Lords Sitting of 27 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 Bath and Wells.

Lord Rennard
Christopher John Rennard, Esquire, MBE, having been created Baron Rennard, of Wavertree in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Maddock and the Lord Clement-Jones.

Baroness Hanham
Mrs. Joan Brownlow Hanham, CBE, having been created Baroness Hanham, of Kensington in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Miller of Hendon and the Lord Hanningfield.
The Earl of Coventry The Earl of Coventry—Took the oath.

NHS Interpreting Services
2.50 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress there has been with the employment of qualified interpreters in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the National Health Service provides a range of interpreting services in the many and varied settings in which healthcare is delivered. Interpreting services are provided on both a planned and emergency basis to support the delivery of effective and culturally-sensitive healthcare. The NHS is committed to addressing communication barriers that prevent black and ethnic minority patients from receiving the care and treatment which they need.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. The aims are clearly excellent. I should like to know why lower standards are accepted for translation and interpreting in the health service than in the criminal justice system where there is an agreement that, by the year 2001, all the interpreters in all sections of the criminal justice system will be members of the national register of public service interpreters.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is lower standards or different challenges that we face in the health service. This year, for the first time, the formula used to inform allocations to health authorities included an English language difficulties adjustment of
1388
£10.9 million. That was to reflect the extra costs of providing interpretation, advocacy and translation services to ethnic minority patients who experience difficulties with the English language. I believe it important that we recognise the variety of situations in which healthcare is delivered and the need not only to deal with simple issues of speaking a different language but to make sure that services are accessible to communities who may not easily gain access to them.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it is not very clear exactly what the Minister is saying. Does the department acknowledge the value of the use of trained interpreters and has it commissioned a report into the use of those interpreters, which I believe to be the case? Does it have any intention at all of following the excellent example of the criminal justice service?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should not like in any way to devalue the work which has been done in the criminal justice service. Indeed, some of the training utilised by health authorities is the same as that for interpreters within that service. The noble Lord is right that a piece of work is being carried out at the moment, undertaken by the King's Fund, to map in London a comprehensive picture of the provision both of health advocacy link work and interpreting services. As I said, I think the issue is broader than that of simple interpreting. The report will cover all the Greater London NHS trusts and health authorities as well as voluntary organisations representing the minority ethnic and refugee communities in the capital.
Lord Laming: My Lords, the National Health Service is no more immune from racism than any other organisation; and I include every organisation with which I am associated. What steps are being taken to ensure that all patients and staff are treated with equal respect?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly points out the two different strands of work that we have to undertake. We have to provide equal opportunities for staff within the NHS. We have launched a national plan of action about tackling racial harassment in the NHS, and through the positively diverse programme we are engaged in a service-wide policy of encouraging recruitment and development of staff from local communities.
We also have to consider the provision of services which are sensitive to the needs of minority groups. For example, as regards the uptake of screening programmes it is important to have locally-based services within communities which have the best insight into how to encourage women, in the example I give, to take up the services available.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister says that about £10 million is being devoted to this issue. In order to achieve better value, has consideration been given to encouraging interpreters also to act as health assistants and to seeking volunteers

1389
from the community groups to which the noble Baroness referred? The National Health Service is desperately in need of every penny it can obtain.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, some schemes are based on using volunteers. It is important to recognise the need to ensure confidentiality and standards. I believe that that motivation lay behind some of the questions about training. Volunteers must be properly trained and equipped. None of us wants volunteers to be the small children who interpret for parents. There is an area of work there. Traditionally, the NHS has used staff who speak other languages to interpret in emergency situations. Again, we need provision for standards. However, in the employment of link workers and patient advocates, people can take on a dual role rather than simply interpreting.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the needs of deaf people who require sign language are just as great as those who are black, from ethnic groups, or who depend on foreign languages. Perhaps I may make a declaration of a non-pecuniary interest. I am the president of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf (RNID). Although the Minister's initial Answer about the provision sounded marvellous, in fact it is not that marvellous. The RNID recently conducted a survey of doctors' surgeries. It found that 39 per cent of individuals had to rely for interpretation on families and friends; and when they left the surgery 37 per cent did not know the diagnosis or treatment. Does the Minister agree that the health service should ensure that all patients—deaf, black, ethnic, foreign, or whoever—should be told clearly the diagnosis and treatment?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend rightly points out that the barriers to receiving high quality care are not simply those of speaking a foreign language. When we consider health inequalities, we realise that a number of factors—they may involve speaking or hearing language, or socio-economic deprivation—may stop people receiving services. That is why work in health action zones and health improvement programmes is important.
I am not sure that I said everything was marvellous. I said that we sought to make progress in this area. There are some innovative schemes. In one of the beacon sites recently commended, which involved primary care, a telephone link with a hand-free conference facility is being used where the patients of a GP speak many different languages. It has been well received by both professionals and patients.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, does the Minister agree that employment of advocates and interpreters was a short-term replacement for the employment of bilingual workers across the health service? Can some of the good practices in areas such as Tower Hamlets and Newham be examined? Some interpreters have had the
1390
opportunity of NVQ experience, a factor which might address the Question asked by my noble friend Lady David.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, yes, we can learn from, and spread examples of, good practice. The King's Fund exercise will help us to do that.

Pensioners: Income Support Entitlement
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will publish the reports of the nine pilot schemes which they set up to discover and analyse the reasons why some 1 million pensioners do not claim the income support to which they are entitled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the independent evaluation of the pilots has taken longer than originally expected. We hope to have a final report after the summer. Publication will follow as soon as possible after that.
We also commissioned research into why pensioners do not claim their entitled income support, which we hope to publish before the pilot evaluation.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I suppose better late than never. When the Minister leaked the report during our debates on the Welfare Form and Pensions Bill, she told us that it indicated that certain of the pensioners whose incomes were low enough to qualify them for income support had savings too high to qualify them. Is it therefore going to be the policy of this Government to penalise thrift, and will she say in future to would-be savers among the lower income groups, "You might as well go and have a spending spree"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, today's publication of the Rowntree report suggests that pensioners are doing precisely what my noble friend suggests. They are the new rich and are deciding to spend their money. As regards my noble friend's substantive point, there was no leak; I was giving my noble friend the best information I had. As I have more information, I shall be happy to share it with her in the House.
The number of people who we believed might be entitled to income support is somewhat lower in part because many have substantial savings. Half of those disqualified from income support because their incomes are below income support level have capital of more than £20,000, and 200,000 have capital of more than £50,000. It is questionable whether we should ask taxpayers to support people in boosting their incomes if they have capital on which they can draw.
The other reason we overestimated the number of pensioners who may be entitled to income support, which may be fresh to my noble friend, is that since the early 1990s surveys have incorrectly disregarded the

1391
private occupational pensions which widows inherit on their husbands' death and therefore they have an income higher than originally anticipated.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the limits on capital are low—£3,000 is sufficient to receive a reduced level of income support, but nothing over £7,000? Will the pilot studies give us a precise assessment of the extent to which people do not claim because they have levels of capital of that order?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have those statistics on a national basis. However, I recognise the problem raised by my noble friend and the noble Lord. The Government are seriously considering the situation of capital limits.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister remind the House when the capital limits to which she referred were last uprated for inflation?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in about 1988.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, do the investigations expose people who have not claimed? Will there be any element of retrospection?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no, except in so far as there is the usual backdating, which is a month or up to three months, depending on whether it is an income-related benefit or a contributory benefit. My noble friend raises the key question of how we ensure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled. That is the point about the pilot schemes. We estimate that 500,000—perhaps 700,000—mainly older, single women who have become widowed are failing to claim on average £15 a week.
Those people are entitled to claim. They do not have capital, and they are failing to claim. Our research shows that that is due to a mixture of ignorance about the benefits system, worries about what may happen to them, the fact that, on claiming for benefit in the past, they were not eligible and therefore refused to claim again, and that their memories are at fault. However, a good piece of news from the findings is that, among those who are eligible but are failing to claim, two years on 25 per cent have gone on to claim. Obviously, we must build on that and ensure that people receive the money to which they are entitled; they cannot afford to go without that money, and we should not let them.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will immediately review the capital limits to which she referred, which have not been reviewed for 11 years, and uprate them?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are keeping them under review. I can give only the answer
1392
that is correct. I am sure that noble Lords would not wish me to give false hopes to the House that I or anyone else can subsequently deliver.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, whatever the merits of the pilot schemes, will the Minister agree that an immediate increase in the basic pension to £75 a week will be a far more effective way of dealing with pensioners' poverty?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend. It would cost more than £3.5 billion. Some of it would go to the very rich, as the Rowntree report indicated, and the poorest—those on income support—would see not a penny. Frankly, I do not support a policy which would spend a considerable sum of money—£3.5 billion—on aiding the better off and doing nothing at all for the poorest off.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister propose to take any steps to ensure that the same problems do not return when the Government introduce their minimum pension guarantee?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we already have a minimum pension guarantee in so far as we have a minimum income guarantee. In that sense, the noble Lord's question is misdirected. However, we are seeking to ensure that pensioners are claiming the money to which they are entitled and it forms a minimum income guarantee for pensioners. It may be that, as a result of the findings of the pilot schemes, we shall need to repackage it, relaunch it, rename it in order, so to speak, to dissociate it from its income support background. In that respect there is a real issue for us to address.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Will the Minister ensure that when a report is published it contains a figure of the cost involved in funding the pilot schemes?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
3.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty agreed in 1995–96, with its verification and monitoring regime, has not come into force and whether they will exercise their right under the treaty to call a special conference to accelerate ratification.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the treaty has not yet come into force because a number of key states have yet to ratify it. I can confirm to my noble friend that the Government will indeed exercise their right, as one of the countries which have ratified the treaty, to call a special conference this autumn to consider ways

1393
to accelerate its entry into force. The United Kingdom has been leading international preparations for this event for nearly a year.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am pleased to receive so affirmative a response from my noble friend the Minister. However, may I suggest that if the Government want to accelerate the process still further towards their aim of the elimination of nuclear weapons, they should consult the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Carver, who will show them a better way?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity to wish my noble friend a very happy birthday.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that he deserves the congratulations of the whole House on reaching the splendid age of 91. My noble friend, even in his 92nd year, is as assiduous as ever in pursuing these issues. I am delighted to talk to whoever in your Lordships' House is able to offer help, guidance and advice on how to get the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force as quickly as possible. We cannot formally call the conference until September, but we are organising for it. It will take place in Vienna on 6th to 8th October. Its importance lies in the political message which we hope it will send to those who have not yet signed the treaty and to those who have signed the treaty but not yet ratified it.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, what indication does the Minister have that India and Pakistan will sign the treaty before the third anniversary of the treaty's opening for signature, particularly in the light of the statement of India's foreign minister that India will not sign the treaty before the general election there? Furthermore, will the Minister kindly inform the House what initiatives the Government have taken to urge the Indian Government to fulfil their commitment made last year? Can she confirm that it remains the Government's policy that India must sign the treaty without conditionality?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it remains our policy that everyone must sign the treaty without conditionality. Of course, we have received welcome assurances from both India and Pakistan that they intend to sign the treaty. India has said that it will not test again before such signing takes place. It is very important that that is done on an unconditional basis. We have welcomed opportunities to reaffirm with the Indian and Pakistani Governments that these are their intentions.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the conference to which my noble friend refers will take place during the Recess and the spillover period, and bearing in mind also the reputations in this field of my
1394
noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, will the Minister consider taking them along as advisers to the UK delegation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the list of those attending the conference has still to be fixed. I consulted the advisers in the department today about the level of representation that will be available. It will be very senior representation. I thank my noble friend for his wise suggestion about other sources of wisdom which may be available to the Government on this occasion.

EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
3.10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress there has been in implementing the European Union's urban waste water treatment directive in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, as a member state, the United Kingdom has obligations to implement this directive. In Scotland, the Scottish Office, the water authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency co-operated to end the dumping of sewage sludge at sea and to provide tertiary treatment for discharges into sensitive areas by the end of 1998. Considerable progress has been made towards installing secondary treatment at appropriate locations.
From 1st July 1999 implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive in Scotland is a matter for Scottish Ministers.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, first perhaps I may express the hope that this is not the Minister's last appearance at the Dispatch Box. Is he aware of the considerable problems caused by the directive to the fish processing industry, particularly in Aberdeen? Is he further aware of the report currently being worked on to find a solution which would enable the industry to meet its obligations without incurring the huge costs currently proposed by the North of Scotland Water Authority?
If the Scottish Executive comes forward and asks the Government to speak to Brussels and suggests that perhaps they should stay their hand to allow the Cordah project to come to fruition, can I, together with the fish processors, have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government, who are responsible for these matters in Europe, will intercede or intervene with the European Commission, if necessary?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am aware of the difficulties faced by the fish processing industry in implementing this directive, particularly in the north east of Scotland. It is non-negotiable in that there is a strict requirement to put secondary treatment in place by the end of the

1395
year 2000. It may be remembered that the directive was adopted in 1991 and transposed into British law in 1994. The industry has had a considerable period of time in which to prepare for the implementation. However, I accept that it is now looking keenly at what to do. I am aware of the Cordah report, which I believe is due at the end of August. I am also aware that Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire County Council have proposed a waste treatment solution which could significantly reduce the costs falling upon the industry.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the fish processing industry is a vital industry in the north east of Scotland. It also serves the fishing industry largely based at ports in that area. It is now confronted with a massive increase in charges for disposal of effluent. Wilt the Government take action as suggested by my noble friend vis-à-vis the European Union, if necessary to obtain more time to consider more alternatives, especially on a day when consumers in England and Wales are learning from their regulator that prices south of the Border will be reduced?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may again point out the dates I gave previously. The urban waste water treatment directive was adopted in 1991 and became transposed into British law in 1994. Since 1989 the various water authorities have been in dialogue with the industry to warn them of the problem they face. I regret that it is only relatively recently that the industry has responded positively. It would be difficult to argue for delay. It is clear that at present the Commission is taking a long, hard look at Italy and Belgium as two member states who have not proceeded to implement the directive timeously. Clearly, there is the problem of infraction proceedings being taken against the United Kingdom Government. As the noble Lord knows, such proceedings could result in fines measuring hundreds of thousands of pounds per week or even per day. The Scottish Executive will be aware that if that should happen, the responsibility for paying the fine would fall upon the Scottish Executive.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, was the order for cleaning up the Wheal Jane mine in Cornwall made in accordance with this directive? If not, why not?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, although I know quite a lot about the problems facing the fish processing industry in the north east of Scotland, I know nothing about the Wheal Jane issue.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that it is not only the fish merchants in the north east of Scotland who are bearing these heavy charges? I understand that the fish merchants of Grimsby and Hull are equally outraged at the high levies being introduced. Does the Minister not find it strange that some "Johnny-come-lately" should now be complaining
1396
bitterly about excess charges which they must have known about during the negotiation of this treatment for water charges?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, my noble friend is right. This does not just affect the north east of Scotland; it affects Grimsby and other fish processing centres throughout the United Kingdom. I accept that this is a very real issue. The increases in charges will be very real. I shall not use the words which I was invited to use by my noble friend. However, this is a settled policy of successive United Kingdom Governments dating back to 1991. It does no good to try to pretend that if we put our heads in the sand it will somehow go away; it will not.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in an earlier Answer, the Minister led us to understand that the Commission is invigilating the way that this directive is enforced by other governments. Is there any more precise and transparent means by which industries loaded with heavy costs by European legislation can satisfy themselves that the equivalent costs are being borne by their competitors in other European countries?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, during my period as a Minister in an area responsible for implementing European directives, I have learnt that just about every country I go to complains that their government requires them to implement it down to the last detail, and that every other government is somehow "dodging". We have to take such accusations with a pinch of salt. However, I am aware that the Commission gives a high priority to ensuring that this directive is implemented. I have already mentioned two member states where the Commission is looking closely at what is being done.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I do not wish to minimise the difficulties of implementing this directive. However, does the Minister agree that it is a good thing in general that the European Union is legislating to safeguard the environment and the quality of drinking water, and that that is a measure that the citizens and consumers of Europe welcome?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, indeed it is a very good thing that we legislate to protect the environment, both at European and member state level. It is also a good thing that we do all we can to protect jobs and industries.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not also necessary that all United Kingdom governments, of whatever political complexion, should examine proposed European legislation far more thoroughly than they have done in the past or, as far as I can see, are likely to do in the future?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I would not accuse the previous administration of not examining the proposal in detail. It was subject to a great deal of negotiation and scrutiny as it evolved and developed. We reached a stage at which there was agreement in this country and

1397
throughout the European Union on an appropriate way forward to protect the environment, which is our priority.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the funding of political parties.

House of Lords Bill: Peers' Writ of Summons
3.20 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden Lord Mayhew of Twysden rose to move, That the Question whether the House of Lords Bill (as amended on Report) would, if enacted, affect the right of those hereditary Peers who have answered to their Writ of Summons before the Bill receives Royal Assent to continue to sit and vote throughout the Parliament in which the Bill is enacted be referred to the Committee for Privileges.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Motion arises from a dispute with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the Government's policies for the reform of the House of Lords, as far as they are known. The dispute is about the meaning of the language in the House of Lords Bill to deliver those policies and what effects the Bill will have.
From the earliest opportunities in Committee and subsequently on Report, some of us have criticised the language of Clauses 1 and 7 on the grounds that it is uncertain in its effects and would leave the position of most hereditary Peers uncertain if the Bill was enacted. Not all of us who have voiced such doubts sit on the Conservative Benches. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been supplied with a copy of an opinion by experienced counsel supporting our doubts. Although he has been good enough to consider the provisions and comment on them, he has stuck to the language of the Bill, asserting that its meaning is perfectly clear and saying that anyway everybody, including the judges, knows what the Government's policy is—what the language is intended to mean—and the wording will be construed accordingly.
This is a serious dispute. I doubt that many of your Lordships remember a Bill reaching the end of its Report stage with such a serious disagreement about its meaning and its effects still unresolved. We all agree that it is in nobody's interests for that disagreement to continue unresolved. It is certainly not in the interests of those hereditary Peers who may well feel obliged to test in proceedings of their own whether their ejection from this House under the purported authority of the Act is lawful. It would be shameful consciously to expose them to such expense, stress and risk simply because the
1398
Bill left this House with its meaning still in doubt. That would be an unjust consequence of our failure to fulfil a responsibility that is properly ours.
I shall try to take your Lordships briefly to the areas of dispute and to outline the arguments. It is perhaps worth interposing here the thought that legislation leaving this House ought to be as clear and certain in its effects as we can reasonably make it. Perhaps that principle carries double weight when the composition of Parliament is involved. The interpretation of the language of such legislation should not rely to any extent on the Government's intentions being deduced or picked up from Hansard or any other extraneous source.
As we are confronted with this unhappy and unnecessary situation, it is fortunate that we have a remedy. We do not simply have to watch events unfold. We are able to seek an authoritative view from the Committee for Privileges, which can settle beyond question what the Bill will do to hereditary Peers who have answered their Writ of Summons before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
There is nothing hypothetical in that task and it would be helpful for all concerned to have the committee's opinion. That opinion will be authoritative because it is the practice in cases relating to privileges of Parliament for three or four Law Lords—serving or retired—to serve on the committee. It is unsurprisingly the practice of the lay members of the committee to concur with the opinion of the Law Lords.
Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I shall not make anything like the speech that could appropriately be made to the committee, where, if the Motion carries, it will be made by leading counsel. However, I need to satisfy your Lordships in a few minutes that there is a serious argument to be made and a real doubt which it would be sensible to take this unusual step to allay.
In a nutshell, the question is whom the Bill catches. The Lord Chancellor says that we should turn to Clause 1, which says:
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
That, says the Lord Chancellor, is all ye need to know, but in amplification on 27th April he said:
"Clause 1 is intended without any qualification to preclude membership of the House of Lords by any person whose membership, if not so precluded, would be in any way be connected with, or related to, any hereditary peerage".—[Official Report, 27/4/99; col. 167.]
Clause 1 is short and punchy and none the worse for that, but what does it mean, particularly in the light of Clause 7? What do either of those clauses mean? How do they affect the hereditary Peer who has duly answered his or her Writ of Summons? The clearest language is required if the purpose is to eject them from the House when Clause 1 takes effect, as Clause 7 says that it will at the end of the Session in which the Bill passes.
I apologise for being a tiny bit technical in so large a forum. My final quotation is from Clause 7, which says:
"Accordingly, any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage shall not have effect after that Session unless it has been issued to a person who, at the end of the Session, is excepted from section 1 by virtue of section 2".

1399
That relates to persons elected under the Weatherill amendment.
The problem is that a Writ of Summons probably ceases to have any effect when a Peer answers it. No one can sit, speak or vote here until they have answered the Writ of Summons. Once they have done so, the Writ of Summons is spent. Its effect is achieved and it has no continuing effect, so Clause 7 cannot apply to it. Clause 7 seems likely to have no effect on Peers who have answered their writ before Royal Assent. If the Bill is going to eject them from Parliament, which is the purpose, that can be done only by dint of Clause 1.
Can one ever be a Member of the House of Lords merely by virtue of holding a hereditary peerage? A Peer who has answered his or her Writ and come here, as we have all done, is undoubtedly a Member of the House of Lords, because he or she can perform the duties and enjoy the privileges of this place. However, that is by virtue of the Writ of Summons. Can someone who holds a peerage but has not answered a Writ claim to be a Member simply by virtue of holding a hereditary peerage? It is surely an odd form of membership that extends to a person who is prohibited from performing the duties and enjoying the privileges of this place—and prohibited even from getting through the door. That is what the Government have to argue by reason—I nearly said "by virtue"—of using the language of Clause 1.
Does not that give a strong indication that, for a hereditary Peer, membership of the House of Lords is gained by virtue of answering a Writ of Summons, not by virtue of a hereditary peerage? Those who have not yet answered a Writ in this Parliament apparently number 70. Clause 7 will bite on them by depriving their Writs as yet unspent of effect.
The true status of the Writ of Summons is important, arcane though it may seem. Words of Lord Chancellor Cranworth in the Wensleydale peerage case were cited on 27th February:
"That which gives every noble Lord his right to sit here is not his Patent of Nobility, but the Writ of Summons which he is entitled to, in consequence of that Patent".—[Official Report, 27/4/99; col. 160.]
Unfortunately, when asked to comment on those words by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur at col. 170, the Lord Chancellor said he had no intention of getting involved in arcane questions of peerage law. He said the judges would have no difficulty in discerning the Act's manifest intention and effect, which was well-known. His response was the more disappointing and even surprising in view of the fact that the noble Lord who cited Lord Cranworth's words was the former Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, only to have them somewhat summarily dismissed.
If my argument is right, then hereditary Peers who have returned their Writs of Summons before Royal Assent may not be prevented from sitting until the end of this Parliament by the language of Clause 1 any more than by the language of Clause 7. This language and the resulting uncertainty could so easily have been avoided. The manifesto pledge, which we have heard a lot about, was just as short and punchy as the language of Clause 1; the difference is that it was clear. It said that
1400
the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords would be ended by statute. There is no mistaking the meaning and effect of that language. What a pity the Bill does not adopt or emulate it. In Committee we suggested a draft or two, doubtless defective, but it was not to be.
Your Lordships have been extremely patient. I conclude by saying that the right thing to do now is to allay the apparent uncertainty which has uniquely resulted, including uncertainty as to the lawful composition of Parliament. Such matters should surely not be left to the haphazard chance of being sorted out later in private proceedings and at private expense. We should refer this question. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Question whether the House of Lords Bill (as amended on Report) would, if enacted, affect the right of those hereditary Peers who have answered to their Writ of Summons before the Bill receives Royal Assent to continue to sit and vote throughout the Parliament in which the Bill is enacted be referred to the Committee for Privileges.——(Lord Mayhew of Twysden.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, as I understand it, the Government propose to deprive hereditary Peers of all representation in the legislature at least until the next general election. In asking whether or not that is legal, I want to draw attention to a slightly different point from that raised by my noble friend; that is, whether or not it is legal on the basis of the laws of human rights by which we are all bound.
A year ago, in the context of the elections to the European Parliament I was drawn to Article 3 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that all members undertake to ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. A year ago the Minister, speaking in this House, said that it was within the convention for Britain to disenfranchise the Gibraltarians, even though they are part of the European Union. Early this year it turned out that he was wrong and the Strasbourg Court found against the British Government.
I support the Motion before your Lordships' House today because I believe that the Government are about to make a similar mistake. I put it to your Lordships that under the Convention on Human Rights "the people" means "all the people". Just as it did in the case of the Gibraltarians, it means the people not minus a few thousand Gibraltarians or minus a few hundred hereditary Peers. Nor should those hereditary Peers be deprived of their right to choose the legislature simply on the basis that they are to be disenfranchised only for two or three years until the next general election.
One vote of course is not very much. But that is not the point and that is something noble and learned Lords may wish to take into account. It is a small part of the opinion of the people. It may have been enough in the past as a quid pro quo over a period of time to give Peers the right to vote directly in this House instead of indirectly for another place, even though we are

