Where and how that should feed into the police authority is another matter. It will be for the authority to develop effective consultation arrangements with the boroughs collectively—dare I say perhaps through the Association of London Government?—to consider matters of wider concern and interest on the implementation of the crime and disorder strategies.
These proposals will not stop that happening. It is for those involved to ensure that it takes place. To have only six London borough representatives on the authority may be useful for the six London boroughs or the City of London (if there happens to be a representative). But, speaking for the London borough of Sutton, although we have good relationships with the next-door borough of Croydon, having a councillor from Croydon on the Metropolitan Police Authority would be of little greater use to us than having our constituency Member on the authority. It is of limited value. As a London borough council leader, I have some sympathy with the amendment, but essentially it is misguided. Subject to the amendments we shall propose later, the authority is about the right structure. It is for the authority to ensure that it establishes good and effective liaison arrangements with the boroughs, in particular in relation to their crime and disorder strategies.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I share with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, a feeling that there is a superficial attraction to the amendment. However, I agree that it does not bear much examination.
Members of the London assembly are being elected for strategic purposes. The role of the authority will be focused on strategic issues in relation to policing London. It will not be concerned on a day-to-day basis with operational matters or with issues around the crime and disorder strategy which will be developed at a local level. Indeed, it would be wrong if that were the case. Therefore, the argument that borough representation is required is fallacious.
It is also fallacious in practical terms, for the reasons to which the noble Lord alluded. To have six representatives of the boroughs purportedly representing 32 London boroughs makes difficulties for each representative who will be a locally elected borough councillor but will have to represent the interests of, presumably, five or six borough councils. In practice, that will not work. It will do nothing as regards the accountability structures of the police authority. If one wants good accountability and good links with the
930
boroughs, no doubt an amendment can be tabled suggesting 32 representatives. I do not believe that that would then be a practical police authority. It would not necessarily serve the purposes set out in the amendment. Those purposes will be achieved by much closer collaboration between the police authority, the London boroughs and the local crime and disorder partnerships.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The consequences have already been accurately set out by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I do not retraverse that ground. Essentially, we have sought to draw a clear line between strategic issues for which the GLA should be responsible and other issues which are rightly kept by the boroughs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the policing of London clearly requires a strategic overview. Therefore, the elected membership should be drawn from the assembly and not from individual boroughs. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has raised an important point and I am happy to reiterate, as firmly as I can, that the needs of local communities in London will not be overlooked. Consultation with the community is a requirement of the Police Act 1996 and of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
I am sure that the MPA will work closely with the boroughs, just as the Metropolitan Police Committee does now. It will take account of the views of the boroughs when drawing up its annual policing plan. I stress that the MPA and the boroughs will be involved in the new statutory partnerships under the Crime and Disorder Act. Therefore, although I recognise the concerns that have driven these amendments, I believe that they are best addressed through the mechanisms that I have described.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am slightly disappointed, but only mildly, to discover that the two senior representatives of local government—particularly of local London boroughs—present in the Chamber this evening have not leapt to their feet to support the amendment. Nevertheless, I am not entirely put off by that.
The Crime and Disorder Act provides for the involvement of London boroughs, among others, and the Police Act provides for the involvement of what are called "relevant councils". So there is a case to be made for such involvement. The local strategies of which we talk will need to add up to the total, overall strategy—the same word is used in both cases—of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Metropolitan Police force. It would be no good if that did not happen.
I realise that the London Borough of Sutton or any other individual borough would not have its Own councillors on the authority, even if the figure of six that I have suggested were enlarged somewhat—I certainly do not think that it should be enlarged to 32 or anything like that because it would make the authority much less workable. It is proposed that 12 representatives of the assembly should serve on the police authority, so it is likely that some boroughs will not be represented on

931
that body. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, may find that, if the amendment were carried, the position would be the same.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I make it clear that I do not wish my borough, or any other, to be represented specifically on the Metropolitan Police Authority. My point is that the MPA should be a strategic authority that deals with strategic issues. Of necessity, the assembly members who serve on that body will live somewhere. However, I would not wish them to be viewed as borough representatives in any sense. Some of them may be constituency members of the assembly—I hope that is the correct term—and others may be London members from the top-up list. The important point is that they should be strategic representatives, not borough representatives.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I accept that. I understood entirely the thrust of the noble Lord's earlier intervention. At the same time, the point of having elected representatives—whether they are from the assembly or from the boroughs—is that they should represent, to a degree, the people who elected them; otherwise there is no democracy at all.
Judging from what the Minister has said, I am not likely to make much progress with the amendment this evening. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 354ZB:
Page 277, line 32, leave out ("appointed") and insert ("elected").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 354ZD, 354ZF, 354YJ and 354ZJ. I agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, made when considering the previous group of amendments: I think that probably all Members find the numbering and lettering system quite difficult to follow at times.
The numbering may be difficult, but the purpose of this amendment is very simple and clear. It relates to the 12 members who are to come from the assembly to serve on the police authority. Our batch of amendments proposes that the assembly members should be chosen by the assembly, not appointed by the mayor.
We have returned time and again to this issue during the debate because our view differs from that of the Government. Our view, which has been stated many times, is that the mayor should have less power and the assembly should have more power. The Government do not agree. This amendment is not strictly part of that argument—although perhaps it has its genesis there. We agree with the Government's proposal that 12 members of the assembly should serve on the Metropolitan Police Authority. Our point of difference with the Government is: who chooses those assembly members?
It seems to us to be right—and a fairly fundamental democratic principle—that those assembly members must be seen to represent the assembly. They will
932
certainly be held to account by the assembly for what they do and say. Therefore, they should be chosen by the assembly and not appointed by the mayor who may at least be tempted to choose people to serve on the police authority whom she or he feels might be most comfortable for the mayor. If the assembly is to be represented on the authority, we believe that the assembly should choose its representatives. The purpose of these amendments is to give the assembly the power to elect its 12 representatives—because perforce that is what they will be—to that body and to do so in accordance with the existing political balance on the assembly.
That is a fairly clear point and I hope that it will not get lost in our previous arguments about the distinction between the executive role of the mayor and the scrutiny role of the assembly—which I understand very well. We are talking about a simple democratic principle: assembly members who represent the assembly should be chosen by the assembly and not appointed by the mayor, without taking account of the assembly's wishes.
I would like to think—although I am not too hopeful—that the Government will recognise this fairly important point. I am quite sure that, if the assembly is able to choose its 12 members, those members will enjoy the assembly's greater confidence than if they are chosen simply by the mayor and appointed to the Metropolitan Police Authority. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall speak primarily to Amendments Nos. 354F, 354H and 354J, the effect of which is broadly the same as that of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The noble Lord's amendments use the word "elected" rather than "appointed", but that is not an effective difference.
I believe it is sensible that assembly members who sit on the authority—whether it is six or 12—should be elected by the assembly rather than appointed by the mayor. I cannot say that I followed with proper attention all of the previous debates about the mayor and the assembly—although I have done my best to read the relevant parts of Hansard. As far as the police authority is concerned, I believe that it is important that assembly members who serve on it should represent the assembly not only in the sense that the party balance is reflected—that is provided for in the Bill, and we wish to continue it as far as possible—but in the sense that they feel that they are answerable to the assembly.
The basic purpose of the assembly is to be a democratic check on the mayor. If he is to be given such patronage, that check is weakened. If he is able to say to a member of the assembly who is put on to the police authority that he is not doing what he wants and that he will remove him from the assembly, the mayor will directly control and heavily influence the authority.
We must remember that the 12 members are a majority. The independent members will be appointed by the 12, so whatever they and the magistrates say, they can be overruled. That will influence the way in which the authority works. It is therefore important that

933
the assembly members have the protection of being elected by their fellows rather than being the beneficiaries of the mayor's patronage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If it is convenient to the Committee, I shall speak to all the amendments in the group.
The effect of Amendment No. 354F, the Conservative amendment, is to have the assembly members of the MPA appointed by the assembly rather than the mayor. The Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 354ZF is similar, except for the difference in terminology. The other amendments are consequential.
It comes down to a difference of approach, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. We return to the old argument about the extension of the powers of the assembly at the expense of the mayor. I am not sure how helpful it would be if I wearied the Committee with a rerun of arguments which have been well ventilated, albeit in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and myself.
We believed that the amendments downplay the purpose of the mayor's strong strategic role. We regard the power of appointment as critical to the mayor's ability to take a high level and strategic interest in the authority's efforts to tackle crime and maintain an efficient and effective policing service in London. We do not want to see any diminution of the mayor's power in that respect.
Fundamentally, the difference of approach is as simple as that, but it is important not to overlook the fact that the mayor' s power of appointment is subject to the requirement that he or she shall ensure so far as practicable that the appointments reflect the balance of parties on the assembly. We believe that those two aspects taken together arrive at the right, properly balanced conclusion.
Lord Tope: Perhaps I may begin with a point of agreement as regards election or appointment. I entirely accept that the assembly would be appointing the 12 members. It might well be that the 12 appointees would be chosen by elections within the assembly. In that way, we can agree on both election and appointment.
I turn to the more important and substantial matter. I was disappointed with the Minister's reply not because I expected him to agree with me, but because he had not understood and perhaps I had not made my point clearly. The argument is not about the powers of the strategic role of the mayor. If the Government were proposing that the mayor could appoint any 12 members from anywhere, some of whom might happen to be assembly members, I might well be having the argument that we have had throughout; that the assembly and not the mayor should appoint those 12 people.
We are not discussing that. We are specifically discussing 12 members of the assembly, as the Bill provides. Therefore, we are discussing whether the assembly can chose its own members who are bound to be seen as its representatives. Indeed, I assume that they are to be there as representatives of the assembly and
934
through it of the London communities. We are discussing whether the assembly has the right to chose its 12 representatives or whether the assembly has imposed upon it whoever the mayor chooses—the mayor's 12 most favoured members of the assembly—subject to the political balance.
That is a different point from the one we repeated about the role of the mayor and the assembly. I am talking specifically about who appoints the 12 people from the assembly. We say that it ought to be the assembly, from which they come and to which they will inevitably be held accountable, rather than the mayor, who will impose them. Many of those 12 unfortunate people who may well have been chosen by the assembly, given that we are talking about almost half the membership, will be held to account by their fellow assembly members who will have had no choice in their appointment. That seems rather unfair to those 12 people, to say the least.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that that is a different point from the one to which he has replied. I am happy to pause in order to give him an opportunity to reply to it. I see that he does not wish to do so. I suspect that I may have won my argument and that we may well return to the matter later when he 'will have had chance to think of a counter argument or have been persuaded by ours. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 354B to 354F not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354G:
Page 278, leave out lines 1 to 3.
The noble Lord said: We now turn to the deputy mayor. The Bill provides that the deputy mayor should automatically be a member of the MPA. The deputy mayor is to be appointed by the mayor under Clause 41. It also provides that the deputy mayor can be dismissed by the mayor at any time. If after a year or two, or a week or two, the mayor decides that he does not like the deputy mayor, he or she can be dismissed from the post.
However, the Bill also provides that the deputy mayor, by reason of his office, is automatically appointed to the MPA. Interestingly enough, there is no provision for the dismissal of the deputy may or from that authority. I am not sure whether the deputy mayor, having been dismissed from his post, automatically ceases to be a member of the MPA. If not, presumably the mayor will have to juggle about with the other 11 places.
That is all in the detail of the Bill. We ask whether the deputy mayor should automatically be a member of the MPA. There may well be someone who is regarded as well qualified and the ideal person to be deputy mayor, but who does not want, or is not considered suitable, to be on the MPA. In any event, the mayor may want to delegate to his deputy a great deal of authority in other areas of activity and not want him to be distracted by MPA business.
It does not seem to me that there should be anything automatic about it. There is more of a case for the deputy mayor to be appointed automatically to the authority if the other 11 were to be elected. If the mayor is to appoint all 12, he can appoint the deputy to the police authority if he feels like it. That would give the mayor greater flexibility. If the others were to be elected, something might be said for making sure that there was a senior figure on the assembly chosen by the mayor. If the Minister does not agree to the previous amendments, there is a strong case for this amendment. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Tope: I too shall listen with considerable interest to the Minister's response to the very good points that have been made. I am not quite clear why the Government believe that in giving the mayor the power to appoint 12 assembly persons they must insist that one of them has to be the deputy mayor. I do not entirely understand why that is so. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. Should the Minister be so moved by my persuasive arguments that the assembly member should be appointed by that body, it might well be a reasonable compromise that the deputy mayor shall be a member and the other 11 shall be chosen by the assembly. That would appear to be a reasonable way forward. But given that the mayor is appointing all 12, why is it required, whether he likes it or not, that one of them has to be the deputy mayor?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendment No. 354G would remove the requirement that the deputy mayor be one of the assembly members on the MPA. The answer to the question raised by both noble Lords who have contributed to the debate is that the deputy mayor is intended to be a figure of considerable importance. He is a key player in the assembly and an important participant in the mayor's cabinet. We believe that if the deputy was not on the MPA, that would significantly weaken the relationship between the mayor and the MPA and would diminish the mayor's influence. We do not want that to happen. That is the simple answer to the question which was very courteously put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thought the Minister was going to reply in that way, but his argument can be turned upside down. If the mayor already has "his man" or "his person" on the police authority, why does he need to have 11 other people whom he has also appointed? He has his representative in place already and that would be enough.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I agree with that. The Minister said that the deputy mayor is to be a key player in the assembly and I understand that. He may be a key member in different ways. It may be that his skills and experience show that he is the appropriate person to put on the police authority. But he may be a key member in other respects. There may be another key member in the assembly who is more appropriate to be the mayor's
936
principal link with the police authority, the strategy and the planning. It does not seem to me that a case has been made out for having the deputy mayor automatically elected.
I understand that the mayor will want to have a good relationship with the police authority. If the mayor is able to appoint 12 people, he will have a good relationship with the authority. If not, it will be the mayor's fault if he does not have a good relationship. I do not believe that it would be weakened if for some of the time the deputy mayor was put on the police authority. Does the Minister want to intervene?
Lord Bach: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he really envisage circumstances in which someone as significant as the deputy mayor, a member of the assembly, would not be properly on the police authority? Inevitably, that person would be the link, if nothing else, between the assembly and the police body. Can the noble Lord envisage circumstances in which such an important person would not be on the body? If he can, perhaps he can tell the Committee what those circumstances might be.
Lord Tope: I shall give the noble Lord a little more time to think of those circumstances. It may very well be that, given that nearly half the members of the assembly will be on the police authority, one of them will be the deputy mayor. I do not understand why it must be the deputy mayor. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has already said, there may be other very important responsibilities which the deputy mayor undertakes as regards the various other functional bodies. Why does it have to be the police authority'? Why cannot it be another important member of the assembly who fulfils the role? That is the point that we are trying to make. It is not that the deputy mayor is not important or that appointment to the police authority is not important; but why does it have to be prescribed that one of the 12 has to be the deputy mayor? If he is much better informed, suited and experienced in another important aspect of the GLA's work, why should not the deputy mayor play an equally important role in the area for which he or she is better qualified? That is the point that we are trying to make. I hope that by now the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has thought of many possibilities that may arise.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has expressed the matter more eloquently than I; I seem to have failed to put over my point. The situation where the deputy mayor may not be on the police authority may arise in two different ways. First, the mayor may consider that it would be more appropriate for the deputy mayor to spend most of his time working on some of the other responsibilities. In that case, it may be better for the deputy mayor not to be on the police authority so that he can devote his time to the other responsibilities that the mayor wishes him to have.
Secondly, it may well be that another member of the assembly should be the principal man or woman on the police authority because of his or her past experience, training or qualities. Therefore, it may be unnecessary

937
to appoint the deputy mayor because someone else can fill the role of being the important principal link between the mayor and the police authority. I do not know whether the Minister wants to contribute further to the debate. I gather not. In that case, no doubt the debate will continue on another occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 354H to 354ZL not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354L:
Page 278, line 16, at end insert—
("3A. The members of the Metropolitan Police Authority shall exercise their powers to appoint members under paragraph 3(3)(a) so as to ensure that, so far as is practicable, where members for whose appointments they are responsible are members of political parties their numbers reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among members of the London Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: I signalled earlier that I understood that the Liberal Democrats were going to suggest that the Secretary of State should not have the power to appoint, but evidently they have changed their minds. They are extremely wise to do so otherwise should have been obliged to support the Government, not that I mind doing so occasionally.
Amendments Nos. 354L and 354M both seek to ensure that as far as possible the party balance is still maintained. There will also be seven members who will be voted on to the authority by the main members of the authority and four from among the magistrates. I do not seek to suggest—and the amendment is careful in this respect—that everyone who finds a place on the authority in that way should belong to a political party or should have to identify or express their preferences in terms of the parties that they support. However, where those individuals who serve on the authority belong to a political party, an effort should be made among them to ensure that the party balance is maintained.
I hope that many, if not all, of the independent members may be what in your Lordships' House are called Cross-Benchers, independent members belonging to no party at all. Ir.: so far as some of them may not be Cross-Benchers, I believe that the party balance should be reflected. These two amendments provide for that in respect of the two categories of members other than the members drawn from the assembly.
It would be wrong to exclude from appointment those who belong to parties. Similarly it would be wrong to exclude from appointment those who choose not to belong to any political party. If political party members are appointed to the authority, that should not upset the party balance. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the Minister replies, I am bound to say that I find these two amendments quite disturbing. I have a small acquaintance with the police authority in the county where I was a county councillor. To return to our old argument, when that police authority was set up it was universally agreed that one of the county councillors representing us should be the former chairman of the
938
police authority, who was immensely knowledgeable. When the county council took the decision to appoint him as a member, his party affiliation was totally unimportant. Subsequently, he chaired that police authority with great distinction.
Turning to the independent members and the members chosen by the magistrates, I am quite astounded to hear the noble Lord say that their political affiliation should have any consideration. The Secretary of State will nominate a panel from which, if I understand the Bill aright, the other members will appoint the independent members. The Secretary of State, in creating that panel, will conduct a great deal of careful research. Quite a complicated form has to be filled in for that purpose. The Secretary of State, or someone on his behalf, will have satisfied himself that the person appointed, whether or not he or she has a political affiliation, is capable of acting with independence on the police authority.
I know a lot of magistrates and sometimes I can guess what their political affiliations may be. One or two of them occasionally confess into my ear what that affiliation is, but I have never heard them behave as though they belonged to a political party on, for example, the probation committee, of which I am a member. I am sure that the tradition of magistracy—I hope that it is as strong in London as elsewhere—would not favour a party political approach on behalf of magistrates. I would rather leave such matters to good sense and the general assumption that there are some people on bodies who can behave in a non-party political manner so that they make sure that we have the right people serving on the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No magistrate has ever confessed to me the shame of being a Liberal Democrat!
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I do not know why the Minister suggests that it is only those in sympathy with my particular orientation whose affiliation I have occasionally been able to adduce!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The points made by the noble Baroness are overwhelming. The function of the independent members and the magistrate members, as she says, is precisely to be independent, bringing qualities and skills which are not dependent upon and are not generated by membership of a political party. It will be difficult enough to obtain the correct balance of skills, age, ethnic background and gender without introducing politics into the equation.
Outside London, independent member appointments are not dependent upon political allegiance or political parties. If one went the way that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, indicates, the result may be a membership, as indicated by the noble Baroness, consisting mainly of politically minded people. We do not want that for a body of this sensitivity.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have expressed my view on this subject, but it has not found favour. I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 354M not moved.]
Schedule 21 agreed to.
Clauses 244 to 247 agreed to.
Clause 248 [Appointment of Commissioner]:
7.15 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 354MVA:
Page 135, leave out lines 3 to 19 and insert—
("(2) Any appointment of a Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall be made by the Metropolitan Police Authority.
(3) A person appointed as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall hold office until such time as the Assembly shall decide otherwise by two thirds majority on receiving a request from the Metropolitan Police Authority.
(4) Any appointment of a Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall be subject to regulations under section 50.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 354MVA standing in my name and those of my noble friends. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 354MWA and 354MXA.
These amendments concern the appointments of a commissioner and a deputy commissioner. They propose that those appointments should be made by the Metropolitan Police Authority rather than, as proposed in the Bill, by the Queen acting on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. It also provides for the removal by a two-thirds majority of a commissioner so appointed. Amendment No. 354MWA prescribes that if we do not succeed in that, the London assembly should also have the opportunity, indeed the right, to make representations to the Secretary of State on the appointment of the commissioner.
These amendments are in line with the recommendations of the Macpherson report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, which recommended that all chief officer appointments in the Metropolitan Police service should be made by the authority. The Government have accepted those recommendations, except in relation to the commissioner and deputy commissioner. I believe it is the view of the Government—as we shall hear shortly—that, because of the particular nature of the Metropolitan Police service, its national and international functions, and status—if that is the right word—of the commissioner and deputy commissioner being higher than that of the Chief Constable, the Secretary of State should continue to play a more active role.
We feel that is the wrong way round. We are appointing a Metropolitan Police Authority responsible for the Metropolitan Police service, and the Macpherson report was right to recommend that the commissioner and deputy commissioner should be appointed by the authority. I am sure that in making such an appointment they would wish to pay due regard to the views of the Secretary of State. If we are to have an authority, it seems right and proper to us—we agree with Macpherson—that that authority should have the responsibility of appointing the two senior posts that will report to them.
The Government, in their response to the Macpherson report, have simply commented that those appointments will remain royal appointments. They have not said why. My question is not intended, in any sense, to be anti-royalist or anti-monarchist. I do not understand, and I hope that the Minister will explain, why the appointment has to be a royal appointment, even if the Home Secretary is to retain, in effect, the power to appoint, or certainly the power to nominate the appointment. Perhaps there is a simple explanation that has escaped me. I shall be pleased to hear the Minister's reply.
However, I return to our principal point; namely, that now we are to have a fully-fledged Metropolitan Police Authority it should have the power, after consulting appropriately, to appoint—and, for that matter, dismiss—the two senior officers of the Metropolitan Police Service. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I do not find myself in agreement with this set of amendments. Notwithstanding the Macpherson Report, I think that the Bill is to be preferred in this respect. The noble Lord seemed to be making a distinction between whether Her Majesty the Queen would be involved or whether it would be the Secretary of State. The question of whether or not the Queen would be involved seems to me to be the smaller of the two considerations. I do not believe that it is disrespectful to refer to that as a bit of the ornamental part of the constitution, as Bagehot suggested, rather than the practical part. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that Her Majesty the Queen should be involved.
The real question is whether the Secretary of State or the assembly should, essentially, make the appointment. After all, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall "have regard to" the recommendations made to him by the authority and any representations made to him by the mayor of London. Those recommendations and representations may point to the same person being appointed as commissioner or, for that matter, they may point to different people being appointed. If the majority of the authority is appointed by the mayor, it may be unlikely that the mayor's judgment would be different from the majority of the people whom he appointed; but it is still entirely possible. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the Secretary of State has a most important role to play. But even in circumstances where the recommendations of the authority and the representations of the mayor point in the same direction, it still seems to me to be a good thing that the Secretary of State should actually be the one to recommend the appointment.
For a while I was security Minister in Northern Ireland. Therefore, when in Great Britain I benefited from the protection of the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police. I came to know quite a bit about the way in which they are able to operate in different parts of the country in that rather particular regard. It gave me a certain feeling for the national role which the Metropolitan Police have in addition to their more conventional role of policing the metropolis. But, of course, it is more than just the Special Branch protection

