HL Deb 07 July 1999 vol 603 cc878-903

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 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 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 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 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 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—

  1. (a) at least two elected members of the Assembly, and
  2. (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 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, 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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, "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 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.

Back to
Forward to