1401
subordinate to the main legislature with no right to insist on amendments or control over financial matters. But it cannot be right to leave us without any vote at all, even for a short period of time. I cannot take seriously the proposal that we are compensated by being allowed to vote for a small number of Members of this House to represent us in the subordinate legislature.
This year the Government lost one case in the European Court of Human Rights on a question of universal suffrage. I hope that they will not be forced to fight another one. To lose one case in the Strasbourg Court may be counted as misfortune, but to lose two in one year begins to seem like carelessness. I hope too that noble Lords on the Lib Dem Benches, who voted rather illiberally a year ago to disenfranchise the Gibraltarians, will not make the same mistake again today. On that basis I support my noble friend and his Motion.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what this Motion proposes is, frankly, a waste of time. There can be no doubt that Parliament has the power by statute to terminate the effect of a current Writ of Summons issued for that Parliament. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, did not challenge that. I believe there can be no doubt whatever that Clauses 1 and 7(2) of this Bill are intended to do, and obviously do, just that.
There is of course a precedent for the cancellation of a Writ of Summons during its currency; that is, the Titles Deprivation Act 1917. That applied to three German princes holding British Royal dukedoms and to one Irish viscount. Perhaps not altogether surprisingly, none of them challenged the question of whether or not they were entitled to continue to sit for the duration of the Parliament then sitting.
That of course is the question raised by this Motion. It is a question to which there is only one possible answer and it is therefore pointless to ask it. Nevertheless, it is clear that some Members of your Lordships' House are going to find some forum in which to ask it, and so the question is: how should it be dealt with?
The question is a pure question of law; one of interpretation of statute. One would have thought therefore that it was a matter for the courts rather than for the Committee for Privileges. The Committee for Privileges is most suitable for deciding questions of fact concerning the rights of individuals to a peerage, as it did for example in the Moynihan and Arlington cases recently. But out of the 30 members of that committee, only four are Law Lords. I recognise that a number of others are lawyers, but it remains an unsuitable body for deciding a pure question of law.
There is a particular problem in this case which renders the Committee for Privileges clearly unsuitable for deciding this question. Hereditary Peers have an interest in the outcome which disqualifies them from taking part in a decision of the committee, which is a judicial decision. That might not apply to hereditary Peers who have already been elected as one of the
1402
15 Deputy Chairmen at the time when the committee is considering that issue, but it certainly applies to any unelected hereditary Peer and I also believe it applies to any of the 75 hereditary Peers who are elected by the other hereditary Peers in party groups because they are representatives of unelected hereditaries who themselves have a direct interest.
That knocks out four of the five Conservative members of the Committee for Privileges, leaving only the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In addition it may be argued that all party Peers, as opposed to Cross-Benchers, are disqualified, because if they are Conservatives they have a clear political interest in maintaining the predominance of their numbers in your Lordships' House. If they are government or Liberal Democrat Peers they have an interest in ending that predominance. So we would then potentially end up with four Law Lords and three Cross-Bench life Peers eligible to sit.
If the Committee for Privileges decided that Writs of Summons were valid until the end of the Parliament, there would of course be a serious constitutional crisis. That decision, taken by that committee, would be regarded as self-interested. There would be an immediate conflict between the two Houses of Parliament and between your Lordships' House and the Government. The outcome of that could be extremely serious especially if government legislation were blocked or delayed in your Lordships' House by the votes of hereditary Peers.
Any decision, to have legitimacy, needs to be taken by the courts and not by your Lordships' House. However, the present constitutional position seems to be that it is for the Committee for Privileges or an equivalent body in the other place to decide on the rights of claimants to sit as Members of either House of Parliament. The courts will apparently not overrule that decision. That was decided, in relation to the House of Commons, in 1883 in the case of Bradlaugh v. Gossett. That is a well known case in which the House of Commons refused to allow the well known free thinker, Charles Bradlaugh, to take the Oath that he was required to take before he could take his seat. That case involved the interpretation of the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866. The High Court said that it could not overrule the decision of the House of Commons even if it had wrongly interpreted the statute.
So far as your Lordships' House is concerned, the power to interpret an Act of Parliament was assumed without argument in the Viscountess Rhondda's case, when the Committee for Privileges decided the effect of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919. That was procedurally a curious case and an unhappy precedent. The case was originally decided by the Law Lord members of the Committee for Privileges alone. They were in favour of the Viscountess. Your Lordships' House referred the case back to the committee for reconsideration and, by 22 votes to four, it voted against Lady Rhondda and its report was accepted by your Lordships' House.
There is another more helpful and more recent precedent. In 1957, the question arose whether the issue for a writ for libel against George Strauss, a well known

1403
Labour Member of the House of Commons, in relation to the contents of a letter written by him to a Minister, would be contempt of the House of Commons. That question involved the interpretation of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770. That question was referred by Her Majesty the Queen on an Address from the House of Commons to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833. That question was duly heard by seven Law Lords sitting in the Judicial Committee who gave their report. It was published as Command Paper 431 of 1958.
If the question that is now being considered has to be decided at all—I do not believe that it does—that is the way to do it. We therefore oppose the Motion, both on the ground that the issue is too clear for argument and on the ground that, in the circumstances, the Committee for Privileges is not the appropriate body to decide that question. We might have taken a different view on the Motion if it had been a Motion to refer the question to a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That would have been an appropriate body to hear such arguments as may be put forward but, as it is, we are referring a question that does not need to be asked to a committee that is unsuitable to decide it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I wonder whether, despite the charm and persuasiveness with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, moved his Motion, it is any more than another attempt to sabotage the Bill. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not to flinch—as we know, from the reform legislation that he has driven through the House, he is not a man for flinching—from saying categorically that if this Motion were passed, the whole of the Weatherill amendment would fall to the ground.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not speak because the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned my name. I have no interest in this to declare. As a member of the Privileges Committee I can say that it is non-political and that we always defer to the Law Lords. It makes wholly objective determinations, without any political interest or extraneous motives whatever. That has always been the case.
As for the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that this is a matter for the courts and not the Privileges Committee, the noble Lord, with respect, is totally mistaken. The courts, before enactment, could not entertain this matter, because of parliamentary privilege. It is only after enactment that they may do so.
On the reference, there are inevitably two related questions for determination: judicial determination of the highest order, akin to that of your Lordships' Appellate Committee, or by the Privy Council. The first question is the one dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. It is the question of legal construction as to the entitlement under the Writ of Summons.
The second question is whether, in context with that entitlement, Clause 7(2), as amended by Amendment No. 68A on Report, imports hybridity on to the face
1404
of the Bill by conferring disparity of treatment on the Weatherill hereditaries that is not afforded to the general class or category. That is the very situation that was sought to be avoided by resort to Standing Orders.
It is essentially a matter for judicial determination. Without the reasoned advice of the four Law Lords, one of whom always presides and to whom the lay members, such as myself—I have served on the committee for more than 15 years—always defer, I do not understand how your Lordships may resolve such questions on Third Reading. Should the Bill be amended and, if so, in what form, before it do pass? Indeed, should it pass? The question of the entitlement of the hereditary Peers to seek declaratory relief from the courts exists. Without the advice, can your Lordships have any assurance that the Bill is not defective?
I have no conclusion about the answer to either of those two questions. All I beg your Lordships to accept is that, in accordance with the advice of Treasury counsel, this is a matter that is worthy of investigation by the only forum that is suited, competent and appropriate to consider it. I support the Motion.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has explained very clearly the argument that he, or some leading counsel, would wish to address if this matter were duly referred to the Committee for Privileges. He has not told us about the appropriateness of the procedure that he has proposed. I am concerned that it is a wholly revolutionary procedure that would give rise to a dubious precedent if it is allowed. It might mean that every Bill would end up being construed before it was passed.
The curious thing about the noble and learned Lord's Motion is that he is seeking an interpretation of a Bill that has not yet been enacted and may not be enacted in its present form. Normally, as your Lordships know, if a Bill that might be passed would, on a certain construction, affect the rights of individuals, they wait until the Bill is passed and then seek a declaration from the appropriate court or tribunal about the proper construction of what is, by that time, an Act. So far as I am aware, nobody has ever sought a declaration as to the meaning of a Bill that may or may not be passed.
I wish to ask three questions, on which I hope that either the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, or perhaps as a bonus both of them, will enlighten us. First, if the Bill had been enacted and a hereditary Peer wished to say that it did not deprive him of his right to sit, would that be a matter which would go to court, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, or would it then be a matter for the Committee for Privileges as the right tribunal? That is important, because if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is correct, the Committee for Privileges might say that the Bill had meaning A—namely, that it did deprive people—but then, after the Bill had been passed, the matter might be challenged in the courts, which might come to a different conclusion.
Secondly, we know that a court will not normally decide a hypothetical point and certainly will not pronounce upon the construction of a Bill which may or

1405
may not be passed. I ask therefore whether there is any precedent in all our history for a reference to the Committee for Privileges to decide in advance what would be the effect of a Bill if it was enacted.
Thirdly, if the Motion is passed, does it oblige the Committee for Privileges to decide the matter, even if when the committee considers it it would think that because it was hypothetical it was inappropriate to answer it? Normally a court would say, "We will not answer your point because it is hypothetical". However, if this House has referred a matter to the Committee for Privileges, does the committee, as a committee of this House, have to answer it even if it does not think it is appropriate? I look forward to enlightenment on those three points.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, is not only a distinguished public servant, he is also—which I regard as a much greater honour—a good House man. As always, I have listened to him with interest, respect and pleasure. The noble and learned Lord is also a distinguished advocate. However, I believe he suffered today from the one fate which a distinguished advocate finds most difficult to handle: I believe that he has been inadequately briefed.
I have read the opinion to which the noble and learned Lord referred. It touches on many points which are clearly within the scope of my professional knowledge. I know many of the quotations upon which that opinion relies, but I do not read them as does the opinion. That of course is a fate with which all scholars are familiar. It happens to all of us. Quoting out of context is by definition what one's opponent does. So I record the fact only to indicate that there is ground for argument.
I have checked other quotations which appear to me to be material to the argument. Again, I find that I do not read them as does the opinion. Your Lordships may wonder why I have the temerity to challenge a distinguished legal opinion. Partly, because it is in areas where I believe that my opinion as an historian is as relevant as the opinion of a lawyer and partly because I have the comfort of knowing that I am in agreement with Her Majesty's judges. While it is not always the case that the law is what Her Majesty's judges say it is—if it were, the Appellate Committee of this House would be redundant—the opinion that the law is what Her Majesty's judges say it is is one which at least deserves a hearing.
In the case of Mr Anthony Wedgwood Benn, as he then was, the judges were faced with an argument similar to the one put by the noble and learned Lord—the distinction between the hereditary peerage and the Writ of Summons. Mr Benn relied extremely heavily on the claim that the Crown was entitled to refrain from issuing a Writ of Summons. Therefore, contrary to what the opinion says, the judgment of the court on that occasion that the Writ of Summons was an inescapable incident of the hereditary peerage was not, as the opinion suggests, obiter; it was directly on the matter of the case.
1406
In my opinion, for what it is worth, the wording of Clause 1 of the Bill is correct. Halsbury's Laws of England, states that,
"a hereditary peer of the United Kingdom is entitled to receive, in virtue of his peerage, a writ of summons to sit and vote in the House of Lords".
The gap between those words and the words of Clause 1 of the Bill is very narrow indeed. Before I sit down, I hope I may close it.
The noble and learned Lord relied heavily on the opinion of Lord Chancellor Cranworth. However, in the judgment of the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Birkenhead, which I read last night—I may say that a Liberal quoting F.E. Smith feels a little like the devil quoting scripture: but on this occasion F.E. Smith happened to be right:
"The doctrine that the King, having created a peer, cannot direct that he shall not be summoned to Parliament had become settled constitutional law in the course of the seventeenth century".
He also said, and this passage is worth reflection:
"It is easy to see what use George III could have made in the eighteenth century of a constitutional position in which the right to determine whether writs should issue to particular peers depended upon the Royal will and not upon hereditary descent".
Here is why I believe not merely that the opinion is mistaken but that it would be dangerous to refer it to the Committee for Privileges. It would open a can of worms which has been very securely closed ever since 1640. If, after that length of time, you open a can of worms, the smell is rather unpleasant. Moreover, that can of worms has been closed for a very good reason. As soon as we separate the Writ of Summons from the hereditary peerage, we open the way to the suggestion that the Crown has a discretion to give or withhold the Writ according to whether it likes a noble Lord's face. That is a doctrine which the Crown has attempted in the past to argue and has been defeated. It is very dangerous indeed to encourage the Crown to try again.
When we consider the reflections of Lord Birkenhead—the danger of allowing the Crown that power—the danger is no less if the Crown exercises that right on the advice of its Prime Minister. The one strength of the hereditary peerage is its independence. As soon as the Crown has a discretion to give or withhold a Writ of Summons, that independence is seriously threatened. That has been the position since 1640, when Charles I attempted to deny a Writ to Lord Mandeville. The Lord Admiral's secretary expressed great dismay. Two days later, Mandeville got his Writ. He then presented the Lord Admiral with five pounds of Bermuda oranges in the middle of the procession of the State Opening. I would love to know what happened to those oranges. I am sure the Lord Admiral did not have a Waitrose bag to put them in.
That was a political decision, and so indeed was the decision to send for Baldwin and not Curzon in 1923. Both of them have given rise to a practice which has remained unchanged ever since. I am not aware of any case since 1640 where the Crown has denied a Writ of Summons to a Peer suitably qualified; that is, not in certain well-defined categories of exception: a minor, an alien, a traitor, a felon or, until 1958, a woman. Those categories are laid down, or were laid down, in common law and statute. Parliament may change those categories

1407
in the exercise of its sovereign power. However, as soon as we say that the Writ of Summons, independent of the hereditary peerage, is the sole ground of membership, we open the door to a discretion which I believe is extremely dangerous to us all. That is why I hope that this case will not be referred to the Committee for Privileges; and I would not say that if I did not also believe that there is no case to answer.
4 p m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, rather uncharacteristically, your Lordships may feel, I shall not detain the House very long. I was provoked by the reference of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to a can of worms. During the course of the early debates at Committee stage of this Bill, the Government made it perfectly clear that they were wholly confident in their interpretation of the matter of the writ in Clauses 1 and 7. As I understand it, the Government Front Bench has, from that time to this, maintained its confidence that its interpretation is solid.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to a can of worms. I believe that this is precisely the point that your Lordships need to address this afternoon. I, mercifully, am no lawyer. I have no idea whether the arguments advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the arguments advanced by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew or the arguments advanced by any of the other distinguished lawyers on both sides of your Lordships' House this afternoon are accurate. However, what is perfectly clear to me is that during the course of the last few months a great deal of doubt has been cast, as my noble friend explained, on the Government's interpretation, of which they have told us they are so completely certain. I believe that that is the can of worms that your Lordships ought to be addressing this afternoon. It is a can of worms that has already been opened rather than the can of worms to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred which he fears will be opened.
If this Bill were to be passed without this matter being resolved, I believe that there will be a legacy of bitterness which would be extremely unfortunate to leave in the mouths of your Lordships if and when this Bill is finally passed. Therefore, from the point of view of good order and from the point of view of good government, it seems to me sensible that the can of worms that has been opened should either be closed or, if there is indeed a case to answer, that that case should be laid before your Lordships before the Bill is passed rather than afterwards. That seems to me to be the great merit of what my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has laid before your Lordships this afternoon.
For that reason, it is right, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has made clear, that we should find a tribunal which is made up of the highest judges in the land, in which those of us who are members of the Committee for Privileges are merely handmaidens. It is right that that body should be able to determine whether the can of worms has been opened or whether it remains closed, as is suggested by the Government. It
1408
is for that reason that my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has indeed performed a considerable service to your Lordships today in proposing this Motion.
The Government have made it clear that they still believe they are right in their interpretation of Clauses 1 and 7. If that is so, they should have nothing to fear. If it is not so, it is better that we should know it before the Bill is passed. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the legal case, I suggest that that is not a question for your Lordships this afternoon. The question is whether we want this matter to be settled once and for all, so that we can either address a fault in the Bill before the Bill is passed or dispose of an issue which turns out to be, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, a non-issue. I venture to suggest that your Lordships would be wise to refer that question to a committee of experts before the Bill is passed. We are fortunate indeed that a committee of experts exists in the form of the Law Lords who sit on the Committee for Privileges.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I would like to say a few words against this Motion. I am always impressed by the Conservative Party when it is in full operation. I have heard this afternoon from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that this is totally non-political. It is a highly objective analysis of a legal and difficult constitutional situation which deserves examination by the Committee for Privileges and in particular by the four Law Lords who will sit on it.
I am impressed by the number of your Lordships who have arrived this afternoon to engage in this objective examination of the issue. There is a large number of people beyond the Bar whose acquaintance shall be very pleased to make after this debate! Assuredly, I have not made their acquaintance to date, despite having been in the House for nine-and-a-half to 10 years. It is impressive to see such an array of people here, all concerned with the constitutionality of this Bill.
I make two points. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was devastating in his critique of this proposal, as indeed was the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. There is no precedent for it. It is clearly politically motivated. Whatever the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, may say, it is a transparent political device to attempt to delay the coming into operation of the Bill in respect of which we have now been engaged for a long time. If it is not, why on earth has it been left for so long? If this is a genuine attempt to obtain an opinion from four Law Lords in this rather extraordinary way, I am surprised that the issue has been raised at the last minute before the Bill receives its Third Reading. Transparently and obviously, it is a political device to delay the coming into operation of the Bill. I oppose it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the fact that something has not been done before as a reason for not doing it now is hardly a principle which applies to Labour government.
First, I believe that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with respect to the motives behind the tabling of this Motion today by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew are, frankly, misplaced and unfair. Those who have followed

1409
this debate from its outset at Committee stage, and through Report stage to today's Motion, will know that right from the very outset my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has sought to obtain from the Government clarification of the meaning of what are now Clauses 7(2) and 1—and has totally failed to do so. It should, therefore, come as no surprise to your Lordships that the Government are faced with this Motion today.
The Opposition believe that there are three areas of doubt about this Bill which deserve consideration by the Committee for Privileges. Incidentally, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that when the Committee for Privileges comes to consider this matter, it will be the views of the Law Lords alone which determine the interpretation of the Bill.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he accept that that was not the case in the Rhondda decision?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, whatever has been the case in the past, that is certainly the position that the Opposition both understand and abide by in relation to this matter.
There are three elements of doubt in relation to this Bill. The first applies to Clause 7(2). Clause 7(2) concerns the effect of Writs of Summons. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has pointed out, when your Lordships receive a Writ of Summons and obey it and return it, the Writ ceases to have effect; it is physically cancelled. From that moment on, your Lordships have a right to sit and vote in the House. How, therefore, can Clause 7(2) make Writs of Summons cease to have an effect when they have already ceased to have an effect, except in relation to those noble Lords who have received writs but not have not yet returned them? If that interpretation is correct, and I know not whether it is—
Earl Russell: My Lords, could it be that this Bill causes the Writ of Summons to cease to have effect in exactly the same way as an act of attainder has always caused a Writ of Summons to cease to have effect?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, surely the Labour Government would not be considering retrospective legislation!
If that interpretation of Clause 7(2) is correct, it is my submission that the Government would have to fall back on Clause 1. Clause 1 states that no one should be a Member of your Lordships' House by virtue of an hereditary peerage. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew so devastatingly pointed out, nobody is a Member of your Lordships' House by virtue of an hereditary peerage. Your Lordships are Members of this House only as a result of receiving, obeying and returning the Writ of Summons. Those are two of the three areas of doubt to which I referred.
I turn now to the final area, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Bethell. The Government have certified the Bill as conforming with the European
1410
Convention on Human Rights. Your Lordships do not have a vote in general elections; your Lordships have an arrangement whereby, in return for not voting in a general election, noble Lords in receipt of a Writ of Summons represent themselves in your Lordships' House. What is the position if, halfway through a Parliament, your Lordships cease to be allowed to represent yourselves in your Lordships' House?
For those years that remain, from the moment of secession until the next general election, your Lordships will neither represent yourselves in your Lordships' House nor will your Lordships have authorised the activities of those who might have represented your Lordships in the House of Commons had your Lordships had the vote which your Lordships have given up. I believe that this is also a perfectly proper matter to put before the Committee for Privileges.
When judges in our nation's courts consider legislation, which seeks to remove the rights or liberties of citizens, they are particularly careful to ensure that the intention of Parliament to do so is clearly set out on the face of the Act. This is pre-eminently a Bill which seeks to remove rights of certain citizens in our country; namely, your Lordships. However, the matter goes even further than that, because the rights that those of your Lordships who receive a Summons by virtue of being hereditary Peers have is not just an individual right; it is a right to be part, and to comprise part, of this nation's sovereign authority.
In my submission, it is quite unacceptable that an Act should go on to the statute book which throws doubt on exactly what the composition of the sovereign power of this country is. That is the doubt which will open up if this Bill becomes law without a clear interpretation from the Committee for Privileges of your Lordships' House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, perhaps I may be direct about the Motion before the House—
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order! Leader!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall start again. Perhaps I may be direct about the Motion that we are considering this afternoon. The Government—I say this with all due respect to the noble and learned Lord who was tasked with the role of moving the Motion—regard it as time consuming, potentially wasteful of public resources and irrelevant to the passage of the Bill. In other words, it is, frankly, both frivolous and irresponsible. Further, implicit in the Motion, underlying the arguments which have been advanced for it, is the extraordinary suggestion that Parliament may not be sovereign in the government of this country.
The full resources of the Cabinet Office have been unable to discover any case where the courts, or the Committee for Privileges, have been called upon to construe a Bill—a Bill currently before Parliament. That may, I hope, be helpful to the noble Viscount,