941
people; indeed, this applies across a wide range of responsibilities. That is the reason for the Secretary of State's involvement.
The noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches did not move earlier the proposal that the Secretary of State should lose the power, suggested under the Bill, to appoint a member of the authority. In not moving that amendment, the noble Lord recognised the national role of the Metropolitan Police. This is another recognition of it. I am not sure whether the difference between the two methods of appointment is actually quite as great as it might seem in prospect. If a person is recommended by the authority and supported by the mayor, it seems to me unlikely that the Secretary of State will appoint anyone else at that stage. So the distinction may not be quite as great a chasm as it may seem. However, in so far as there is a difference—indeed, there is—I support the Bill as it stands.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The present arrangements in the Bill are to be found in Clause 248. Amendments Nos. 354MVA and 354MXA give completely new arrangements. The appointment of the commissioner—this is quite important—becomes the sole gift of the Metropolitan Police Authority, as does the appointment of the deputy. I cannot accept these amendments. They give no role to the Secretary of State in the appointment of either the commissioner or the deputy; indeed, no role at all. That is very strange because the Police Act 1996 requires the Secretary of State to approve the appointment of chief constables and assistant chief constables outside London. The Macpherson recommendations said that the MPA's role in appointing chief officers of the Metropolitan Police should be brought into line with the role of other police authorities in appointing their chief officers. So this amendment is not consistent with that recommendation.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, were well made. This is a police force absorbing over a fifth of all resources devoted to policing in England and Wales. It has national and international functions in respect of counter-terrorism and Royal security. These are functions for which the Home Secretary will continue to have a particular responsibility. That means that his relationship with the commissioner and deputy is a special one.
We believe that these are different appointments because of the reasons outlined by rhe noble Lord, Lord Cope, and which I mentioned a moment ago. That is why the Bill provides for the Home Secretary to make a recommendation to Her Majesty. We believe that the different status justifies that different basis of appointment.
I turn now to the question of removal. Clause 251 already provides arrangements for the removal of the commissioner and the deputy commissioner. The proposals set out in Amendment No. 354MVA suggest a different removal procedure. It says that the commissioner is to hold office until the assembly decides otherwise by a,
"two thirds majority on receiving a request from the Metropolitan Police Authority".
942
Amendment No. 354MXA suggests a similar provision in respect of the deputy commissioner but with two differences: it refers to the authority, not just to the assembly; and only a "simple majority" is required to remove the deputy commissioner from office. We cannot see any reason why the assembly should have such a role in removing the commissioner or his deputy. The influence that the assembly has in this matter, as in the appointment process, should be through the presence of 12 members on the MPA. As I indicated, they will have a significant role in appointment and removal. I believe these amendments to be misconceived and possible causes of danger.
Lord Tope: I should like to begin by saying that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, that whether or not these appointments are Royal is a secondary issue; indeed, I accept that fact. However, I still have not received an answer to my question as to why these should be Royal appointments rather than, as the Minister would argue, appointments of the Secretary of State. I shall no doubt wait in vain for an answer to that, albeit secondary, issue.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it is to be hoped that no chasm will open here. Perhaps, through some miraculous process, the authority and the Secretary of State will come to a like view, after consultation, that there is one person uniquely qualified to be the commissioner. In that case, everyone will be happy, not least, I imagine, the person so appointed. But it is not stretching credulity too far to envisage a circumstance where the mayor and the police authority may reach a different view from that of the Home Secretary of the day as to who is the appropriate person. Then a rather serious chasm would open and we would have two authoritative bodies with a different view—on the one hand, we would have the police authority with, presumably, the support of the mayor and, on the other hand, the Home Secretary. That would put the person appointed, and perhaps the person not appointed, into a very difficult position.
While I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will always be right and there will not be a chasm, I do not think it is fanciful to envisage that such circumstances could arise. The Bill is all about envisaging circumstances which most of us hope will never arise, but, nevertheless, we are providing for them just in case they do. This is another such situation. It is quite an important issue.
I accept the gentle censure of the Minister as regards the imperfect drafting here. Perhaps I may explain that the reference to "the Assembly" in Amendment No. 354MVA is probably a misunderstanding on our part. I do not doubt that that was what was written in the amendment when it was originally tabled, but it should certainly have referred to the authority. I entirely accept and agree with that view. Indeed, the Minister was night to point out the differences, which were unintentional.
A similarly unintentional but more serious error concerns the Minister's point about the provision not being in line with practice in the rest of the country. We

943
certainly intend that the Home Secretary should have a role in this matter. I shall certainly withdraw the amendments and shall endeavour—
7.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before the noble Lord does so, perhaps I may point something out. If in Amendment No. 354MVA the word "assembly" is supposed to be "authority", that seems to make the provision if not meaningless at least diminished in meaning. Amendment No. 354MVA—with the substitution of the word "authority" for "assembly"—would state that the person,
"shall hold office until such time as the authority shall decide otherwise by two thirds majority"
on the request of the authority. It will have to consult itself and then confirm its decision with a two-thirds majority. That seems to me to be peculiar wording.
Lord Tope: The noble Lord is absolutely right; the wording is extremely peculiar. It is wording to which we shall have to pay greater attention if and when we bring this measure back at Report stage. The principle that we are trying to put forward here is clear. I accept the shortcomings in the drafting but the principle is clear. We believe that the commissioner and deputy commissioner should be appointed and removed by the authority, not by the Home Secretary. I accept the imperfections in the drafting for which I take responsibility and apologise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 354MWA not moved.]
Clause 248 agreed to.
Clause 249 agreed to.
Clause 250 [Appointment of Deputy Commissioner]:
[Amendment No. 354MXA not moved.]
Clause 250 agreed to.
Clauses 251 to 253 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 354MYA:
Insert the following new Clause—
CONTINUATION IN POST OF CURRENT COMMISSIONERS AND COMMANDERS
(" .—(1) Any appointment of a person as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under section 1 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 248 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9B of the Police Act 1996.
(2) If, immediately before the coming into force of section 250 above, there is in force in respect of a person who is one of the Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis an authorisation under section 8 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1856 (authorisation of one of the Assistant Commissioners to act as Commissioner in case of vacancy, illness or absence) that person shall be taken, as from the coming into force of section 250 above, to have been appointed as the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9D of the Police Act 1996.
(3) Any appointment of a person (other than a person in relation to whom subsection (2) above has effect) as an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under section 2 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1856 which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 252 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9F of the Police Act 1996.
(4) Any appointment of a person as a Commander in the metropolitan police force which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 253 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as a Commander under and in accordance with section 9G of the Police Act 1996.").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments contains Government Amendments Nos. 354MYA and 354MZA and Opposition Amendments Nos. 354MA and 354MB. Government Amendment No. 354MYA inserts a new clause which makes transitional provision in respect of those individuals in one of the four senior ranks of the Metropolitan Police—commissioner, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner or commander—on the date when the new provisions applying to the appointment of those ranks come into force. This will be 3rd July 2000. The clause provides that these individuals will be deemed to have been appointed under the new arrangements inserted into the Police Act 1996 by the Bill.
This amendment will confirm that those individuals will remain in post and ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements. It will also have the effect that those concerned are subject to other provisions made in the Bill in respect of those ranks.
These various provisions will be applied to senior Met officers appointed on or after 3rd July 2000, and we think it is right that individuals who are in post on that date should similarly be subject to them. This will not mean any worsening of conditions for these individuals. But it will mean there is no delay in conferring the full range of powers and duties on the Metropolitan Police Authority. Special transitional provisions are not needed for officers below the rank of commander—the Bill does not give the MPA a role in their appointments, which will continue to be made by the commissioner in accordance with regulations made under Section 50 of the 1996 Act.
The other government amendment—Amendment No. 354MZA—clarifies the wording in new Section 9H of the 1996 Act. This section sets out the ranks that may be held in the Metropolitan Police. These are the four senior ranks to which I have just referred—namely, commissioner, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner and commander—together with the ranks of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable. The current wording might be regarded as being ambiguous and that is why we want to put the matter beyond doubt.
I now come to Opposition Amendments Nos. 354MA and 354MB. These amendments are also concerned with Clause 254. At present, the clause provides that, in addition to the four senior ranks, the ranks that may be held,
"shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations".

945
It goes on to provide that these ranks shall include those of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable. This wording means that the Met (like other forces) must have these ranks. It would be possible to add to them using the regulations, but it would not be possible to delete any of them. This is consistent with the position outside London. The amendments would change this wording to say that the ranks,
"shall be superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable or such as may be prescribed by regulations".
The effect of this change is that it would be possible for the regulations to provide not only for additional ranks to those listed, but to dispense with one or more of the listed ranks. This would be inconsistent with the position outside London. We believe that the same set of ranks from superintendent level down ought to obtain generally. Therefore for the reasons I have indicated briefly, I cannot support those two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the Minister has pointed out, the two amendments standing in my name in this group are Amendments Nos. 354MA and 354MB. The Minister has just described their effect. The first point that attracted my attention was the transitional one with regard to what the ranks would be in the first place. As I read the Bill, a new regulation would have to be introduced in order to create these ranks. I seek to provide that they should continue, at least until there is a further regulation. But I believe that the Minister has covered the point about the transitional provisions and therefore my amendments are no longer required in that regard.
However, I sought to provide not only that the traditional ranks could be created but also that other ranks might be removed. In recent years the rank of chief superintendent has been removed. In all kinds of organisations there is a tendency to shorten chains of command and the number of ranks that exist. At some point in the future there may be further movement in that direction. I do not propose that that should happen, but if it should occur I seek to remove the need for primary legislation to be introduced to secure that end. However, in view of the fact that these ranks have relatively recently been reduced in number and there is no immediate expectation of any further reduction, I think perhaps it is unnecessary for me to move these two amendments when we reach them.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have already moved Amendment No. 354MYA which is the first amendment in the group that we are discussing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 254 [Other members of the metropolitan police force]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 354MZA:
Page 137, leave out lines 32 to 43 and insert—
(""Other members of the metropolitan police force.
9H.—(1) The ranks that may be held in the metropolitan police force shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations under section 50.
(2) The ranks so prescribed in the case of the metropolitan police force shall include, in addition to the ranks of—

(a) Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,

(b) Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,

(c) Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and

(d) Commander, those of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 354MA and 354MB not moved.]
Clause 254, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 255 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 354MZC:
Insert the following new Clause—
SECONDMENTS TO MEET DEMANDS CAUSED BY THE BOUNDARY CHANGE
(" .—(1) The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis may, on the application of the chief officer of police of a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996 for the police area of Essex, Hertfordshire or Surrey, provide for that force constables from the metropolitan police force.
(2) An application under subsection (1) above may only be made for the purpose of, or otherwise in connection with, meeting the demands placed, or reasonably expected to be placed, on the resources of the police force in question in consequence of the change effected as a result of section 255 above in the police area for which that force is maintained.
(3) While a constable is provided under this section for a police force, he shall be under the direction and control of the chief officer of police of that force, notwithstanding section 9A(1) of the Police Act 1996 (metropolitan police force to be under the direction and control of the Commissioner) or any other enactment relating to the direction or control of the metropolitan police force.
(4) The police authority maintaining a police force for which constables are provided under this section shall pay to the police authority maintaining the metropolitan police force such contribution as may be agreed upon between those authorities or, in the absence of any such agreement, as may be provided by any agreement subsisting at the time between all police authorities generally, or, in the absence of such general agreement, as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(5) This section is without prejudice to any other power of a chief officer of police to provide constables or other assistance to another police force.
(6) Expressions used in this section and in the Police Act 1996 have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 354MZC, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 354MD.
The new clause proposed in our amendment gives power to the commissioner to provide police officers to the county police forces of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. These three forces will have the area they police enlarged on 1st April 2000. Changes to the boundaries are provided for in Clause 255 of the Bill.
To police their enlarged areas, Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey will need additional officers. We need a seamless transfer of responsibilities between the Met and the county forces on 1st April 2000 so that there is no loss of service to the public.
The four forces concerned have, since last summer, been holding discussions between themselves and with Home Office officials about issues which derive from

947
the boundary changes. A key part of these discussions has been how to decide the best way to provide increased police officer numbers. In the longer term the majority will be obtained by direct recruitment. Some officers will transfer on a voluntary basis from their current forces. However, not all the newly recruited officers will be in place and fully trained by next April. The new clause provides a way of bridging the gap. It enables Met officers to be loaned for a period of time, which we would expect to be between six months and two years. They will retain the pay and allowances of a Metropolitan Police officer but will be under the direction and control of the chief constable of the force to which they have been seconded. At the conclusion of the secondment, the officers would return to the Met.
The wording of the new clause is based closely upon an existing provision; namely, Section 24 of the Police Act 1996, which provides for aid from one police force to another.
Opposition Amendment No. 354MD seeks to insert a new clause which would require the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to certify that the Metropolitan Police had a sufficient number of police officers before the commissioner was able to second police officers to another force. It is not a necessary amendment. There is no requirement that the commissioner should second officers to Essex, Hertfordshire or Surrey; our new clause simply gives him the power to do so. He plainly would not do so if he was left with insufficient officers to police his own district to the required standard. As I have said, we believe it will be possible for sufficient police officers to be seconded without jeopardising the standard of service.
In addition to being unnecessary, we believe the amendment to be inappropriate. It is a matter for the commissioner to decide how many officers he needs to police the MPD within his available resources, just as it is a matter for other chief officers to determine the number of police officers required in their forces. Bearing in mind the explanation I have given, I invite the noble Lord, in due course, not to move his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have no objection in principle to the new clause in Amendment No. 354MZC; secondments may be necessary. Although I would not want necessarily to press on the Committee the details of how the proposed new clause in my Amendment No. 354MD would work, it seeks to draw attention to the fact the Metropolitan Police are already under considerable strain, both financially and in terms of numbers. The latest information I have is that since March 1997 the size of the Metropolitan Police has fallen by a further 680; that the police settlement for 1999–2000 has been criticised by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation; and that it has been suggested that that settlement could result in 1,000 more posts being cut in the Metropolitan police area. That is a part of the background to officers being seconded from the Metropolitan Police to the Essex, Surrey and Hertfordshire police forces.
948
However, in another sense, it is clearly necessary that, at least in the early stages, some police officers should be seconded. The Minister said that the secondments were expected to last for between six months and two years. We doubt that it will necessarily be the case that over such a period the three county forces affected will be able to recruit enough officers of their own to ensure that no more secondments are required.
I understand that the original intention was to ask for volunteers to transfer from the affected divisions of the Metropolitan Police into the Essex, Surrey or Hertfordshire forces respectively but that it might be necessary to second volunteers from further afield or, indeed, to compulsorily transfer some officers. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether compulsory transfers are expected at this stage.
As the Minister said, officers who are transferred will continue to receive the additional weighting of the Metropolitan Police. That in itself will put a strain on the budgets of the Essex, Surrey and Hertfordshire police and give the chief constables concerned an incentive to try and recruit as much as possible locally.
The monetary considerations which will follow from such transfers are, to me at least, extremely obscure. Is the Minister in a position to say, as regards the number of individuals concerned, how many will be compulsorily transferred and what the financial effects will be? It would be not only interesting for us to know but important. We need to understand the implications before deciding whether or not to endorse the decisions taken by the Bill. The consequences are not small—they are very large—and will have implications for the police budgets of the counties and of the Metropolitan Police.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord has asked particular questions to which I should respond. We expect that there will be sufficient numbers of officers who will be happy to volunteer for secondment, for obvious reasons. The noble Lord is quite right. There is a power in the new clause to second officers on a compulsory basis. However, I stress that we expect a sufficient number of volunteers.
The noble Lord raised a question about funding. The enlarged size of the county forces and any traditional costs, including the higher pay and allowances of seconded Met officers compared with officers in the county forces, will be considered by the Government as part of the police force settlement for 2000–2001.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We welcome both the establishment of a satisfactory boundary for the Met area and the very subtle method that has been chosen to reassure Met officers that they will continue to have the same pay and conditions of employment as when they were working in what was previously a Met area. We urge all Members of the Committee not to disturb this satisfactory arrangement with which, so far as I am aware, all parties are in agreement.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354MC:
After Clause 255, insert the following new clause—
TRANSFER OF ASSETS FROM METROPOLITAN POLICE AUTHORITY
(" .—(1) In the absence of agreement between the Police Authorities for Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey and the Metropolitan Police Authority about the transfer of land, buildings, capital and other assets from the Metropolitan Police to the other authorities, the Secretary of State shall make an order to determine what transfers shall take place.
(2) No order under this section shall be made unless a statutory instrument containing 3 draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment brings the Committee on to the question of the transfer of other assets from the Metropolitan Police to the police forces of the three counties of Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire. Clearly, assets such as land, buildings, police stations and so on will need to be transferred during the change from one authority to another. Other assets such as cars, radios and all the other equipment which the police use these days so effectively on our behalf will also need to be transferred.
Strenuous efforts are being made at the moment by the four police forces involved to reach an agreement as to what should be transferred and what should be the financial arrangements for covering the transfers. It seems to me and to others that there may not be ultimate agreement about the very elaborate transfers that will be needed. If that were to happen, the Secretary of State should, as it were, referee the matter. He will of course be a party to the negotiations in the sense that some of them will take place while he still has responsibility for the Metropolitan Police Authority. In addition to that, no doubt arguments about money will revolve to a considerable degree around what grants will be available in the future for the four police authorities involved.
As the Secretary of State is, in any case, involved in the matter, it would seem better to make it clear that, if agreement is not reached—and we all hope that it will be—the Secretary of State should be the one to decide. However, given that the Secretary of State has an interest, both from a financial point of view and also as the existing policy authority for London, it also seems right that he should report the result of his labours in that respect to each House of Parliament and obtain their agreement.
On that basis, if agreement was not reached, at least there would be some public discussion as to whether this complicated transfer of assets was being done in a way that was fair. The representatives of all four areas would have an opportunity to express their opinions. The fact that matters would come out in public might assist the process of agreement in the first place. Even it did not, a mechanism for doing so would be provided. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We do not believe that this amendment is required. The Bill already gives the Secretary of State power to make an order or to require
950
the forces concerned to make a scheme to transfer property rights and liabilities involved in any of the transfers of responsibility under the Bill, including the police boundary change. We have not decided whether transfers following boundary changes will be carried out by scheme or order. However, the clause proposed would simply give effect to what is already agreed government policy.
There have been fruitful discussions between officials in the Home Office and representatives of the four forces. They have been urged to agree between themselves the detail of the transfers. If there is a failure to agree, the Home Office will decide. The four forces are content with that approach. They are working together constructively to ensure that the transfer runs smoothly. All parties hope it will be possible to avoid the use of the Home Office as the arbiter in areas of disagreement, but we already have that power.
Subsection (2) would require the approval of both Houses for any order. We do not believe that it is necessary to have that kind of parliamentary procedure for what are essentially matters of detail in a transfer between police forces. Any other transfer orders effected under Clause 319 of the Bill would be subject to negative resolution only. That seems the appropriate procedure for such matters. I remind the Committee that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee did not raise any objections to that procedure. I cannot see why the police force area boundary change should be singled out in this way.
There is a point of detail—there always is. The MPA comes into existence only on 3rd July. The boundary change takes place on 1st April. Therefore, this amendment could not work anyway. That is not really the point of my remarks. I merely felt obliged to mention it as the last refuge of the useless Minister!
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am always delighted to receive free legal advice, even on the drafting of a deficient amendment. I am also glad that government policy and activity are following the line suggested in my new clause, and that I therefore need not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Finance Bill
7.53 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Space Policy
7.54 p.m.
Lord Renwick Lord Renwick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what decisions were taken at the Council of Ministers on the European Space Agency on 11th and 12th May; and what were the implications of these decisions for United Kingdom space policy.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to congratulate the Minister on his successful chairmanship at ministerial level of the recent council meeting of the European Space Agency, and to thank him in anticipation for his reply this evening.
Let me say first that I am happy to welcome the outcome of that Brussels summit as being largely beneficial for the UK. Of particular importance to this country are the decisions of the council in the areas of earth observation for environmental monitoring, of global satellite navigation, of satellite systems for multimedia telecommunications services, as well as for furthering the scientific exploration of the earth and our place in the universe.
However, we must also consider some of those areas which are still of concern, and where the Minister may be able to help us to clarify the policy and intentions of Her Majesty's Government. I turn first to the question of the management of the environment in accordance with the many international agreements and protocols, which will depend, among other things, on observations which can only be made by satellite. The UK has world-class capabilities in this area, particularly in space-borne radar systems, and data processing and services. Thus, the strong commitment at the council to the Living Planet programme is important both in national as well as European terms. In putting earth observation science on a steady course, however, Living Planet represents only the first step.
What is now vitally important is for the Government to think innovatively about how to assist the transition to the commercial and operational phase which alone will lead to a robust and self-sustaining earth observation industry in this country. It would be helpful to hear the Minister's views on how that transition is to be managed; and on how he intends to stimulate his government colleagues and the EU in co-ordinating requirements for earth observation data in a more effective manner than heretofore, since this, inevitably, is an operational area where government users predominate.
Those questions apart, the ministerial outcome on earth observation is widely seen as a positive step in the right direction. The same cannot be said, I regret, for what was decided—or rather, not decided—in regard to the Future Launchers Technology Programme. It is with some alarm and disappointment that I note that both the UK and Germany reserved their position on that important project. From a strictly national point of view. I must express grave reservations over any decision which would effectively abandon the chance of a UK role in the next generation of launch vehicles.
This is a time to move forward and to remember the mistakes of the past. Will the Minister therefore give the House an assurance that, in the review that he is undertaking following the council, he will commit to this programme nationally, and use the considerable influence he has gained from a successful chairmanship to consolidate support from other member states?
It is always rewarding to acknowledge progress, and the role that the UK scientific community has played, and continues to play, is a vital part of an undoubted European success story. In general, the recent ministerial deliberations seem to have underwritten those missions which are central to the objectives of the ESA space science programme. I particularly welcome the assurance that the Mars Express mission will proceed. What though of the British-led Beagle 2 Mars lander? Perhaps the Minister will clarify his intentions on that key component of the Mars Express mission.
On the wider issues of the way in which ESA delivers its space science, the ministerial meeting posed some hard questions for ESA management. That is a good thing, and indeed reflects the success of UK advocacy of efficiency measures during both the present and previous administrations. Nationally, it will mean that the allocation of funding between the European Space Agency and national space programmes will have to be reconsidered. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he intends to proceed so as to ensure that Her Majesty's Government's funding is used most effectively to produce the best scientific results.
Perhaps the most far-reaching decision to be reached at this ministerial meeting, however, was to confirm our commitment to the definition phase of the Galileo programme which will ensure the strategic independence of Europe in the field of satellite navigation. This House will particularly wish to note that the UK is the second largest contributor to this programme. It is essential for the future prosperity and independence of the UK and Europe that this programme proceeds to a successful conclusion. The next generation of navigation services will affect the way we live in the next century and beyond. Galileo, however, is a joint programme between ESA and the EU, and the decision to proceed was very much contingent upon the additional support of the European transport ministers at their meeting last month. My understanding is that such support was forthcoming, but I hope that the Minister can confirm that the significance of the Galileo programme has firmly registered across government.
I mentioned earlier the increasing convergence of the EU and ESA in the future development of an overall policy for European space; perhaps the gradual drawing together to which I referred is beginning to require clearer political oversight. The Minister would assist us greatly, therefore, if he could offer an insight into how he sees European space developing in the next few years, for, to say the very least, it is hard to believe that the European Space Agency will be the same animal in five to 10 years' time as it is now.
In doing so, does the Minister recognise that Britain's role in the European Space Agency is part of a European industrial and political success story which we would do