1411
Lord Bledisloe. Case law suggests that the courts would decline to consider a Bill if the matter were put to them; for example, the courts have said:
"It roust be for Parliament to lay down the procedures which are to be followed before a Bill can become an Act".
Why should there be one rule for the courts and another for the Committee for Privileges? In effect, the Motion seeks to obtain from the Law Lords in committee a decision that could not be obtained from the courts.
I am well aware of the authority of the Committee for Privileges and of the extent to which this House reserves to itself the right to determine questions relating to its membership and privileges. But, as far as I am aware, that has always been in the context of a decision of whether an individual who claims membership of the House or privileges as a Member of the House is, indeed, entitled to that membership, or those privileges, in the existing state of the law. Even the case of the Earl of Bristol, which we considered extensively in Committee when debating this point previously, added the rider to its ruling that a Peer could be excluded from the House if there was some judgment of Parliament or other legal judgment making him incapable of sitting. After all, if the law of peerage is judged immutable, then—I am happy to make a sexist point here—hereditary Peeresses would never have been enabled to sit in your Lordships' House.
Your Lordships know very well the power of precedent in this House. I would advise the House to be wary about the consequences for the future conduct of legislation if this device is accepted as proper in relation to this Bill. After all, the Committee for Privileges has, up until now, had no advisory role in relation to Bills; its function is to advise the House on matters concerning its privileges. Although this Motion asks about a privilege of hereditary Peers, it also seeks an opinion about a Bill. That is, properly, a matter for Parliament to debate, as it has already done and as those noble Lords who have been present for our extensive and—I would say—exhaustive debates on some of these subjects, will know. The Committee for Privileges is not the appropriate forum within Parliament to debate this issue and the Motion goes well beyond its established competence. I would ask your Lordships to consider this Question with the same: clarity as you would apply to any other Bill.
The Motion suggests that it is right for this House to invent a new step in the process of legislating—and that, I have to say, in the context of the self-interest of certain Members of this House. It suggests that it can ask the Law Lords to sit in judgment on a piece of legislation before Parliament has considered and finished its consideration. I find this a profound and disturbing proposal.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, said that he was only seeking to help the Government by clearing up a matter on which doubt had been cast. He said that his purpose was limited to this useful, indeed neutral, end. Of course, there are conventional parliamentary methods of bringing such questions to the attention of the House, of having
1412
them debated and decided. They are called amendments to a Bill—amendments to any Bill. There have been many amendments tabled to this Bill and many, many debates.
On this particular subject my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn have replied patiently and conclusively, both in Committee and on Report. I refer your Lordships to Hansard at cols. 166 to 172 and 281 to 282 on 27th April, and cols. 222 and 232 on 15th June. They are the most prominent examples.
I do not intend to repeat the detail of those expert, legal and parliamentary opinions this afternoon. But, suffice it to say, briefly and once again—and perhaps for the benefit of those noble Lords who have not been present to hear these arguments put on several occasions—Clause 1 of the Bill is the operative clause. The Government are certain that it is effective. It does not concern Writs of Summons because they are only the mechanism which enables a Peer to take his seat in this House. The crucial issue is who is entitled to receive a Writ. The entitlement for hereditary Peers depends on inheriting a peerage. In future, that entitlement will only cover the so-called! "excepted Weatherill Peers", and that limited entitlement will soon be ended.
The Government, of course, understand the obvious point that, today, hereditary Peers may be in possession of Writs of Summons to this Parliament who will not be Weatherill Peers; indeed, the vast majority will in fact be excluded. That is the point of the Bill. They will be excluded because, once the Bill becomes law, they will have no right to their Writs because their rights to membership of this House is membership by virtue of an hereditary peerage and that will be removed. Perhaps I may use a straightforward, everyday analogy, which is slightly different from the very interesting historical example cited by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If someone loses his citizenship, he will have no right to use a passport even though that passport may not have yet expired.
It is interesting and, in view of the comments of my noble friend Lord Richard, relevant to this debate that, although the Motion before the House today stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, it was originally tabled in the name of the shadow Lord Chancellor, the noble, Lord, Lord Kingsland. Therefore it is a little unclear who are the true authors of today's proceedings. Are we indeed seeing genuine concern from a distinguished Back-Bencher, or are we seeing a deliberate ploy by the Opposition Front Bench trying yet again to spin out proceedings on the Bill?
We know that the Official Opposition did indeed table an amendment to Clause 1 in Committee. Then they withdrew it without pressing it to a vote. They have never themselves attempted to amend what is presently Clause 7 to explore the issues which are now supposedly to be addressed. Clause 7 refers to Writs which have been issued, whether or not they have been responded to. Nor, having listened to the

1413
views expressed by the Government on several occasions in the debate on their Committee stage amendment, did the Opposition Front Bench return to the issue on Report, as, of course, they would have been entitled to do. Instead they have chosen to pursue this novel device. I have to say that I am sceptical about their reasons for doing so.
Perhaps we discover reality in all this when we consider the comments made outside your Lordships' House rather than—if I may say so—the rather pious expressions of assistance to the Government that we have heard in the Chamber this afternoon. I draw your Lordships' attention to a small column in The Times newspaper of Friday 9th July. It was written by a reporter who in my experience is usually accurately briefed about the Opposition's intentions in relation to this Bill. The article stated, in part,
"The move is ostensibly helpful to the Government because it would clarify a legal uncertainty in the Bill. But, in practice, it forms the latest stage of the Tories' qualified opposition to the measure".
The Daily Telegraph on 22nd July similarly stated that the move was intended,
"to delay the Government's plans to reform the House of Lords".
I have no doubt that those are more accurate descriptions than some of the professions of help we have heard.
As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, this takes us all into dangerous waters. The Government have no intention of delaying this Bill. Equally, we have no intention of disrupting the important business before us in the last three days before the Summer Recess by seeking immediately to move Third Reading simply to stymie this particular manoeuvre. I must say again to your Lordships, as I have said consistently since last October, that the Government believe that all the legislation before us—including now the important food standards agency Bill, which will have its Second Reading on Friday 30th July—is at least as important as House of Lords reform. I am delighted to say that 12 Bills will be presented for Royal Assent later today.
I restate the Government's intentions. I do this particularly for those noble Lords who are present in such numbers this afternoon but whom we rarely see when we consider other aspects of the Government's legislative programme. The Government intend the House of Lords Bill to reach the statute book before the end of the current Session. We shall move Third Reading in the spill-over Session which starts in October.
I also state what the consequences will be if the Opposition seek to obstruct that Third Reading. I am careful to say this in my most reticent and well modulated tones. I seek to avoid being unjustly accused—as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been—of bullying and threatening. I believe that last week the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, used the words "sulphur and brimstone". Therefore I say calmly, but definitely, that attempts to frustrate the Third Reading of the Bill by
1414
the Opposition will be seen by the Government as a clear breach of the understandings reached between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. For the candidate Weatherill Peers, all those hours spent last week discussing the method for their election may prove to be for nothing. All those election addresses, so despised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—who, sadly, is not present this afternoon—may well prove unnecessary.
In those circumstances—I say this simply for information—government Ministers in this House will advise our colleagues in another place to remove the new Clause 2 of the Bill. I must tell your Lordships that that will not be unpopular advice. Meanwhile we are faced this afternoon with this Motion which seeks to ask for an interpretation of a law which Parliament has yet to make; to challenge the basic constitutional arrangement that common law can always be overturned by statute—effectively, to challenge the sovereignty of Parliament. What your Lordships are being asked to agree to is unprecedented. It is frankly selfish and it is wasteful of public funds. Informed calculations of the legal costs alone are in excess of £100,000. I urge the House to show common sense, to be realistic and to reject the Motion.
But whatever happens, the Government will press on with our timetable for the House of Lords Bill. On this side of the House we become daily more certain that this is an essential, excellent Bill. It is long overdue and it will reach the statute book by the end of this Session.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I know that your Lordships wish to get on. I feel obliged to detain your Lordships only for a few minutes out of deference—if I can put it like that—to the speech that we have just heard from the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. I rather hope that it is a speech without precedent from a Leader of the House because I found it rather surprising to be charged with being a johnny-come-lately in this issue when, as I thought I had tried to explain, I had raised this issue at the earliest opportunity in Committee on 27th April. For the noble Baroness then to say that I did not come back to it on Report was frankly wrong. I have the Report stage here. I know how unpopular it is to quote—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I obviously was not clear in what I was saying. Of course I realise that the noble and learned Lord has been involved in this matter. However, many of his colleagues were not present. I said that the Opposition Front Bench amendment which was moved in Committee was not returned to on Report.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says. I am grateful for her interruption. The point is whether this is a device—as has been alleged by the noble Baroness and her predecessor as Leader of the House—to delay this Bill, not to say to sabotage it, or whether it has been

1415
from the outset expressed as a genuine attempt to secure clarity. As she has referred to the Report stage, I wish to point out that I stated, in relation to applying for a Writ,
"It is common ground that until one has gone through that procedure one cannot fulfil one's duty to attend, speak and vote in this House. If one cannot fulfil the duties of a Member of the House of Lords there must, surely, be a sensible argument, to put it no higher, that one is not a Member".—[Official Report, 15/6/99; cols. 218–219.]
I believe that the noble Baroness may perhaps have done her cause better justice had she not made those aspersions. In my case—I speak for no others—this represents a genuine attempt to attain clarity in legislation where, if the present uncertainty is maintained, it will fall to the private expense, risk and stress of individual noble Lords to put it right in their own instance. Why is this made necessary? Why is this forced upon us? I venture to say that it is done only out of the most extraordinary commitment to language which could perfectly easily be changed if the Government only replicated the language of their own manifesto.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that the members of the committee were to have an interest in this matter. I feel that that is hardly a becoming point. He said—seriously, I thought—that the matter should be left to the courts. I suppose that is an argument that one might expect a lawyer to advance. But how much better to get the matter cleared up now in time for Third Reading, which need not be held up, than to put on the statute book something which is uncertain. The rest of the argument makes it self.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that I was a charming saboteur. I hope that I have dealt with that point. This has nothing whatever to do, incidentally, with the Weatherill amendment. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, asked three questions. I think that the courts would be extremely unwilling at any stage to have anything to do with this. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said a few months ago in the Select Committee for Privileges, of which I have the honour to be a member, that the courts would do well to preserve a decent reticence in matters parliamentary and that it ought to be a reciprocal reticence. I believe that that is the answer. This is not a hypothetical question. I do not know whether or not the committee can refuse to deal with it. I hope that it would not.
I turn to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I thank him for the kind remarks that he made about me at the outset. I was waiting with increasing tension for the "However" clause—and in due course it came, in that familiar style which must make him such a fascinating lecturer and so fearsome and terrifying a tutor. Unfortunately—and very uncharacteristically—he proceeded upon a wrong premise. I am not arguing that there should be a discretion as to whether a member of the hereditary Peerage should be entitled to a Writ; I am arguing that until one actually applies for and answers a Writ, turns up here and goes through all the business, one is not entitled to be a
1416
Member of the House of Lords. That is the point. The question is really: what is the position of a Peer who does not answer?
The Motion has been described as frivolous, irresponsible, revolutionary, without precedent and so on. One bears all those epithets with as much philosophy as one can. Having listened with gratitude to everyone who has spoken, I put the issue in this way: if there may be a doubt as to what the clauses mean and what the Bill does, surely it is better to have that doubt allayed now. The time has come to seek the opinion of the House. I believe the matter should be referred to the Committee for Privileges.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 353; Not-Contents, 203.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Addison, V.

Burton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Buscombe, B.

Ailsa, M.

Butterworth, L.

Aldenham, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Aldington, L.

Byford, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cadman, L.

Ampthill, L.

Caithness, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Caldecote, V.

Annaly, L.

Calverley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Arlington, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carew, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Astor, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Attlee, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Chalfont, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Chesham, L.

Barber, L.

Chilver, L.

Barnard, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bathurst, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Bearsted, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L,

Beaverbrook, L.

Clinton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cobbold, L.

Bell, L.

Cockfield, L.

Bellwin, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belstead, L.

Coleridge, L.

Berners, B.

Colwyn, L.

Bethell, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Biddulph, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Biffen, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Birdwood, L.

Coventry, E.

Blackwell, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Blatch, B.

Cowley, E.

Boardman. L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Boston, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bowness, L.

Cranborne, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Braybrooke, L.

Crathorne, L.

Brentford, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Cross, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cunliffe, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Davidson, V.

Buchan, E.

De Freyne, L.

1417

De L'Isle, V.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Huntly, M.

Deedes, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Denbigh, E.

Ilchester, E.

Denham, L.

Inchcape, E.

Denman, L.

Inchyra, L.

Derwent, L.

Ironside, L.

Devonport, V.

Iveagh, E.

Digby, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Donegall, M.

Kelvedon, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Downshire, M.

Killanin, L.

Dulverton, L.

Kimball, L.

Dundee, E.

Kingsland, L.

Dundonald, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Dunleath, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Dunrossil, V.

Kintore, E.

Eccles, V.

Kitchener, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Knollys, V.

Elibank, L.

Knutsford, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Elles, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Elton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Erne, E.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Erroll, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Exmouth, V.

Lawrence, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Layton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Leathers, V.

Feldman, L.

Leigh, L.

Feversham, L.

Limerick, E.

Fisher, L.

Lindsay, E.

Fookes, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Forbes, L.

Listowel, E.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Long, V.

Forte, L.

Lucas, L.

Gage, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Gainford, L.

Luke, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Lytton, E.

Geddes, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Gisborough, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Glentoran, L.

McConnell, L.

Gormanston, V.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Grantley, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Gray, L.

McGowan, L.

Greenway, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Gretton, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Grey, E.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Halifax, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Hambro, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Hanham, B.

Manton, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Harlech, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

May, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Harrowby, E.

Merrivale, L.

Hawke, L.

Mersey, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Middleton, L.

Hayter, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Hemphill, L.

Milverton, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Higgins, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Hindlip, L.

Monson, L.

Hogg, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Holderness, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Hollenden, L.

Montrose, D.

HolmPatrick, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Home, E.

Morris, L.

Hooper, B.

Mountevans, L.

Howe, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

1418

Moyne, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Munster, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sandys, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Savile, L.

Napier of Magdãla, L.

Seccombe, B.

Naseby, L.

Selborne, E.

Nelson, E.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Selsdon, L.

Newall, L.

Sharples, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Norfolk, D.

Skelmersdale, L.

Norrie, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Northbrook, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Northesk, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Norton, L.

Stockton, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Strange, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Strathcarron, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Sudeley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Suffield, L.

Palmer, L.

Swansea, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Swinfen, L.

Patten, L.

Swinton, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Peel, E.

Tebbit, L.

Pender, L.

Teviot, L.

Phillimore, L.

Teynham, L.

Pike, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Torphichen, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Townshend, M.

Plumb, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Trenchard, V.

Polwarth, L.

Verulam, E.

Prentice, L.

Vivian, L.

Pym, L.

Waddington, L.

Quinton, L.

Waterford, M.

Radnor, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Weir, V.

Reay, L.

Westbury, L.

Rennell, L.

Wigram, L.

Renton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Willoughby de Eresby, B.

Romney, E.

Windlesham, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Woolton, E.

Rowallan, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Wynford, L.

Saatchi, L.

Yarborough, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Young, B.

St Davids, V.

Younger of Leckie, V.

St Germans, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Ahmed, L.

Borrie, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bragg, L.

Alli, L.

Brett, L.

Amos, B.

Bridges, L.

Annan, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brookman, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Avebury, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Bach, L.

Burlison, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Burns, L.

Barnett, L.

Carlisle, E.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Carrick, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Berkeley, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Blackstone, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Blease, L.

Christopher, L.

1419

Clancarty, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McNair, L.

Crawley, B.

McNally, L.

Croham, L.

Maddock, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

David, B.

Marsh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Methuen, L.

Dholakia, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dixon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Effingham, E.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Elder, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ezra, L.

Newby, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Geraint, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gilbert, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Puttnam, L.

Glanusk, L.

Quirk, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goodhart, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goudie, B.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grantchester, L.

Rennard, L.

Gregson, L.

Richard, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Hacking, L.

Rochester, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Haskel, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Serota, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sewel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hoyle, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Simon, V.

Hylton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Smith of Clifton, L.

Stallard, L.

Islwyn, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jacobs, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Tenby, V.

Jeger, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Thornton, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Thurlow, L.

Laming, L.

Thurso, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tope, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Tordoff, L.

Longford, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Uddin, B.

Ludford, B.

Varley, L.

1420

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Whitty, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Walpole, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Warner, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warnock, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Warwick of Undercliff, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Winston, L.

Weatherill, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Royal Assent
4.49 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance Act,

Disability Rights Commission Act,

Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act,

Company and Business Names (Chamber of Commerce, Etc) Act,

Commonwealth Development Corporation Act,

Football (Offences and Disorder) Act,

Access to Justice Act,

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act,

Pollution Prevention and Control Act,

Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Act,

Employment Relations Act,

Local Government Act.

House of Lords Bill: Treaty of Union
Lord Gray Lord Gray rose to move, That the Question whether the House of Lords Bill (as amended on Report) would, if enacted, breach the provisions of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland be referred to the Committee for Privileges.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the course of consideration of the House of Lords Bill, we have debated amendments that address the question of the continuing statutory representation of Scotland in this House. None was acceptable to the Government, who argued that the right to such representation was spent.
I will not revisit the details of those discussions, but will briefly explain why I seek referral to the Committee for Privileges. There is a wholly reasonable case to answer. I submit that the House of Lords Bill breaches a fundamental element of the Union bargain. (That it may also deny the rights of individual Peers of Scotland is a subsidiary issue). The fundamental principle is the right of Scotland to continue to have specific representation in this House guaranteed by statute.
Without provision for Scottish representation in the Parliament of Great Britain there would have been no Union: hence provision was written into the Acts for both this House and another place. The mechanics of implementation were dealt with in subsidiary legislation which was, in turn, deemed to be part of the treaty. From

1421
1707 until 1963 representation was derived directly from the treaty. Sixteen Peers of Scotland were elected for each Parliament by holders of Scottish peerages.
They received no Writ of Summons but took their places by right of election as Article XXII of the Act of Union required as being:
"the 16 Peers by whom Scotland is to be represented".
In 1963, on grounds that the House had greatly increased in size and the number of non-representative Peers was small—at that time it was 15: today it would be 25— Section 4 of the Peerage Act admitted all Peers of Scotland and relevant repeals ended the elections. The 1963 Act—this is critical—in no way undermined the principle implicit in the Union Acts. But the House of Lords Bill will do so. The Government are using the actual wording which enlarged Scottish representation in 1963 to eliminate individual Peers via Clause 1 of the Bill.
When amendments were debated mention was naturally made of Scots life Peers. At Report stage amendments were moved which called for a guaranteed minimum number of Scots life Peers resident in Scotland to continue the effect of the Acts of Union in the interim House. The Government were not persuaded to have such a guarantee on the face of the Bill. Faced with refusal to acknowledge Scotland's statutory right to representation, I have tabled this Motion.
The question is less a matter of which Act of Union provisions may or may not be specifically entrenched. It is rather the question as to what the architects of the Union intended should endure while the Union exists— the broad purpose approach as opposed to emphasis on actual words. Various passages of the 18th century legislation and their interplay indicate both permissiveness and permanence.
The Government case has been that Article XXII is spent, because it was repealed via legislative house-keeping after the passages relating to this House were superseded—but this is wholly irrelevant. The words are still there for us to read and interpret. Incidentally, Article XXII also dealt with representation of Scotland in another place. To argue that its repeal ended the right of representation in this House is to argue that it ended the statutory Scottish right to be represented by Members in the Commons, which is ridiculous.
I said earlier that without representation in the Westminster Parliament guaranteed by statute there would have been no Union. The negotiators were not thinking just about 1707, 1709 and 1710, but about an ongoing arrangement. At this stage of our constitutional settlement it is singularly important that we respect the Union and the Acts which created it, and singularly inappropriate that a fundamental provision should be swept away as a side-effect of the House of Lords Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Question whether the House of Lords Bill (as amended on Report) would, if enacted, breach the provisions of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland be referred to the Committee for Privileges.—(Lord Gray.)
4.57 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, to my mind, it is unthinkable that hereditary Peers of Scotland should be treated differently from all the other Peers who would be affected by this House of Lords Bill. But a very strange technical position arises, and I think that my noble friend Lord Gray is right to draw attention to the rather strange position, technically, of the Scottish Peers.
To my mind, that position is due to the fact that, although some provisions of the Act of Union have been repealed, especially the repeal resulting from the Peerage Act 1963, other provisions have not been repealed and which seem to indicate that the Scottish Peers have certain constitutional rights. I will not weary your Lordships with all the detail, but I think I should just make a brief reference to the articles concerned in what is technically called the Union with Scotland Act 1906. Article XXII was repealed, but not until the Statute Law Repeals Act 1993 got rid of it. Therefore, our minds are at ease on that matter.
As far as concerns Article XXIII, that was only partially repealed. The heading refers to the privileges of the 16 Peers of Scotland. Since the Peerages Act 1963, the number has not been limited to 16. Without troubling your Lordships with all the detail, Article XXIII of the 1706 Act preserves various privileges for Peers of Scotland. The two other relevant provisions are contained in paragraphs VI and VII of Article XXV of that Act. The sidenote reads:
"Recital of Acts of Parliament of Scotland for settling election of the 16 Peers and 45 Members for Scotland".
Very strangely, that has not been repealed. The last reference reads:
"The said Act declared valid as if it had been part of the said Articles of Union".
Again, that refers to the 16 Peers and 45 MPs to represent Scotland.
If the Committee for Privileges had not been required anyway to consider the Motion that has just been passed by a majority of your Lordships, I would have been reluctant to support my noble friend Lord Gray. But as that committee is to consider the matter, perhaps even during the Summer Recess when it will have plenty of time to do so, it is only right that it should consider the unusual position, technical though one may think it to be, of the Peers of Scotland under the Act of Union of 1706. For that reason, I support my noble friend. The Committee for Privileges may well reach the conclusion that there should be introduced into the House of Lords Bill a schedule to repeal those parts of the Act of Union to which I have referred.
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have discussed the issue of Scottish Peers and the interplay between the Bill to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordships' House and the Treaty and Act of Union. My noble friend Lord Renton has just explained that in 1963 some provisions of the Act of Union were repealed, but I believe I am right in saying that there can be no repeals of the provisions of the treaty since the two bodies which were party to that

1423
treaty no longer exist. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Gray said, whatever Parliament might have done in 1963, or may do today, the words of the treaty remain. Clearly, Article XXII makes clear the position of Scottish Peers.
One of the questions that must be asked is to what extent the words in the treaty were entrenched. In the treaty and the two Acts which followed it, one passed by the Scottish Parliament—the Union with England Act—and the other passed by the English Parliament— the Union with Scotland Act—some matters were certainly entrenched; some were clearly not entrenched; and on other matters there is silence on whether or not they are entrenched.
Previously, I quoted the judgment of Lord President Cooper in MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. I shall not recite all that I have quoted before because I do not believe that to be necessary. However, it is worth reminding noble Lords, and the Government Front Bench, of one sentence in the judgment of the Court of Session in 1953:
"Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provisions shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect".
The declaration in Article XIX setting up the Court of Session and the High Court of Judiciary states:
"That the Court of Session or Colledge of Justice do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom".
That is just a flavour of one of those areas where clearly something has been entrenched.
When we discussed this matter previously, the Government's case was that the provision for the 16 Scottish Peers was not entrenched. Interestingly, one can argue that the first part of Article XXII, which refers to the 16 Peers, is not related directly by non-entrenchment to the second part which is concerned with the method of election. Clearly, the method of election was not entrenched. One can argue that the first part dealing with the 16 Peers was entrenched.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who argued these matters so well at Committee and Report stages—I am glad that there is a measure of agreement from the Government Front Bench—pointed out that if the position of Scottish Peers had been entrenched, the 1963 Act would not have been possible. But the 1963 Act did not remove the right of Scottish Peers to sit here; it extended the right from 16 to whatever number then existed. There were not many more than 16 at that time, but the number was certainly greater than 16. Therefore, there was not a reduction, but an increase, in the number of Scottish Peers in your Lordships' House.
In this Bill we are faced not only with a reduction but the removal of that right in the Treaty of Union. There is no doubt that the Scottish Parliament would not have agreed to the Treaty of Union if the position of Scottish Peers in this House and of Members of Parliament in the other place had not been entrenched.
1424
There are lots of Scottish life Peers in your Lordships' House. No doubt whoever answers the debate will point out that there are more than enough of us—perhaps sometimes too many—but that is not a very good argument. A future government may simply allow the Scottish resident life Peers to wither on the vine and may have a second Chamber composed wholly of Peers from England and Wales. I do not suggest that that will happen, but it could.
In conclusion, the Treaty and Acts of Union are not dull old documents of interest only to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and a few other historians; they are the foundation stones of this kingdom and Parliament. We must ensure that we do not breach them. A powerful party in Scotland, represented in considerable numbers in Labour's Scottish Parliament, is determined not only to breach them, but to tear them up. We must not give those people any succour. They will not go away and will continue to be argued with.
We should put beyond doubt the impact of the present Bill on the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, because other matters; are to come before the Committee for Privileges, it seems right and proper that noble Lords should agree with my noble friend Lord Gray and ask that committee to look also at this matter and to reach a judgment so that we may all know that the Bill is entirely consistent with the important building block that makes up the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is correct when he says that this Bill kicks away the guaranteed representation of Scotland. However, I have a slightly different concern. There is no doubt that this Bill removes the special protection that was negotiated with such difficulty during the spring and summer of 1706 with the English Whig government—I say this perhaps with a degree of surprise—led by the Earl of Godolphin.
Earlier in our proceedings on this Bill I tabled an amendment which called for a replacement group—in fact the amendment called for 8 per cent of life Peers to be domiciled in Scotland. It was rejected by the Government. I can express my concern in a single question: how much more of the treaty can be violated before it folds? I can think of no more central part of the treaty than the representation. I suppose that my watchword should be "no legislation without guaranteed representation". I hope to hear that there will be new treaty negotiations in the light of the successful passage of the Bill.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long on the second Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. All that I have said in the previous debate about the dangerous precedent of the Motion moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, applies even more to this Motion. Indeed, I suggest that it is in itself an example of the dangers of establishing the idea that recourse to the

1425
Committee for Privileges during the passage of a Bill should be accepted as part of the consideration of a Bill—
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way and I apologise as the House wants to move on. The noble Baroness said that she had tried this argument out on the best minds of the Cabinet Office. That is a most impressive origin for this argument. But perhaps she might care to look at the argument again. After all, if I am right, she is implying that every Bill, no matter what its subject, would come within the remit of the Committee for Privileges if this precedent were followed. I thought that the remit of the Committee for Privileges was matters appertaining to Peerages in this House.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, although neither the noble Viscount nor I are lawyers, it is perfectly understandable to me—and I am sure that if it is understandable to me, it will be clear to him—that the role of the Committee for Privileges has heretofore been to consider individual claims of Peerage within the context of an existing law. The point relating to the present reference suggested by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is to establish the role of the Committee for Privileges in the legislative process and to consider a Bill, which, as 1 attempted to explain in my response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, is unprecedented. I do not believe that that is a matter which I need to refer again to the Cabinet Office. I shall ask it once more, but I believe that that is fairly well established.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that one of the problems relating to the second Motion is that it begins to follow a precedent while the result of the Division which achieved the first reference to the Committee for Privileges is still hot off the press. To that extent, it is in a sense even more inappropriate. To add the reference to the Scottish Peers and to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, in his comments on his Motion, cannot be easily added to the Committee for Privileges' consideration of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. She keeps saying that this is in character a total departure from anything that the Committee for Privileges has been invited to do in the past. But I draw her attention to the Companion, which says that:
"The Committee hears and makes recommendations upon any matter of privilege, or claim of peerage, referred to it by the House",
and on the preceding page, it states:
"The following are aspects of privilege of Parliament: Freedom from interference in going to, attending at and going away from Parliament".
1426
I can think of no more substantial interference with that than being told that you are shut out by an Act the validity of which you question.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry that I am evidently being extremely unclear in my point on that matter. All the points referred to by the noble and learned Lord relate to individual claims and not to a Bill, or, potentially, a statute passed by the sovereign Houses of Parliament. As I said in reference in my previous reply to the case of the noble Marquess, Lord Bristol, it was specifically stated in the ruling on that particular case that any interpretation of peerage law could be overcome by a statute of the sovereign Parliament. That is a simple point and it is one on which I rest. I do not believe that the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, about individual cases is relevant to that point.
I should like to continue with a number of points I have to make relating to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. The first point is that we have extensively debated the issues which he now seeks to refer to the committee, both in Committee and on Report. We have calculated that we have already spent some four and a half hours discussing the question of the rights of Scottish Peers in relation to your Lordships' House. I must say that, having listened with attention to the points made this afternoon both by the noble Lord and from the Opposition Front Bench, I have not heard novel points which were not considered during those debates.
That form of debate is, of course, the right and legitimate way of raising those issues, as I have already commented in relation to the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I am certainly not complaining about that. However, I should remind the House that we have not only exhaustively debated the question, but we have voted on it. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, moved one of his amendments to a Division. It began with the words,
"In order to continue the effect of Article XXII of the Treaty of Union".
Are we now to establish a situation by these types of Motion where noble Lords who dislike the decision of the House, whether in Committee, on Report or at another stage of the Bill, are to be permitted to seek an opinion of the Committee for Privileges in an attempt to overturn a decision by the House?
Secondly, the reference in the Motion is extremely broad. At least the Motion which we discussed before, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, had the advantage of being fairly specific about the question which the Committee for Privileges was to discuss. The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Gray, simply asks whether the Bill as a whole is compatible with the treaty as a whole.
I believe that that unwarrantedly stretches the jurisdiction for the Committee for Privileges. It asks the committee of this House to decide whether a proposed piece of legislation is compatible with a treaty. He may say—and indeed, he did so—that the point on which that turns is on the rights of a branch of the peerage,

1427
although my recollection from our earlier debates is that the noble Lord has been very insistent that the rights of the Scottish Peers to membership of your Lordships' House have always been statutory and not established by custom or common law. But that is not the question which he seeks to put to the committee. He is effectively seeking a ruling from the committee of this House that this Parliament is not sovereign.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has explained at length, and on several occasions during the four and a half hours in which we have debated these points, that the Government are entirely confident that the Bill does not breach the Treaty of Union, and certainly cannot breach the Acts of Union, as the relevant provisions of those two Acts of Parliament have been repealed. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said on 22nd June that he was persuaded that what the Government are doing in the Bill does not infringe the Treaty of Union. On that basis, he withdrew an amendment in his name and that of the Opposition Front Bench. I am interested that he has now changed his mind on the matter. I wonder whether that goes back to the points which I was making earlier about the intent behind the Motions which we have before us this afternoon.
If the noble Lord, Lord Gray, insists on pressing his Motion to a Division, I hope that on this second occasion your Lordships will see the sense of not burdening the Committee for Privileges with the matter and will not support the Motion.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, if I heard her correctly, she was saying that the treaty between England and Scotland in 1706 was a treaty between two countries, but not an Act of Parliament. But in the Union with Scotland Act of 1906 which I have obtained, as amended, from Volume 10 of Halsbury's Statutes, on constitutional law, we find that the treaty is embodied in that statute and is therefore still part of the law of the United Kingdom. We cannot escape that fact.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said when replying to the original points made, I am not a lawyer. I hear precisely what the noble Lord says. But I and the Government Front Bench are advised—it is a point we have made consistently throughout the nearly five hours of discussion on this issue throughout the stages of the Bill—that the relevant Acts and treaties are not inapplicable in relation to the Bill.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from my noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Renton, and for that: of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I am sorry that the accord that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and I established on Amendment No. 77 at Report stage has not carried over to my Motion.
As regards the length of time we have spent on the issue, it would be fair to say that much of that time has been taken with speeches on representation in other
1428
areas of the country which were way off the amendments being discussed at the time, although perfectly proper within the general context.
I believe that the Committee for Privileges will be perfectly able to understand the Question I put. When the time comes, it will be for someone else to argue the case. I need say no more today. I think that it would be best if I merely say that I commend the Motion to the House.
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 275; Not-Contents, 185.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Ailsa, M.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Adenham, L.

Clinton, L.

Aldington, L.

Cobbold, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Coleraine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Coleridge, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Colwyn, L.

Annaly, L.

Cope of Berkely, L.

Arlington, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Arran, E.

Courtown, E.

Ashboume, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Astor, V.

Cowley, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cranborne, V.

Attlee, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Crathome, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Barnard, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Bathurst, E.

Cross, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cunliffe, L.

Bell, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Berners, B.

De Freyne, L.

Biddulph, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Biffen, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Boardman, L.

Deedes, L.

Boston, L.

Denbigh, E.

Bowness, L.

Denham, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denman, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Derwent, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Digby, L.

Bridges, L.

Dilhome, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Donegall, M.

Bruntisfield, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Dulverton, L.

Buchan, E.

Dundee, E.

Burton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Buscombe, B.

Dunleath, L.

Butterworth, L.

Eccles, V.

Byford, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Cadman, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Caithness, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Caldecote, V.

Elles, B.

Calverley, L.

Elton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L,

Erroll, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Exmouth, V.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Falmouth, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Feldman, L.

Chesham, L.

Feversham, L.

Chilver, L.

Fisher, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Forbes, L.

1429

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Monson, L.

Gage, V.

Montrose, D.

Gainford, L.

Morris, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mountevans, L.

Geddes, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Glentoran, L.

Moynihan, L.

Grantley, L.

Munster, E.

Gray, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Greenway, L.

Napier of Magdala, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Naseby, L.

Hanham, B.

Nelson, E.

Hanningfield, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Harlech, L.

Newall, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Norfolk, D.

Harrowby, E.

Norrie, L.

Hawke, L.

Northbrook, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Northesk, E.

Hemphill, L.

Norton, L.

Henley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Higgins, L.

Nunbumholme, L.

Hogg, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Holdemess, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Hollenden, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hooper, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Howe, E.

Palmer, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Patten, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Huntly, M.

Peel, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Pender, L.

Inchcape, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Iveagh, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

James of Holland Park, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Polwarth, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Prentice, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Pym, L.

Kimball, L.

Radnor, E.

Kingsland, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Reay, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Rennell, L.

Kintore, E.

Renton, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Romney, E.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Rowallan, L.

Leathers, V.

Saint Albans, D.

Limerick, E.

St. Davids, V.

Lindsay, E.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Long, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandys, L.

Luke, L.

Savile, L.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lytton, E.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Selsdon, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sharpies, B.

McConnell, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McGowan, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Stevens of Ludgate. L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Strange, B.

Mancroft, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sudeley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Swansea, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Merrivale, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Tebbit, L.

Middleton, L.

Teviot, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Milverton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Torphichen, L.

1430

Townshend, M.

Westbury, L.

Trefgame, L. [Teller.]

Wigram, L.

Trenchard, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Verulam, E.

Willoughby de Eresby, B.

Vivian, L.

Windlesham, L.

Waddington, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Wynford, L.

Waterford, M.

Yarborough, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Young, B.

Weir, V.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ahmed, L.

Goudie, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Alli, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Amos, B.

Grantchester, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gregson, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Grenfell, L.

Avebury, L.

Hacking, L.

Bach, L.

Hamwee, B.

Barrett, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Haskel, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hayman, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hogg of Cumbenauld, L.

Blease, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Borne, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bragg, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brett, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brookman, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hylton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Burlison, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Burns, L.

Carlisle, E.

Islwyn, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Jacobs, L.

Christopher, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Clancarty, E.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Crawley, B.

Lockwood, B.

Croham, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Longford, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Coity, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Desai, L.

McNair, L.

Dholakia, L.

McNally, L.

Diamond, L.

Maddock, B.

Dixon, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Donoughue, L.

Marsh, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elder, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Methuen, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Ezra, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mishcon. L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gilbert, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Newby, L.

Glanusk, L.

Nicol, B.

Glenamara, L.

Ogmore, L.

Goodhart, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

1431

Peston, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Puttnam, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Quirk, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Tenby, V.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Rea, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Redssdale, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Thornton, B.

Rennard, L.

Thurlow, L.

Richard, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Rochester, L.

Tope, L.

Rodcers of Quarry Bank, L.

Tordoff, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Russell, E.

Uddin, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Varley, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Sandberg, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sawyer, L.

Walpole, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Warner, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Warwick of Undercliff, B.

Serota, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Sewel, L.

Weatherill, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Whitty, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Simon, V.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Political Parties: Funding
5.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home. Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the funding of political parties.
"We came into office committed to reform. Our three commitments were: first, to require large donations to political parties to be disclosed; secondly, to outlaw foreign funding of political parties; and, thirdly, to invite the Committee on Standards in Public Life to look into the wider question of the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom.
"The committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Neill of Bladen, was given this remit in November 1997 and reported in October 1998. The committee's review was comprehensive and authoritative.
"Because of the range of matters covered, it was not practicable to legislate in the current Session of Parliament, but I promised to publish a draft Bill before the Summer Recess. I am doing that today. The draft Bill is contained in a White Paper which provides the Government's overall response to the Neill committee's report. We intend to introduce the necessary legislation as soon as possible, taking full account of comments received by 15th October.
1432
"Let me now summarise the main points of the White Paper and draft Bill. The Bill takes forward the two specific manifesto commitments I referred to earlier. These were endorsed by the Neill committee. Donations to political parties of £5,000 or more at the national level, and of £1,000 or more at the local level, will have to be made public; and, it will be unlawful for a political party to receive donations from an individual who is not registered to vote in the United Kingdom, or from companies which are not incorporated in the European Union and carrying on business in the United Kingdom. Provision is also made for shareholder approval for donations.
"There has also long been concern over the amounts political parties are able to spend nationally at election times. The existing law, developed in the last century, already regulates very closely what can be spent by or on behalf of candidates at elections at constituency or ward level. But today a large part of the effort—and money—devoted to winning elections is spent by parties nationally and not on behalf of specific candidates.
"The Bill therefore provides for new national spending limits on election expenditure and agrees with the Neill committee that the limits should he set at a level substantially below the amounts spent by the two main parties in 1997.
"On this basis, Neill recommended a limit of £20 million for the main parties involved in a UK general election, with lower limits for parties which do not field full slates of candidates, and for other elections. The Bill therefore provides for new national spending limits. When the Bill is introduced, it will also contain provisions for regulating 'third-party' spending at the national level, as recommended by the committee.
"To enforce the restrictions on donations and expenditure, the draft Bill puts obligations on the parties at a local and national level to keep and submit accounts. This will apply particularly to the recording of donations. The scheme in the draft Bill which sets a de minimis level of £50 for internal reporting follows the Neill committee's recommendations.
"All political parties will wish to study these detailed provisions carefully over the forthcoming months. If the object in view can be served with some simplification or easement, the Government are open to suggestions.
"The White Paper contains a detailed chart in Annex 1 setting out each of the committee's recommendations and our response. The one recommendation we have not pursued is that income tax relief should be allowed on donations to political parties. The Government take the view that this would amount to state aid by another route, and would divert expenditure from other priorities.
"Some political donations are made not to a party as such but to groups within a party or individuals, including honourable Members of this House. We agree with the Neill committee that comparable requirements should be imposed in respect of such donations and we propose that the Bill as introduced

1433
should cover this. We would welcome views on whether the obligation to report such donations should fall on the party in question or on the person who receives them and/or whether such donations which at present are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests should be put on to a statutory basis.
"I turn now to referendums. The Neill committee made a number of suggestions for change in this area. The Government accept them all. It is important to ensure that the two sides in a referendum campaign have a fair opportunity to put their case. We therefore propose to include cash state support on an equal basis for the two umbrella campaign organisations, with free mailing and access to referendum broadcasts, as the committee suggested.
"The committee also made a set of recommendations concerning the position of the government of the day in a referendum campaign. As the committee indicates, a government are almost bound to be closely engaged in the subject matter of a referendum. There is, however, a point where the Government should step back and leave it to the political parties and other campaign groups to make their case to the electorate. The draft Bill therefore provides for a 28-day period running up to the referendum poll in which the government of the day will not issue material to the public on the subject matter of the referendum, and other rules similar to election purdah periods will apply.
"There is, however, one area where the Government have gone further than the Neill committee's recommendations. It would plainly be unfair and inconsistent with everything else proposed if referendum campaigns could be skewed by the injection of disproportionately large funds which happen to be at the disposal of a particular party or campaign group. We are therefore proposing to set limits on all organisations involved in referendum campaigns. In the draft Bill they are £5 million for the two designated 'umbrella' organisations and for political parties with two or more Members in this House, and £500,000 for other political parties and campaign organisations. These restrictions would run from shortly after the date when a Bill providing for a referendum is introduced in Parliament. Referendum organisations will also, as Neill recommended, be subject to the same requirements as political parties on foreign donations and so on.
"I have left until last one of the most important provisions of the draft Bill. The Neill committee recommended, as have many others, the establishment of an electoral commission. The Government agree. The commission's first function will be to oversee observance by political parties and others of the new regulatory regime. But I want to go further.
"The commission will therefore be charged with making recommendations on changes to electoral law and we also see the commission having, in the wider sense, an important role to play in 'voter education'.
1434
I want the commission to encourage people to vote in elections and referendums and to help to explain the democratic system in a wholly non-partisan way.
"The draft Bill also provides for the electoral commission to take over, at a later date, the functions of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions and of the Local Government Commission for England.
"It is of paramount importance that the electoral commission should be wholly independent of the government of the day. The draft Bill provides the strongest safeguards of this kind which our constitution can provide. The commissioners would be appointed by Her Majesty on an address from this House, and a Speaker's Committee would be established to oversee the commission's budget.
"The Neill committee's report rightly emphasises the vital contribution which political parties make to this country's democratic life.
"For too long public confidence in the political system has been undermined by the absence of clear, fair and open statutory controls on how political parties are funded. All of us here want to encourage citizens to play a full part in this country's political system and that must include encouragement of voluntary donations to political parties.
"The report of the Neill committee gives us all the chance to make significant improvements in this vital area of our national life. The publication today of the draft Bill and White Paper provide the detail of the Government's intentions. By providing honesty and openness to our political system, we hope to restore public trust and to promote greater confidence in our democracy".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. From the outset, perhaps I may say that we support the main thrust of the recommendations of the Neill committee, the White Paper and the proposed Bill.
We support the principle of state funding for referendums. I have had only a brief opportunity to see the White Paper. It was available to my colleagues in another place this morning, but I managed to see it only in the past half-hour. The key is: is the question posed in the referendum fair? I believe that the referendum commission should consider that issue also. Can the Minister say whether the referendum commission will look at the question to be asked in the referendum?
In the light of the proposal in the draft Bill, will the Minister give an undertaking that there will be no more referendums in this country until the Bill is in place? The Government should be neutral. The White Paper recommends that, but limits the requirement for such neutrality to a period of 28 days before a referendum. We feel that that is very short and gives an enormous advantage to the Government. I realise that that 28-day limit is taken from similar limits in elections. However, in the case of referendums, where there is a long

1435
build-up, we shall certainly want to consider that point carefully when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House.
We support the proposal of the creation of an electoral commission which will be charged with making recommendations on changes to electoral law. It is interesting that the Government supported all the main recommendations of the Neill report except one; that is, tax relief on donations. It is interesting to speculate on why that was not agreed, particularly when, by the Government's own admission, it would cost less than the amount that the Government currently spend on special advisers. There are twice as many as there have ever been before.
It is somewhat extraordinary that the unions can use money, which is given to them under favourable tax regimes, to fund the Labour Party, but that individuals who want to fund any other party will not he able to obtain tax relief.
I turn to another area of concern; namely, Northern Ireland, which I recognise is addressed in the White Paper. I note that citizens of the Republic will be able to make donations to political parties in Northern Ireland. That is intriguing. That makes them entirely separate from any other citizens. The Government are saying that foreign nationals—citizens of another country—should not be allowed to make donations to political parties, yet citizens of the Republic may be allowed to do so. There may or may not be good reasons for that. However, what worries us is what checks will be made. How will that work? Will Sinn Fein be considered as a political party? How will we know whether money which comes from the Republic is coming from the right place and what it is buying? What special provisions will be put in force?
We welcome the Government's views on blind trusts. I believe that this is a U-turn for the Government. Prior to the election, they used blind trusts in a way in which they had never been used before in this country. I do not seem to be able to find the relevant clause in the draft Bill. I understand that parliamentary counsel ran out of time. I am not sure whether they ran out of time or enthusiasm. Blind trusts were a pretty disgraceful way of giving secret funding to political parties. It would be interesting to know how many Ministers in this House benefited from funding from blind trusts.
As I have said, we support all the recommendations in this report. It is a pity that the Government do not support all the recommendations in the Neill report. We support the premise on which the Neill report is based; that is, that if you can vote in this country, you should be able to donate money to a political party.
We have concerns about whether the £50 limit above which donations have to be registered is too small, but that is a minor point that we shall discuss in the future.
The Conservative Party has been accused in the past about political donations, but there is one major difference between us and the Labour Party. We have never changed our policy or attempted to change government policy because of a £1 million donation from Bernie Ecclestone. We have never brought forward a commitment because of lobbying from the
1436
International Fund for Animal Welfare. We have never given positions in government to major donors to our party.
I welcome the Neill report and the fact that the Government have accepted almost all the recommendations. It is a pity that they have not accepted the others, but we look forward to dealing with the Bill carefully.
5.50 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, with those words from repenting sinners echoing in our ears we can look forward. I assure the Minister that we welcome the Government's response to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill. We particularly welcome the role given to the electoral commission. Democracy needs democrats to make it work. The Government's response is an active rather than a passive way of revitalising our democracy. After 20 years of slamming stable doors, the proposals allow Parliament, politicians and political parties to get ahead of the game.
Hitherto, state funding has been based on expediency or opportunism. I well remember that when the short money was introduced in 1974, a lot of the debate revolved around how money could be given to political parties without it getting into the hands of Mr Wedgwood Benn, who was then operating an unofficial opposition at Transport House. We have tinkered with allowances, increased expenses and increased Opposition support for parliamentary purposes. All of those measures were good in their way, but they were piecemeal and ad hoc. This response is more coherent and wide ranging, but it still refuses to bite the bullet of state funding for political parties.
Does the Minister agree that the £40 million fund-raising cap for the two main political parties still represents a substantial sum to be raised by voluntary means? Let us not forget that money will have to be raised against a background of limits on company and individual donations. The treatment given to companies and individuals by the media for their donations to political parties in recent months will not make it a popular exercise. If parties are forced to raise funds from private sources, they are forced into temptation Should not the electoral commission be charged in its review with looking at specific proposals for the state funding of political parties? We believe that that is the best way of cleaning up our democracy.
The income tax check-off is only one way of introducing state funding. There are many other systems, including matching funding and cash on the basis of votes in elections. Many countries have state funding and operate it perfectly well. It makes for a healthier democracy.
I should like to raise one or two specific points about the Statement. Clause 52 of the draft Bill refers to political activity by those on the electoral register. Does that imply that donations or political activity by those under 18 will be restricted? It would be a pity if people under 18 were not encouraged to give to political parties. I gave my first donation to a political party at the age of 16. It was not my last donation or my last political party, but that is another story.