953
well to balance against some of the more negative aspects of the current European debate? It is significant that our own Parliamentary Space Committee, to which I shall turn in a moment, has now joined in the formation of a European Inter-Parliamentary Space Group. I had the privilege of attending the group's inaugural meeting in Paris at the end of April this year when parliamentarians from France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom committed themselves to co-operating with their national governments and each other in the promotion of European space interests.
Nevertheless, we must also identify where it is necessary to protect national interests. We can all understand, therefore, why the Minister has postponed publication of his Space Forward Plan in order to take due account of decisions taken in Brussels. However, I wish to express my particular disappointment that the publication of the UK Space Plan 1999 is, I understand, in the perverse way in which governments treat this House and another place, precisely timed to appear after both Houses of Parliament will almost certainly have risen for the Summer Recess. I urge the Minister to share with us, to the maximum extent possible, the likely detail and thinking in this space plan, of which, I understand, the first proof will be considered in the next couple of days.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity of advancing the parliamentary and government dialogue a stage further in my personal capacity. The Minister will be aware of the work of the Parliamentary Space Committee on which I have the honour to serve as honorary secretary. It is typical of the good will and common ground which applies on an all-party basis that that committee, with the strong support of the United Kingdom Industrial Space Committee, has enabled parliamentarians to engage in a dialogue with the Minister and his predecessors and the British National Space Centre.
I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister and the BNSC have responded positively to suggestions put forward during the consultation and dialogue, both in the run-up to the ESA ministerial meeting and in the preparation of the UK Space Plan.
In what may be one of the last opportunities I have in this House to argue for the continuation of a space partnership between government, parliament and industry, may I urge the Minister—particularly when the timing of the publication of the space plan comes so unfortunately in relation to the parliamentary timetable—that he confirms his previous offer to meet the Parliamentary Space Committee and the United Kingdom Industrial Space Committee's representatives as soon as possible after the publication of the plan? Meanwhile, I know that your Lordships' House will await the Minister's response with the keenest interest.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate so ably initialed by the noble Lord, Lord Renwick. His interest and expertise in the subject are well known and of long standing. I wish to concentrate in the time available on just one of the important issues which the noble Lord raised. I share
954
the view that one of the really long-term questions or decisions for the Government is what is to be our approach to the next generation of launch vehicles, generally seen to be of the re-usable kind or RLVs for short.
As the world leader in the launcher field, it is not surprising that the United States is very active in RLV endeavours. We have benefited greatly from their efforts in the past. Where should we stand today? What are the important factors we must take into account? Let me try to outline a few. I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to take us further into his and the Government's thinking about RLVs and the approach which Her Majesty's Government are minded to adopt when they publish their long awaited space plan.
It is sobering to recall that in the early post World War II years we were a leading country in research into and development of ballistic missiles. Those of your Lordships with long memories will recall our experiences with Blue Streak and the defence-related efforts devoted to trying to make it work. As so often befalls early pioneers, success does not usually come easily or quickly. More often than not, the test failures along the way are judged by many not only by their lack of success but also by their costs—costs which are soon represented as unacceptable and irresponsibly exceeding the original ballpark estimates. In short, they amount to financial millstones which must be dealt with.
With competing demands for resources, not only in the defence field but throughout the economy, inevitably alternative approaches have to be studied. In due course and with plenty of rationalisation, usually concentrated on relative costs of the ways forward, one of the alternatives will become the favoured policy, even at the expense of broad political and security judgments of longer lasting benefit.
We abandoned Blue Streak. We chose to look to the United States to provide us with a whole series of ballistic missiles. Noble Lords will recall the Thors, the Skybolts, the Polaris and the Tridents, all of which we obtained or were offered on account of our special relationship with the United States. We soon took responsibility for the payloads and upgrading of the on-board weapon and other systems which these missiles, and others for our communicating and intelligence needs, would or could have been taken into space for us.
With such help in the defence field, it is hardly surprising that we did not seem or need to have to contribute in any major way to the development of the actual launchers. Unlike us, the French have argued that without the nationally owned capability to launch their payloads into space, they would not have a viable or credible space policy. It is interesting to reflect that neither we nor the French could make a case that the particular routes that we have separately chosen have proved to be a financial and strategic mistake for the other. No such major divergence is discernible in the successes of our separate space policies.
We seem in the past 30 to 40 years to have adopted or even drifted into an alternative rationale to that of the French, a rationale which is, at its most basic, that it is

955
what is in space and not what you send it into space with that really matters and we must concentrate our resources and efforts upon them.
Certainly, the combination of commercially available launchers and the undoubted value of the special relationship that we have enjoyed with the United States, more so than any other European country, has given us much, if not virtually all, that we could hope to find, and fund, for our space needs. As a consequence, our enthusiasm for the European route has not always been particularly obvious or sincere. The question arises: are we set fair to continue on this path, or is now the moment to reconsider, even modernise, our approach? Should we become more active and a leader in the research and development of future launchers?
The noble Lord, Lord Renwick, concentrated on the global commercial market for RLVs to serve the space communities. I hope that the other aspects of the issue will be given their due weight. The political and defence rationales for the extent and depth of our involvement in future RLVs must be considered. As our links in the EU develop, will we find changes in the bilateral strength of the special UK/US relationship? Will the United States perceive Europe as its dominant interactive partner at the expense of the past special dealings with the United Kingdom?
We see the European Commission adopting a much more prominent stance in space-related activities as a regulator, policymaker, defender of European interests internationally, research funder, and potentially as a customer and advocate of applications and markets. The Commission recommends that Europe constructs a global navigational satellite system to compete with, or complement, the systems deployed by the United States and Russia. These and other such developments are in turn likely to impact directly on the development of a common foreign and security policy in Europe.
In the defence field, the potential threat from ballistic missile attack on this country seems for the moment to be on the back burner. We are told that the Ministry of Defence will keep the situation under review. But in the long run such a threat cannot be wished away, nor can we expect that it will never re-emerge as a pressing and dangerous problem. If we are to develop defence capability against that kind of threat it will require expertise, including launcher expertise and counter-ballistic capabilities.
I believe it is right that political and defence issues, as well as the purely commercial considerations, should be weighed in the assessment of the way forward. Inevitably, the scale of the defence, security and political issues will have a bearing on the amount of government support of R&D which should be forthcoming. Only if the way ahead is confined to civil and commercial considerations is there a real argument for leaving it to the industry alone to fund its own research and development and to seek, in due time, a return on its capital as it sells its products in the global market.
956
I have tried, with all due deference, to remind the Minister and his department that, important as the civil and commercial space issues are, their policies should not fail to address the national interests in the wider fields that I have outlined. I hope that the Minister is able to give a firm assurance that the forthcoming UK space plan will be a truly trans-departmental document and that full weight will be accorded to broad issues of key importance to the way ahead for the United Kingdom in space and, in particular, to the area of reusable launch vehicles.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to intervene at this late stage. I wanted to speak in this debate but I had to be in Newcastle today and was not sure whether I could rely on the trains to get me back in time.
I declare an interest that may surprise your Lordships' House. I had a lot of dealings with Eastern Europe and became involved in Ukraine and the idea of joint ventures in ship-building. While in Ukraine on missions with many former defence people I was asked if I would like to see how they launched objects into space. I spent a few days in Dnieper Petrovsk and visited Yushmash, the Ukraine space centre, which was also responsible for building the SS20s, the SS18s and SS17s, for ever and a day. That industrial enterprise, of which President Kutchma had been chief executive for a while, won three Orders of Lenin. One does not get an Order of Lenin unless one launches at the precise micro-second. Therefore, reliability in those days was absolute.
It was one of the most impressive places that I had visited in my life. I shall not bore your Lordships with hours of discussion in case someone believes that I have been got at. I sat down to dinner with a number of people. We could not understand each other. I discovered after a while that I was talking to someone who had been into space. He told me that I knew nothing about Trident and about this and that. I did not. I did not even know that liquid oxygen was used in the launches or that the workers had to be chained so that static could not cause explosions. They reminded me that it was they who had first taken over the German technology. All of this conversation was conducted in a mixture of half-German and a language that I could not understand. It was an impressive place.
When I returned I asked myself a question. I had had some past dealings with our own space involvement. Since we were not part of Ariane, should we not consider developing a joint launch capability? I visited the British National Space Centre, which I did not know existed, near Victoria Station, and found it to be a pretty impressive organisation. Although the people involved had no tools and hardly any resources they had considerable know-how. They explained to me that it was possible to attach devices to the outside of the launch systems developed in the Ukraine and Russia to give them greater thrust, and that they did not pollute the atmosphere since the vapour trail was composed of water. I suggested that we might co-operate and launch a range of joint satellites. We could produce the

957
satellites and develop communication systems of our own. We could shoot down those dreaded people we confront from time to time who seem to control not only the airways but also space.
My thought was a very simple one: since Ukraine is part of Europe, could we involve Ukraine in some form of joint venture? I should like to ask the Minister whether Ukraine is regarded as a potential partner in this field. I should like to say more, but I am very grateful to noble Lords for listening to me at this stage.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join others in this House in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, for initiating this important debate on the European Space Agency. It is in effect a sequel to the debate held on 4th May, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on the promotion of satellite technology. On that occasion, we anticipated the ministerial meeting that was to take place on 12th and 13th May in Brussels. We now come together after that meeting to congratulate the Minister on his successful chairmanship and to learn from him, I hope, a little more detail of the outcome of that meeting than can be derived from the general press releases.
In the debate on 4th May, I made clear the general support of these Benches for the more positive role that the Government are playing towards space science and technology in general and the European Space Agency programmes in particular. This is an area where par excellence Britain cannot go it alone and it makes sense to pool resources with others. The European Space Agency has had its ups and downs, and Britain has tended to maintain a somewhat arm's-length relationship with it, participating in the mandatory science and technology research programmes but distancing itself from some of the optional programmes which, as the Minister suggested in the previous debate, sometimes offered national prestige at perhaps disproportionate cost. But the tougher management stance at the European Space Agency over the past five years has brought rewards, and the budget in real terms today is lower than it was five years ago, in spite of the ambitious new projects endorsed at the ministerial meeting. It is a prime example of what can be achieved when Britain is prepared to play its full part in European programmes, to be an active player and therefore in a position to influence and help to shape developments.
From these Benches we were particularly pleased that the ministerial meeting in May approved proposals for the Galileo project to develop Europe's own second-generation satellite navigation system. As other noble Lords have noted, this is to be a joint programme with the European Union, ultimately costing 2.9 billion euros, although current approvals relate only to the definition phase. As well as the European Space Agency, the European Union itself is due to contribute some 750 million euros towards that 2.9 billion euros. I believe that I am right in saying that at the Heads of State meeting in June the go-ahead was given for EU involvement in this project.
958
The project is conceived so that approximately half of the 2.9 billion euros will come from private funding via a public/private finance partnership. This is an area where the ultimate gains in commercialisation—ship, aircraft, and in-car navigation systems, for example—are very substantial. Surely, it is argued, we can look to the private sector to put up some of the capital. However, as we have seen with the PFI schemes here in the United Kingdom, it is not always so simple. It means investing long term, and it is not always clear how the costs would be recouped.
I should like to ask the Minister whether there has been any further development of these proposals. Are there likely to be any problems in the public/private finance partnership? Is it really feasible to raise up to 50 per cent of the finance in that way?
The ministerial summit in May also gave the go-ahead to the Living Planet programme of earth observation satellites, which will underpin the programme of research on the earth viewed from outer space. It will provide detailed monitoring of such things as climate change and seismic activity, and will contribute substantially to our understanding of the environment we live in and the management of natural resources.
In addition, the increasing needs of the telecommunications industry were recognised. Some 250 million euros for the period 1999–2001 will go towards the development of informational and multimedia systems. One has only to see the expansion in this country of Internet connections to recognise how important is the provision of this infrastructure.
My second question to the Minister is whether we are moving ahead fast enough in these areas. These new technologies will be so important as a backbone to industry over the next decade that it is vital that we provide adequately for the infrastructure. To date, we have been disproportionately dependent on American technology. Now Europe is developing its own capabilities, but are there dangers that they will be too little and too late?
This brings me to my final question to the Minister. To date, Britain's contributions to the European Space Agency have been mainly to the science programme. Our total contribution to ESA amounts to about £130 million a year, considerably less than that of France, Germany or Italy. Our total spending on civilian space research, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, pointed out in his introduction to the debate on 4th May, puts us in 13th place on the global list, below Finland and Austria. If we include military applications, we are seventh. But, as the Minister himself made clear in that debate, this is an area in which civilian applications are now in the lead. Indeed, space science is beginning to come into its own. Commercial markets, largely associated with satellite communications, are burgeoning. In this regard, is the UK spending enough, not just on the underpinning scientific research, but on the development phase, which is vital to the successful commercialisation of technology?
The same point—the need to be supporting technology as well as science—was made by the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, and the noble and gallant Lord,

959
Lord Craig of Radley, when they discussed the lack of decision at the ministerial meeting on the Future Launchers Technology Programme and the need for Europe to develop its own interests in reuseable launch vehicles. Britain has, as I said earlier, taken pride in limiting its involvement in such programmes as Ariane 5. Does there, however, come a point when this is no longer sensible; when the shift from science towards commercially viable technology demands more investment in downstream activities? Should Britain be less cautious; be prepared, now that the science is maturing into technology, to increase its investments? More generally, does this apply also to the European Space Agency itself? We have taken pride in the budget restrictions and in keeping its growth well below the level of inflation. But are we now at a point when we need to invest in order adequately to underpin the next generation of technology? Is this an area where Europe ought to be expanding its investments?
I raise those questions because on these Benches we are anxious to see Britain maximising its gains from our investments in science and technology. But there is an old maxim that one cannot reap where one does not sow. Britain has considerable capabilities in these areas, both in academic science and in its real-life application. We are now at the point of rapid commercialisation. Can we really rely on the private sector to fund this process, or should the Government, either singly in the UK or jointly with our European partners, be prepared to increase their investment?
8.25 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renwick for introducing his Unstarred Question tonight. We are lucky to have his expertise available, and I hope that he will be attending this House for many years to come.
Bearing in mind the fascination that space engenders in most of the population, it is a little surprising that so few noble Lords felt able to speak tonight. My noble friend and I are therefore grateful for the contributions made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, my noble friend Lord Selsdon and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
The ESA is primarily concerned with the peaceful or civil use of space and is one of Europe's least known industrial and scientific success stories. With comparatively modest expenditure by each participating nation, much has been achieved with an organisation which is still outside the EU.
Perhaps one reason for that is the concentration of effort on unmanned space missions, which can achieve much valuable research without needing extremely high factors of safety for the space vehicles. Manned space flight obviously captures the public's and even Ministers' imagination, and can open purse strings. But is it efficient? I am glad that the council of ministers of the ESA, chaired by the noble Lord the Minister, has not been tempted down that route to any great extent.
When we watch the weather forecast the presenter casually refers to the latest satellite images from space. How far we have come from a radio report received
960
from a weather ship out in the Atlantic ocean! The CRYOSAT mission, initiated by Professor Duncan Wingham of University College, London, was referred to by my noble friend Lord Renwick. As part of the Living Planet programme, it will enable the planet to be studied in a way that was not possible before.
The two markets which hold out the strongest prospects for growth are telecoms and satellite navigation systems. They are currently dominated by the US, but the decisions of the council have a strong commercial basis and will address this.
On the telecommunications side, I have always wondered where its development will end. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to the huge rise in Internet connections. That will obviously create a requirement for even greater telecommunications capacity. I wonder what is the ultimate limit of the amount of data that can be transmitted by satellite. I am sure that it is right to recognise that the European industry must capture a substantial share of the world telecommunications market. I am pleased that steps have been taken to develop multi-media and information systems.
The Galileo programme will develop a European GPS navigation system that reflects the latest developments in technology and accuracy. I am not sure that the zero option of doing nothing and relying on a US military system would have been a wise move. I have to confess that, despite reading several papers on the subject, I am not sure just how accurate the new system will be. The US system is built for defence and deliberately degraded for civilian use. I have seen the term "millimetric accuracy" used. Can the Minister enlighten me as to what positioning accuracy will be possible with the new system?
I have one slight anxiety about the Galileo system. Some noble Lords will recall the crucial scientific battles over navigation aids for aviation conducted during the last war. A maverick power could now use the GPS system to navigate a missile or weapon precisely to a target in Europe. In the event of the US military detecting certain types of missile attack, I presume that it could instantly extinguish or corrupt its GPS signals. Galileo will be a civil system, but it will be very accurate. Can the Minister reassure me that the necessary agreements will be put in place to meet the threat described but without the risk of premature action?
My noble friend Lord Renwick asked about the status of the Mars Express project and the associated Beagle 2 Mars Lander. It is an interesting concept that will make it possible to analyse samples from the surface of Mars. I fully accept that there is a window of opportunity in 2003 that will make the project more economical. However, I am a little worried that there might be an element of what I might call scientific competition between the ESA and the Americans. I understand that their mission might arrive two years later. I am sure that the Minister and his fellow Ministers on the council are well aware of the need to avoid wasteful duplication of facilities and projects around the world. Can the Minister state the differences between the two programmes' missions?