1437
Is there sufficient recognition in the structure set out by the Minister of the devolved nature of British politics? A lot of the funding seems to go to the central London-based party machines. Is there a need to look at the nature of control over expenditure by individual candidates at constituency level? I have long believed that the provisions are too nit-picking and too open to genuine mistakes, and that the system could be simplified.
I welcome what the White Paper says about the control of party political broadcasts. It is very important that we retain party political broadcasts and that they remain under party control; otherwise, the door is open to the grotesque expenditure on television broadcasting that we see in other countries.
The activities of the Government's propaganda machine could usefully be referred to the electoral commission. Does the Minister agree that the Government's annual report comes very close to party political propaganda? I wonder whether it would benefit the electoral commission to look at government publications. Do the Government plan to publish an annual report in general election year? That would certainly be an abuse of public funds.
How do the Government intend to reflect the views of policy holders in insurance companies, who may use their vote to influence political donations by public companies in which they hold shares? Insurance companies have a responsibility to policy holders who do not wish their money to go to political parties.
Finally, why is there to be no cap on personal donations? Surely the Minister agrees that there comes a point at which an individual donation ceases to be public-spirited and becomes obscene. We shall be looking for a cap on individual donations.
Overall, it would be churlish not to say that the proposals are an imaginative and forward-looking response to the problem of sleaze that has bedevilled our politics for a decade or more. They will do much to restore public confidence in our political process.
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for their general welcome. The noble Viscount said that his party supported the main thrust of the proposals and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was very generous in his concluding remarks. He and his party are entitled to a good deal of the credit for the outcome. They have agitated for proposals such as those on electoral commissions for a long time. Being as objective as I can, I think that it is fair to say that we have given full effect to the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill.
The £40 million cap for the two main political parties is substantial, but election expenses are very high and if we want elections in a modern democracy to be educative as well as soliciting people's votes, the cap that we are considering is not out of kilter with what most large parties would recognise as legitimate expenditure for election purposes.
1438
I want to stress again what I said in repeating Jack Straw's Statement. We have put this out with a view to receiving comments by 15th October. I repeat again what was said in the Statement. Any suggestions consistent with the general thrust of the draft Bill we genuinely welcome. But I do not pretend that there may not be room for some improvement on detail.
Under-18s can still be members of political parties and therefore they could contribute. The maximum prohibition on them would be £50. For most under-18s—I say "most" in deference to the noble Lord, Lord McNally—that is a good deal more than they would want to contribute to a political party, even one such as New Labour which I am sure will have many children of 16 wanting to contribute perhaps £75 or more.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, said, rightly if I may say with respect to the quality of his report, that one has to look differently at Northern Ireland. The circumstances there are different. At the moment people genuinely fear that if they make donations and their identities are known, there may be dangerous consequences. In relation to Northern Ireland—we specifically dealt with this in Clause 63—parties will still need to report donations to the electoral commission, but the details will not be disclosed. That is because of the sad truth which we all recognised in our recent debates that Northern Ireland and its political arrangements are not the same as those that we are fortunate enough to have in England, Wales and Scotland.
The annual report is a reasonable document. For instance, the one produced this week concedes that, despite outward appearance, the Government have not been perfect on every occasion. It says what we have and have not achieved and that is part of the legitimate, educative process in which any government are entitled to indulge, as are any opposition.
The question of policy holders in insurance companies is rather remote. I do not see that, if one is a policy holder with, for instance, Norwich Union which has a portfolio of perhaps 500 different shares, adverse consequences would necessarily follow if one were not able to say to Norwich Union, "By the way, you must examine the accounts of every one of these 500 share companies and see whether or not they are making donations". The way to deal with this is the direct route; namely, shareholder approval of political donations.
I take the noble Lord's point about no cap on overall personal donations. I simply say that to some—I cannot put my finger on a name at the moment—a donation of £3 million is not of great significance, whereas a donation of £3,000 would be of considerably more significance if I were to make it.
Those were the points helpfully raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I turn to the points raised by the noble Viscount, with which I found it difficult to credit him. He said that blind trusts were always pretty disgraceful. How strange that is. The evidence that the

1439
Conservative Party gave to the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, on 27th February 1998 was,
"We believe there is an argument in favour of a form of blind trust. That should be examined by the committee".
Were those words "pretty disgraceful"? Perhaps I misheard. Then the noble Viscount, to my pleasure as well as surprise, raised the question of donations. He said that the Labour Party was given £ 1 million by Mr. Ecclestone. That is true. And it was returned. My noble friend Lord Sawyer wrote to the committee. He received the advice that return would be more suitable, more scrupulous, and the money was returned. I contrast that with the case of Mr Ma. Jack Straw wrote on 2Ist January 1998 to the Leader of the Conservative Party saying,
"Dear William, you have accepted that the Conservative Party received I million from Mr. C. K. Ma in 1994. Let me ask some questions. Why did Mr. Ma give the money? Who negotiated it? Was he promised that charges against Mr. Ma for drug trafficking would be dropped? Why is he now saying he wants his money back because expectations had not been met? Were you or your party aware of the Ma family's alleged links with drug trafficking? In the light of this information do you think it is appropriate for the Tory Party to keep this money? Would not the best outcome be for the Tory Party to donate the £1 million to anti-drug charities?".
It will not surprise anyone in this House that we are still waiting for any sort of substantive reply to those questions. But Jack Straw, being diligent, did not leave it there. He sent a letter which your Lordships will relish. It is dated 20th March 1998 and concludes with these prescient words:
"The Tory Party will continue to be dogged by the scandals and sleaze that characterised it in government".
It is true that PAL gave the Labour Party £1.1 million, which is public knowledge. It is true also, as I reminded your Lordships, that up until two or three years ago it gave a figure of around £170,000. The question is openness, reportability, accountability and an outside objective body such as the electoral commission. I repeat what Jack Straw said in his Statement: we have built in every possible, copper-bottomed constitutional guarantee of that body's independence. It is fair to say that we have produced an open, candid response to an extremely powerful authoritative report. The next time the noble Viscount raises complaints about the Labour Party—I do not blame him; there was not much to complain about—I shall have a few more bits of correspondence available.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he did not cover my question in relation to referendums. 1 would be grateful if he could quickly cover that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite right. It is my error for overlooking that. As always, a referendum Bill will need to be authorised by Parliament, and it is for Parliament to decide on the nature of the question. The noble Viscount asked a further question and I ought to have answered this as well. I apologise to him personally as well as to the House. The question concerned what would happen to referendums before this Bill came into effect. We do
1440
not envisage that there will be any referendums to be held before this Bill comes into effect. I can certainly say that if there was to be such a referendum, it would be only right in the discussions on that Bill to give full consideration to the sort of questions we have discussed briefly today and which are more fully discussed in the White Paper.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord's halo of innocence disappears, which came about during his last few remarks, can he say whether the Government have checked that the differentiation made between what the people in the south of Ireland can do and what other people in the European Union can do is in order according to European legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe it is. If I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Baroness and put a copy in the Library. It is well known that the relationships we have electorally with those who come from the Republic of Ireland have always been different from those in the rest of the European Union. That is relevant in response to her question.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend not only on repeating the Statement, which he had to do anyway, but also on his responses to the two Front-Benchers.
Perhaps I have this wrong, but is it right that donations which come from Ireland will still be allowed to be uncapped and be regarded purely as personal donations? If so, what justification is there for that situation? Having embarked upon a programme of ensuring that we have much more clarity and openness about the situation which has been hidden for years by the Conservative Party, why have that situation relating to Ireland? Money could still be filtered through rather furtively and to the disadvantage of our political system.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are dealing with a different relationship, first, between the Republic and the United Kingdom generally and also in particular in the context of Northern Ireland. No donations of any sort will be capped. The question of disclosability in the Northern Ireland context is that donations will have to be reported to the commission but will not then need to be published. At the moment people are genuinely fearful that, if their donations are attributable to them as individuals, they may be under justified fear of physical attack or other reprisals.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I speak as a member of the Neill committee, although I do not of course speak on behalf of the committee, except perhaps in one respect—which is to say how much all the members of the committee owe to the personal efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, which were crucial in achieving the success that the report has had. He is not here today, but I am very glad to see that two other members of the Committee are present.

1441
The Neill committee will of course consider the draft Bill and submit its comments to the Government. It would therefore be inappropriate for me today to say anything on the specific issues. However, I am delighted that the Government have accepted so much of the committee's report. The committee strongly believed that it was a matter of the greatest importance to encourage participation in politics by as many people as possible, and the Government have accepted that principle. At a time of concern about a small number of individuals giving very large donations, I wonder whether the Government also agree that it is more than ever important to do everything possible to get a larger proportion of funds from more small donations.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord on at least two bases. He has given me the opportunity, which I did not earlier have, to express everyone's gratitude for the work done by the committee. I absolutely agree with him that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, if I may say so without appearing patronising, is in a distinguished, long line of public servants—one thinks also of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, for instance—who have contributed an extraordinary amount to the quality of public life and to public discussion of these issues, which should be taken out of the political, partisan arena.
I very much look forward to the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has indicated will be forthcoming by 15th October, because I am sure that there is a useful continuing dialogue to be had. I agree with his proposition that it is welcome that individuals are personally involved, and that they personally demonstrate that commitment by what might be quite small donations—but which are important to the individual—as that is a significant part of a functioning democracy.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I very much welcome the White Paper and the Statement, and apologise if some of the points I raise are covered in the White Paper, but I have not had time to look at it. I was interested that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, did not refer to the question of provision being made for shareholder approval for donations when he said that he supported the recommendations, because in the evidence that the Conservative Party gave to the Neill committee it said that it was opposed to the idea of getting shareholder approval for making political donations. I very much look forward to that debate.
I should like to raise two specific points: one on referendums and one on the electoral commission. On referendums, I assume that the restrictions and criteria laid down in paragraphs 8 and 16, in relation to elections and donations, would also apply to referendums and that they would be overseen by the electoral commission. Little is said about local referendums, which will be on the increase, and I wonder whether the same restrictions would apply pro rata.
I have long been an advocate of an electoral commission and I especially welcome that section. It is crucial that there is an independent election watchdog.
1442
At the moment, we seem to have a mish-mash of responsibilities, with too many bodies and too much left to the vagaries of custom and practice, and to the courts if one can afford that. I especially welcome the reference to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission. There has always been a conflict, with the two things happening at different times and creating confusion. To try to co-ordinate those two functions is very important.
Last week, we had the recommendations of the Howarth committee. How will those proposals, for postal votes, electoral registration and so on, fit into the proposals before us, in relation to timing? Will the commission be responsible for overseeing the conduct of elections, not merely for considering electoral law and finances? At some point, is it envisaged that it will take on the registration of political parties?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's welcome. I share her view on shareholder approval. It has always struck me as a nonsense and, indeed, rather insulting to those who have shares in companies that their money could be disposed of without the necessity for shareholder approval.
The answers to my noble friend's central questions are to be found in Part VI of the draft Bill which follows on from page 85 of the White Paper. Clause 77 of the draft Bill describes a referendum as one held in the United Kingdom, in one or more of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or in any region in England specified in Schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. The reference to "a referendum" relates to any of that type of referendum.
The electoral commission will take on the function of the registration of political parties. It would be helpful to have submissions by 15th October and then to have a wide-ranging debate about how we see the functions of the electoral commission as it should develop in the future. My noble friend is right about the boundary commissions. Our general approach to that issue has always seemed to lack symmetry.
On the proposals by Mr Howarth's group, I am not in a position to anticipate what might be in the Queen's Speech. I can only repeat that in the context of this draft Bill we intend to treat it as a matter of importance. Jack Straw's Statement says, "We intend to get on with this as quickly as possible".
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Astor said, we welcome many points in the Statement. As an ex-treasurer of the Conservative Party, I can confirm that under no circumstances was policy affected by any donation.
I ask about the election expenses cap. When will elections expenses start? The annual report of the Labour Government is really an election address. Will that happen every year? The Minister said that the document was educative and that it was available to the Opposition, but it was taxpayers' money that produced it. What will be the position of expatriates of British extraction?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful again for the noble Lord's general welcome for the

1443
Statement. The requirement is that one should be registered to vote for a relevant election. The entitlement for registration—I speak from memory—is extensive and lasts for 20 years. An expatriate who is entitled to vote—who is registered on the appropriate register—is still entitled to contribute.
On election expenses for Westminster general elections, the limit on expenses will apply in the 365 days before the poll and, in terms of control of campaign expenditure, the noble Lord will find some definitions in Clause 64 of the draft Bill.
The point that I was seeking to make about the Government's annual report was that it is the Government's proper duty to hold themselves accountable to those whom they serve; namely, the public. I think that all governments have put out various documents at government—in other words, state—expense. I do not see any qualitative difference in what has been done under this Government from what was done under previous governments. I take the noble Lord's point that an Opposition, in trying to make their case, do not have state funding. I think that has been the case for the past 18 years. Occasionally perhaps one should bear such discrepancies with such fortitude as one can presently muster.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Lord enlighten me on two points? First, did I understand him to say that the last question in a referendum would be with the Government? If so, that would be bad. I understand that in some of the Quebecois referendums, the question actually put was, "Do you want to be rich and famous and independent in Canada?", which is not a good basis.
My second question concerns American money coming into Northern Ireland. What is the situation when large gifts come in? Are they disclosed, forbidden or welcome?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not say that the wording of the referendum question would be a matter for the Government. I said, I believe carefully, that every referendum would still need to be authorised by an Act of Parliament. Therefore the question to be asked in the referendum is a matter for Parliament to decide and not the Government.
I agree that the question put to me by the noble Lord on the lines of, "Do you want to be rich and famous and possibly marry Marilyn Monroe?", is likely to secure a majority rather larger than that in favour of a Welsh Assembly. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord about the question of Northern Ireland. I do not have the answer immediately to hand. As always, I shall put a copy of my response in the Library. I shall do that tomorrow.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a member of the committee. It gives me great pleasure to welcome my noble friend's Statement. I have not always been able to agree with everything he has said in the past, but I welcome the Government's response to the report.
1444
The referendum procedure, in spite of some of the criticisms that have been made, certainly deserves very close study. However, I am sure my noble friend will agree that a much fairer procedure is now being recommended than that which we had to endure more than 20 years ago in the 1975 referendum. The government then took an active pad, right clown to polling day, but pretended that they were an independent factor in the voting procedure. There was a "Yes" campaign, a "No" campaign and a "Government Yes" campaign. That is now being eliminated, I believe to the benefit of and much greater fairness in future referendums.
I have one minor question. Some of the recommendations will discourage large donations. They will not be as forthcoming because people do not always wish to declare them. Therefore, it is important to encourage small contributors to political parties. Have the Government accepted the recommendation that the first £500 of a donation should be tax free?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords, we did not accept that recommendation because we thought that that would be state funding under another guise. I believe I repeat the phrase accurately when I say that we have other priorities in that context. I do of course appreciate the argument. However, I believe that sometimes it can be taken too far, as in the context of the United States, where the availability of tax relief can quite significantly distort the political process. I say that as a personal observation and not as a governmental criticism of what is done in the United States.
The fact that we have accepted virtually everything in the report is a tribute to the quality of the work done on it. The arguments and the marshalling of them were so compelling that it was only reasonable to accept them. It is also fair to take a modest degree of criticism—not the halo effect. I think that the noble Baroness has left the Chamber. She thought that my halo had diminished. It is still there. It is a tribute to the Government that we said we wanted to improve the quality of political life in this country and that we were not looking at the matter on the basis of party political advantage. That is the theme of the Statement. The referendum procedure needed to be looked at. Recently we have had more referendums of great constitutional importance, and we were extremely grateful for the recommendations which were brought forward and which we have accepted.
Lord Monson: My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, which was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will the Minister assure the House that no individual or group in the Republic of Ireland will be allowed to fund political parties in the north of Ireland if the Republic's territorial claim on the north has not been formally renounced by the time that the proposed Bill becomes law?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is significantly outside the ambit of the White Paper and draft Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who has a keen interest in these matters, knows what has

1445
happened so far in the Republic of Ireland. I do not believe that he and I could have had this discussion 10 years ago about the surrender of the constitutional claim of the Republic. We should all be extremely supportive of those in the Republic who are modernising their constitution and, much more important, modernising their ways of political thought in an extremely flexible way. They deserve every credit and I believe that those in other parts of the United Kingdom might learn the lesson of flexibility and open-mindedness which our colleagues in the Republic sometimes offer us.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, what will be position of large donations coming from within continental Europe where organisations will be keen to support both referendums and elections with regard to one party or another in the European Union?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I appreciate that there was a good deal of detail in the Statement. The position is that if a company is incorporated in the European Union and trading within this jurisdiction, it will be able to make donations. Those are the dual limits. If the noble Viscount or anyone else feels that an earlier sight of the White Paper would be helpful on similar occasions in the future—sometimes it happens and sometimes it does not—they have only to get in touch with my office and I will do my best to meet their requests.

Greater London Authority Bill
6.27 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 DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Turner of Camden) in the Chair.]
Clause 264 [The spatial development strategy]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 369A:
Page 141, line 27, leave out ("must") and insert ("may")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 369A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 396B and 420A standing in my name and that of my noble friends. Grouped with the amendments is Amendment No. 424, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will no doubt speak.
Clause 264(7) provides that the spatial development strategy must contain diagrams and so on,
"as may be prescribed by regulations under section 274".
Our amendments aim to give the mayor some discretion or, one might say, flexibility, with regard to the presentation of the spatial development strategy. The amendments do not at this point seek to deal with the content but seek to allow him or her to present the strategy as he or she wishes, rather than having to comply with regulations as regards the detail of presentation. I have to say that it is very likely that a spatial development strategy would contain diagrams or some other form of illustration, in the narrow sense of illustrating a policy or a strategy, and clearly would have to include some descriptive or explanatory matter. However, I believe that it is for the mayor—and that is the point of the "may" rather than the "must"—to determine how the strategy is presented.
Clause 274 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about the form and the content of the spatial development strategy. Amendment No. 420A is designed to delete the reference to "content" in those regulations. Having read the debate in another place, I am not entirely sure what "content" means in this context. Clause 274(1) is expressly without prejudice to any other provisions of this part. That seems to be very sweeping and appears to allow the Secretary of State to override primary legislation as to content, which I hope is not the intention. Even if that is not so, it seems to me that it must be a matter for the mayor to determine, within the provisions of the Act, what the content of the spatial development strategy should be.
In another place the Minister in the debate on Clause 274 said that this was in line with the procedures and publicity for structure plans and argued in support of the provision as drafted on that basis. I believe that a reference to "content" takes the matter much further than that. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 424 is grouped with these amendments. It raises a somewhat separate point. Clause 274 deals with regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State regulating the form and content of and the background to the spatial development strategy. Apart from the principle of the matter, which follows from what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said, I have no difficulty at all about the Secretary of State regulating to determine what form the spatial development strategy should take. That seems to me to be perfectly straightforward, even if I do not like it.
Clause 274(2) states:
"Regulations under this Part may make different provision for different pans of Greater London".
I have some difficulty in understanding what different provision for different parts of London has to do with the form and content of the strategy, which is to cover the whole of London. That is why I have put down this amendment, which is in essence a probing amendment, suggesting that the Bill could perfectly well do without Clause 274(2). I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. I feel

1447
that this, in terms of a strategic Bill, is much too detailed to specify how the mayor is to present the strategy. Indeed, it might even be regarded as fairly old-fashioned in the sense that, with advances in technology, one could have a strategy which is entirely on line and which deals with a virtual reality presentation of the strategy, with no diagrams, illustrations or other descriptive or explanatory material. It might be entirely visual.
Perhaps the Minister could also tell me whether, if it specifies that it must contain diagrams, illustrations and so on, it states anywhere that it must contain any words.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I often feel that the proceedings of this House could be greatly enhanced were we to have illustrations rather than words!
I deal first with the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We do not say in response that we do not propose to prescribe in great and precise detail the type of diagram and explanatory material to be included in the spatial plan. We do, however, believe that it is important that there should be a measure of consistency with other parts of the planning system. This applies in particular to the inclusion in the SDS of a key diagram, along the lines that we expect to be included in structure plans and in the new form of regional planning guidance. That is the reference that the noble Baroness made to the explanation given in another place.
This is required and it is particularly important because in London we have the UDPs which provide the development plan for London boroughs, which need to be in general conformity with the SDS. A similar provision can be found in existing planning law in relation to the Secretary of State's ability to prescribe the content of development plans. I hope, therefore, that it explains the reference to diagrams and explanatory material, which will doubtless contain the odd word.
I turn to Amendment No. 420A. This amendment, taken literally, would prevent the Secretary of State from saying anything about the content of the SDS. I need to make it clear that we do not intend to prescribe here what policies the mayor should follow but only the general matters that should be addressed.
We believe that it is important to set out in very broad terms the scope of the SDS. This is necessary because of the important place that it will occupy in the totality of the planning system in London and for consistency with the system that exists in the rest of the country.
To take one example, the SDS must say something about the provision of land for housing in London. Noble Lords will be aware that at present a fair amount of debate is taking place about providing for the increased numbers of households that are projected in the south-east. It is conceivable, though I accept unlikely, that a future mayor may find it expedient not to deal with the issue of housing land within the SDS. That would not be a satisfactory state of affairs either for the boroughs or for the south-east as a whole.
Equally, the setting out of the broad scope of the SDS will be an important matter of defining more clearly what kind of animal it is. We have previously discussed the fact that this is a new type of planning instrument.
1448
Some noble Lords opposite have sought more: detail on what it means. We have had other Opposition amendments which have sought to prescribe on the face of the Bill that the SDS should address such issues; as land requirements for transport, protection of the green belt and regeneration of brownfield sites. I said during those debates that I did not believe that it was sensible to put those on the face of the Bill. However, they are examples of the kind of areas that would sensibly be covered in secondary legislation and would therefore help to define the scope of the SDS.
In relation to Amendment No. 424 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, this proposes the removal of the subsection which allows the Secretary of State to make different provision in regulations for different parts of London. It is linked to the provision in Clause 264(8) which allows the mayor's SDS to make different provision for different parts of London, on which we have already had some debate.
If I may repeat the arguments that took place at that time, the provision is necessary in the event that the Secretary of State in regulations wanted to specify that the mayor should in the SDS address strategic problems of a particular area of London. In response to an earlier amendment from my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I used the example of the River Thames, where we currently have a regional planning guidance in force that is produced by the Secretary of State. When we discussed the question of the Thames in the context of Part II of the Bill, there was consensus that the mayor should seek to continue to replicate specific strategic planning guidance for the Thames and the banks of the Thames. This clause would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe matters such as this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, addressing the first amendment in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith, indicated that she believed that the power to prescribe content went beyond the equivalent position in similar provisions for structure plans. That is not in fact so. Section 53 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides:
"Without prejudice to the previous provisions of this Chapter, the Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the form and content of structure and local plans".
It is therefore almost exactly the equivalent power that we are providing for the mayor in London.
I therefore think that this clause reflects the need for consistency both in London and between the London arrangements and those which apply in the rest of the country. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that response. I think that the last point he made on Amendment No. 420, and my reference to the section being without prejudice to the other provisions of the Act, was helpful. I shall check the reference in the other legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 369B to 372A not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 372B:
Page 141, line 31, at end insert—
("() In preparing the spatial development strategy, the Mayor shall consult and have regard to the views of the London and the South East Regional Planning Conference (SERPLAN) and its successor bodies.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would add to Clause 264 an obligation for the mayor to consult SERPLAN (the South East Regional Planning Conference), or any "successor body" to it, in the preparation of the spatial development strategy. We have spoken a little in the debates on this Bill—my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and I said a good deal more during the proceedings on the legislation for the regional development agencies—about the importance of the area's relationship with its surrounding areas; or, as my noble friend described it, its hinterland.
I am sure that it is entirely obvious to all Members of the Committee that London has a very close and, in some ways, tense relationship with its hinterland. Issues relating to transport provide one example. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would remind us of the matter of waste, coming as he does from Essex. Issues of employment also arise. As regards transport, I have in mind the apparently inexorable radial effect, one might say, that London seems almost to be something of a centrifugal force. I know that people in areas around London would prefer more emphasis to be placed on orbital movement.
It is important that there should be a direct dialogue. It should not be left to the Secretary of State to make assumptions about the views of either area and act as a sort of middle-man in passing on messages from one to the other, as to nature of their concerns. In another place, when responding to a similar amendment, the Minister said that it would be inappropriate to refer to SERPLAN because it is not a statutory body. This amendment builds a little on the one that my honourable friends tabled in another place, by adding a reference to "successor bodies". The Minister also said:
"Alternative arrangements may emerge to ensure proper co-ordination between the mayor in London and the areas outside … in secondary legislation".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee A, 18/3/99; col. 1379.]
I take the opportunity of moving this amendment to ask the Minister whether the Government have made any progress in dealing with any such alternative amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Although I can appreciate the thinking behind Amendment No. 372B, I am afraid that we cannot accept it for a number of reasons. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to create a formal requirement in primary legislation to consult SERPLAN, because, as the noble Baroness recognises, we have already said that it is not a statutory body. It is a group of local authorities and one which may in due course be subject to some rearrangement in the light of new developments, such as the setting up of RDAs. If so, we hope and expect that new arrangements would be devised to ensure the proper co-ordination of
1450
planning across the broader South East, but it is not yet clear—this answers some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness—what those might be.
In the mean time, Clause 265 requires the mayor to consult councils in areas adjoining London on his or her SDS proposals. Clause 274 enables the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations additional consultees, which might include any existing or new body that may be set up to co-ordinate regional planning in the South East.
Given those uncertainties, we feel that it is better to deal with such matters in secondary legislation, although I must stress that it seems inconceivable that the mayor would not in any case wish to do what this amendment seeks to prescribe. In short, this amendment is pushing at an open door. We shall see what can be done to reflect its intent in secondary legislation. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: This seems to be another example where, if it is "inconceivable" that the mayor would not do something, we should not try to spell it out on the face of the Bill. There seems to me to be an awful lot in the legislation that the mayor could not conceivably avoid doing.
However, although Clause 265(3)(c) refers to consultation by way of councils outside London, that relates only to councils for areas which adjoin Greater London. My concern is much wider. When one is looking strategically, one has to take a much broader approach. I should certainly welcome a relationship between the "chambers" supporting regional development agencies and any regional assembly, rather than the RDAs themselves. As the Minister knows, I do not believe that the RDAs should take a leading part in setting planning policy.
Nevertheless, as the Government have said both here and in another place that they are looking at the particular arrangements which might be put in place, perhaps the Minister could write to me between now and the next stage, sending a copy of the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, with regard to what provisions will be put in place through regulations. The noble Baroness nods her head in assent, so she need not reply in order to put that on the record. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 372C:
Page 141, line 31, at end insert—
("() The spatial development strategy shall include a strategic environmental appraisal of its policies and proposals.")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this amendment, which is tabled in the names of my noble friends. The amendment seeks to ensure that the SDS,
"shall include a strategic environmental appraisal of its policies and proposals".