961
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, my noble friend Lord Renwick and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned the future launcher technology programme. In his interesting contribution, the noble and gallant Lord talked about the difficulties of financing and managing advanced high-risk programmes. He raised important points and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply as to future policy.
I confess that I have not had time fully to research the decisions made by the Minister and the Council, but as far as I can see they have been made on a sound scientific and commercial basis. There will never be sufficient money for purely scientific research and, by definition, the research opportunities in space are limitless. However, the emphasis is now on commercial and environmental programmes. With the caveat that I have given, we on these Benches welcome the Minister's sterling efforts as chairman of the council of ministers at the ESA and the decisions made.
8.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord. Lord Renwick has introduced this debate. After the excellent debate we had on 4th May, I am delighted to have the opportunity to report on what happened at the ministerial council. I believe that the council meeting was a great success and I am pleased that the UK was able to help give a lead in preparing and adapting ESA to meet the new challenges facing European space at the turn of the millennium. This was the first major opportunity to set new directions for the agency since the controversial manned space decisions of 1987.
I met a number of my European ministerial colleagues as part of the process of preparing for the meeting. It was clear from those discussions that there was a large measure of consensus on how ESA should adapt and what the priorities should be. It was equally clear that the consensus was building around themes which were central to UK space policy. Consequently, at Brussels we reached unanimous agreement on setting clear objectives for the agency for the first time. These were: to pursue the highest quality science in astronomy and Earth observation, prioritised through peer review; to partner industry in achieving agreed target shares in commercial space markets; to foster the progressive integration of European technical expertise; and to enhance cost effectiveness, setting performance indicators and reporting measured results against targets. We also successfully called for a joint European space strategy to be prepared by ESA and the European Commission by the end of 2000.
In space policy, the Government have two clear objectives—the pursuit of scientific excellence and the search for commercial success. It is against those objectives that we have tested all the proposals considered at the ministerial council. When we tested manned space against those clear objectives, I have to say that in most cases we felt that it neither provided scientific opportunities nor met commercial objectives.
962
I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was right to say that manned space projects capture the imagination of the general public, but they are not a sensible way to pursue most scientific and commercial objectives 'The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised a point about the total investment in space, but our investment in space has to be set against other programmes to support innovation in industry. We have got the balance about right on the industrial side, although space provides huge opportunities for increased scientific work.
There were two main examples of the theme of commercial opportunities that we supported at the ministerial council—telecommunications and navigation. Two important telecommunications programmes were agreed, providing support for development of satellite systems and technologies for delivering multi-media services. Under these, ESA will work in the new style with industry to help it to pursue the major commercial opportunities and maximise its share of rapidly growing markets that promise to be worth £65 billion within the next decade. The UK subscribed £47 million to these programmes. That is especially important in view of the expanding nature of the market and the need to keep a significant presence in the face of market failure, which arises from the funding of American competitors by the US military.
Another good example of pursuing the most promising commercial opportunities was the decision taken to subscribe some £28 million as ESA's share of the definition phase of the joint EU-ESA Galileo satellite navigation proposal. Mr Neil Kinnock, the EU Transport Commissioner, attended the Council for this and gave an impressive speech in support of the initiative. Mr Rodotà, the ESA Director General subsequently joined EU Transport Ministers for discussion on 17th June when—I am glad to report—they decided to endorse the EU's part in the definition phase. Satellite navigation and positioning hold out significant prospects for the UK, with its established strengths in civil aviation and other spheres, which we are very keen to exploit. That is an area in which the UK should display a leadership role. The UK subscribed £8m to the definition phase and we expect our concerns about Galileo to be answered during this phase. For the project to be viable, it will need to depend largely on private finance and provide services that users want and are willing to pay for.
In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I must say that I believe that private finance is essential to the project. If it is to be a commercial success—and I see it as a major commercial opportunity—it is important that commercial money is in place from the start. The users must be in place and we must have a disciplined approach to exploiting the market from the beginning. If we set off thinking that we should invest money because it is a good project, but we do not have clear objectives, it could become vastly expensive but still be unrelated to the commercial needs of the future.
In responding more specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, I confirm that attention across Government is now firmly focused on the potential benefits and costs of the Galileo proposals and

963
alternative solutions. It is right to say that that is important, because if we to exploit the market successfully we need to make certain that the different government departments that relate to the opportunity work closely together.
The council also made a major new commitment to the new ESA "Living Planet" programme, to which the UK subscribed £67 million over five years. This puts the study of the Earth and its environment at the forefront of the agency's activity, emphasising quality science, close collaboration between scientists and engineers and flexible, low cost missions. It will help us understand and predict the Earth's environment and humankind's effect on it. For example, it will monitor the effect of global warming on the polar icecaps, through the first UK-led Opportunity Mission CRYOSAT, and measure soil moisture and other factors that are essential to the accurate modelling of climate systems.
In commercial Earth observation, about which the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, asked, it is important to realise that the market has not expanded as fast as we thought or hoped it would. We will make determined efforts to expand opportunities to develop it through focused application programmes. We are taking action to ensure that the right framework is in place which will encourage the market to develop with UK participation. I believe that what we need is market based solutions with a much stronger element of private investment. However, if we achieve a co-ordinated effort, there will be opportunities there.
The second main objective I mentioned earlier is the pursuit of scientific excellence. While the focus has in the past been on manned space, at present it is important to realise that we are in a period of very exciting planetary exploration, which is producing extremely interesting opportunities for UK scientists. Over the next five years there are a number of important programmes such as Rosetta which will tell us about the nature of comets; Cassini-Huygens, which will provide valuable information on Saturn and its moon Titan; and the Integral X-ray telescope, which will tell us about high energy objects in the universe. There is an exciting programme of basic science here. In time this will come to capture people's imaginations as much as manned space has done in the past.
At the ministerial council, the UK was able to help broker a unanimous agreement on the funding of the mandatory programme. The total provision will be some £950 million over four years. Ministerial colleagues strongly emphasised leading edge science, particularly Mars Express and the FIRST and Planck missions which will investigate the early universe and the birth of galaxies. Both of these missions have large UK scientific involvement. We were delighted that there was such strong support for these programmes.
Mars Express will feature the Beagle 2 explorer, designed by UK scientists led by Professor Colin Pillinger from the Open University and partly built by Matra Marconi Space. It will look for life on the surface of the planet. PPARC has allocated £2.7 million for Beagle's science instrumentation and the British National Space Centre is also reviewing the case for
964
support. Many people in the House and elsewhere find this an exciting programme. We all realise what a good programme it is.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, pointed out, the ESA astronomy and planetary science programme is now benefiting from an innovative approach and a new creativity sparked by pressure from member states in which the UK led the way. The agreements reached in Brussels were broadly in line with PPARC expectations. The outcome means that the research council can meet its existing commitments and perhaps increase its portfolio of projects.
Other decisions taken at the ministerial council related to continued funding of an updated Ariane 5 launcher, development of new launcher technology and ESA's part in the international space station. The UK is considering whether or not to participate in the international space station utilisation programme, to facilitate access for UK experimenters, and in work on future launchers. We shall look carefully to see whether participation in these programmes would give us the same value for money that we demand from our expenditure of ESA.
On the specific question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, about new launchers, when we look at this market we see it primarily as a commercial matter, as it does not involve large scientific issues. In deciding whether we will put money into the future launchers technology programme, we will take into account the following issues. It is not commonly realised that the overall space market size is around 97 billion dollars. Of this, all revenue arising from space launch services is around 7 billion dollars. Market growth is small, there are a substantial number of market entrants, and a large part of the market is inaccessible as a result of American defence policy. The profitability of operations in this market is difficult to establish.
There is also now a commercial market into which one can go to get the launch facilities that one wants. Therefore, it is not essential to have launchers as part of a dynamic space policy. While defence concerns are extremely important—we shall always bear them in mind—I am not certain that the concept of national interest is helpful in this field. In my experience, when national interest or national prestige is invoked as a concept, it is almost always a way of saying that it neither meets commercial objectives nor is it good science but we would like to do it anyway. I do not think that that is necessarily a good concept.
By comparison, the markets in telecommunications services, navigation and ground infrastructure are growing strongly and offer many opportunities for innovative firms to gain market share. We are not ruling out investment in the future launchers technology programme, but these are some of the key aspects that we will look at before going ahead.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, we have had, through BNSC, contact with the Ukrainian space agency and have tried to pursue some possibilities for collaboration. The Ukrainian Zenit launcher is already widely used on a commercial basis. That illustrates the

965
point that there is now out there a commercial market; and, where sensible, one can use it. Indeed, Surrey Satellites, which I have always greatly admired as a company, has been extremely entrepreneurial and has launched several successful satellites using launch services from the former Soviet Union.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as always, asked some penetrating questions. He asked about the accuracy of Galileo. We are talking about metres and centimetres rather than millimetres. What is true is that this kind of precision opens up huge markets of applications which start with planes but go on to boats, cars and so on. Once one starts thinking of the possibilities, there is almost no end. When I was recently in America it was suggested that it could be used to find how far away someone's golf ball was. How accurate that is depends on one's standard of golf, but clearly it is an accurate system. We are talking about controlled access with regard to the precision system. So it will not be open to everyone to make use of this service.
I assure the noble Earl that the Mars Express project is complementary to the American project. A certain amount of competitive scientific rivalry is involved, but that is healthy. The American project will bring back samples to Earth far analysis while one of the interesting features of Beagle 2 is that it will analyse them on the spot. I was asked about the expansion of the telecommunications market. We do not know how far that will go, but it has a long way to go and it will certainly do so in the future.
I welcome this debate as an opportunity to update noble Lords on what was achieved at Brussels in directing ESA towards fostering commercial success and at building on its excellent track record in science.
To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, about what ESA will look like in five to 10 years' time, I hope I have shown that, whatever else, it will be very different from the ESA of today. As I mentioned earlier, at the recent council, Ministers asked for a fully developed European strategy to be prepared and put in the council by the end of the year 2000. I strongly support that request. It is vital for ESA to understand how it will look 10 years' ahead so that it can plan its structure accordingly.
It will be my purpose while I hold office as chairman to spread the consciousness that change is continuous and to help raise the profile of European space. The next full scale ESA Ministerial council is likely to be within two or three years. The United Kingdom will host it and have charge of preparing the meeting.
Our own Parliamentary Space Committee and parliamentary groups in other countries have contributed importantly to increasing awareness. I welcome the fact that the European parliamentary space committees are getting together. Perhaps I may pick up the point the noble Lord made. The work of ESA and its members states is a positive aspect of Europe and one which enables the United Kingdom, working with its European partners, to take advantage of exciting new opportunities which I hope I have outlined this evening.
966
The work on the UK space strategy has been continuing in parallel with the work of the ESA Ministerial. But inevitably it has had to take second place. We intend to publish the space strategy at the end of July and to outline in it the Government's plans for the next few years. The exercise has required widespread and unprecedently extensive consultation, including the settling of budgets. In choosing July, I was conscious of the time the exercise has already taken and the enthusiasm I have repeatedly encountered on all fronts to produce this document as soon as possible. I invite the Parliamentary Space Committee to join me for a discussion on the day and for the launch and I hope that a number of noble Lords will be able to take part. The UK space strategy will illustrate the exciting scientific and commercial opportunities that exist and the forward-looking role that the UK is playing. The frontiers of space are changing rapidly and we need to keep our eyes firmly on the future.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits clown, I asked one of my penetrating questions about the ability to switch off the Galileo GPS system.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thought that I had answered the question. The controlled access will stop people having access and therefore being able to tamper with the system in a way that would cause difficulties of a defence kind.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.53 to 8.55 p.m.]

Greater London Authority Bill
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 354MD not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 256 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Clause 256 is a short clause of just over one line. Nevertheless, it is of some importance because it abolishes the office of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District. This is another part of the Victorian structure of the Metropolitan Police which is not replicated anywhere else in other forces. There is no equivalent at present, and there will be no equivalent in the Metropolitan Police set-up. That is an inevitable consequence of the new outline arrangements. The functions of a receiver outside London at present fall to the police authority for the area, its clerk and treasurer; and in part to the chief constable. I assume that that will be the case in the metropolitan district so far as concerns the police.
However, that is not the end of the receiver's powers and duties at present. He also has statutory powers with regard to the Inner London Magistrates' Courts Service and the Inner London Probation Service. Neither of

967
those are compatible with the new arrangement which is being set up for the Metropolitan Police. New arrangements are required for an alternative set up for the Magistrates' Courts Service and the Probation Service. I suppose that the part relating to the magistrates' courts goes back to the old police court days. But it is statutory; it is not just a matter of convenience. I understand that the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 began the process of unravelling the statutory provisions in that respect.
The necessary legislation must be put into practice. There are some complications involving the capital expenditure, pensions and so on of the magistrates' courts service. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us when the receiver will eventually be able to relinquish responsibility for that service or whether he is in a position to do so now. The same question applies to the Probation Service.
There is also a statutory responsibility to meet the cost of school-crossing patrols, for example, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Outside London, this sort of expenditure is commonly provided by local authorities, and I expect that that is where it will finish up as far as Greater London is concerned. However, I am not sure that this legislation—or, for that matter, any other that we have seen so far—will achieve that aim. Westminster City Council sponsored a private Bill, but it apparently did not cover the whole of the Metropolitan Police District. Therefore, it will not wholly achieve the objective.
The principal reason for opposing the Question that Clause 256 stand part of the Bill is not to try to keep the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in the same statutory position that he has occupied for the past century—or nearly two centuries. We seek to draw out of the Government the way in which the different responsibilities of the receiver will fall in future and when the Government expect the receiver to complete all his duties and wind up all the loose ends in respect of the different aspects of his responsibilities. I have no doubt that the Minister will be shortly in a position to fill in all of those details and assist the Committee in that respect.
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is correct about both the history and the current functions of the receiver. As has occurred in other parts of the country, the central role of the receiver will be moved to the Metropolitan Police Authority. I think that my noble friend Lord Williams wrote to the noble Lord and other Front-Benchers indicating that we were unable to bring forward amendments to clarify the position in Committee. However, we intend to table such amendments in good time for Report stage.
Apart from those duties that will pass to the Metropolitan Police Authority on a basis similar to outside London, the office of receiver has also taken on the various financial and other responsibilities in respect of magistrates' courts and probation services in Inner London, to which the noble Lord referred. It is the
968
Government's intention—our amendments at Report stage will state this—that the receiver's responsibilities in respect of magistrates' courts will be taken over by the Greater London magistrates' courts authority when, subject to the passage of the Access to Justice Bill, it comes into being on 1st April 2001. That deals with the court side, including the complications alluded to by the noble Lord.
As for the probation responsibilities, the long-term repository for these will depend on the arrangements put in place in London following our nation-wide review of the Probation Service. In the short term, we intend that a residuary receiver will continue to carry out the magistrates' courts and probation functions of the post. As I have said, amendments to give effect to this policy will be brought forward at Report. Subject to the short-term retention of certain functions that I have outlined and which are unrelated to police matters, the office of receiver will become unnecessary when the Metropolitan Police Authority comes into being.
The other area to which the noble Lord referred was school crossings. As is common elsewhere, that function will be transferred to the London boroughs and to the counties in those parts of the Metropolitan Police area that are outside the GLA area. Funding adjustments will be made accordingly. In light of those comments, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the clause should stand.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That was an interim reply, looking forward mainly to Report stage. However, it appears to be the best that the Minister can do at present. As he said, it reflects the contents of the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, wrote to me on 15th June. The noble Lord also wrote in similar terms to others who are concerned about these matters. Having opened up the question and received a promise that we shall return to it later, I withdraw my opposition to the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 256 agreed to.
Clause 257 agreed to.
Schedule 22 [Further amendments relating to Metropolitan Police etc]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354N:
Page 292, line 30, at end insert—
("Pensions liabilities
. After section 14 of the Police Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
("Pensions liabilities of Metropolitan Police Authority.
14A. The liabilities of the Metropolitan Police Authority in relation to pensions being paid subject to regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 to or in respect of persons who, having served as members of police forces, have ceased so to serve, shall be met out of moneys provided by Parliament.".").
The noble Lord said: This is another, admittedly slightly crude, device for raising an extremely important matter concerning the finances of the Metropolitan Police. The effect of the amendment as drafted would be to transfer entirely the responsibility for the payment of police pensions to the Home Office and to central government rather than, as occurs at present, leaving the moneys to be paid from police funds.
As Members of the Committee will be aware, the police pension arrangements—like many others in the public sector—are a pay-as-you-go scheme, and the pensions of retired police officers come out of the existing annual budget of each police force. They constitute a considerable proportion of police expenditure, particularly because police officers, given the nature of their job, tend to retire earlier than most of us do—even from conventional jobs, never mind from this House. That places an additional burden on police budgets. It is a growing burden and, inevitably, it is quite a heavy one. It is a difficult burden for police constables to manage.
That fact has been recognised because the Government propose to issue a consultative document on police pensions. It has been promised for some time, but so far as I am aware no one outside government has yet seen a copy. It would be helpful to know when it will be circulated.
It is no part of my purpose to mount a major debate on police funding in general, but in transferring responsibility for the Metropolitan Police from the Home Secretary to the new authority we need to understand the seriousness of the situation. The settlement for 1999–2000 allows for an increase of 2.7 per cent. I understand that, according to current plans, over the lifetime of a Parliament the real increase in spending on the police will be 0.7 per cent.
The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation have stated that a 6 per cent increase is necessary to allow the police to "stand still." The Metropolitan Police force has lost some 680 officers since the general election and press speculation is that another 1,000 officer posts will be lost as a result of the present settlement. That is a serious responsibility. It means that the new MPA will not start from a strong base either in tenns of manpower or funding. We are transferring to the MPA enormous responsibilities, but the resources and manpower which it will take over in order to fulfil them are less than satisfactory.
The issue of pensions, at which the amendment is directed, is an important piece of the larger jigsaw. No doubt the consultation document will make everything much clearer, but we do not know when that will be issued. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I support at least the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, although I am not sure what he proposes is the right way to solve them. Supporting the Metropolitan Police pension fund currently takes 13 per cent of its total budget. Within five years, that will be 20 per cent. This is at a time when, rightly or wrongly—and I clearly believe wrongly—government policy is to transfer resources away from the Metropolitan Police to other police forces, thus increasing the problem.>
I hope that the Minister will tell us when the consultation document will be issued. There is a major problem with the funding of the Metropolitan Police pension fund. It will be an issue of considerable concern to the MPA. I am sure that it will be of considerable relief to the authority to know that the Government have
970
not only recognised the problem but have resolved to grasp it. It is of such a scale that it cannot be resolved until and unless the Government do grasp the nettle.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for raising the issue. I hope that the Minister has something to say which will alleviate the real concern in the Metropolitan Police, and within London generally, over an increasing problem.
Lord Whitty: I recognise the concern within the police force and elsewhere about pension funding. It is true that we are talking about substantial sums of money. However, I should not wish to see support for the solution put forward in the amendment. It treats the Metropolitan Police differently from police forces elsewhere. There are practical difficulties in that the Metropolitan Police will continue to pay pension contributions into the force's fund. In any case, any national police funding formula already contains an element to enable police authorities to meet their pension costs.
We recognise the widespread concern. Following a thorough review of the police pension scheme, we have agreed among other things to seek Treasury agreement for a study of the costs and benefits of introducing a funded scheme for new entrants. But even that will not be a panacea. The initial cost will be high and there are substantial transitional problems for the funding. The rising cost of police pensions is recognised in the police funding formula. Nationally as well as in London the proportion of resources allocated to police authorities to cover pension costs has increased from 3.2 per cent to 14.5 per cent of the total allocation for this financial year. That allocation is based on the projections of pension costs made by the Actuary's department on figures from the funds themselves.
A review of police pension schemes is nearing completion. After that we intend to publish specific proposals and at least a pension scheme for new entrants. Those proposals are intended to apply to London as well as to other police forces. In the meantime, we do not believe that it would be sensible to leave the funding of the pension schemes with the Home Office. We wish to put the Metropolitan Police Authority on the same basis as other police authorities around the country.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Tope asked about the consultation process. I understood the Minister to say that the Government will bring forward a proposal rather than enter into a consultation exercise. That does not answer the problem of what is going to happen in terms of the very substantial burden not only on the London local authorities, but across the country and what can be done within the consultative process to which police authorities can contribute.
Lord Whitty: I believe I said that the police funding formula would continue to reflect for other police authorities, and now the Metropolitan Police Authority, the burden of the current police pension scheme.