1451
It is possible that the Government currently feel that the state of the environment report will adequately cover the effect that the SDS would have on the environment. However, we certainly do not believe this to be the case. I think that it has become more widely recognised in recent years that it is important to have environmental appraisals that, in current jargon, ensure an iterative process. As one is bringing in long-term plans, it is important that there should be a very specific requirement as regards what their environmental impact will be. That is very different from the state of the environment report; indeed, I believe that the two functions differ widely.
The SDS will be concerned with many issues, such as the impact on economic development and how it will feel to live and work in the city. However, that does not automatically mean that the sort of things that an environmental impact scheme assessment would take into account would be covered, unless there is a specific requirement for such an assessment to take place. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has obviously had a very similar thought. The large schemes developed in recent times, for which there has been a requirement for an environmental impact assessment, have allowed people to take a different view of what the planning system as a whole is supposed to achieve.
I hope that it will not be felt that the state of the environment report will fulfil this function, because it most certainly will not. Without this amendment, I feel that the environmental appraisal part of the policy and the proposals will be totally lacking. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It appears that there is an element here of dotting "i"s that have been heavily dotted and crossing "t"s that have been heavily crossed. I should have thought that all this is subsumed in what is already provided for in the Bill. I assume therefore that what is proposed is otiose. If I am wrong about that my noble friend will, of course, correct me.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendments Nos. 380 and 381A which stand in my name are grouped with Amendment No. 372C. It remains to be seen whether they are otiose. In any event that is a matter of opinion. However, what is certain is that however perfect the Bill may be by the time this Chamber has finished with it, it will still not be perfect. That may also be a matter of opinion. I do not intend to repeat what has been said because the two amendments I have mentioned which stand in my name are aimed at precisely the same point as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has proposed.
However, there are two points which are worth making. First, in Standing Committee in the Commons the Government said that they expected the mayor to carry out a full appraisal of the environmental impact of the spatial development strategy. However, for the life of me I cannot see why we should be afraid of spelling that out on the face of the Bill. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us on the matter.
Secondly, the Government have also proposed introducing environmental appraisal into regional planning guidance. Those are two strong reasons for
1452
supporting the suggestion that has been made. I do not know which amendment is superior or whether any of them are adequate for the purpose that is intended. However, I would be happy to be guided by the Minister if he can produce a better formulation. I await his reply with interest.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, talked about dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s. However, it has to be said that this is a fairly dotty Bill already. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in arguing for these amendments or something similar, mentioned the Government's proposals on sustainability appraisals. The Minister in another place argued that the Government could not be specific about a sustainability appraisal because as yet,
"there is no national guidance on what such an appraisal might comprise or on how it should be conducted".
That seems to me to be remarkably unambitious for London. As and when national guidance is in place the mayor will no doubt have to have regard to it. However, I believe that that should not hinder the substance of what happens in London.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendments Nos. 372C, 380 and 381A would require an environmental appraisal of the policies and proposals of the spatial development strategy during its preparation.
It is the Government's intention that the mayor should carry out a full appraisal of the environmental impacts of the emerging SDS, as was recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this would form only one element within a wider sustainability appraisal which also considered the economic and social impacts of the policies and proposals of the SDS. I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this is in line with the approach now proposed for the new forms of regional planning guidance as set out in draft Planning Policy Guidance Note 11 published for consultation a few months ago.
Consultants have recently reported to the department on the feasibility of carrying out a sustainability appraisal in this context and how it might be undertaken. We intend to embrace the findings of this emerging work in our guidance to the mayor on the SDS on which we shall consult later this year.
This is a new and emerging concept and one which we therefore feel is not best dealt with on the face of the Bill. We believe that the appropriate way forward would be to make reference to the need for a sustainability appraisal—which includes an assessment of environmental impacts—in non-statutory guidance on the SDS. This would allow the guidance to be revised and refined as we develop this new method of assessment. I hope that these assurances will enable noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that the Government appear to have recognised that this is an important area of emerging work and that consultants are assessing the feasibility of carrying out a sustainability appraisal and

1453
how it might be undertaken. I shall read her comments with care. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 264 agreed to.
Clause 265 [Public participation]:
[Amendment No. 373 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 373A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 374 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 375:
Page 141, line 35, leave out ("and")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 375 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 376 and 377 which are grouped with it and which also stand in my name.
The current text of the Bill obliges the mayor to consult the assembly and the functional bodies on the first draft of the spatial development strategy. That is absolutely fine. The amendment extends this initial consultation. We believe that the mayor should consult the London boroughs and the relevant representative bodies at that stage. The Association of London Government is concerned that the boroughs are included only in the second stage of the process and yet the boroughs will be vital to the spatial development strategy. Although in some ways it will form a new dimension for London, it will also comprise their unitary development plans. The amendment seeks to involve the boroughs and the functional bodies at the first stage. One thus would stand a greater chance of bringing all these plans together in a unified way at the earliest possible moment. This should not impose any delay. The boroughs and other consultees can be subject to exactly the same time limits as the assembly. Therefore no problem should arise in that regard.
The Minister responsible for London recognised in the Commons that any sensible mayor is likely to consult the boroughs and others from the outset. Once again I suspect that there is no disagreement between us on this matter, except that we believe that it would be useful to have this provision on the face of the Bill. I have an awful suspicion that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong in that respect. However, that is fairly normal. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 377A which stands in my name is grouped with the amendments we are discussing. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said as my amendment makes the same point in part. I propose that the bodies and persons who are listed in Clause 27(2) of the Bill should be consulted at this stage. The spatial development strategy is excluded in the early part of the Bill under Clause 33 because of the rather different approach to consultation and some other matters. The spatial development strategy will be the poorer if the mayor is not allowed to consult and to learn from the experience of the boroughs in the preparation of development plans. The
1454
mayor should set a good example by drawing people into the process of building planning—not least in order to avoid at a later stage too many questions along the lines of, "How on earth did that happen?". We would like to see on the face of the Bill a greater provision for consultation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The arrangements set out in Clause 265 are intended to provide clear and open consultation arrangements consistent with the requirements of the planning system and with the objective of avoiding over-lengthy and complex procedures.
Amendments Nos. 375, 376, 377 and 377A would have the effect of requiring the mayor to carry out two full and separate consultation exercises by requiring consultation with the boroughs and other external interests at the same time as an initial draft SDS is put to the assembly and functional bodies. These added consultations would be in advance of those anticipated at subsection (2) of this clause.
We believe that this is not necessary and could be a recipe for delay. We want the mayor to be able to produce the SDS relatively quickly and not get bogged down in over-bureaucratic consultation procedures that would require him first to undertake a full external consultation on an initial set of proposals and then again on a draft SDS.
Subsection (1) of the clause seeks to ensure that the assembly and the GLA functional bodies have an input into the development of the mayor's proposals before the more formal consultation procedures set out in the remainder of the clause come into operation. That provision simply deals with the internal arrangements within the GLA. It ensures that the assembly in particular is involved in, and associated with, the published proposals before they go out to full external consultation and is not treated like any other consultee and expected to appear at the examination in public.
Of course, it seems likely that any sensible mayor will take care to consult the boroughs and other stakeholders from the outset in developing his or her proposals. Securing their co-operation and participation in developing the mayor's ideas is certainly the best way to ensure that they are implemented as rapidly and effectively as possible. But we cannot see any merit in requiring a two-stage formal consultation procedure. It would be over bureaucratic and lead to unnecessary delay.
However, I hope to give the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, some cause for optimism. I note that Amendment No. 377A proposes adding to Clause 265 the consultation of those bodies mentioned in Clause 27 of the Bill whom the mayor is required to consult on other strategies. It might be helpful if I flag up now that, when we debate Amendment No. 381AA which similarly would also require the consultation of those bodies mentioned in Clause 27 at the "external stage" of the process, we will be saying something positive and

1455
explaining why we wish to take away and consider that amendment. With those words I hope to encourage the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall need to study with great care what the Minister has said. It seems passing strange to me that the mayor is obliged to consult the assembly—although, of course, that is the only function the assembly has; the assembly can do nothing if it disagrees with his strategy—he is not obliged to consult the boroughs. They will be intimately affected by the strategy and must play a vital part in its formulation.
The Minister has expressed a difference of view. I am not sure that she has given me a reason for withdrawing the amendment. Nonetheless, I shall look carefully at what she has said. It may be that we shall need to return to this issue at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 376 to 380 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 381:
Page 142, line 1, after ("inspection") insert ("on the internet and")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 381 returns to a familiar theme. Clause 265 deals with public participation in the development of the spatial development strategy. Once more we return to the issue of the mayor making his proposals available on the Internet to enable the widest possible participation in the preparation of the document. There is sure to be the widest possible public interest in the subject. Although we have tried to insert into the Bill the little matter of consultation on the Internet, we have not yet succeeded. However, the case is no less valid and we will continue to press the matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 381 concerns a debate we have had before in the House. I am sure that we all want the mayor to make full use of modern communication methods and up-to-date technology. But the very pace of change in this area makes it inadvisable to cement such matters in primary legislation.
Of course, Clause 274 also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to cover the preparation and publication of the strategy in line with usual planning practice. That might be a more appropriate place to flag up the possibilities offered by the Internet. We will certainly look at this matter when we come to draft the regulations. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I will study it with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 381ZA and 381A not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 381AA:
Page 142, line 14, after ("strategy;") insert—
("() the bodies and persons referred to in section 27(2);")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 381AA I shall speak also to Amendment No. 381B. The Minister has trailed a positive Government response in respect of Amendment No. 381AA. We have already debated what the Minister described as the "public" or "second" stage and I shall not waste the Committee's time by repeating the arguments.
Amendment No. 381B seeks to provide that the mayor or assembly has the opportunity to consult such persons and bodies as he or it considers appropriate. The amendment seeks to provide an assurance that the mayor can add to the list persons and bodies other than those directed by the Secretary of State in regulations and, secondly, seeks to indicate the role of the assembly in assisting the consultation process.
I believe that the Government have commented that this amendment—or a similar one—is not necessary because the Bill does not have to be specific. However, the Government have chosen to be specific in the Bill about a number of matters. Can the Minister give an assurance—without it being specific in the Bill—that the mayor will be able to undertake consultations with bodies and persons outside the list? I beg to move Amendment No. 381AA.
Lord Whitty: As the noble Baroness said, my noble friend has already trailed the fact that we have sympathy with the thinking behind the amendment. We are not sure that the drafting is necessarily appropriate; nor that its purpose could not be better achieved by amending Clause 33 of the Bill rather than this one. However, with those caveats, I am happy to take the amendment away and consider it further.
Turning to Amendment No. 381B, if we decide to go along with a proposal along the lines of the previous amendment, that may well incorporate the words proposed here in respect of the mayor. Indeed, it might well do so automatically were the amendment to be aligned with Clause 33. However, the other point of Amendment No. 381B is to provide that the assembly should be able to determine the mayor's consultation arrangements. That would not be consistent with the approach that we have adopted in the rest of the Bill on the division of powers between the mayor and the assembly. Therefore, that aspect will not be reflected in any proposal that I may bring forward. However, I hope that the positive response to the first of the amendments will allow the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: One learns that one's drafting is never adequate, but I welcome what the Minister has said in that regard. One has also learnt that the role of the assembly is not as we should like it to be. However, I continue to make the point at this stage, where appropriate, so that it is on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 381B not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved amendment No. 382:
Page 142, line 27, after second ("period") insert ("which shall not be less than six weeks from the date that copies are made available under subsection (2) above")
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill a minimum consultation period for the public, the London boroughs and others to respond in regard to the draft spatial development strategy. It may seem superfluous to lay down a minimum period in regard to a matter that is to be dealt with by regulations. However, the amendment merely imposes a minimum limit. The regulations can then include any reasonable period above that limit. On a matter of consultation, it is important that the public and all the relevant bodies that are being consulted have a sufficient—although not excessive—time in which to respond. We believe that six weeks is an adequate minimum. If the Minister were to choose to set a longer period, that would be entirely down to him. But we do not think it unreasonable that this minimum period should be on the face of the Bill.
To give an absurd example, under the terms of the Bill, the Minister could make regulations stating that there should be a two-week consultation period. London would very properly explode if that were suggested, so no sensible Secretary of State would be likely to do so. But under the Bill as drafted such a decision is possible. That is not sensible, and that is why we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The amendment seeks to insert an unnecessary level of detail into the Bill. It is not normal for primary legislation to specify the consultation period. Secondary legislation is normally used for that purpose. It does so in relation to unitary development plans, structure plans and so on. That is the situation with most planning legislation at present. We see no reason to depart from that. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I must study the position. If that is custom and practice and is the normal way of dealing with these matters, we shall have to watch with care when the appropriate regulations are brought forward. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 265 agreed to.
Clause 266 [Withdrawal]:
[Amendments Nos. 383 to 386 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 386A:
Page 142, line 38, leave out from ("to") to end of line and insert ("each of the bodies and persons specified in subsection (4) below")
The noble Baroness said: This group includes my Amendment No. 387A and also Amendments Nos. 386B and 404A in the name of the Minister.
Clause 266 relates to the withdrawal of any draft spatial development strategy. Our amendments relate to notification of the withdrawal. The government amendments are much the same as ours. They were tabled in response to points made by my honourable
1458
friends in another place, and I have no doubt that they are better drafted than ours. I look forward to agreeing them. I need not say more in support of my own amendments. Once the Minister has spoken to the government amendments, I shall withdraw mine. Also, I shall not seek to oppose the Question that the clause stand part, which I hope will help to move the proceedings forward. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. I shall speak to government Amendments Nos. 386B and 404A in this group. As she says, they arise from an agreement by my colleague in another place, the Minister with responsibility for London, to consider an amendment from the Liberal Democrat Opposition there.
The amendments will place a duty on the mayor to notify any withdrawal of the draft SDS to all those who are consulted during the preparation of the strategy and on the draft. The Bill as drafted requires merely that those who have made representations regarding the SDS—11/8/2006rather than all those who have been consulted—should be informed.
The approach suggested in the Commons seems to us constructive and sensible, and we are happy to accept it. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore withdraw her amendment, as she indicated. I am grateful also for her indication that she will not oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 386B:
Page 142, line 38, leave out ("person who has made representations about it") and insert ("body or person falling within subsection (2A) below.
(2A) Those bodies and persons are—

(a) the Assembly;

(b) each of the functional bodies;

(c) each of the bodies and persons specified in section 265(3) above; and

(d) every body which, or person who, made representations in accordance with the regulations.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 387 and 387A not moved.]
Clause 266, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 267 [Publication]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 388:
Page 142, line 42, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a very small matter and relates to a question of drafting taste. Clause 267 deals with the publication of the strategy. Subsection (1) states:
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Mayor may publish the spatial development strategy".
"May" always sounds optional. In our view, the mayor must publish the strategy; therefore, we prefer the word "shall. It is a small point. However, I must admit that I should consider it to be a great triumph if the amendment

1459
were to be accepted. I suspect that I shall be told that the custom and practice is that "may" is the word that is normally used. If not, I suggest that "shall" is a better word. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 388 seeks to change the wording of Clause 267 from "may publish" to "shall publish". As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has explained, the intention behind that is to ensure that the mayor publishes a final SDS. However, that is already covered by other provisions under Part VIII. In particular, Clause 264 states that,
"The Mayor shall prepare and publish … the 'spatial development strategy'".
The permissive term "may" is used in this clause because the subsequent subsections set out a series of conditions and requirements which the mayor must meet before he or she can publish the SDS.
I should also add that even if the mayor, following consultation and the report of the examination, felt the need to withdraw the strategy and rethink his or her plans, Clause 266 makes it clear that this does not affect the overall duty to prepare and publish the SDS. I am certain that in the light of this assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: With the greatest respect, I do not think the noble Baroness can get away with that. Either the mayor has to publish it or does not have to publish it. This in fact conflicts with the other clauses that the noble Baroness has mentioned. I have worked with advisers in government myself, as she has, and I can quite understand that you ask your advisers, "What is this all about?" Then they give you an explanation and a reason. However, this is simply not a good reason and I would suggest to the noble Baroness that she looks at this before the next stage and perhaps even makes this clause match the other. I did not feel that her argument held water at all.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am dreadfully sorry not to have given an explanation, because in this case the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is raising an issue which I feel is totally covered by the reply that I gave. This part of the Bill deals with the circumstances that must apply before the mayor shall, has to, is required to or has the duty to do this. So this is merely a question of a certain point in the Bill. We are in agreement, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and myself, and he is in agreement with the Government, that the mayor shall be required to do this and we are discussing the wording that is needed to achieve it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for her support in this matter. I must admit that I listened to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and it seemed to me that in her answer she was giving me a perfect reason why she should accept the amendment. However, it is a matter of opinion. I will study what the noble Baroness had to say and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 389 to 391 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 391ZA:
Page 143, line 4, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this amendment and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 393D, 395A and 397A. These amendments are grouped with the Government Amendments Nos. 393C and 393E.
The first of my amendments is a "paver" for Amendment No. 395A, and in fact my amendments as a whole seek to leave out subsections (5), (6) and (7) of Clause 267. Clause 267(6) allows the Secretary of State to give a direction to the mayor to leave out of the special development strategy matters that he considers to be "inconsistent with", to quote the wording of the Bill,
"current national policies or relevant regional planning guidance",
or to be detrimental to areas outside London. It seems to me that the Secretary of State will again have very wide powers and I do not understand how they could properly be exercised in the context where there has been a public inquiry. I appreciate that it is to be advisory and is not the same as other sorts of inquiries, but there will have been a very full investigation into the proposed strategy. I am concerned about the possible reserve powers that the Secretary of State will retain.
Relevant regional planning guidance is guidance for areas outside London which in other words I understand will take precedence over arrangements for London. I am unclear as to what input London will have. I hope it has been clear from my earlier comments today that I would not want to see London's interests riding roughshod over those of areas outside and around London, but equally I would not like to see London sidelined in any way in the balance of various other interests being considered.
Lord Whitty: The effect of these amendments will be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to direct the mayor to amend the special development strategy where he considers it is inconsistent with current national policies or regional planning guidance or has a detrimental effect on interests outside Greater London.
The noble Baroness says that she recognises the mayor should not do things to the detriment of other aspects of national policy in other parts of the country. Nevertheless these amendments, taken together, would exclude the power of the Secretary of State to come in and alter that. The mayor is placed under a duty to have regard to such matters under Clause 33 to start with and then under Clause 273. We fully expect the mayor to act responsibly in that regard, but it is possible that agreement would not be reached and the Secretary of State needs to have some way of protecting wider interests.
The proposals are based on normal planning provisions which would allow the Secretary of State to deal with development plans elsewhere in the country, with one qualification. It must ensure that the Secretary of State's powers cannot be used on matters which will solely be the responsibility of the mayor. The circumstances in which that power can be exerted have

1461
been limited in subsection (5) to defined circumstances. That limitation does not apply elsewhere in the country: hence our proposal for giving the mayor responsibility for London to a greater extent than planning authorities elsewhere will have. Nevertheless we wish to ensure that where there are conflicts with wider interests there is a means whereby the Secretary of State can intervene. My own amendments in this group, Nos. 393C and 393E, clarify the circumstances where that could happen.
If I may refer to Amendment No. 393E, the Bill currently provides for the Secretary of State to be able to direct the mayor to amend the strategy if it was inconsistent with these wider aspects. However, we need clarification, and for the avoidance of doubt the Secretary of State's powers to direct amendments can be made at any point before the final publication of the strategy and not just, as it could be read at present, on the initial consultation draft. It is possible that the mayor might seek to put in a later version aspects which were not there originally and which would have a detrimental effect on wider aspects of national policy in other parts of the country.
Similarly, Amendment No. 393C seeks to clarify and avoid doubt on procedures regarding the SDS under Clause 274, the main procedures for the mayor to follow, to ensure that the Secretary of State has an opportunity to exercise the power of direction to which I have referred. At a later point I should like to move those amendments to clarify these powers, but in the meantime I hope that the noble Baroness recognises that to remove these powers would lead to a situation where we could not resolve these difficulties.
Baroness Hamwee: I did talk about balance and I had hoped I had made it clear that in moving the amendment I was well aware of the comments I had already made regarding the interests of areas outside London. The Bill talks about avoiding any detriment, and I am concerned about the situation where, for instance, there may be a detriment but also some counterbalancing advantage. I am not sure that I recognise the need as it is dealt with in the Bill, but I do recognise the Government's concern to retain these powers as drawn. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 391A is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 392.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 391A:
Page 143, line 5, leave out ("findings") and insert ("recommendations")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 391A is grouped with Amendments Nos. 392, 402A and 403. I advise the Committee that Amendments Nos. 391A and 392 have the same effect. My filing system may
1462
have slipped slightly because virtually the same amendment appears twice. However, there is a marginal difference in wording, which explains why the Clerks accepted it. I apologise for taking time to give that explanation.
I begin with Amendments Nos. 402 and 402A. All of these matters relate to examination in public and the consequences of it. The present wording of the Bill suggests that the examination in public can make findings. If one has an examination in public of any other planning document it finishes up with the panel making recommendations. I do not believe that "findings" has quite the same force. I do not see the purpose of having an examination in public if all that it does is report its findings. It should be incumbent on the mayor to do something about what is found and I believe that the word "recommendations" is superior.
The Bill deals with publication of the spatial development strategy before the examination in public. However, the amendments to change "findings" to "recommendations" in Clause 267 in relation to publication do not make sense without the amendments relating to examination in public in Clause 268. Therefore, the grouping is essential and the amendments are consistent. I commend this matter to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I admit that the noble Lord has a point. Our initial intention when drafting the Bill was that the term "findings" should be broader than "recommendations" but would clearly include the panel's recommendations on which the mayor would have to give a response. I am advised that in similar provisions in planning Acts and associated legislation relating to development plans the terms "report" and "recommendation" are found more often than "findings". The use of both terms may be a possibility. I am also advised that there is another reference to "findings" in line 17 on page 143 of the Bill which has not been picked up in these amendments. In response to the noble Lord, I shall take away all of these amendments with a view to considering whether at Report stage the Government should provide clarification of all the references in this part of the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most grateful to the Minister for that response. I look forward to seeing what the Government bring forward on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 392 and 393 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 393A:
Page 143, line 12, after ("with") insert ("this Act and")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 267(4) provides that before publication the mayor must consider representations made under the regulations. Amendment No. 393A is a probing amendment to discover what obligation is on the mayor to consider representations made under the Bill, for example those made before publication under Clause 265(2)(e). There may be a

1463
drafting error in my amendment, in that I believe that the "and" should be "or". However, the substantive point remains. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that I now understand a little more the purpose of Amendment No. 393A, but its meaning is still a trifle obscure. It would require the mayor to consider representations,
"made in accordance with the Act".
Clause 267(4) of the Bill imposes on the mayor a duty to consider representations. Clearly, there needs to be a definition of what is a valid representation. That is the intention of Clause 265(6). It provides for regulations to define the period within which representations can be made and how they should be made: for example, whether they should be made in writing. It is only those representations,
"made in accordance with the regulations",
that the mayor must consider.
Amendment No. 393A introduces the further concept of,
"representations made in accordance with the Act".
Yet that phrase can have no meaning. The Bill does not prescribe, for example, whether representations must be in writing, or within what period they must be made. For these reasons, the amendment risks creating confusion, and we are unable to accept it.
I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. If as a result of my explanation the position remains unclear, perhaps for the sake of clarity it would help if I wrote to the noble Baroness and other members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that response. She said that the form of representations must be in accordance with the regulations. My concern is that in some way this provision will exclude the substance of representations, because the reference to regulations appears to override other provisions that may be found elsewhere in the Bill as currently drafted. But if the point is that the representations must be in a particular form, or that they should be made within a particular period, I am happy to accept that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 393B:
Page 143, line 15, at end insert (", or
() he has discussed any representations with the Assembly")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 267(4) prevents the mayor from publishing the spatial development strategy until certain steps have been taken. Amendment No. 393B proposes that at that stage there should be a discussion with the assembly. The Minister is well aware of our concern that the assembly, which in shorthand is referred to as a scrutiny body but, according to the Government's definition of that term, includes
1464
scrutiny in advance, should have a role of which the mayor can usefully take advantage. We are concerned that the assembly is resoundingly left out of the process.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We have little doubt that there will be a dialogue between the mayor and assembly at various stages in the production of the SDS, and for all the strategies. However, for the most part we have not sought to prescribe on the face of the Bill precisely how the working relationship between the mayor and assembly will operate. On the contrary, we are sure that it is right that some discretion should be left with them to decide how they will work together and at what points discussion will take place on emerging strategies.
The amendment would require the mayor to discuss with the assembly each and every representation he receives, which, I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree, would indeed be an heroic task. We therefore cannot accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall consider what she has had to say as part of our general review of the whole issue of the role of the assembly when we have come to the end of this stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 393C:
Page 143, line 19, at end insert—
("() The provision that may be made by regulations under section 274 below includes provision prohibiting publication of the spatial development strategy until such further procedures as may be prescribed have been complied with.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 393D not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 393E:
Page 143, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert—
("(5) if at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient to do so for the purpose of avoiding—

(a) any inconsistency with current national policies or relevant planning guidance, or

(b) any")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 394 to 399 not moved.]
Clause 267, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 268 [Examination in public]:
[Amendment No. 400 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 401:
Page 144, line 2, leave out from ("shall") to ("cause")
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with a small matter in Clause 268 which I must admit I find rather difficult to understand as drafted. Therefore I am again on a fishing trip, and I look forward to what the Minister will tell me.
Clause 268(1) States:
"Before publishing the spatial development strategy, the Mayor shall, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, cause an examination in public to be held".
I find the words, "unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs", odd. It seems to me that if there is to be a spatial development strategy, and if it is to go through anything like the normal planning procedures, there must be an examination in public. I find it rather strange that the Secretary of State seems to find it necessary to add this holding arrangement or insurance policy into this subsection. I cannot think of anything that the Secretary of State might otherwise direct, because the only thing that he could otherwise direct was that there should not be an examination in public. It seems to me that that simply would not be proper. I have tabled the amendment to find the answer to that particular conundrum. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment 401 would remove the Secretary of State's power to waive the duty on the mayor to hold an examination in public on any proposals to make or amend an SDS.
The examination in public is an important part—as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognised—of the procedure for developing the SDS. It ensures that the issues raised are properly debated and that those most affected have an opportunity to air their views before an independent panel. That is why we have now introduced it into the new procedures for producing regional planning guidance and why we have incorporated it here too.
But it is a resource-intensive process. We therefore think it sensible to allow for the possibility of a relatively minor or uncontentious amendment or amendments to the SDS where a full-scale EiP could not be justified.
On the other hand—I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that we considered this point—it would be wrong to give the mayor an unfettered right unilaterally to waive the EIP requirement. In order to satisfy the public's expectation of an open and fair process, we need to ensure that the discretion rests elsewhere. That is the purpose of giving the Secretary of State that power. The mayor would need to convince the Secretary of State that in any particular case the amendment proposed did not merit holding an EIP. We do not believe that any Secretary of State would grant such a waiver lightly and anticipate that we shall say so in any accompanying guidance that we issue.
Having heard that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept this common sense provision and withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend replies, I think that that was a very interesting exchange. Obviously this is an important matter, but I believe that the wording as it stands might well be misunderstood in the way that my noble friend misunderstood it, and I am bound to say I also did.
1466
I thought that the noble Baroness was perhaps going to tell the Committee that the Secretary of State might want to stop the mayor doing something that he was planning to do because he did not like what the mayor was putting forward for public examination. Perhaps she will look at the wording to see whether it might be more clearly put so that one could understand that, before publishing the development strategy, the mayor shall cause an examination in public unless the Secretary of State agrees to the mayor's request that it need not be held, because that is what she is in fact saying. It is not quite the same as what is stated in the Bill. It is only a small point but it might be misunderstood by the public. I certainly wondered what it meant, for what that is worth.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps it would help the noble Baroness if I gave her an assurance that any point raised relating to clarity is of course given consideration.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Once again I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I am bound to say that I have some doubts about the adequacy of the response from the noble Baroness. Clause 268(1) does not discuss minor amendments to the spatial development strategy. What it says is, "Before publishing the spatial development strategy". It is quite specific. Therefore my concern is still there. I accept the case in logic which was made; that if the mayor simply proposes a small amendment which does not affect the strategy in a major way, it would of course be unreasonable to commit the mayor to having an examination in public. However, the way in which the Bill is drafted implies that it could produce something else.
I hope that the Government may feel that they could consider that with some care and perhaps come up with some words that are, shall we say, superior to what is already there. If they fail to do so, I fear that I shall be put to the necessity of attempting to do it myself.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I hope that it will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, if I explain to him that the proposal here is neither new nor outside the planning procedure. Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has a similar provision which enables the Secretary of State to waive the requirement for an examination in public into structure plans.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am once again grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall study her response with interest. However, at the moment, I must tell the Committee that I am not satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 402 to 403 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 403A:
Page 144, line 18, at end insert ("(including any London borough which wishes to make representations with regard to its adopted unitary development plan)")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 268 refers to examinations in public. The amendment seeks to allow a London borough which wants to make representations with regard to its adopted unitary development plan the opportunity to take part in the examination.
The boroughs have no right to be heard, but they clearly will have an interest. The amendment seeks in part to clarify the borough's formal position in this process. I hope that the Minister will be able say a few words on that. The boroughs may have points to make about their adopted unitary development plans. Those documents have statutory and practical force. I appreciate that boroughs may be invited to the EIP. However, I should like them to have a formal position in order to be involved in the resolution of any conflict which might arise between documents. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The main purpose of the examination in public of the draft strategy is to provide an informal opportunity for discussion and testing, in public and before a panel appointed by the Secretary of State, of selected matters. It is not an examination of the whole of the submitted proposals; nor is it a hearing of the totality of objections. This will ensure a streamlined and focused debate of the key issues.
It is clear to us that the views of London boroughs on the SDS should be regarded as very important. Any London borough can submit representations on any element of the SDS and the mayor must take these representations into account. But we contend that it would be entirely wrong to fetter the discretion of the panel on the selection of those parties invited to attend the EIP. If all 33 boroughs were entitled to attend all the discussion sessions, it would be more difficult to ensure a representative cross-section of parties and still keep the number of participants to a sensible number.
Moreover, the amendment makes specific reference to boroughs raising concerns about the SDS having regard to adopted unitary development plans. This has the flavour of looking in the wrong direction. The SDS sets the overall framework for London. The UDPs—which are far more detailed and specific documents—must be in general conformity with the SDS. That is the relationship between them. It is the proper and logical relationship between them. The way in which the amendment is drafted suggests almost the opposite. I hope that the noble Baroness will allow some flexibility. She has on record the importance of taking into account the views of the London boroughs in relation to the SDS, but prescribing the actions of the panel in this way would not be appropriate. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I acknowledge that the Government recognise that the boroughs have an interest. In drafting the amendment in this form, I attempted to limit the scope of their requests or demands to be heard.
No doubt I should know this answer, but I fear I cannot remember it. Will those conducting the examination in public be required to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State as to the people to be invited? That might be a basis for ensuring
1468
that proper views are received. I, too, look forward and not simply backward. However, one has to build on history. Guidance might present the opportunity of ensuring that the boroughs' interests are covered.
Lord Whitty: The panel would be required to have regard to guidance with regard to which interests should be given the opportunity to make representations. The measure does not prescribe exactly how the hearings should be structured.
Baroness Hamwee: That reply is helpful. I hope that I may assume that regard would be given to those concerns which I have voiced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 268 agreed to.
Clause 269 [Duty to notify London borough councils of publication or withdrawal]:
[Amendments No. 404 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 404A:
Page 144, line 33, leave out subsection (2)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 405 not moved.]
Clause 269, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 270 [Review of matters affecting the strategy]:
[Amendment No. 406 not moved.]
Clause 270 agreed to.
Clause 271 [Reviews of the strategy]:
[Amendments Nos. 407 and 408 not moved.]
Clause 271 agreed to.
Clause 272 [Alteration or replacement]:
[Amendments Nos. 409 and 410 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 410A:
Page 145, line 9, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Baroness said: Clause 272 refers to alteration or replacement of the spatial development strategy. Under Clause 272(2) the Secretary of State can direct the mayor to publish,
"such alterations of the spatial development strategy as the Secretary of State directs; or…a new spatial development strategy to replace it".
I should feel less concerned if the subsection were confined to subsection (2)(b): a direction to prepare a new strategy. I am concerned that the Secretary of State has power to direct the mayor to make any alterations that the Secretary of State may decide, either after full consideration and consultation or almost on a whim.
Amendment No. 413, grouped with this amendment, restricts the directions which can be given. I believe that similar concern is expressed there. If my amendment fails to succeed, I shall support Amendment No. 413. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 410A is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 411 to 413.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I speak to Amendment No. 413. It is somewhat similar in intention to Amendment No. 410A but is not limited. It does not seek to prevent the Secretary of State directing the mayor to prepare and publish alterations to the strategy, or to prepare a new strategy if the Secretary of State believes that that is right. The amendment seeks to place limitations on the circumstances under which the Secretary of State could so direct. He may only do so if,
"the spatial development strategy is inconsistent with current national or regional policies, or … that it is expedient to do so for the purpose of avoiding any detriment to the interests of an area outside Greater London".
That is not an unreasonable restriction to place on the Secretary of State's power. It is right that he should have power to take those matters into account. While one would hope that a responsible mayor would take those matters into account, he might fail to do so; or he might feel that there would be an overriding London reason why he should not do so. It is reasonable that the Secretary of State should have a limited power. The general power in the Bill is too great and I should prefer to see it restricted. That is my reason for tabling the amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I believe that we need the reserve powers. Our plans give the mayor the responsibility to prepare the SDS for London and to keep it up to date. We would expect the mayor to take account of the wider regional and national policies and to update the strategy from time to time as necessary. However, if there were a serious failure on the mayor's part to take account of changing policies or requirements outside London and to keep the SDS up to date in that sense, there must be a way of rectifying the situation, which the clause as drafted does.
It is a reserve power based on similar ones in existing areas of planning legislation. Those powers are rarely used and I do not expect that the mayor will need encouragement from the Secretary of State to keep the SDS up to date. It is nonetheless essential, because of the important role we give to the SDS not only for its own purposes but for the boroughs' planning operations, that we have reserve powers to ensure that it can be kept up to date.
Amendment No. 413 is slightly more moderate in its objectives. It would limit the Secretary of State's power without removing it. I appreciate the thinking behind it. It tries to use similar criteria used elsewhere in the Bill,
1470
including Clause 267. However, in the context of a reserve power we need wider powers than those specified within the clause.
The circumstances in which the Secretary of State might remotely but conceivably need to act to protect the integrity and operation of the planning system could include those referred to in the amendment. However, there may be others where the mayor, for whatever reason, had failed for years to bring the SDS up to date to take account, for example, of economic, demographic or employment changes that had a significant bearing.
In those admittedly unlikely circumstances, it would not be satisfactory to have a requirement for the London borough to keep its UDP in conformity with an out-of-date SDS. It is therefore right that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene in the interests of boroughs, developers and the planning system as a whole. In such a case, therefore, the tests of inconsistency with national or regional policies and of detriment to other areas are not necessarily applicable in the narrow sense that the noble Lord's amendment implies.
I repeat that it is a reserve power which will not be used by the Secretary of State except in the most serious cases of neglect by the mayor. I consider it most unlikely that they would be used at all, but they are a failsafe and we consider that we need them in this form. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: When the Minister studies the record he will see that in his response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, he gave a reason why he should accept my amendment. However, when he dealt with my amendment, he destroyed that argument. I must study in detail what he said, but perhaps if I take the second part of his argument and disregard the first he has satisfied the point I have raised.
Baroness Hamwee: Is there a legislative constraint on the alterations which the Secretary of State can direct under Clause 272(2)(a)? I heard what the Minister said about the powers being reserve, but I should be interested to know whether there is anything in the Bill or elsewhere which will define the parameters of the power of direction.
Lord Whitty: I shall need to check, but I believe that there is nothing in the terms mentioned by the noble Baroness. There is in the overall requirement that the Secretary of State shall act reasonably with regard to the exercise of reserve powers, as with other powers. That is the qualification I give.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Is there any control on an autocratic or overbearing Minister? From a legal point of view, the potential for judicial review is not a safeguard in these circumstances.
Lord Whitty: Probably in the terms the noble Lord indicates, the requirement to act reasonably is a restraint. They are reserve powers and they are specified where

1471
the Secretary of State would have to demonstrate that the mayor's strategy did not conform, or no longer conformed, to national policies or interests, or would act to the detriment of other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, there are constraints and tests against which the reasonableness of the Secretary of State would have to be judged. I therefore believe that there is a significant degree of restraint on the Secretary of State.
I now have further inspiration! I am reminded of the additional point that the powers have long existed in planning legislation in other parts of the country and are not new. So far as I am aware, we have not had a sufficiently autocratic Secretary of State to indicate that these powers are easily abusable.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is one difference between this situation and those which exist. There could be a stand-up political row between a directly elected mayor who has built up an enormous political head of steam in London vis-à-vis the Secretary of State of the day. I suggest that the Minister contemplates that. This may be a failsafe mechanism and we hope the circumstances will not arise. However, there might not be a failure on the part of the mayor to do that which is required of him in law but there might be a political row on grounds of special planning. It is an issue which the Government ought to be careful about in making up their mind about the reserve powers.
Lord Whitty: In this as in other areas of the Bill there is the possibility of political conflict between the mayor and the national government and in extremis there must be a means of resolving it. Provided that the Secretary of State acts reasonably, the Secretary of State has the final say. If it were left unresolved, we would be in a more difficult situation than that referred to by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister mentioned the comparable powers in respect of other parts of the country. I shall reflect on that because the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is right about the situation in London. I want to give myself the opportunity to think about any technical differences which might make it a concern in London where it has so far worked all right, because an autocratic Secretary of State may be just around the corner. I hope not, but I want to ensure that if there is one his or her powers are defined in a way that makes the exercise of the autocracy more difficult. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 411 to 418 not moved.]
Clause 272 agreed to.
Clause 273 [Matters to which the Mayor is to have regard]:
[Amendment No. 419 not moved.]
Clause 273 agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I beg to move that the Committee stage be adjourned until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.10 to 8.40 p.m.]
[Amendment No. 420 not moved.]
Clause 274 [Regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 420A to 424 not moved.]
Clause 274 agreed to.
Clause 275 [Amendments of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990]:
[Amendment No. 425 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 425A:
Page 146, line 8, at end insert—
("() In subsection (6) of that section (formulating general policies in Part I of a unitary development plan) after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(aa) if the authority is a London borough, the spatial development strategy;".")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 425A is grouped with Amendment No. 449. The London boroughs are obliged, under Section 9 of the Town and Country Planning Act, to have regard to national, regional and strategic policy in formulating their unitary development plans.
The amendment requires the London boroughs to have regard to the spatial development strategy in the same way as they have regard to strategic planning guidance. It is entirely reasonable that the boroughs should be obliged to treat the spatial development strategy as pari passu with the regional planning guidance. That is why we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am a little surprised by Amendment No. 425A. I believe that it is already well provided for within the Bill. Clause 275(2) requires that the boroughs' UDPs are in general conformity with the SDS. That already gives the SDS relationship with UDPs far greater statutory weight than would this amendment. The amendment therefore has no practical effect, apart from slightly confusing the issue. I agree entirely with the objectives of the noble Lord, but I hope that he withdraws the amendment.
Amendment No. 449 would put an onus directly on the boroughs. Again, it is pretty clear that Clause 275 already does that. The SDS is, therefore, already covered as regards the boroughs' planning functions. The boroughs also have to carry out other local functions. To place them under a duty that they should have regard to the SDS in carrying them all out would clearly not be appropriate. As regards the planning function, that is already provided for. I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The amendment has served one useful purpose in that it has woken me up, and another in that it has surprised the Minister. I believe that is the first time I have achieved that, which is quite something. I shall study what the Minister says. However, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 426 to 436 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 437:
Page 147, line 27, at end insert—
("() In section 70 (determination of applications: general considerations) in subsection (2), after "development plan" there shall he inserted "and, if it is a London borough, the spatial development strategy"")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 437 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 438 to 442. These amendments are directed towards a similar point; that is, to ensure that the London boroughs are having proper regard to the mayor's spatial development strategy when they are dealing with planning applications.
Section 70 of The Town and Country Planning Act requires local planning authorities to determine planning applications having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations. The amendment requires that London boroughs should have regard to strategy as a material consideration when they are dealing with planning applications. That means that the mayor's policy will therefore be applied, along with everything else, when planning applications are determined without, we hope, the need for the mayor to intervene.
By their Amendment No. 442B, the Government recognise that the spatial development strategy should be expressly referred to in making development controlled decisions. That amendment writes into the Town and Country Planning Act an obligation on the mayor to consider the spatial development strategy when he is determining whether or not to exercise his power to direct refusal of planning permission. That puts a reciprocal obligation onto the local planning authorities so that they have a proper regard to spatial development strategy when they are determining their planning applications.
Amendment No. 438 suggests the removal of Clause 275(9). My amendments are aimed at simplifying the procedure. We are trying to strike out what would appear to be an unneeded third tier of planning control in London. The Bill, as drafted, proposes that the mayor should have power to direct the refusal of a planning permission. At present the boroughs have power to direct a refusal. When we come to consider the effect of this in the City, we believe that, if the mayor has power to direct a refusal of planning permission, he may reduce the efficiency with which the planning system works. That could be significant in its effect on the economy, and particularly on the City.
The City of London is in a very particular situation. It is in direct competition with Frankfurt and other financial centres in the mainland of Europe. It relies for its competitive position on two factors. The first is the huge intellectual resource that exists in and around London. The other equally important factor is its ability to provide both suitable accommodation and a communications infrastructure on a rapid timescale to keep it ahead of its competing cities. That is a desirable ambition and we do not want the planning system to be made more complex by the creation of a third way of holding up planning permissions. The mayor's powers on planning are all supposed to be strategic. The existing
1474
planning regulations work satisfactorily and the mayor should not have the power to direct that planning permission should not be granted. That is important.
The other amendments all relate to that point. It is fundamental to the future well-being of the City of London that we do everything that we can to keep the planning process as streamlined as possible in the interests of the City's competitive position, on which the whole of London and the rest of the country depend. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, because this is a complex group dealing with the provisions of Clause 275(9), which enables the Secretary of the State to give the mayor the power to direct refusal of planning permission. We have made it clear that such cases would need to be clearly defined and strictly limited to applications that are genuinely of potential strategic importance. That is to minimise the scope for conflict and confusion and to ensure that the mayor does not intervene in matters that are properly dealt with by the boroughs. Those principles were set out in the White Paper and are reflected in the Bill.
In Committee in another place my honourable friend the Minister for London announced the Government's conclusions on the consultation exercise that we had conducted and set out in detail how the mayor's ability to intervene will operate and how the applications will be defined.
The Government have tabled Amendments Nos. 438A, 440A and 440B. Amendment No. 438A provides clarification to ensure that when the Secretary of State makes an order he can also impose a duty on the mayor to give reasons when using the power under that order. Amendments Nos. 440A and 440B arise from a commitment made by my colleague the Minister for London to consider an amendment tabled by the Opposition in another place. That amendment has been repeated as Amendment No. 441. The Government's amendments will provide that the mayor shall have regard to the UDP and the spatial development strategy so far as is material to the application when considering whether to use his or her powers to direct refusal of planning permission. The amendments should ensure that the mayor's use of the power of direction, which is not a formal determination of an application, will be consistent with the approach taken by local planning authorities in the determination of planning applications in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. When using his or her powers of direction, the mayor will have to have regard to the unitary development plan currently in force and the spatial development strategy. In the light of the Government's amendments, I hope that the noble Lord will at least not press Amendment No. 441.
The other amendments move in the wrong direction. They would not secure the right balance between strategic and local interests. Even with a plan-led system, the success or failure of strategic policies will be determined through individual development control decisions. That is why it is important that the mayor should be consulted on the limited number of applications that raise issues of genuine strategic importance and that, in extremis, he or she should have

1475
the fall-back power to direct refusal if important strategic concerns cannot be resolved. Amendment No. 438 would eliminate the mayor's fall-back power to direct refusal, leaving him or her toothless on issues of genuine strategic concern.
Amendment No. 439 is unnecessary. We have made it clear from the outset that the mayor would be involved only in applications of strategic importance. Stating that so baldly would create a fertile area for conflict and dispute. We propose to set down clear and unambiguous criteria for such cases in secondary legislation. My colleague the Minister for London has announced the details of those criteria. The thresholds and criteria chosen are important, but they are proxies for the definition of what is of strategic importance. They are designed to create clarity and certainty. That is important for all those concerned with the planning process, particularly developers and businesses. We have made it clear that the criteria can and should be reviewed in the light of experience, probably at the point at which the mayor has produced the first SDS.
Amendment No. 442 would limit the threshold to a narrow number of very large buildings. It says that the mayor should not intervene on any building lower than 150 metres. St Paul's Cathedral is only 111 metres high and there is currently only one building in the City of London higher than 150 metres. Buildings of the size of St Paul's have to be regarded as of strategic importance. We are proposing a limit of 75 metres, compared with 30 metres elsewhere in London, except for sites fronting the Thames. The floor space in the City is set at 30,000 square metres, rather than 20,000 square metres in the rest of central London or 15,000 square metres in outer London. We recognise that the City is different from the rest of London. I take nothing away from the noble Lord's references to the importance of allowing development that meets the economic needs of the City, but it is self-evident that buildings of the size of St Paul's Cathedral and others in the City should be included within the threshold. A development threshold of 150 metres is very high. It is important that the mayor should have a say on such developments.
We estimate that on our criteria the mayor would be consulted on only 150 to 250 applications, out of a total of 70,000 developments throughout London, all of which would be the responsibility of the boroughs. Even in those cases, we are talking about consultation in the first instance. The number of cases in which the mayor would want or need powers of intervention or refusal would be considerably smaller. I do not envisage any sensible mayor wanting to act in ways that could stifle the health of London's economy, particularly that of the City.
I also resist Amendment No. 440, which would restrict the applications on which the mayor could direct refusal. I accept that proposals that do not accord with the plan may be of particular interest to the mayor, provided that they are of sufficient scale or importance, but the scope of the mayor's consideration should not be as limited as is suggested in the amendment. The fact that a proposal is in accordance with a development plan does not mean that it does not merit or require detailed consideration or that it cannot raise issues that need to be considered at the strategic level. Amendments No. 442 and 440 would limit
1476
the mayor's powers to insist on consultation and his powers of intervention in the last resort. That would undermine and harm the effectiveness of the mayor and the delivery of a spatial development strategy at the strategic level. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments. I shall move mine when appropriate.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I thank the Minister for his explanation. On Amendment No. 440, if an application is consistent with the unitary development plan and if that plan is in compliance with the spatial development strategy, it seems slightly peculiar that it should he necessary for the mayor to have a power to call in and direct refusal, given that the plans are all supposed to be consistent with each other.
With regard to Amendment No. 442 and the issue of St. Paul's, I entirely accept that the amendment is inadequate, particularly with regard to the sidelines from the Thames. But the City is unusual. There are at present 24 developments either under construction or proposed which are in excess of 30,000 square metres—the limit at present suggested. It may be considered that die height that we are proposing is unreasonable, but in the draft regulations we have a combination of height and size. Size is a significant criteria for the major finance houses and can be achieved without going for the sort of heights we suggest should be necessary.
I shall consider the Minister's response carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount St. Davids): I must point out that if Amendment No. 438 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 438A to 442 inclusive.
[Amendment No. 438 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 438A:
Page 147, line 31, at end insert (", and subject to such conditions as may he prescribed,")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 439 and 440 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 440A:
Page 147, line 43, leave out ("(1C) In subsection (1B)") and insert ("and in the preceding provisions of this subsection")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 440B:
Page 147, line 44, at end insert—
("(1C) In determining whether to exercise any power under subsection (1B) to direct a local planning authority to refuse an application, the Mayor of London shall have regard to—

(a) the development plan, and

(b) the spatial development strategy prepared and published under Part VIII of the Greater London Authority Act 1999,

so far as material to the application.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 441 and 442 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 443:
Page 147, line 44, at end insert—
("() In section 320 (local inquiries) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(3) Where an inquiry is held by virtue of this section and the Mayor of London has directed the local planning authority to refuse an application for planning permission the subject of the inquiry, the Mayor shall be deemed to be a party for the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972."").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 443 is directed at the matter of costs. The amendment amends the Town and Country Planning Act to allow the Secretary of State to award the costs of a planning inquiry either for or against the mayor.
It is possible to award costs against an authority if it appears at an inquiry and is held either to have caused the inquiry to take place on unreasonable grounds or produces an unreasonable procedure at the inquiry. But it is possible for the mayor to direct refusal of a planning permission and then not appear subsequently at an inquiry that might arise as a result of that refusal. In that situation, as I understand it, the law would not permit costs to be awarded against him, even though he was the cause of the inquiry. We feel that is unreasonable and Amendment No. 443 is designed to remove that anomaly. It is a perfectly reasonable amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: There is no disagreement in principle about Amendment No. 443. It would, on the face of the Bill, make it possible for the mayor to be liable for the costs of inquiries. We are committed to ensuring that that happens.
We clearly spelt out in the GLA White Paper that the mayor should face an award of costs if it was found, by an inspector or the Secretary of State, that he or she had used their power of direction inappropriately. In Clause 275(9) new subsection (1B)(c) provides the power to make an order to modify the provisions of the relevant Act in order to achieve this. However, we have no objection in principle to securing this on the face of the Bill and would like to take this amendment away to consider it. With that undertaking I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. With the assurance she has given, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 444 not moved.]
Clause 275, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 276 [Monitoring and data collection]:
[Amendment Nos. 445 and 446 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 446A I must point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 447, 447A or 448.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 446A:
Page 148, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (7)
The noble Lord said: This amendment simply removes the provisions in Clause 276, subsections (2) to (7) which provided for the establishment of a monitoring scheme intended to provide the mayor with the pan-London information needed to draw up the spatial development strategy and to monitor its implementation.
Following discussion of these provisions in another place, my honourable friend the Minister for London undertook to bring forward amendments replacing the provisions in subsections (2) to (7) with broader arrangements governing the collection of data in partnership with the London local authorities. Following detailed consultation with the Association of London Government, we brought forward Amendments No. 455AXB to 455E, which I do not feel we will reach tonight but which deal with these items. I hope the amendments meet the bulk of the concerns reflected in the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Miller, and provide a consensual approach to meeting the monitoring costs agreed between the mayor and the London boroughs.
Because of their broader nature, it may be helpful to discuss the substance of this when we reach the appropriate amendments in the context of mayoral research powers. For the time being, I ask the Committee to agree to remove these subsections. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I appreciate that these matters are dealt with under the research provisions later in the amendments that the Government have tabled. I am also aware that there is some controversy around how the matter will be dealt with. I wish however to ask a particular question on this clause and that is whether losing subsections (2) to (7) will mean that the mayor, who has a duty to monitor, will still have the power to operate a scheme should there be a situation in which it would be right for the mayor to do so.
Lord Whitty: This amendment does not remove any powers from the mayor to have a scheme. It removes the duty provided in these powers.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Amendment No. 448 is grouped with Amendment No. 446. I shall study with care what the Minister has said and, in the meantime, will not move my amendment when we get to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 276, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 277 [Functional bodies to have regard to the strategy]:
[Amendments Nos. 449 and 450 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450NA:
Page 148, line 31, at end insert ("notwithstanding any provision of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 277 requires each of the functional bodies to have regard to the spatial development strategy and I have no quarrel with that.