971
The consultation referred to will follow on from the general review of the police pension fund and the proposals that flow from that review. We are not yet at the point where we can make specific proposals and engage in consultation. However, I am assured that that is not too far away. In the meantime the Metropolitan Police Authority will be put on the same funding basis as the other police authorities.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is no part of my case that the Metropolitan Police Authority should be treated differently from any other authority. They have the same problems to a severe degree. They are more severe for the Metropolitan Police than for other police authorities. I would not want the Metropolitan Police to be treated separately. I hope I made that clear. I certainly do so now.
We look forward to the consultation document. I know from experience that government Ministers have a number of ways of saying that a document is expected shortly. We have got no nearer than phrases of that kind today. That implies that the document is still a little way off. I hope it will include all the relevant factors, one of which is the possible proposal to take away pensions from officers who have already retired where there are disciplinary proceedings. If that proposal goes ahead, it will have profound effects on the management of the scheme. It will mean that, where they can, the police will be much more inclined to transfer to private pension schemes outside the police scheme. That kind of thing has to be taken into account in the course of considering these matters.
The main issue is the heavy burden which police pensions place on the funding of police forces and authorities generally. From what the Minister has said, I do not believe that there will be much relief in the near future. It is an increasing difficulty. It is sometimes said that chief constables have a responsibility for the size of the burden because of retirements on medical grounds and issues of that kind. That is an extremely small factor in the matter and not one which can dictate the way ahead for police pensions. For the time being we shall have to be content with what the Minister has said. We look forward to the consultation document and no doubt further and more detailed discussions on this matter in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 354YP:
Page 297, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—
("(b) the Authority shall appoint a person to investigate the complaint provided that in default of this duty the Secretary of State shall make an appointment."").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 354YP seeks to allow the police authority to appoint a person to investigate complaints against the most senior officers and only in default of that process shall the Secretary of State make that appointment.
This, in effect, is a probing amendment. Our main concern is that a satisfactory independent complaints procedure is instituted in which everybody has
972
confidence. At present there are many doubts about the independence of the various complaints procedures relating to the police. I hope that the Minister will address that matter in his reply. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: I rise to support my noble friend in this amendment. Earlier we discussed a provision concerning the appointment of the commissioner. We made it clear that when an appointment is made, any recommendation made to the Secretary of State by the Metropolitan Police Authority and any representation made to him by the mayor of London would be taken into account.
If that is the case, is it not right that when talking about the conduct of a senior police officer—in this case, the commissioner or the deputy commissioner—the authority whose views have been taken into account in his appointment should also be the authority that should make recommendations in terms of the investigation of the complaint? When that authority fails to make a particular appointment or to recommend an appointment, it should be the duty of the Home Secretary to make such an appointment. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Whitty: The effect of the amendment would be to place the duty on the Police Complaints Authority rather than the commissioner, as at present, or the Metropolitan Police Authority, as proposed in the Bill.
Lord Dholakia: I am sorry to interrupt. The Police Complaints Authority is involved when the matter is neither criminal nor disciplinary. We are talking about the conduct of a police officer, which is different from a disciplinary matter, for which the Police Complaints Authority is responsible.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: For the sake of clarification, I did not say that the Police Complaints Authority should make the appointment; I said that the Metropolitan Police Authority should make the appointment.
Lord Whitty: As I understand the amendment, the original part of the Bill would provide that the Metropolitan Police Authority, rather than the commissioner, would deal with complaints against senior police officers.
I think I see where the confusion arises. In the amendment the word "authority" would refer to the Police Complaints Authority because it modifies a provision in the Police Act 1996 relating to the Police Complaints Authority. Therefore, as drafted, I think the amendment would do something which I do not believe that the noble Baroness intended. The whole of my argument was about the fact that the Police Complaints Authority should not have that role.
We are providing that, because of the special position of the commissioner and the deputy commissioner, the Home Secretary retains a role. That role would be limited to appointing an investigating officer, who may be subject to the approval of the Police Complaints Authority, and the report would go

973
to the Metropolitan Police Authority. So the Home Secretary would have limited involvement. The report would not go to the Home Secretary, but to the MPA. By virtue of paragraph 90 of Schedule 22, the MPA would be responsible for dealing with disciplinary matters of senior officers. In the present context, the commissioner himself is responsible.
The Bill makes specific provision for the appointment of an investigating officer in complaints against the commissioner or deputy commissioner because of their special status. There is no equivalent in any other ACPO grade in other authorities outside London. There might be occasions when it would be better to have a person investigating a complaint against the commissioner or deputy commissioner who was not a police officer. By definition, any police officer would be of lower rank and there may perhaps be some difficulties in that respect. It is another justification for reserving some role for the Home Secretary.
Although there may be some confusion in my mind, I believe that there is also some confusion here as regards the effect of the amendment as drafted in that it refers to the Police Act rather than this Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand the difficulty in which the noble: Baroness finds herself. By definition, "the Authority" in the Police Act 1996 is the Police Complaints Authority, whereas the authority that she wishes to refer to falls within the definition of this legislation. However, be that as it may, it seems to me that it would help us to decide the proper course of action if we knew what the position is as far as concerns other chief officers of police. I did not quite gather that from what the Minister said.
If a complaint is made about the conduct of another chief constable or someone of ACPO rank, so it speak, in another authority, who appoints the person to investigate that complaint? I appreciate that the commissioner is senior to any other chief officer of police in that he is regarded as being one rank above an ordinary chief constable of another force, but there are also Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary who, in a sense, are over all police officers—be they chief officers or more junior officers—as well as the commissioner. Presumably, if it is a policing matter as opposed to a complaint of a different character, it is likely to be one of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary who looks into the matter.
The right person to set an inspector of constabulary in motion in such a case seems to me to be the Secretary of State, rather than the Police Complaints Authority. It would indeed help us to know how other chief constables are treated in this respect. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us such details. Members of the Committee will much appreciate it if he is able to do so.
Lord Whitty: I very much appreciate the efforts of the noble Lord in spelling out exactly what he required in a time-scale within which I could respond. For chief constables in such situations it would be the police authority which would appoint the investigating officer who would, as I understand it, sometimes come from a
974
different authority. The Metropolitan Police Authority would be in that position for assistant commissioners and commanders because they are the equivalent of chief constables in other forces. So, grade for grade, the MPA would be in the same position. It is just the unique position of the commissioner and deputy commissioner which makes this a special case.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for explaining this to the Committee. He clearly outlined where the error or misunderstanding had occurred. Indeed, I found his remarks enlightening; I am sure that they are correct. This is an important matter. It is probably something about which we will need to think again and we might even wish to communicate with the Minister about it between now and the next stage of the Bill. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 354ZP not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 354P:
Page 298, line 36, leave Out paragraph 98.
The noble Lord said: This amendment brings us back to the question of consultation. I believe that as it stands the Bill will remove the duty on the commissioner of police to consult the boroughs. Earlier we discussed the position of the boroughs as regards this matter. As I said, the boroughs will still have a duty to produce strategies for the reduction of crime and disorder under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Until now Section 96 of the Police Act has imposed a duty on the commissioner to consult the boroughs on appropriate policing arrangements.
Borough policing within London has had a high profile recently. Changes have been made in borough policing to bring the police closer to local authorities and to communities and to make the structure of the police clearer to ordinary citizens. If the boundaries of Metropolitan Police areas are different from those of boroughs, that can be confusing. People know which borough they live in because they know to whom they pay their council tax. I believe that in moving towards borough policing, the Metropolitan Police have moved in the right direction. I believe that without this amendment boroughs would prepare plans without a corresponding duty on the Metropolitan Police to consult on them.
That presupposes that in terms of policing, the assembly is the only legitimate representative of the people of London. I do not take that view. If that position were adopted, it would create a situation unique to London. That is not the position in other parts of the country. It is illogical to remove the duty I am discussing and it would undermine the philosophy of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which recognises the

975
paramount importance of tailoring anti-crime and disorder strategies to take account of the circumstances of individual boroughs. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): If this amendment were agreed to I should be unable to call Amendments Nos. 354Q to 354SB inclusive.
Lord Clement-Jones: In many ways the amendment anticipates the next group of amendments. We on these Benches support the amendment. The existing borough consultative process is borough based and equates with local government boundaries in London. We wish to see that preserved. The police consultative groups in London, their co-ordinators and the voluntary organisations involved with them feel strongly that they wish to see the existing structures continue. Our motto is, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
When we reach the next group of amendments I shall want to describe in more detail how these structures work. Experience has shown that in situations such as bombings in Brixton or Brick Lane the local consultative processes must be in place to reassure local people. They have worked on a borough basis since 1984. They were set up in the aftermath of the traumatic Brixton disorders. I speak as one who lives in the borough of Lambeth. I do not believe that we should be tampering with these processes at this time. In view of the fact that we have erected another pillar in the form of the Crime and Disorder Act—which we very much welcomed on these Benches in terms of statutory partnership and crime and disorder strategy—like the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, I cannot understand why we should be trying to knock the other pillar away when it is an equally important part of the whole consultative process.
We have fears that in these circumstances the police may well be tempted not to maintain the consultative processes if they are not statutorily obliged so to do. That may sound rather suspicious but, if those processes are not statutorily based, there will always be a temptation not to engage in such processes but simply to engage in the statutory partnership process with local authorities and with the Probation Service. We feel very strongly about the subject and shall return to it in later amendments.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I hesitate to intervene. I shall have no objection if the Committee wants to discuss Amendment No. 354Q and the amendments grouped with it at the same time as this amendment. Although we are proposing slightly different arrangements, the amendments cover much the same ground. I have no objection if the Committee prefers to discuss those amendments as well.
Lord Clement-Jones: I am tempted to add to my comments. It would probably save time if we grouped these amendments.
976
As a long-standing Lambeth resident, I clearly remember the aftermath of the Brixton disorders. I remember the huge optimism as a result of the Scarman report which recommended the consultative arrangements. I remember also the way those arrangements came into effect and the success that they have had. I can testify personally to the success of the arrangements. I do not want to go on at great length, but we can point to the lay visitors' scheme that was set up in the 1980s, to the Lambeth knives amnesty and to an investigative report into the recruitment and initial training of ethnic minority police officers in Lambeth which well pre-dated the Macpherson report. Later projects involved investigations into deaths in police custody, the management of police informants, and the founding of a Black Issues Forum. More recently, in the past year we have had huge support from the community police consultative groups for the police's efforts to combat street robbery through the "Respect Not Robbery" campaign. They have spearheaded the debate about provision for young people in the borough. That has resulted in Lambeth Council reconsidering its whole youth initiative programme in this area.
The consultative groups have been extremely active. They have been very active in their responses to the Macpherson report; they have been members of DAC John Grieves's race and violent crime advisory group and they have been providing lay advisers for murder investigations and for that into the Brixton bombing on 17th April. They are highly effective police consultative groups and I know that others can testify to their effectiveness. My noble friend Lord Tope will be speaking from his own experience about his own borough.
In summary, we are convinced that the borough-based consultation structure, which ties in with local government structures, is the right way to go. As I said earlier, the Brixton bombing, the Brick Lane bombing and the Soho bombing demonstrate the need for the police to be very close to the community. We do not believe that it is right to abolish the statutory basis of the consultation. We believe that without that statutory structure there will be a temptation for the police simply to move forward with the statutory structure of partnership under the Crime and Disorder Act.
The arrangements now enshrined in the Police Act, which were formerly in the PACE Act 1984, have worked extremely well for 15 years. They should not simply be done away with as part of this Bill. That would be a retrograde step. We ask the Government to reconsider.
There are other linked amendments, but in the circumstances I do not believe that we should wish to press Amendment No. 354SA if we received a positive response to the earlier amendments. There is, of course, the possibility, and desirability, of the MPA being able to issue guidance to local consultative schemes if it believes that they need to achieve greater consistency. That is what Amendment No. 354SB seeks to achieve. But it in no way cuts across the amendments that we are seeking to press.

977
I ask the Government to reconsider. This is a very important issue for all the consultative groups. I hope that we shall receive a favourable reply from the Minister.
Lord Harris of Haringey: As we seem to be trading consultative groups, I spent at least 10 years as a member of my local police consultative group; I have not been a member for the past two months. I am slightly confused by the remarks made in the past few minutes. My understanding of the legislation is that nothing is being done that disrupts the position of the existing police consultative groups. They will continue.
However, it is important to recognise that in any local area at various times there will need to be in place appropriate consultative arrangements for the area concerned. The police consultative groups in many instances have done extremely important and valuable work, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, outlined at some length. But there are also circumstances where the police consultative group may not be the most appropriate mechanism.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked about the aftermath of the Brixton disturbances. I remember vividly the aftermath of the Broadwater Farm disturbances. In that circumstance, a much more precise geographical area of consultation was needed than a borough-wide consultative group: a consultative mechanism at estate level was needed, rather than one that spanned the whole borough.
I am sure that Members of the Committee would want to see a situation in which the Metropolitan Police at all levels was ready and willing to consult with the local community in whatever was the most appropriate fashion in appropriate circumstances. I see that as the intention of this legislation.
Examining this matter in the context of the Crime and Disorder Act, and the duty that is placed on police commanders in that Act to work with the local authority chief executive in drawing up crime and disorder audits and producing a strategy, that will also be deeply rooted in the process of community consultation. Given that the intention is to ensure that consultation is inclusive and adapted for the particular needs of particular circumstances in particular local areas, and that there is legislation ensuring local community safety strategies achieved after consultation, and given that, so far as I am aware, this legislation does nothing to disrupt the statutory basis of the existing police consultative groups, I am slightly confused as to what all the fuss has been about in the past few minutes.
Lord Dholakia: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that when the matter was debated in the other place, Kate Hoey, in a reply to the Member of Parliament for Southwark, said:
The groups will be secure, and many of them will be secure if they are working well and if the MPA feels that they are working well".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 16/3199; col. 1281.]
978
It is the Metropolitan Police Authority that will decide whether or not they are working well. The groups are based at borough level, they are working well, and they ought to continue on that basis. Does the noble Lord dispute that?
Lord Harris of Haringey: What I said was that there are a number of police consultative groups which are doing excellent work, as a number of noble Lords have described. I also said that it is important to have appropriate consultative arrangements in each area.
I have not had the benefit of reading specific extracts from proceedings in another place. However, having heard the extract that the noble Lord repeated, as I understand it the Minister in the other place made it clear that arrangements were safe. But I assume that no one in this—
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps the noble Lord will indulge me. He said that nothing would disrupt the statutory basis of these consultations. Of course, if the statutory basis is taken away, as it is by the paragraph in the schedule, it will disrupt the statutory basis. There will be no statutory basis. It will be a purely voluntary arrangement. Does the noble Lord agree?
Lord Harris of Haringey: We will no doubt hear the definitive answer from the Minister but my understanding is that the statutory basis is not removed. The basis for the consultative groups is derived in a different way.
I am concerned about some of the comments made by Members of the Committee opposite in relation to the automatic assumption that arrangements will be working well when they might not be and that therefore they should continue. For example, if in some areas there is a police consultative group mechanism which is not working well, are we saying that it should continue because it works well somewhere else? Surely we should try to ensure that the consultative arrangements in particular areas are as effective as possible. I should have thought that in this legislation we are trying to achieve the intention to have effective consultation arrangements in every area; to build on the arrangements required under the Crime and Disorder Act for close local working, based on consultation; and to make use of the existing structures which, I understand, are not threatened by the legislation.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As we are in Committee, I shall speak briefly again. I am in no doubt that the amendment which I moved attempts to keep in place the current statutory basis for consultation. One can argue, at a pinch, that there is a new statutory basis being inserted for the metropolitan area, but it is of a much more voluntary character.
Under Section 96 of the Police Act, at present the commissioner is under a duty to consult the council of each London borough as to the arrangements that would be appropriate for the borough. There are various other duties set out in that section, but the subsection and others adjacent are being knocked out by lines 45 and 46 on page 298. To some degree they are being replaced

979
by the earlier part of paragraph 98 of Schedule 22, but that is not nearly such a direct statutory duty as that which has existed until now. That is what I seek to achieve. Members of the Committee on the Liberal Democrat Bench have used a rather different formula, but I believe that their aim is the same as mine. I prefer my formula.
Lord Tope: The noble Lord is right. We seek the same result but we prefer our formula. However, let us not argue about it. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for giving me a trailer. I was not going to speak particularly about my borough, except that it is the London Borough of Sutton, which contrasts considerably with the London Borough of Lambeth in all kinds of ways—not least the fact that it has been under Liberal Democrat control for 13 years.
I have been a member of our police consultative committee. I was a founder member back in the early 1980s and remained a member continuously until last year. So it is slightly longer service than the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey.
I wish to contribute to the discussion. The police consultative groups on the whole have done and continue to do a good job. There is widespread concern among many, probably all groups, about exactly what is to be the future. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has given even more cause for concern. I can be more specific about the basis. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right, Section 96(1) of the Police Act 1996 states:
"Arrangements shall be made for each police area for obtaining … the views of people in that area about matters concerning the policing of the area".
It has been confirmed that for that purpose the Metropolitan Police district is regarded as a single police area. In other words, Section 96(1) of the Police Act refers to arrangements concerning the whole of Greater London. The statutory basis under which the borough police consultative groups are set up is Section 96(5) of the Police Act. It states:
"The Commissioner shall … consult the council of each London borough as to the arrangements that would be appropriate for the borough".
It is that subsection which is to be deleted by this Bill. What concerns the borough police consultative groups is that the statutory basis under which they are set up is to be removed. Whether or not that is the Government's intention we do not know. We shall hear the Minister's response in a moment. However, that is the effect of it. Therefore, if that provision is enacted, reliance on Section 96(1) will not ensure the continuation of consultation within each borough, by whatever means, because it deals with London as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said that we all wanted the police consultative groups to be effective. Everyone wants something to be effective. But the noble Lord implied that some were not. That may or may not be the case. I hope that the Minister can tell the Committee—if he can hear what I say—who will decide whether a particular borough police consultative group is or is not effective. What criteria will be used to judge what is and what is not effective? The effectiveness of
980
the police consultative group in the London Borough of Lambeth would need to be considered against very different criteria from the circumstances that exist in the London Borough of Sutton. If the police consultative group in my borough, which is an outer London suburb with one of the lowest ethnic minority populations in London, is to be judged against the same criteria as Lambeth, it will probably fail. However, that would be ridiculous and grossly inappropriate.
I ask the Minister to recognise the considerable concern among police consultative groups about the removal of the statutory basis under which they are set up and to make clear the Government's intentions as to their continuance. Talk about introducing other arrangements and criteria, as yet unspecified, to judge their effectiveness and appropriateness simply adds to that uncertainty and concern.
Whichever amendments are the most appropriate, they provide the Minister who is to reply with the opportunity to be clear and absolutely unequivocal, in a way that the Government have not yet been, as to the future of the police consultative groups? Are they to continue? If not, what else is to happen? If they are to continue and there is further discussion about judging their effectiveness and appropriateness, how is that to be done, by whom and against what criteria?
Lord Whitty: I suppose that I should declare a non-interest in that I have never been a member of a PCG. Nevertheless, some confusion has arisen in this debate. Certainly, the amendments in both merged groups cut across the intention that the Metropolitan Police Authority and district should be, as far as practicable, under the same statutory obligations as elsewhere in the country.
There are two main differences between the Metropolitan Police and others in the field of consultation. First, in London the duty rests with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, whereas in other parts of the country it rests with the police authority. Secondly, there are specific requirements on the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to make separate consultation arrangements for each of the London boroughs. We see no good reason why the police authority in London should be under a different statutory obligation from police authorities elsewhere in this area.
We understand the anxieties that effective consultation arrangements should not be disrupted. We are strongly in favour of improving the links between public consultation and local police objectives, and believe that the new and, for the first time, explicitly democratically accountable police authority should hold the police to account for the objectives set. It is important that the police authority in its operations and strategy is aware of the priorities and concerns expressed by local people.
Consultation is also a central component of the crime reduction strategies in which police authorities are one of the key partners. Section 96(2) of the 1996 Act, as amended by the Bill, will require the MPA to consult the commissioner, so the commissioner is still consulted. As to the rest, it is similar to other police authorities.

981
In regard to the future of police community consultative groups, there is some confusion, because they are non-statutory bodies. They are based on models proposed in the Home Office guidance issued in 1985. The Bill does not affect their status either way. Their future role will depend on the arrangements set up by the police authority, as is the case with consultative arrangements in other areas. Many police authorities outside London have PCCGs in their area, and we would certainly expect the MPA to continue to operate in that way. Placing a statutory function on the MPA would be to treat it differently from police authorities elsewhere, which do not have an equivalent prescription placed on them.
Lord Clement-Jones: Is the noble Lord the Minister saying that the current PCCGs have n o statutory basis; that they are not governed by Section 96 of the Police Act?
Lord Whitty: What I am saying is that Section 96 requires the commissioner, as the situation is now, to establish appropriate means of consultation for each London borough. That will be altered, but there is no prescription that that should be done by a PCCG in London, any more than anywhere else. The PCCGs are bodies that arise from Home Office guidance, and not from the statute, as I understand it.
In practice, we are quite clear that the Metropolitan Police Authority will continue to operate a system of borough consultation. The Metropolitan Police are already moving towards a borough-based structure. There are separate crime reduction strategies for each London borough. Therefore, it would be inconceivable that the Metropolitan Police Authority would not continue to have a borough-based consultation arrangement, which presumably will involve the PCCGs. But there is no prescriptive requirement on other police authorities to consult in that way, and there is no statutory basis, therefore, for the PCCGs in the metropolitan area, any more than there is for those in other parts of the country.
Lord Clement-Jones: I must express some bafflement, because Section 96(4) says:
"The Commissioner shall make separate arrangements—
(a) for each London borough".
I had always thought that that was the basis of PCCGs; certainly the PCCGs think that that is the basis.
Lord Whitty: The provision does precisely what it says. ft is a requirement on the commissioner at present to make separate arrangements for each London borough. No such provision relates to any other police force. What I am saying is that the Metropolitan Police Authority should have the same freedom to establish its own system of consultation as other police areas covering a large number of individual local authorities.
I am also saying that it is inconceivable, given that the police force itself is being managed on a borough basis to a greater extent and that the crime reduction strategies are based on boroughs, that the consultation
982
arrangements would not continue to be based on the boroughs; but that should not be on a statutory basis. The PCCGs as institutions may be the way in which that requirement is carried out, but as institutions they do not have a statutory basis in London or anywhere else—and they exist in many other parts of the country.
Lord Tope: The noble Lord the Minister is telling us that there is no statute which says that there shall be a police community consultative group. I understand that. May I be clear that the noble Lord is saying that the Metropolitan Police Authority will determine the appropriate consultative arrangements in each London borough, which may or may not mean the existing police consultative group; that it will be up to the MPA, in consultation, we hope, with people in the borough, to decide on the appropriate consultation arrangement in each borough and that, therefore, the police consultative groups may or may not continue? In other words, they are as uncertain as to their future existence now as they were before this debate, and they will have to await the establishment of the MPA and the time when it is in a position to consider these matters in respect of each of the 32 London boroughs.
Lord Whitty: I can give the noble Lord even less comfort than he assumes. The MPA will be under the same requirement as other police authorities across the country to consult. The Bill does not provide that it should consult on a borough basis, nor that it should consult the PCCGs, and those are not statutory requirements for any other police authority.
As a matter of practice, it is clearly sensible for the Metropolitan Police Authority to continue to consult on a borough basis, for all the reasons that I have outlined, and in many cases—possibly most or even all cases—that will be under the existing PCCGs. However, as my noble friend Lord Harris indicated, the MPA may develop different and more appropriate methods of consultation. The main point is that we will have a democratic police authority in London which should be treated and trusted in the same way as police authorities elsewhere.
Lord Clement-Jones: Why is it appropriate that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires a statutory partnership on a crime and disorder strategy on a borough basis for London, but the Minister now says that that will not be required for consultation purposes? I do not understand the logic of the Government's proposals in the light of what they have already done in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Lord Whitty: The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires strategies of all local authorities all over the country, not just in London. I return to the point that we are trying to treat London the same as the rest of the country in the way in which duties are placed on the police authority. The statutory consultation under that Act, as elsewhere in the country, includes the local

983
authorities—that is, the London boroughs—and the police authority. It is equivalent to the situation in any police area in England and Wales.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister has done his best to tell us, with his usual fluency, "Don't worry, it'll be all right. We are changing the statutory basis and taking away the specific statutory requirement, but it will be all right". I was put in mind of when I started my national service. When we all stood terrified on the square, a certain drill sergeant would come round, put his face very close usually to one of the smaller members of the troop and say, "You look worried, lad. Don't worry until I tell you to worry". Then he would go round to the back, put his mouth close to the ear of the person in question and say, "Worry now". It is not surprising that the boroughs, and the consultative committees in particular, should be worrying now.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, expressed his bafflement at what was happening. To express it as clearly as I can, what is happening is that under the present law—Section 96 of the Police Act 1996—the commissioner is under a statutory duty to make separate arrangements for each London borough to obtain the views of the people in the area about matters concerning the policing of the area and to obtain their co-operation with the police in preventing crime in their borough. That is a specific statutory duty on the commissioner that will be abolished by the Bill. It will be replaced by a duty on the new authority to make arrangements after consulting the commissioner.
The Minister says that that process is the same for other parts of the country, but London is different. The forces outside London do not have to deal with 32 different authorities. The police in my part of the country, the Avon and Somerset Police, have to deal with five different authorities—Somerset County Council and the four unitary authorities in what used to be the county of Avon. It is easier to deal with five councils than with 32 separate boroughs.
However, there is another fundamental difference. Those five councils, as in the rest of the country, are represented on the police authority. They are in a position to ensure that consultation takes place. They are the police authority. They are the majority of the police authority who decide how this consultation should take place in the future. But the boroughs, as we heard at the start of our discussion of the clauses dealing with the Metropolitan Police, are not to be represented at all.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord before he offers the usual courtesies. On these Benches, we are rather more worried, after hearing the Minister's response, than we were before, which is unusual in the course of these debates. We have heard phrases like, "There is no good reason for treating London differently" and "It is inconceivable that", and so on, all of which make me count the spoons.
In this situation London needs to be different. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, put it very well. London needs to be treated differently. London is different. The Bill deals with London and there are
984
many differences about the region. We may as well accept the fact that we cannot have "one size fits all" for consultation and that to try to treat the whole of the metropolitan area as if it were one ordinary police authority area is totally impracticable and flies in the face of the experience of the past 15 years. We have had a consultative system in the boroughs which, by and large, has worked extremely well. It is highly retrograde to be moving back from that situation.
After all, the Government have in their party strong roots in London and have considerable support in London. It is deeply disappointing that they should ignore the forces at work in the different London boroughs. They will find that this is one of the most controversial aspects of the proceedings on the Bill.
Lord Whitty: Before the noble Lord, Lord Cope, responds, because I have long experience of London politics I know that in the noble Lord's party and in my own the cry for decades has been, "Why doesn't London have a police authority in the same way as other parts of the country?" Now we are giving it the noble Lord's party finds something else to go on about. I have just consulted my noble friend Lady Farrington. In Lancashire, which ought to be an example to us all, the police authority deals with 14 different local authorities; not 32. Nevertheless—
Lord Clement-Jones: London has almost twice as many!
Lord Whitty: Yes, but Lancashire has a smaller police force. It has 14 different authorities, not all of which are represented on the police authority. I am sure that that is the pattern in the West Midlands and other parts of the country where a good many authorities come under one police area. I repeat: I do not understand why we need an entirely different pattern for London when the Metropolitan Police Authority—the first democratic police authority that we in London have ever had—would almost certainly see that it operated on a borough basis in terms of its consultation structures. But why should we have to lay that down when we do not do so for Lancashire, the West Midlands or any other part of the country?
Lord Clement-Jones: Because over a period of years, particularly in places like Lambeth, where there are deep suspicions historically between the police and the community, it has taken 15 years to build trust in structures between the police and the community. To start even raising the prospect of changing those arrangements is a retrograde step.
Lord Whitty: The statutory status of PCGs is not altered one iota by the Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: One of my grandparents came from Yorkshire, so we cannot be expected to take Lancashire as the be-all and end-all of these matters, even when the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, makes the recommendation. However, as was pointed out in an

985
intervention, twice as many boroughs in London as even in Lancashire are involved in the police area. So this is a matter to which I am sure we will have to return.
The Minister said that this will be the first democratic police authority for London. That is a slur on the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is there by election and by the fact that his Government were elected. There is nothing undemocratic about the Minister. I do not take that view in the form in which he expressed it; but that goes back to our first debate on this subject some hours ago.
It is a matter to which we shall need to return at later stages of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 354Q to 354SB not moved.]
[Amendment No. 354SC had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 22 agreed to.
Clause 258 [Reconstitution of the Fire etc Authority]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 355:
Page 138, line 27, at end insert ("and shall have the same duties as its predecessor Authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, for the convenience of the Committee perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 356 which is grouped with Amendment No. 355.
Amendment No. 355 is a simple addition which makes it explicit on the face of the Bill that all we are doing is a rechristening job with a slight change in the lines of responsibility and along which resources come to the fire authority. That is not explicit in the Bill as drafted. The Minister may well say that such an amendment is unnecessary, but I believe that it helps to have the point made plain. It also helps to explain the relative simplicity of the proposals vis-à-vis the fire service.
Amendment No. 356 touches on a more difficult point. There is rot a fire and emergency planning authority in the country of which I am aware which is not under considerable—I almost said extreme—pressure for resources. It is a not unnatural state of affairs. Indeed, it is a state of affairs which in some ways, paradoxically, is beneficial. If one wants to see resources being used well, and to encourage tight management, a shortage of resources is a great cause of ingenuity.
However, in the funding of the fire service, there has been a great temptation to encourage fire services to charge for services which are outwith the firefighting part of their job. The basis on which funding for the fire services is arranged is fire risk. But, as a matter of practice and humanity, and because they are there and the only people with both the resources and expertise, they take on a number of other emergency roles, of which the most obvious is attendance at motor vehicle accidents. That may well have nothing to do with their normal firefighting role, but it is an important and significant part of their work. It is not only an important and significant part of their work; it is also a significant drain on their resources. It is expensive.
Fire services become involved in such activities as emptying flooded cellars and rescuing cats up trees. It is not unknown for them to rescue little children with their heads stuck in fences. All those services are provided for good reasons, but they are outwith the calculation of the resources that the fire service receives.
There is a temptation—I put it no stronger than that—for fire services to start charging for what I would call "off-mainline business" services. We do not think that is right, and we should prevent it. There is an opportunity in this Bill to prevent such charging so far as London is concerned. I dare say the Minister will reply that we cannot treat London differently from any other part of the country, and that is a plausible argument. However, we must begin somewhere. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: I rise to speak particularly to Amendment No. 356. I was for some years a member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority—in fact, I am still a substitute member of that authority—and we debated frequently the issue of reclaiming the costs to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred. I resist Amendment No. 356 as strongly as possible—although I may not need to do so as I suspect that the Government will do that for me.
The noble Lord said, quite correctly, that every fire authority in the country is under considerable budgetary pressure, and that is certainly the case in London. However, I do not believe that we should state in law—whether for London only because it is a place to start and we have the opportunity to do so, or generally—that a fire authority cannot even consider reclaiming such costs, whatever the circumstances. The noble Lord gave a number of examples, one of which enabled me to learn something about my noble friend Baroness Hamwee. I have known her for probably 30 years but I was not aware that she had got her head stuck in the railings as a small child. However, she assures me that she has no interest to declare because it did not happen in London. My noble friend also does not recall who rescued her, but I am glad that someone did.
We discussed many times on the LFCDA our decision to charge people who called us out because they had locked themselves out of their homes. I see no reason why taxpayers should pay for the carelessness or forgetfulness of those who have locked themselves out of their homes. The LFCDA rightly instituted a charge for that service, and it is a matter for the individual fire authority to decide the appropriate circumstances for charging. I would rather not impose a charge for rescuing small people who, like my noble friend, stick their head between the railings. That is a most distressing emergency. I would have perhaps slightly less sympathy for cats who get stuck up trees because they will invariably find their way down if one leaves them to it. I would have absolutely no sympathy for those who forget their front door keys—in fact, I believe that a charge for such a service would be an appropriate deterrent.

987
It is quite wrong to have a blanket statement in an Act of Parliament that says, "Under no circumstances whatever may a fire authority seek to recover any of its costs". If I were the Minister replying to this debate—I can only dream—I would resist the amendment most strongly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is rather trying his luck in being so condemnatory of people who forget their keys and lock themselves out. It has been my experience in life that tempting fate in that way can cause all sorts of things to happen.
Lord Tope: It has happened to me, and I am sure that it could happen to any one of us. I do not deny that. Fortunately, I did not need the fire brigade to let me into my house. My point is not that such things will not happen but that I would not expect the taxpayers to bear the cost if it happened to me—whatever the reason.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: So long as the noble Lord has plenty of paper and a torch, he can reply to all the letters from cat lovers who are cross about his wanting to leave cats up trees.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will be pleased to know that the Government's intention that the duties undertaken by the present fire authority, the LFCDA, shall become the responsibility of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority is covered in the Bill.
Clause 259(2) substitutes the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority for the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1985, the legislation which established the present fire authority. Sub-paragraph 2(1) of that schedule provides that the LFCDA shall be the fire authority for London. Sub-paragraph 2(2) provides that all references in fire service legislation are to be construed in accordance with sub-paragraph (1). This includes Section 1(1) of the Fire Services Act 1947, which sets out the duties of a fire authority. The Bill also provides that the LFEPA is the authority on which functions may be conferred under civil defence legislation. It will therefore be the case that the LFEPA will inherit the statutory duties previously undertaken by the LFCDA. I feel sure that in those circumstances the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 356, there were reviews in 1970 and 1985. The result was to support the continuance of local discretion in the provision of and charging for special services, which has applied since before the fire service was established as the local authority service. Fire authorities often seek to recover costs through charges for special services where possible, but they would not usually do so for emergency or humanitarian purposes, both of which would cover the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with her head in the railings when young!
We believe that as a matter of principle it would be wrong, particularly in the light of a recent review, to impose restrictions on the London Fire and Emergency
988
Planning Authority which did not apply to other fire authorities. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and for her reassurance. However, I am bound to say that had she thought it entirely appropriate that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, should have been charged to be rescued I should have taken a different view. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord does so, perhaps I may make it clear that I was only two at the time!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 356 not moved.]
Clause 258 agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 357:
After Clause 258, insert the following new clause—
LONDON FIRE AND EMERGENCY PLANNING AUTHORITY: ANNUAL REPORT
(" . The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority shall provide annually, within three months of the end of its financial year, a report to the Authority which sets out its performance in fulfilling its functions, its financial report and any Audit Commission recommendations with regard to its performance.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment introduces a new clause along the continuing line of amendments we have tabled dealing with openness and accountability. It suggests that the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority shall provide annually, within three months of its year-end, a report to the authority setting out its performance in fulfilling its functions and so forth. It ensures that at the end of the year the service properly reports in an accountable way to the mayor. We should expect that procedure to be entirely reasonable. The Minister may say, "Of course, it will do that anyway.". If so, she could accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The proposed new clause would introduce an extra and unnecessary layer of accountability for the fire authority. A similar point was raised by the Opposition at Committee stage in another place. We explained at that time that the Government are in favour of accountability, but that we must make sure that we do not impose unnecessary bureaucracy.
The clause would cut across the Government's proposals under the best value provisions of the Local Government Bill under which the LFEPA would be a relevant authority and would be required to carry out fundamental performance reviews at specified intervals (Clause 5 of the Local Government Bill) and prepare and publish annual performance plans (Clause 6) which would be subject to audit arrangements.
The proposed provision would also cut across the requirements in Part II of this Bill under which the mayor would be required to prepare an annual report (Clause 38) including information requested by the assembly and to hold an annual state of London debate

989
(Clause 39). In those circumstances, and because matters are now even more accountable since the Committee stage in another place, I am sure that the noble Lord will wish to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: As always I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I accept her comments about the Local Government Bill, but it is not yet law. I am not quite sure what is the etiquette for the Committee stage of one Bill and whether one should consider as law another Bill at a similar stage going through the House. Here we are dealing with the London Bill as it is and the law as it stands and not as it will be in a few months time. However, that should not cause us any prolonged difficulty. I noted what the noble Baroness said, and I will consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 23 [The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 357NA:
Page 302, line 6, leave out ("appointed by the Mayor") and insert ("elected by the Assembly").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to the other 10 amendments that are grouped with it. This amendment relates to the membership, tenure of office and so forth of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. It concerns the nine assembly members of that authority. It is very much the same issue as the one that we argued as regards the Metropolitan Police Authority.
The assembly members are described as the "assembly representatives". It is right and proper that the assembly itself should decide by elections and appointments who its representatives shall be and not that they should be chosen and appointed by the mayor. We made these arguments in relation to the police authority. They apply equally strongly here. They are described as "assembly representatives" and they clearly will be representing the assembly on the authority. There will also be borough council representatives there. It seems a fundamental democratic principle that the assembly should have the right to choose and appoint its own members and not have something that the mayor is able to foist on them, although in practice that may not be the case.
There is no reason why the mayor should make the appointments. It is not the issue that we argued many times about the executive powers of the mayor and the scrutiny powers of the assembly. It is a question of who appoints the assembly representatives. Under this amendment we say that the assembly itself should appoint its own representatives.
Amendment No. 357PA refers to the eight borough representatives who will be members. We are proposing that they should be appointed by the Chair of the assembly rather than by the mayor on the nomination of the London Borough Councils, acting jointly. It seems appropriate that it is the chair of the assembly who makes such appointments. It is not a matter for the mayor.
Most of the other amendments are consequent upon those two proposals, except Amendment No. 357TA, which seeks to give the assembly, rather than the Secretary of State, the power to vary the number of members of the authority, should that be necessary. If there is a need to vary those numbers, we believe that it is a need that should rest with the elected representatives of London and not with the Secretary of State. That seems to us to be the proper democratic and accountability line.
Amendment No. 357ZA is slightly different, but it gives the authority the right to elect its own chair. The schedule says that the chair shall be appointed by the mayor. We see no reason that the mayor should have power to appoint the chair and impose that upon the authority. That is not the case in relation to the Metropolitan Police Authority that we have just debated. For that body the authority chooses its own chair. If the Minister is to resist this amendment, I hope that he will say why he feels that the fire authority is different. It seems to be a fairly fundamental, democratic principle, but also a matter of common sense that the authority should be able to choose its own chair from among its numbers, however they have been appointed, whether by the mayor or by the assembly and/or by the chair of the assembly.
This group of amendments reflects our view of the role of the assembly. More importantly in this respect, it institutes proper democratic accountability in relation to the membership of the authority. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord says that this has nothing to do with the ongoing argument about the difference between executive powers and scrutiny powers, but it has. These amendments would mean that the mayor, who has the executive responsibility for the fire authority, would no longer have any role in the appointment process for the assembly and borough representatives on that authority.
The argument is the same as before. These amendments are designed to weaken the mayor's position and to hand over executive power to the authority. Our policy, which has been reflected throughout our approach to this, is that the mayor would be responsible for the appointment of both assembly and borough representatives. The other powers which have been given to the mayor which these amendments seek to remove—to determine the length of a member's period of office; to renew a member's appointment or to terminate it in exceptional circumstances; and so on—are all consequences of our proposed approach. In addition, the reserve power of the Secretary of State to alter the size of the fire authority would be given to the assembly. In our view, that should rest with the Secretary of State.
These amendments, if adopted, would have the effect of severing the constitutional links between the mayor and the fire authority. Those links are important if the new arrangements are to function effectively. They ensure that the authority is suitably accountable to the mayor for the service that it provides.

991
I believe that we shall have this argument over and over again. This has a slightly different structure, but the principle is the same: that the mayor should have executive authority for those functional bodies within the GLA as a whole. While we shall not agree on this, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: This is not, as the Minister says, a matter about executive power. It concerns electoral power. It concerns the assembly representatives—a word used by the Bill—and if they are assembly representatives they must be elected by the assembly. If the people on this authority are merely drawn from the assembly, they are not assembly representatives. The Minister cannot have it both ways. As I said, if they are representatives they must be elected by the assembly.
Lord Tope: Before I decide what I am going to do with the amendment, I wonder whether the Minister can answer two points. First, he made it clear that the nine assembly members are representatives of the mayor and not representatives of the assembly. Therefore, will he agree to an alteration in Schedule 23 which would describe them not as "assembly representatives", as is the case at present, but as "the mayor's representatives?" That is exactly what he is saying. He is saying that they are there to maintain the link with the mayor's executive responsibilities. Let us be open and honest about it: they are not there as assembly representatives, they are the mayor's representatives. I hope that the Minister can tell us that he will bring forward an amendment on Report which will be honest and clear in its reflection of the Government's intentions.
My second point relates to Amendment No. 357ZA to which the Minister made no reference. It relates to the appointment of the chairman of the authority. Can the noble Lord tell us why the Government are content for the police authority to appoint its own chair but insist that the fire authority shall have the chair imposed upon it by the mayor?
Lord Whitty: On the second question, I can tell the noble Lord that the position of the Metropolitan Police Authority is clearly different from that of the fire authority; indeed, the latter's responsibilities fall totally within those of the mayor. As the noble Lord will know from previous debates, the police authority has a wider remit. Therefore, the constitutions are different and, in this context, the executive body of the fire authority will need to have on its board people from the boroughs and nominated by them. They will not be representative of an individual borough but will be nominated by the boroughs collectively.
The mayor will choose the members of the assembly who are on the board. They are not the mayor's representatives. He is constrained by having to choose from among the members of the assembly. They may not be there by vote of the assembly, but they are the assembly's component of that board. Therefore, I do not think it would be appropriate to make the suggested
992
amendment in the schedule of "mayor's representatives." Once again, I do not believe that we will agree on the matter. Therefore, I suggest we move on.
Lord Tope: The Minister is absolutely right: we are not going to agree on this and we shall move on in a minute. I should have thought that the fact that there are borough representatives on the fire authority was even more reason for it being able to choose its own chair rather than having one imposed upon it by the mayor who has no constitutional relationship with the boroughs. Indeed, I would use the Minister's argument to reinforce mine. We are not going to agree. It may well be that the representatives are members of the authority, but they are not representing the assembly; they are representing the mayor. It is the mayor's patronage we are talking about here. I am even more dissatisfied with the answer than I thought I would be. I am sure that we will return to the matter. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 357PA to 357RA not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 357SA:
Page 302, line 14, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 18 and insert ("in exercising their power to nominate members under sub-paragraph (1)(b) have regard to the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of those councils taken as a whole and to the area of Greater London from which members are appointed.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to vary the provision in Schedule 23 and suggests that, in nominating borough members, regard should be had not only to the balance of parties prevailing across London as a whole, which is clearly correct and which we encapsulate here, but also to the areas of Greater London from which members are appointed. In other words, we propose that there should be a geographical as well as a political reflection. I hope that this will be less controversial than our previous amendments because I believe that this is what will happen in practice. Nevertheless, I think it would be desirable to have that reflected in the schedule.
It is well known that in some parts of London one party is rather stronger than it is in other areas. I make no reference to any particular political parties but that needs to be borne in mind when choosing the borough nominees for the authority we are discussing. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am slightly surprised that the Liberal Democrats are not prepared to leave these decisions to the London boroughs, which is the logic of their position on other matters. In this situation, the London boroughs act jointly to nominate representatives to the fire authority. They must reflect, as far as is practicable, the political balance prevailing across the London boroughs as a whole. I am sure that in nominating their representatives to a strategic London-wide authority the boroughs will want to be satisfied that there is a good geographical balance as well as a political balance, and will not want all the nominations to be from boroughs north of the river, for example.

993
However, I think we can leave that matter to the common sense of the boroughs. I do not think that the amendment, which would slightly modify the effect of the political balance element, is helpful. It would make the selection process rather more prescriptive than it is at present without improving it. I do not see the benefit of this amendment. I believe that we should leave this matter to the judgment of the London boroughs.
Baroness Hamwee: I believe that I am the original author of this amendment. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but we are not particularly rivals in that regard. I drafted this amendment quite recently having very much in mind the fact that we believe that this Bill as a whole is too prescriptive, but our view is not being accepted. Therefore, if one accepts that the Bill is prescriptive, one has to look at the prescription. I am delighted to hear that the Government believe that some matters should be left to the judgment of the London boroughs. That is an argument that we have put forward throughout the course of the Bill. We shall note the passage where that is stated so that we can quote it at a future stage!
Lord Tope: We have said time and again—and shall no doubt continue to do so—that this Bill is enormously over-prescriptive in the extent of its detail. If one starts to be so prescriptive, one has to be even more prescriptive to get the matter right. We believe that far more matters should be left to be determined by the London boroughs and the GLA. However, that is not the route that the Government have chosen. They cannot have it both ways. They argue that they need this prescription when they think that they need it. However, when someone else suggests making the provision a little clearer and more straightforward, the Government say that that is too prescriptive. One day a Minister on the Government Front Bench will explain to us the Government's criteria as regards what is or is not necessary to prescribe. However, I do not think that will happen today and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 357TA to 357Z4 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 357A:
Page 303, line 3, at end insert—
(."() On a casual vacancy occurring in that office, the Mayor shall as soon as reasonably practicable appoint one of the members of the Fire etc Authority to fill the vacancy.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 357A, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 357B and 357C.
Government Amendment No. 357A arises as a result of discussions with the Association of London Government. It sets out the action to be taken if a vacancy arises in the office of chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Paragraph 3(1) to Schedule 23 requires the mayor in each year to appoint a chairman from among the members of the authority. Comparable legislation makes express provision for the filling of a vacancy in the office of chairman. This amendment therefore provides that, in the event of a vacancy arising
994
in that office, the mayor will be required to appoint a new chairman from among the members of the LFEPA as soon as possible.
Government Amendment No. 357B is a minor technical amendment dealing with inconsistent wording. Amendment No. 357C, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, appears to have a similar purpose but the wording is not consistent with that in other local government legislation. We think that our drafting is better. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Tope: Having been provoked by the Minister suggesting that his drafting is better than mine, perhaps I may suggest that he is not right. As it currently stands, sub-paragraph (2) refers to the fire authority electing a vice chair and paragraph (3) refers to an "appointment" under sub-paragraph (2). Until the government amendments are passed, sub-paragraph (2) refers to an election; therefore sub-paragraph (3) as it stands is wrong; it should also refer to an election. I therefore beg to differ with the Minister; our drafting is better on the Bill as it stands at this moment.
The purpose behind the amendment is one that we have rehearsed already, including very recently, and I will not do so again. On a purely drafting point, I believe our amendment is correct until the government amendments are passed, if they are.
Lord Whitty: I can see the logic if not the substance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 357B:
Page 303, line 4. leave out ("elect") and insert ("appoint").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 357C not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 357D:
Page 303, line 8, leave out ("for the purpose of enabling him to meet the expenses of his office").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 357D, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 357E. This is a probing amendment. The schedule gives permission for an allowance to be paid to the chairman. That is interesting. I thought the Government had a different view about the use of the words "chairman" and "vice-chairman", but that is what it says here. As the Minister has just told me that their drafting is better than anything I can suggest, he will no doubt explain why it is so gender specific here.
The schedule refers to paying the expenses of office. Perhaps the Minister can inform me of the position with regard to paying expenses generally, not only of the chair or chairman and the vice-chairman but of all the members. What provision is there for the payment of expenses and allowances to all members of the authority? Currently the LFCDA has its own payments scheme for members; it does not rely on the home borough authority to pay them.

995
Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case under the LFEPA or will he tell me that it would be too prescriptive to provide for it in the Bill?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As to the query about the use of the terminology "chair" and "chairman", I am sure that the Committee would not wish me to rehearse the debate that we had on this subject the other evening when some members of the Committee were slightly spikey about being called "spokes". The noble Lord will recollect that on that occasion we conceded that, short of changing and amending all previous legislation, where a reference was made to other legislation in this Bill, we used the terminology used in that legislation.
The proposed amendments would broaden the fire authority's power to pay an expenses allowance to its chairman and vice-chairman so that it need not necessarily be related to the expenses of the office. The linked amendment seeks to make the allowance an amount determined by the authority rather than by what it thinks reasonable. Taken together, we believe that the amendments would be inconsistent with the proper control of payments from public funds. The reference in the linked amendment to "Authority" means the fire authority rather than the GLA.
If the noble Lord wishes detailed information about the different possible levels that could be paid to members, I would prefer to write to him on that subject. I hope with that assurance he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tope: I am the last person to argue with the noble Baroness about the use of the term "chair" or "chairman". I wholly share her view. I am not sure I entirely understand her explanation. I do not think that this does relate to previous legislation. I suggest very humbly that perhaps the Government's drafting on this occasion is not 100 per cent.
The purpose of our amendment was to debate chairs and chairmen. It was to raise the issue of the payment of expenses and allowances, not only to the chair and vice-chair but to all members. I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me on that subject.
It may be said, for example, that assembly members will be covered through whatever remuneration they are to receive as assembly members. But it would be useful to know what is envisaged to be the position of borough members.
Currently, the LFCDA has its own payments scheme. The costs are borne solely by the LFCDA. It is important for borough councils, and possibly for future representatives to know, first, whether expenses are to be paid—and I expect that to be the case—and, if so, by whom. Will the new authority have its own scheme, or are the boroughs from which the members come expected to bear the costs? That would be very unfair, given that there will be no more than eight boroughs involved. I should be grateful for a reply in writing from the Minister. On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 357E not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 358:
Page 303, line 21, at end insert ("; or
(d) is otherwise disqualified for any reason mentioned in section 20(1)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to paragraph 4 of Schedule 23 dealing with the disqualification of individuals from the right to sit on the fire and emergency planning authority. The purpose of the amendment is also to refer the reasons for disqualification back to Clause 21, dealing with reasons for disqualification from membership of the Greater London Authority.
The amendment may seem superfluous at this stage, and the Minister may tell me that it is unnecessary. But the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority will not consist exclusively of members of the Greater London Authority. I must confess that I am not absolutely sure whether this particular qualification, which is an important one, applies generally outwith the Greater London Authority. This is effectively a probing amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The proposed amendment seeks to add to the criteria under which a person may be disqualified from being a member of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The added criteria appear in Clause 20 of the Bill, which covers disqualification from being the mayor or a member of the assembly. However, the amendment is not considered necessary. Under the proposed arrangements for the LFEPA, all fire authority members must be serving representatives of either the assembly or of a London borough council. The individuals concerned could not be assembly representatives unless they satisfied the criteria set out in Clause 20 of the Bill.
As regards the borough representatives, they must satisfy the equivalent criteria set out in Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972, a provision on which the wording of Clause 20 of the Bill is largely based. In the circumstances, I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for that very clear answer. She has given me the reassurance I was seeking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 23, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 24 [Amendments relating to the Fire etc Authority]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 358YA:
Page 314, line 13, at end insert—
("The Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Duty to consider crime and disorder implications
. In section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (duty of certain authorities in exercising their functions) in subsection (2) (which specifies the authorities) after "a joint authority," there shall be inserted "the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,".").
The noble Lord said: Schedule 24 makes miscellaneous amendments to legislation which affects the LFCDA's functions in order to apply them to the

997
LFEPA. It has been the Government's general policy to apply to the reconstituted fire authority all the legislation which applies to the present fire authority.
The amendment will provide that Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 should apply to the new LFEPA. Section 17 applies to "joint authorities" under the Local Government Act 1985, a term which includes the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. This amendment should therefore not be controversial; it seeks merely to maintain the status quo. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 24, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 358YAA:
After Schedule 24, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY GROUP FOR LONDON
Membership
1.—t 1) The Environment Strategy Group for London shall consist of such number of members as the Mayor may from time to time determine.
(2) The members shall be appointed by the Mayor.
(3) The members shall be individuals—

(a) who are representatives of such bodies concerned with relevant matters as the Mayor considers appropriate; or

(b) who have knowledge, experience or expertise which is relevant to the functions of the Environment Strategy Group for London.

(4) Before appointing any member, the Mayor shall consult such bodies or persons as he considers appropriate.
(5) Before making an appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(a) above, the Mayor shall consult the authoritative body concerned.
(6) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) above "relevant matters" means any of the matters in relation to which the Environment Strategy may contain policy.
(7) In paragraph (6) above "Environment Strategy" means all strategies on which the Environment Strategy Group is to be consulted.
Tenure of office
2.—(1) The members of the Environment Strategy Group for London shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointment.
(2) The terms of appointment of a member shall be such as the Mayor may determine.
(3) But a member may at any time resign his membership by giving notice to the Mayor.
(4) A person who ceases to be a member shall be eligible for re-appointment.
Members' expenses
3. The Mayor may pay members of the Environment Strategy Group for London allowances in respect of travel or other expenses properly incurred by them.
Staff facilities and money
4. The Mayor may provide the Environment Strategy Group for London with—

(a) staff,

(b) accommodation, equipment or other facilities, or

(c) sums of money towards defraying expenses properly incurred by them in carrying out their functions.

Proceedings
5.—(1) The quorum of the Environment Strategy Group for London and the arrangements relating to their meetings shall be such as they may determine.
(2) The validity of proceedings of the Environment Strategy Group for London is not affected by any vacancy among the members or any defect in the appointment of any member.").
The noble Lord said: I confess that I had to make a considerable leap intellectually and in the Bill before I could make sense of the placing of this amendment. Amendment No. 358YAA introduces a new schedule after Schedule 24. Therefore, after I had thought about it for some time, I came to understand the logic of the Committee Clerks in introducing into the midst of consideration of fire service matters a group of amendments which deal entirely with environmental matters. It is passing peculiar, but as I understand it, that is the reason. If other Members of the Committee have had the same difficulty in understanding the placing, that is the only explanation I can find. As the amendment is in that position, we must deal with it.
I shall not go into the details; it would be easy enough to spell them out but it is unnecessary because every Member of the Committee present is familiar with them. The latter parts of the Bill cover a whole host of environmental matters. We do not believe that the mayor will have the necessary expertise to be able to deal with matters in a sufficiently expert way. He should have expert backing. The purpose of our new schedule is to make that expertise available to him.
It can be argued, I suppose, that the mayor may well create this pool of expertise, or that it may be available from within some of the existing staff of the Government Office for London and so on, which may help him to run London in the initial stages.
We have also heard that there will be a certain lack of transparency over the advice that the mayor might obtain from those whom he employs directly. It is written into the Bill, and the Minister's explanation is that to a certain extent the mayor will act in his capacity as does a Minister. A Minister's advisers apparently cannot be called into question for the advice they might give, although that seems to have become somewhat eroded by the BSE inquiry.
We are concerned about the general problem. In environmental matters it is important that the mayor should have expertise available to him. We propose an environmental strategy group for London, and we have given the mayor the executive authority to choose who should serve on it. I accept that he should have that right. He should pick experts who can give him that advice and they should be a properly recognised body on the face of the Bill. I also accept that they replace an existing committee that is to be disbanded, and I do not apologise for that. I do not believe that the mayor will be able to undertake his tasks in the environmental field properly without an independent team of expert advisers, and this amendment gives effect to that. The other amendments in the group are consequential. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Whitty: This amendment is not only in a strange place but it is also a slightly strange amendment which misunderstands the nature of the environmental responsibilities of the GLA. One specific part of the GLA's general purposes is to promote environmental improvements in London as a whole. In addition, the authority will have specific environmental functions in respect of the preparation of strategies on waste, air quality, noise and bio-diversity. However, that indicates that there is no need to set down in primary legislation the way in which the mayor will obtain advice on, and organise the running of, his or her environmental responsibilities. Those responsibilities will run through the whole range of strategies and functions of the GLA. The mayor will have to put arrangements in place to obtain advice from environmental experts on all dimensions of the policies, strategies and proposals. That will have to be built into the management structure of both the authority and the functional bodies.
To put on to the face of the Bill an environment strategy group as this amendment seeks to do will tend to compartmentalise the treatment of environmental matters within the GLA. It will make them the responsibility of a separate statutorily-based environment strategy group without providing for read-across into all the other policy areas. We believe that the mayor should retain the flexibility to make arrangements to ensure that environmental considerations and advice are taken into account in all the authority's actions. We should not prescribe and limit the mayor's flexibility by primary legislation. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister assures the Committee that the mayor can make arrangements to be advised. I am very glad to hear it, but I did not really doubt it. However, the amendment puts down a marker about the budgetary consequences and the need for the mayor to be properly funded. Reading this amendment, I wondered whether the advice that the mayor would undoubtedly require would have to be paid for out of the budget for the two political advisers and the 10 other staff, or whether it would be covered in some other way.
I see the attraction of ensuring that the mayor has advice from people who know what they are talking about on environmental matters. That applies also to other areas, but in this case it is particularly important. However, I do not believe that this amendment, or any other, can provide that the people who are appointed are not just individuals who confirm the mayor's own prejudices in the particular area of concern. Although sympathise with the need to ensure that the mayor is careful to obtain high quality advice, I am not convinced that this is the way to do it.
Amendment No. 452ZAA in this group refers to the London Ecology Committee. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, intends this amendment to be dealt with in this group, or whether he intends to leave it and speak to it later.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The short answer to that last question is that I must have slipped, because I had not thought it was my amendment, but perhaps it is.
Baroness Hamwee: The amendment provides for a group to replace the London Ecology Committee. I am not sure whether that means that an ecology group will be put into place within six months or whether it will take the place of the Ecology Committee. I am aware that there is concern among those involved with the London Ecology Unit. The committee is a committee of borough representatives and the unit is the professionals. We on these Benches would be very concerned about the loss of that expertise. Whether this is the way to deal with the matter I am less convinced.
Lord Whitty: I was slightly confused by the reference to the committee. The anxiety that the noble Baroness expressed earlier about its coming out of political advisers is not justified. Clearly, the mayor would have environmental staff, and the entire staff of the London Ecology Unit would transfer to provide that kind of expertise to the mayor.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I believe that this is the moment to mention a matter that arose during the passage of the legislation relating to the rural development agencies, if noble Lords can cast their minds back to that. The rural development agencies were all going to have people who, the Government assured us, knew something about rural affairs. The sole exception was London, where we were told that it was not necessary.
I rather suspect that it is very necessary for London. It may be that London is such a great wen that it is very difficult to identify its hinterland, but every city has a hinterland, every city has problems of communication and representation with that hinterland, and every city should pay attention to what that hinterland wants. At some stage there should be written into the Bill a provision that there should be someone whose job it is to serve on the committee in question, or perhaps one of the other committees appointed under the Bill, someone with real experience and knowledge, and almost a representative capacity for what happens in the countryside outside London.
I ask the Minister to consider this, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, if he is bringing the matter back on Report to consider the possibility of producing an amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise to the Committee for my slight delay in rising; I am still scribbling notes to myself.
I should like to deal first with the question of Amendment No. 452ZAA. I apologise to the Committee for a failure of memory. The amendment is worded in

1001
the form that it is because Clause 299 abolishes the London Ecology Committee, and we therefore judged it necessary to put this source of advice to the mayor in place.
I regret that because I was trying to deal with two things at once I shall have to study in Hansard what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said. I shall have a word with him, and I hope that he will forgive me.
I shall also have to study the response of the noble Lord the Minister to what we have said. He has given some reassurance, but I would put it no higher than that. I accept that the amendment as drafted might not contain the necessary read-through across the whole of the Bill, but the best one can do in putting down amendments is to go for a principle, and if the principle is accepted as right and worthy I would have hoped that the Government might provide that necessary read-through. The Minister feels that because the read-through already exists in the Bill the amendment is unnecessary. I shall need to study what he said and think more about the issue before I am confident of that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 358YAB not moved.]
Clauses 259 to 262 agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 358ZA:
Insert the following new Clause—
LONDON FIRE BRIGADE PENSION SCHEME
(" . The Mayor and the GLA will, by 2030, reconstitute the pension scheme of the London Fire Brigade moving it from the present unfunded scheme to a fully funded pension scheme.").
The noble Lord said: A little while ago, we had an interesting debate on Amendment No. 354N on the pension problems of the police service. My noble friend Lord Cope tabled an amendment that found an elegant solution by placing the responsibility for the funding of police pensions directly on to the Treasury. Amendment No. 358ZA, which i tabled, goes in completely the opposite direction. That was partly an exercise in testing the intellectual capacity of the Minister, because we wanted to see whether he could argue against both cases consistently, and it was partly because my inclination is to go one way and my noble friend's inclination, with perhaps greater experience and wisdom, is to go the other way because it is simpler.
The problem with police pensions is not as severe as the problem with firemen's pensions. The fire service demands of those who work for it an extraordinarily high degree of physical fitness. It demands that degree of physical fitness right the way through to chief officer rank. Firemen have to be able to go and fight fires. That is what they are for, but fighting fires is a very harsh job and they cannot do it unless they are physically fit and in robust good health.
The consequence is that the wastage to the fire service—and I pay tribute to its work—for fitness reasons is quite high. I would not say that it is unreasonably high, because it would be unreasonable to expect an unfit fireman to go and fight a. fire. However,
1002
that imposes costs so high that, on the projections I have seen, it is only a matter of time before the fire service becomes a pensions organisation with the provision of fire fighting services being a corollary to the business of paying pensions. That would be an extraordinary situation for a major aspect of public safety, and it would not be satisfactory.
There are two options, and we heard one explained earlier in relation to the police. In response, the Minister was good enough to say that the Government were setting up a study to consider the problem. I have no doubt that that is what he will tell me in response to this amendment. That might appear to be an answer, but the problem has been around for a long time. We have known about it for a long time and it is not study groups that are required but action.
I accept that the solution of going to a fully funded scheme is a high cost one, but if we do not face that cost now, we shall have to face it later. I suggest that that is the way to go, but it requires a decision. I would rather see a decision and the facing of the consequences of that decision than see another study. Another study would simply put the matter off; and every time it is put off, it becomes more expensive to put right. This is a most serious matter from the point of view of the provision of an important and significant safety service for the community at large. It has its own implications for London. This is an opportunity to start an essential process. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in raising this important issue, although not necessarily in the solution that he suggests, any more than I supported the very different solution suggested in respect of the same problem for the Metropolitan Police. However, the noble Lord is right to say that the unfunded pension scheme, currently with the LFCDA, is a huge and growing burden for many reasons, including those which he gave. Just as with the Metropolitan Police, it is an important issue which sooner rather than later the Government must address. It is on such a scale that only government can address and deal with it. Therefore, I support the raising of the issue, although not necessarily the solution suggested, and I urge upon the Minister, if he needs urging, the need for the Government to address this problem.
I am not as cynical about a study group as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, because I understand that it is a complex issue which needs to be studied. But I certainly support the noble Lord in saying that we need not just a study but a solution to the problem as soon as possible. On that basis, I support the issue if not necessarily the substance of the amendment.
Lord Whitty: I recognise the nature of the concern and the size of the problem, although the history of the structure of the pension scheme is different in the police from in the fire service.
The firefighters' pension scheme is a national scheme which is set out in an order made under the Fire Services Act 1947. But we adopt the same principle; namely, that

1003
we should not make changes which affect one fire brigade and not others, any more than we would do so with regard to the police. In any case, the arrangements for the scheme are already under review. The scheme, in common with a number of schemes in the public service, does not have a pension fund. One of the main purposes of the fund—the guaranteeing of employees' pension rights—is in this case guaranteed by statute.
In a technical sense, the scheme is an immature scheme in that the balance between levels of income and expenditure has not yet reached a stable state. That means that there are serious long-term problems. The Government have recognised in recent local government finance settlements the extra pensions costs for fire authorities and have included amounts for pensions in the fire share of the total standard spending.
Other changes being proposed would not provide an easy solution; for example, new entry funding would be likely to make matters worse. The authority would still carry the costs of existing pensions, but because it would have to be funded separately as a pension fund it would lose the contributions from the new entrants which would go straight into the fund.
This review of the provisions of the FPS was published as a consultative document last year. Ministers are still considering the position in the light of responses. The general emphasis of that consultation was more on the management benefits rather than the funding question. However, the Government are now considering the possible study of the costs and benefits of a funded approach for new entrants. But that would provide no easy solution to the costs. At present the cost to fire authorities is covered under the fire settlement. Until we have a more permanent long-term solution that should continue to be the case. The London fire brigade should be treated no differently from those in other parts of the country.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I understand his concern that we cannot treat the employees of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority separately from the fire and emergency planning services across the country because that is the way the system is structured at present.
However, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The debate has given us a chance to raise an increasingly significant problem. I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance that the Government are meeting, and will continue to meet, the pensions costs of the fire service pension scheme. But the matter calls for urgent action. I shall study what the Minister said. I may return with a provision if I can think of an appropriate one. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 263 agreed to.
Clause 264 [The spatial development strategy]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 358A:
Page 141, line 6, after ("shall") insert (", after consultation with the Common Council and the London boroughs,").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 358A returns to a familiar theme which, if I am not advancing it, my noble friends on my right are inclined to do. However, we now move from the field of fire into the more fiery area of planning. Planning can cause immense difficulties if there is not a great deal of co-ordination and co-operation. Amendment No. 358A raises the issue of consultation with the Common Council and the London boroughs in arriving at the spatial development strategy. Amendment No. 359, grouped with the amendment, includes the words, "based on the boroughs' views", for the same reason.
Amendment No. 419 picks up a different point. It introduces into Clause 273, which deals with matters to which the mayor must have regard, specific mention of the unitary development plans of the London boroughs. The mayor is obliged to have regard to the existing planning situation in drawing up any plans. We believe that it is a sensible provision. We do not think that it is unreasonable to have it on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The amendments seek to ensure that the mayor's spatial development strategy is based on the views of boroughs. I have no doubt that any sensible mayor would want to work in co-operation with the boroughs and involve them closely in the preparation of the strategy. Indeed, Clause 265 already provides that the mayor should consult the boroughs when preparing the strategy and take their views into account. In that sense, Amendment No. 358A is redundant.
To provide, as Amendment No. 359 suggests, that the strategy should be based on the views of the boroughs is going too far. Of course, their views will carry great weight, but all of the boroughs will not agree about all aspects and there may be disagreements between the boroughs and the mayor. At times, the mayor will have to take account of strategic considerations that may conflict with his or her view. That is precisely why we need a new strategic body. The mayor is meant to take responsibility for the strategic overview for London in this instance, and Amendment No. 359 is—perhaps unintentionally—a pretty substantial curb on that ability.
Similarly, Amendment No. 419 attempts to ensure that the mayor has regard to unitary development plans when producing or revising the development strategy. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog. The strategy sets the overall framework for London, and the UDPs, which are far more detailed and specific documents, must be in general conformity with it. That is the proper hierarchy of relationships and that is the logic of the position.
I think that these amendments are misconceived and, if taken literally, would hamstring the mayor in developing the strategy. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which I shall study with care. At this late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 359 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 359A:
Page 141, line 6, leave out ("to be known as the "spatial development strategy"") and insert ("dealing with the matters provided by subsection (2) (in this section called "the spatial development strategy")").
The noble Baroness said: We discussed earlier during the passage of this Bill its prescription of titles for the plans, strategies, meetings, question times, reports and so on that the mayor is to produce and undertake. Although a title such as the "spatial development strategy" is not quite as exciting as talking about "the people's question time"—it does not raise issues of political correctness, for example—we do not think that it is necessary or desirable to prescribe for the title. It will be perfectly adequate to provide that the mayor shall prepare and publish a document dealing with matters of spatial development, as I suggest in my amendment.
For the sake of convenience and to avoid amending other clauses, I am prepared to concede that, for the purposes of definition in the Bill, it can be called "the spatial development strategy". However, I do not see why the mayor should be "hamstrung"—to use the term that the Minister applied in another context—by Parliament's and the Government's terminology. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This amendment appears to carry the danger of creating some confusion if it allows the mayor to stray from using the terminology in the Bill and to use another description elsewhere. I have had a hasty look around the Chamber, and I think that no one present will take offence if I explain again what was outlined when we discussed Part II.
Although the term is new in its provenance within the United Kingdom, it accords with the Government's proposals on revising regional planning guidance and with broader concepts of spatial planning that are familiar in the European context. For this reason, we have chosen the term advisedly and are happy with it. It is a good concept for this part of the Bill, and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister imay recall that I supported the Government in the concept. I am arguing from their view that the mayor shall not have the autonomy to call her or his own strategy by whatever sensible title the mayor wishes. The mayor might want to call it the London spatial development strategy. The mayor cannot do so; it has to be the spatial development strategy.
That seems to be taking regulation to extremes. That is why I challenge the amendment. I do not challenge the concept for ore moment; indeed, I support it. Reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 360 to 364 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): If Amendment No. 364A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 365 to 366A.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 364A:
Page 141, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("() The spatial development strategy must include statements dealing with the general spatial development aspects of—

(a) such of the other strategies prepared and published, or to be prepared and published, under the enactments mentioned in section 33(1) above as involve considerations of spatial development, and

(b) such of the Mayor's other policies or proposals as involve such considerations, whether or not the strategy, policy or proposal relates to the development or use of land.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to define more succinctly the relationship between the SDS and other of the mayor's strategies.
Following discussion during the Committee stage in another place, we have taken the opportunity to rationalise the wording of the clause, which caused some difficulties. So this is simply a drafting amendment designed to clarify that the mayor's spatial development strategy must cover spatial aspects of other strategies and policies. Taken together with Clause 33(5), which I cite frequently in these debates, this will help to ensure consistency and integration between the various strategies. It will do so, though, in slightly less absolute terms than the existing wording, which might be construed as requiring the SDS faithfully to reflect an existing mayoral strategy even if it were out of date and needed revising. I believe that the amendment provides greater clarity and a little flexibility. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Amendment No. 366ZA is grouped with this. I was concerned about the terminology of a "general setting" for the mayor's policies, which is why I chose the phrase "strategic framework". However, I am happy for that to be superseded.
Perhaps I may confirm that, in losing subsection (4)(a), which provides in relation to spatial development a general setting, framework or whatever one chooses to call it, the Government are relying on subsection (2) to describe the spatial development strategy. Subsection (4) as amended will relate only to its relationship with other strategies and policies and one should not use the spatial development aspect. I believe that Clause 264(2) does the job.
Lord Whitty: I believe that to be correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 365 to 366ZA not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 366A:
Page 141, line 17, after ("Mayor,") insert—
("(c) in respect of the transport strategy, reflect the future land requirements of passenger and freight transport needs,").
The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who is not present, and I have amendments in this group, I beg to move Amendment No. 366A and in

1007
doing so speak to my Amendments Nos. 372 and 372A. They introduce at this stage into the spatial development strategy the need to include environmental considerations. It is late in the evening and I do not believe that one needs to go into the matter in detail. I suspect that the Minister will say again that, of course, these matters will be taken into consideration. It has been said so many times that we are dealing with possibilities in this Bill. The fact that something will be done does not necessarily mean that it will. It could mean that it will be neglected to be done.
Conservation of those parts of London which have not been developed, improvement in its physical environment and the conservation of the beauty and amenity of London are very important considerations in any spatial development strategy. We wanted to call it a London development strategy. The question is fundamental to the improvement of London's environment. It is because it is so important, and we now have the Rogers report on urban regeneration, that it is appropriate to introduce these considerations in this way. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I fully accept the importance of the areas specified in these two amendments, but I do not consider it appropriate that we should put them on the face of the Bill. Presumably, they do not purport to be the full list of issues to be addressed by the strategy. I suspect that they are attempting to identify some minimum requirements. In practice they do not go much beyond the general purposes of the authority set out much earlier in Clause 25.
The problem with any such list of desiderata is that it is bound to be selective and incomplete. It is also likely that it will need to be reviewed from time to time, which is why we consider that any specification of minimum coverage would have to be dealt with through secondary legislation or guidance. To put these matters on the face of the Bill would not be appropriate. Therefore, I do not believe that we should adopt these changes albeit that I accept the importance of the two areas which have been identified. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is reassuring to hear that these are important considerations and, even if they are not to go on the face of the Bill, that he accepts the principle that lies behind the amendment. I shall explore with care what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 367 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 368:
Page 141, line 26, at end insert ("provided that it has a significant effect greater than the area of a single London borough").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a matter which is of some importance. At page 141 of the Bill we are dealing with matters which will be included
1008
in the spatial development strategy. Clause 264(6) states:
"In determining for the purposes of this Part whether a matter is of strategic importance to Greater London, it is immaterial whether or not the matter affects the whole area of Greater London".
Of course, that is unexceptionable. We have no difficulty with that at all.
At the other end of the scale, if something is not put in, there is no bottom end. We are suggesting in the amendment that there ought to be a bottom end, so to speak, and that for a matter to be included in the strategy in this context, it should be a matter that is of such significance that it will affect an area that is greater than that of a single borough. In other words, it puts the mayor's strategy into the genuinely strategic area and removes it from the possibility of conflict with matters that ought more properly to be dealt with by the unitary development plans which the borough will handle. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: In this group, Amendment No. 368A stands in my name. I tabled the amendment in order to explore, as the noble Lord has suggested, what is strategic, and more particularly how it can be determined. I am not convinced that it is possible to provide for every matter that is strategic, listing all of them in advance.
I am aware that regulations are proposed under Clause 274 and I have seen the consultation paper which has been the subject of discussion among various parties in London. That paper sets out the categories of development on which the proposed mayor of London is to be consulted. It lists four broad groups: large scale development, major infrastructure, development that may affect key strategic policies and development that may affect key strategic sites. To a significant extent, that seems to beg the question of strategic importance which will be a matter for judgment. It will be entirely possible and desirable to set out many of the types of development that would be regarded as strategic. I am not sure that it would be possible to deal with them all. If that is not possible, the question arises as to who is to be the judge. In our view Clause 264(5) rightly says that the,
"strategy must deal only with matters which are of strategic importance to Greater London".
That raises some issues.
Amendment No. 368A proposes an arbiter in the person of whoever conducts the examination in public under Clause 268. I do not believe that that is necessarily a perfect solution because, by definition, an examination in public is not an inquiry which comes to a conclusion in the same way. It examines issues, provides advice and so on. I believe it is worth reflecting on whether there may be areas where there will be dispute about what is strategic that simply do not lend themselves to being dealt with by regulation. If that is so, who should reach a view?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Amendment No. 368B, included in this group, is intended to raise the issue and

1009
to allow me to air the anxieties expressed on behalf of the City of London rather than that the amendment should inevitably form part of the Bill.
The Government have in mind that, in due course, there will be an order which will set out the categories of planning application which will be regarded as strategic and on which, therefore, the mayor not only has to be consulted, but on which he may, in the end, have a veto.
We said in earlier debates on Monday that planning was one of the major sources of friction between the GLC., the boroughs and the City Corporation. Indeed, in one sense, we returned to that today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated, there is already quite a long history about this matter. It was necessary for the Government to clarify what kinds of development would be regarded as "strategic". They have clearly learnt the lesson here of the conflict between the boroughs and the GLC and they are trying to ensure that the mayor and the authority will only have a role in planning applications that are genuinely strategic. For everything else, the boroughs and the City Corporation will remain the planning authorities.
In March, the Government answered a Written Question in another place. It is a long answer, so I shall not attempt to try to read or even summarise it, because I want to deal with my own amendment. The essence of it is contained in about seven lines which I shall read out to the Committee:
"The Mayor must also have a means of representing the broader pan-London view for individual planning applications where issues of genuine strategic importance are concerned. The Mayor will therefore become a slatutory consultee for a limited number of applications of potential strategic importance, to be defined in secondary legislation".
Mr Raynsford, the Minister who replied, goes on to say:
"He or she will also have a fall-back power to direct the refusal of planning permission in these cases where this is considered necessary on strategic grounds".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/99; col. WA 472.]
The following page sets out a long list, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred, detailing the categories which are likely to be covered in this respect. They were dealt with in greater detail in the consultation paper to which reference has already been made. One of those categories relates to very large new buildings or structures. The proposal was that that would be over 30,000 square metres in the City of London, 20,000 square metres in the rest of central London and 15,000 metres elsewhere. I ask Members of the Committee to note that what is there proposed is the actual size of the buildings. My amendment is directed towards saying that it is not so much the size of the buildings—my amendment is confined to the City of London—as the increase in the size of the buildings.
The general pattern of development and redevelopment within the City is that a large office building becomes outdated, inconvenient and unsuited to modern commerce. It is, therefore, redeveloped. The building may be either substantially reconstructed, or it may be demolished and an entirely new building may be put up in its place. Most of these buildings are already of such a size that they would come within that category
1010
of over 30,000 square metres. Indeed, one could quote some examples of buildings which have been constructed recently and which would be caught by this because they are over that limit. However, at this time of night, it will not be necessary to do so.
The effect of the Government's drafting of the Bill by looking at the absolute size rather than the increase in the size is that some 22 per cent of permissions for development and 48 per cent of floor space granted in the City would, on current figures—I am talking about 1997–98 figures—be subject to reference to the mayor. Some 48 per cent of the redevelopments in the City would be regarded as strategic. I submit to the Government that that is absurd. Merely to replace a large building with another one of the same size has no strategic implications at all. It should not lead to any significant increase in employment. It should not lead to any significant increase in traffic. It should not have any impact on any of the general strategic planning in London. However, if it happens to be over 30,000 square metres, off it has to go to the mayor.
However, if there was a substantial increase in the size of a building—my amendment takes the same figure of 30,000 square metres for London—the only developments to be caught would be 3 per cent of permissions rather than 22 per cent. Instead of 48 per cent of floor space the figure would be 7 per cent. It seems inherently probable that it is that small share of the total developments within the City of London that is likely to have strategic implications for the spatial strategy. I therefore believe that the Government must consider adopting a test of the increase in the size of a building rather than the absolute size of a building.
There are few sites within the City of London that are as yet undeveloped. There may be some sites where there will be a change of use. For example, a telephone exchange with few people may be turned into an office block with a large number of people. The amendment does not affect that position. The amendment recognises that if it is a question of a different use class and comes within the limit that is being suggested it may well have strategic applications and should be referred. However, if it is a question of a building in the same use class of the same size as that which is being replaced, I submit that it is absurd to regard that as a strategic matter which has to be referred. In the past year, 48 per cent of the buildings that have been the subject of development in the City would have had to be referred.
There are all kinds of arguments and at this hour of the night I shall not deploy them except to say that the City is proud of its record as a planning authority. It takes great pride in ensuring that the City is capable of meeting the needs of the users who, as I said in an earlier debate, include a great many from overseas running financial services in London. I believe that it would be most unfortunate if such a high proportion of the development were effectively to be taken out of the hands of the City corporation and entrusted to the mayor of London on the grounds that if a figure of over 30,000 square metres is involved the matter must be strategic.

1011
I have made my case and I hope that the Government will be prepared to listen. There is plenty of time. The measure does not have to come into effect until the mayor takes over and an order will have to be made. The consultation has shown that what the Government propose does not make sense. I hope that they will be prepared to reconsider the matter. When we reach that point I shall withdraw my amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: I support my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding on this matter. The City of London is an important international financial centre and needs to be on an even keel with other financial centres in terms of being able to provide new premises, or to extend premises, or to refurbish premises within the same kind of timescale that applies in cities such as Frankfurt. I am told that the Corporation of London is concerned that if the amendment which refers to the 30,000 square metres is not carried, a serious delay will arise which could militate against the City of London retaining its pre-eminent position as leader in the area of financial services.
Lord Whitty: I understand some of the concerns in the City and other places to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness have referred. However, we are referring to Clause 264 and it seems to me that we are in danger of confusing what can be regarded as important in terms of the development of the strategy with the thresholds which can be regarded as strategic in terms of planning applications. This clause concerns the development strategy. Most of the issues the noble Lord addressed will not arise until we reach Clause 275 or thereabouts.
The strategy will require the mayor to look at the totality of London and to propose various strategic developments around London, some of which may be of a certain size and some of which may be of a smaller size but have strategic importance. All of the amendments as drafted seek to place some limitation on what the mayor can deem strategically important. One amendment, for example, relates to instances where the mayor cannot propose developments which do not directly affect other boroughs. It may well be that, in the strategic development context, the mayor would wish to establish, or arrange to be established, for example, a major conference centre, sports centre or even a railway station, the effects of which may not be easily assignable to more than one borough but would be quite important from a strategic point of view. It would therefore be unnecessary to try to constrain his ability to include that within the strategy.
Of course, the mayor should not interfere with matters that are best left at borough level. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that we do not want to reintroduce a two-tier planning structure except for very important planning applications. But here we are talking about a development strategy in a more general sense.
1012
Amendment No. 371 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove the explicit power to make different provisions for different cases.
Lord Dixon-Smith: If I may interrupt the Minister. Amendment No. 371 is one of my amendments and is not in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Lord Whitty: I apologise. I am misreading the clauses. In whoever's name it is, the amendment would fetter the mayor's ability to make proper and considered plans for London's future needs. The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis concerned the River Thames. There was a general consensus that the mayor should be able to replicate what now exists in the strategic planning guidance for the Thames, which is currently the Secretary of State's publication. But the Thames is not homogenous in its character and the implications of development vary from place to place. It is therefore necessary for the spatial development strategy to reflect the power to deal differently with different parts of London. It would not therefore be appropriate to put this constraint on the mayor in that respect.
I have referred to Amendment No. 368B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. It is not appropriate here, but it would impose a restriction on the clause. Its implication is that the mayor could not, in relation to the City of London specifically, designate smaller developments as part of the strategic plan. Again, that is an unnecessary constraint. The argument about the threshold on planning applications probably comes later.
Midnight
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps the Minister will give way. I entirely take his point that this matter might have been raised. I do not suggest that in the end this will be an amendment to the Bill. The amendment is a peg on which to hang this request. Perhaps, even at this late hour, the Minister will respond to the request rather than to the idea that this might be an amendment to this clause of the Bill. I accept his point, but the issue is a very real one which I hope he can address.
Lord Whitty: It may well be, and I am aware of that concern. In so far as we are dealing with amendments to particular clauses, it does not seem appropriate that I should go into detail in replying to this point. One has to determine a threshold above which matters automatically come within the planning purview of the mayor. Following the consultation—during the course of which various changes were made—it was felt that these were the appropriate thresholds. I could no doubt go into some lengthy correspondence with the noble Lord on this point. But in so far as we are trying to amend a clause of the Bill, I do not think I wish to detain Members of the Committee further, particularly as the noble Baroness has tabled an entirely different form of amendment which does pertain to the Bill, although I regard it as inappropriate. I understand that we may well return to this matter when we reach the planning process aspects of the Bill, possibly at a more appropriate time of day.

1013
Turning to Amendment No. 368A tabled by the noble Baroness, Clause 264(5) already ensures that the spatial development strategy has to deal only with matters that are strategic. It does, however, imply that the mayor himself must make a judgment as to what is strategic; and while he has some discretion in making that judgment, it is of course the case that his judgment is reviewable in the courts.
The noble Baroness's amendment seeks to transfer the decision on what is strategic in a type of appeals process to the panel holding the examination in public. That is not right in principle, but it would also fundamentally change the role of the EIP panel. Under the Bill, the panel reports to the mayor. It does not take binding decisions just as under planning legislation, generally speaking, inspectors or chairs of the examination in public would report to local authorities which take final decisions on the contents of their development plans. Even if we wished to transform that panel into an appeals and decision-making body over the mayor's own decisions, it would completely change the nature of the relationship and the panel as envisaged here. Given that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
I am sorry that my response has been slightly confused. A number of different points were raised. We shall no doubt return to some of them later. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment—especially as it is row one minute past midnight.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may press the Minister once mere on the particular issue of the criterion as regards the size of the buildings in the City of London. Is he prepared to consider something along the lines that I have suggested? I recognise that this should perhaps have been in a later clause, for which I apologise. However, it is a matter of huge importance to the future of the City. Perhaps even at this late hour, the Minister would be prepared to say that his door is open and he will continue to discuss the matter with the people involved.
Lord Whitty: I am always open to representations from the noble Lord and others. However, the decisions that have been made so far on this and on the consultation which has already been widely pursued throughout London have led the Minister for London to determine that these are the appropriate thresholds. Therefore, while during the progress of the Bill here and elsewhere we are prepared to consider further representations, at this point the Government are determined that the thresholds they set at the end of the consultation are the appropriate thresholds.
1014
That is something short of an absolute "No", but nevertheless it would be misleading for me to say that the Government are still in a consultative mode on it.
Baroness Hamwee: When I was speaking to my Amendment No. 368A I accepted that the role of those undertaking the examination in public was not the same as that of an inspector at an inquiry. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister to confirm that the examiners, those conducting the examination in public, would be entitled, in advising the mayor, to make comments on whether certain parts of the proposed strategy fall short of being strategic.
Lord Whitty: The answer is, yes. I was objecting to the quasi appeals position which I thought the noble Baroness's amendment involved.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I thank the Minister for his reply which indicated sufficient reasons why I should be brief and we should end our debate this evening. The Minister raised points of concern, particularly as to the planning process which will cause me some anxiety, although I shall have the opportunity to raise them again since I have tabled other amendments which will deal with them. For example, a decision to put some major installation in a specific borough would be likely to have strategic implications for the whole of London. It may be a reasonable decision to take, but it could cause acute difficulty in the borough. The borough's unitary development plan may have been through the approval process. Nevertheless, it has to conform to the mayor's special development strategy and therefore it would require amendment after it had been examined in public. That would create a procedural hiatus. However, we can return to the matter.
The debate has gone on for a considerable time, but we have shown that a number of important issues lie behind the debate, even if it was not wholly appropriately placed in the Bill. Those issues are matters to which we will undoubtedly have to return at a later stage. For tonight, that is sufficient. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 368A, 368B and 369 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at 10 minutes past midnight.