1479
I have tabled the amendment in order, I hope, to obtain confirmation from the Minister that the London Development Agency, along with the other bodies, must have regard to the SDS in view of the slightly inconclusive debates that we had during the passage of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1988 as to the hierarchy of the different considerations. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 277 requires all functional bodies, including the London Development Agency, to have regard to the SDS in exercising any function. The amendment would provide that this obligation is,
"notwithstanding any provision of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998".
However, I do not believe that there is anything in that Act to prevent the LDA, or any other functional body, from having regard to the SDS. So the amendment is unnecessary. It could even be misleading in implying that there is some conflict between the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 and the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Not only do I feel able to withdraw it, but as that is the answer I was seeking I am glad to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 277 agreed to.
Clause 278 [Mayor's functions in relation to planning around Greater London]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450PA:
Page 148, line 34, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 450PAZA. The numbering of the amendments is longer than the amendments themselves. I seek in the first amendment to change "or" to "and", and the second amendment is consequential.
Clause 278(1) provides for the mayor to inform local planning authorities in the areas near to Greater London of his views on matters of common interest, or he may inform a body on which those authorities are represented. I moved an amendment earlier to write into the Bill a reference to SERPLAN or a successor body. Perhaps I should have used different terminology, but in this instance I am concerned that it will not be adequate for the mayor to inform a representational body. It would be more appropriate for the mayor to have direct contact.
SERPLAN might be the sort of body that would fall within Clause 278(1)(b) and it is not a body on which every authority has a representative. When I was a member, the districts had several representatives but—unless things have changed in the past few years—the body did not have one from each district. I look forward to the Minister's explanation as to how the provision will be adequate, other than a suggestion that if the mayor thinks that a particular authority has a particular interest it would be inconceivable for the mayor not to approach that authority. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This clause deals with the mayor's role in representing London's interests on strategic planning matters in relation to areas surrounding London or across the south-east as a whole. I am sure that in most cases the mayor will want to discuss with, and make his views known to, both individual local authorities where they have an interest and any representative bodies. But there may well be cases where it is entirely appropriate for the mayor to deal with either one or the other. For example, a broader strategic body may have little direct interest or locus in a planning matter relating to one particular authority. Conversely, there could be circumstances where a representative body is charged by individual local authorities outside London with representing their interests. In such cases these amendments would risk locking the mayor into unnecessary consultation. In the light of that, and the assurance that we see the mayor approaching the appropriate group, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope the Minister will not take it amiss if I say that that was the kind of response I expected but had hoped a little not to get. However, I do not wish to be too dismissive. I shall consider the matter carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 278 agreed to.
Clause 279 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 450PAA not moved.]
Clause 280 agreed to.
Clause 281 [The Mayor's environmental report]:
[Amendment No. 450QA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 450RA not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450RB:
Page 149, line 22, leave out ("to be known as a") and insert ("dealing with the matters provided by subsection (3) (in this section called the").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment. No. 450RB, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 450H, 451ZAA, 451ZQ and 451ZZA. We have moved on to the part of the Bill dealing with the mayor and the authority's environmental powers and duties. This group of amendments addresses a point made by my noble friend Lord Tope and myself at an earlier stage, although perhaps this issue is not as dramatic as that of the mayor being stuck with the politically correct titles of "The State of London Debate", "The People's Question Time" and so on. However, the Bill again requires the authority to use for its various strategies titles that are imposed by the Bill.
I do not think it is appropriate for primary legislation to describe what documents should be called. The report on the environment in Greater London is to be known as "a", in this case rather than "the",
"state of the environment report".

1481
The waste management strategy is to be known as the "municipal waste management strategy" and so on. However, the mayor may wish to call it the "Greater London waste strategy". Well, why not? This is a small point, but I believe it is important. The drafting of the provisions indicates the Government's wish not to let go. However, I think the Government could release the titles of the documents without fear, given that the duties are spelt out adequately in the Bill. The titles of the documents do not need to be prescribed.
I have drafted the amendments in such a way that amendments have not been tabled to change titles throughout the Bill. That would have meant tabling and speaking to huge numbers of amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support my noble friend's amendment. We know what a difference a word can make. For example, the mayor may wish to name a document the "New waste management strategy", rather like New Labour, which has made such a difference.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot beat that one! My insistence on this wording is in no way intended to restrict or inhibit the creative expression of the mayor. As far as I am concerned, the mayor can use whatever titles he or she likes for these strategies. However, there has to be a statutory definition of them.
The effect of these amendments will be to remove the statutory status of these strategies and make them relevant only to the particular clauses of the Bill, whereas they need to be relevant through the mayor's overall strategy. If there was a deletion of the words "to be known as", the effect would be to remove the statutory authority. If the mayor wishes to call them something else with a small sub-title in 10 point print which reflects the statutory definition, I have no objection to that. A "new waste strategy" would be quite appropriate. If some of the candidates were to be elected, they would no doubt think of more trendy, catchy names. That is not the point. The point is that we need a definition which has some statutory authority. It is important that the mayor is able to signal that the strategy he is talking about relates to the authority within the Bill.
The strategies will be important documents. The London boroughs and others will need to have regard to them. The waste and air quality strategies also have powers of direction associated with them. For those reasons, it is very important that the status of the document should not be ambiguous. What the mayor says in his manifesto or in any other presentation of it to the electorate of London and others is a political decision that I am quite happy to leave to the mayor. However, the legal definition must be clear in the text of this Bill.
1482
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, given my commitment not to restrict the artistic freedom of any putative mayor, will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to prevent the mayor, for instance, calling one of the strategies "the people's waste strategy" or "the new people's waste strategy"! It is a little early to be so silly!
I will read what the Minister has said about the statutory definition. Listening to him, I do not believe that I agreed with the point. I am concerned that the mayor may be in a position where the law will be broken. To put the statutory term in 10, 9, 8 or 5 point type on a document would be absurd. I hope that there might be a way round this matter. Of course, I take the point that there has to be a mechanism for leading into and enforcing the duties that are contained in the Bill. I will reflect on that.
For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 450SA, I should point out to the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment Nos. 450UA or 450WA.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450SA:
Page 149, line 26, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("not less than two years six months and not more than three years six months after the first or as the case may be previous ordinary election.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 450SA, I will speak also to Amendment No. 450XA. Amendment Nos. 450UA and 450WA are grouped with this.
These amendments deal with the period within which a state of the environment report is to be published. Under Clause 281, the first report can be published at any time within the first three years, and subsequent reports within four years from the previous report. Reading this provision, it seemed to me that it would be possible for the mayor to publish the first report very early, in order to distance it from the second round of elections for the mayor and the assembly. This, of course, would have a knock on effect on the timing of subsequent reports. Therefore, I suggest a minimum as well as a maximum period and, in all cases, I have calculated the periods from the previous election. As drafted, I hope that the amendment will mean that there will be a maximum period between reports.
It seems to me that it would not be inconceivable—indeed, it might be quite smart—for the mayor to publish the report rather early on, so that he can say, perhaps accurately, that the state of the environment in London is pretty frightful and there are all sorts of things that need to be done about it, but not to have to report again formally on the success of his strategy until after the next election. He could go into that election saying, "Well, it is not my fault. The Government haven't

1483
actually achieved anything". That is the sort of situation that one would not want to see, but perhaps even to have thought of the point shows that I have had too many years of electioneering.
Amendment No. 450XA proposes that the report shall be published at a point when information would be available for the annual report and the debate. I accept that this is not quite so easy a thing to govern, but information is always historical in a report. This is, perhaps, a rather inadequate attempt to ensure that it is reasonably up to date at the time of the annual report and debate. I am aware that the Minister in another place said that there was nothing to prevent production of the report more frequently than every four years, but our amendments are intended to apply the proper pace to such reports rather than to stop more frequent reports and more proper reporting. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Our amendments, Amendments Nos. 450UA and 450WA, are grouped with Amendment No. 450SA. We feel that the drafting of the Bill, or at least the time-scale suggested by it, is almost lackadaisical. The Bill provides that the first state of the environment report should be produced at the end of a period of three years from the start of a mayor's term of office and that, every four years subsequently, there should be another environment report. Of course, that fits in very neatly with the electoral cycle.
However, whether the state of the environment be good or bad is neither here nor there. We think that the publication of the report requires rather more urgency than is implied by the drafting in the Bill, or indeed by the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In fact, our amendments suggest that the first state of the environment report should be published after one year. If the mayor is backed by the sort of staff that he is supposed to be taking over from the Government Office for London, I do not think it unreasonable to suppose that he ought to be able to achieve that.
We are also suggesting that subsequent reports should be produced every two years. Therefore, if the mayor were to report after one year and then submit an up-date two years later, that would still be the year before the election. He would not actually have to submit a report over an election period. The mayor himself, or his successor, will report a year after the election. In fact, the time-scale that we suggest would not remove the electoral imperative, but it does at least have the merit of being reasonably separated from it.
We believe this to be an important matter. An appropriate time-scale for producing these reports and then both looking at them and revising them is, of course, a question of judgment. We think that our time-scale is superior to the one on the face of the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments deal with the timing and frequency of publication of the mayor's state of the environment report, as both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have indicated. The Bill as drafted requires the mayor
1484
to publish the first state of the environment report within three years of the first election and subsequent reports at a minimum of every four years. This is designed to ensure that every mayor publishes a state of the environment report at some time within his or her term of office.
These amendments would change both the timing of the mayor's first environmental report and the frequency of future reports. Amendment No. 450WA would have the effect of requiring the mayor to publish a report every two years, while Amendment No. 450XA would require the mayor to publish the report annually in time for it to be debated alongside the annual report.
Amendment No. 450UA would require the first report to be published within one year of the first elections. Amendment No. 450SA would prevent the mayor from publishing the report until after two years six months but require that the mayor did publish the report before three years six months after the election.
The Government oppose these amendments. As we have made clear all along in this Committee stage, the Bill is designed to allow the mayor as much flexibility as possible in the setting of his or her priorities. For this reason it sets out a sensible timescale for the production of state of the environment reports which will ensure that no mayor can avoid producing a report at some point in his or her term of office. But it avoids placing a requirement upon the GLA to produce more frequent reports, specifically because this could prove burdensome to the small, streamlined organisation it is designed to be.
The production of a state of the environment report, covering all the subjects set out in Clause 281 of the Bill, will be a time-consuming task. Much of the data will not change significantly over the course of a year. It would place a substantial burden upon the GLA to produce an annual or even biennial report, particularly when the information it contained might not differ significantly from the previous report.
Similarly, we consider that the obligation to publish the first report within three years is a reasonable one. The first few years after the GLA is established will be a particularly hectic time. The first mayor will have to balance his or her priorities in tackling London's problems. The obligation we have placed upon the mayor will ensure that he or she publishes a report in the first term of office. But it will allow the mayor a good breathing space to set priorities and gather the necessary information.
Finally, I should add that the Bill does not prevent the mayor from producing a report more frequently than every four years. The mayor might choose to publish his or her first report more quickly than the limit of three years. I understand the concerns that have been raised about the choice that the mayor would have to publish the report early in the cycle to gain electoral advantage, or possibly to obscure the figures. However, environmental indicators move slowly and take time to analyse. In practice advantage is unlikely to be gained by early publication, and if it were, the mayor would be unlikely to get away with it.

1485
The point of the report is to ensure a periodic and definitive statement on environmental indicators to inform the public and to inform policy. In between times I am sure that the scrutinising assembly will watch environmental developments carefully and hold the mayor to account for all of them. The Bill allows the mayor the freedom to set priorities within the framework the legislation provides. We believe that this is the right approach to creating a flexible and effective GLA. I hope therefore that the amendments will be withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee: I am prepared to forgo my point about the frequency of publication and the minimum period before publication. My first amendment does not propose a very different time-scale from that of the Government; it merely seeks to place difficulties in the way of a mayor who might try to avoid facing up to issues at an electorally inconvenient time. I have heard what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450TA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 450UA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 450VA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 450WA and 450XA not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450XAA:
Page 149, line 36, at end insert ("and from industrial sites")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 450XAA standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 450IB, 450NP and 450PB, which are very similar to government Amendment No. 450YA.
Amendment No. 450XAA seeks to ensure that the state of the environment report includes information about air emissions from industrial sites as well as from road traffic. The Committee will recall the success of naming and shaming some of the larger industrial complexes over the past few years. Work has been carried out subsequently to reduce their air emissions. Industrial sites can have a great impact in terms of reducing air pollution. The Bill would gain considerably if, in addition to information on road traffic emissions, information on industrial site emissions were to be included in the state of the environment report.
Amendment No. 450IB seeks to include in the state of the environment report information about the biodiversity action plan. Several of our amendments seek to ensure that cross-information is supplied to each strategy and that strategies are not simply "drainpipes" that are ticked off as informing something else. This amendment is in that spirit.
Amendment No. 450NP provides that the state of the environment report should include information on the percentage of new developments on greenfield and brownfield sites. The Government's targets are obviously quite high. Over time, as brownfield sites fill
1486
up, the target will need to be reduced if more development is to take place. A close eye will need to be kept on that situation. The statistics will be very important in the state of the environment report, as it informs the SDS report.
Amendment No. 450PB seeks to achieve much the same target as government Amendment No. 450YA; that is, that the state of the environment report should include information about biodiversity. I am glad that since this matter was debated in the other place the Government have accepted the Liberal Democrat and Conservative point of view that this is extremely important. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I shall speak first to government Amendment No. 450YA, to which the noble Baroness referred. The amendment is the result of an omission which was spotted in Committee in another place by various Opposition Members of Parliament. The amendment remedies that omission and puts biodiversity—which is a strategy for the mayor—back into the clause. I am grateful that the noble Baroness also spotted the omission. I hope that she will accept that my amendment meets her point in relation to Amendments Nos. 450IB and 450PB.
Turning to the other amendments, I remind the Committee that the Bill also states that the mayor may include information about any other matters not prescribed on the face of the Bill in relation to Greater London which he or she considers appropriate. That gives the mayor plenty of discretion to include all kinds of matters which the Bill does not specifically state and therefore allows the mayor a pretty free hand to include any matter that may be considered relevant to Londoners in the plan.
The question of listing everything on the face of the Bill, including those matters to which the amendments refer, could lead to a demand to lay down in primary legislation a list that is potentially endless. I am therefore wary of adding anything to the list in Clause 281. Each additional topic places a burden on the mayor. It may well be that he or she will consider it a burden that should be undertaken. However, we need to leave some discretion to the mayor.
Neither of the areas listed in Amendments Nos. 450XAA and 450NP—namely, emissions to air from industrial sites and new developments on brownfield and greenfield sites—is in any sense directly within the mayor's control. Nor do I see them as strictly essential to ensure the proper coverage of a broad range of environmental issues across London.
If the mayor considers it appropriate, he or she can include such a section and will need to co-operate with the London boroughs in order to produce the required information. But I see no reason to add any of those matters to the existing list in the Bill, and to exclude other matters which might be equally important and which might equally require agreement between the mayor and the London boroughs, which we hope will develop organically. I do not see that it is sensible to specify that the state of the environment report should include a section on each of these or on other topics. That must be left to the discretion of the mayor and the

1487
relationship that he or she builds up with those authorities that have direct control over these matters. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press these amendments.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I welcome the Minister's words on Amendment 450PB. I am glad that we have achieved that. I do not agree with him that industrial sites should not be specified. They can be a major source of pollution. Although I understand that the Government wish the mayor to have plenty of discretion, if he is responsible for air quality, it is wise to specify in the Bill those areas on which he should concentrate. However, at this stage, I hear what the Minister says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments No. 450YA:
Page 150, line 3, at end insert—("() biodiversity,")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 450A:
Page 150, line 4, after ("recycling") insert (", transportation")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would provide that the state of the environment report should include information about the transportation of waste. Amendment No. 450A provides that the mayor's waste strategy also contains proposals for the transportation of waste.
At an earlier stage in the proceedings in Committee, we raised our concerns that the transportation of waste was not considered in connection with waste strategy and the mayor's strategy in general. It is our contention that the transportation of waste is an essential part of a waste strategy, particularly in so far as that strategy relates to disposal sites.
Clause 285 states that disposal, and for that matter collection, authorities shall have regard to the mayor's strategy. So if the mayor were to adopt a strategy or suggest strategies as to how waste might be moved—and we must remember that some of London's waste is moved a very long distance to its final disposal site—that could have quite an effect in terms of times of day, days of the week, routes, the mode of transport, cleanliness, the pollution status of the vehicles employed, and so on. We think it could be a very useful spur to the waste disposal authorities in exacting from their contractors a sensible and non-polluting attitude to the disposal of waste. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: We certainly accept that the transportation of municipal waste is a very important issue. In a sense, because it is such a central issue we have not specified it here. The Bill already allows the mayor to include in both the environment report and the municipal waste management strategy those issues that are important, including the transportation of municipal waste. In preparing or revising the waste management
1488
strategy, the mayor shall have regard to any guidance issued to him by the Secretary of State for the purposes of implementing the strategy and relating to the content of that strategy.
All guidance from my department will indicate that, when choosing the waste management option to be followed for a particular part of the waste stream, all authorities must be in a position to adopt the principle of best practicable environmental option, which was defined by the Royal Commission as a procedure which establishes for a given set of objectives the option which provides the most benefit, or least damage, to the environment as a whole as an exceptional cost in the long term as well as in the short term. In order to identify this, authorities have to take into account the environmental impact of the transportation of municipal waste. In addition, it is almost certain that any guidance issued by the Secretary of State would suggest that authorities and the mayor should minimise the transportation of municipal waste and make full use of the forms of transport which do least damage to the environment.
We recognise that this is part of the whole process and that it is likely that the mayor will want to include it. However, we have to allow the mayor some discretion. I hope that, with the reassurances I have given and given the importance that my department attaches to this, the noble Baroness will not press this amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am bound to say that the Minister's reply had a strong flavour of "not invented here" about it. He tells us that it is very important and, indeed, that it is so important that it does not need to be mentioned on the face of the Bill. Is he telling us that waste disposal is less important than waste transportation? Waste disposal, which is equally covered by guidance—stacks of guidance—is on the face of the Bill whereas, because waste transportation is so central and is covered by guidance, it does not have to be on the face of the Bill. I think we need a more logic in the selection of items which do and do not have to be on the face of the Bill. However, for the present time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450IB not moved.]
[Amendment No. 450JB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450KB:
Page 150, line 7, at end insert—("() housing conditions,
() communicable diseases,
() occupational health and safety,
() food safety, and
() the effects of the environment on human health")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 450MB. Amendment No. 450KB seeks to add to the state of the environment report a number of very important matters in terms of the health of

1489
people living in the city. I refer to housing conditions, communicable diseases, occupational health and safety, food safety and the effects of the environment on human health.
It is not just we on these Benches who think that these are particularly important issues to tie in: they were in fact suggested by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. Health and the environment are obviously very closely linked and a healthy environment makes for healthy people. At the same time, what is happening in the areas I have just mentioned would be a very good measure of the sort of success at which the mayor needs to aim. The state of the environment report needs to consider such matters when reporting on the direct impact on people.
Amendment No. 450MB seeks to add to the list of matters that the state of the environment report shall contain something much more precise than the matters that the Government have currently included. The Government simply refer to water quality and pollution. Our amendment seeks to provide a measure of the health of rivers, waterways and canals by linking pollution with biodiversity. One of the aims is to have healthier rivers and watercourses that support the kind of life that they should support if they are not polluted.
The experience of water authorities is that the impact of storm sewage in urban run off on water courses has caused enormous problems, as have domestic waste systems that are incorrectly connected to surface water sewers and which pollute small rivers. Not only do these matters make watercourses unhealthy and unpleasant, but the oxygen levels in them are unable to support fish life which, for example, the Environment Agency has worked so hard to bring back. We believe that this amendment adds something to the aims of the Bill which is now lacking in the Government's more superficial view of the part played by watercourses. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: These amendments seek to require the mayor to include sections in the state of the environment report on housing conditions, communicable diseases, occupational health and safety, food safety and pollution of rivers and canals, all of which areas the mayor is not directly responsible for. If the mayor decides that all of these areas need detailed coverage in the report, that is a matter for him, but to impose a requirement seems to us to be over-prescriptive and is an unnecessary burden on the mayor, should he decide that other priorities ought to be pursued.
As far as concerns Amendment No. 450MB, which deals with pollution and biodiversity of waterways, we believe that its purpose is already adequately covered by the mayor's obligation to publish the biodiversity action plan under Clause 282. In that plan the mayor is required to have regard to ecology, wildlife and proposals for the conservation and promotion of biodiversity within Greater London. We have recently tabled a further amendment which includes biodiversity in the list of subjects to be covered by the state of the environment report. Therefore, the objectives of this
1490
amendment are already met in the Bill in the amendment recently accepted. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to pursue the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: While to an extent I agree with the Minister's remarks on Amendment No. 450MB, I cannot agree with his observations on Amendment No. 450KB. If, heaven forfend—I am sure that it will not happen—we have a somewhat lazy mayor, at the rate that we are going this evening he or she will be able to ignore, for example, the air quality on industrial sites and all the other matters that both I and the Minister have listed. After all, those matters have been suggested to us by a professional body as providing an exact measure of the state of human health in relation to the environment. I do not agree that this matter should be left entirely to the discretion of the mayor. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450LB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 450MB to 450QB not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 450RB:
Page 149, line 22, leave out ("to be known as a") and insert ("dealing with the matters provided by subsection (3) (in this section called the").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 451ZE, 451ZN, 451ZP and 451ZS. This amendment takes us back to the role of the assembly in the production of the report on the environment; to consultation before directions given by the Secretary of State on the waste strategy; to commenting on boroughs' recycling plans; and to consultation before directions are given by the Secretary of State on the air quality strategy.
The Minister may think that, from these Benches, we have dealt with these matters to the point of tedium. However, we are merely repeating what we believe to be extremely important; namely, that the experience of assembly members, and in particular their role of keeping the mayor up to scratch, is essential. The exchange on the two amendments with which my noble friend Lady Miller dealt rather illustrates that. Members of the assembly could have a role in assisting the mayor to make connections. We talk a great deal about cross-cutting issues. The last group of amendments was about precisely that. It was about making the connection between, for example, the state of the environment and human health.
I repeat that the assembly should be able to make its comments in advance through a formal process. I have mentioned the question of health. In relation to recycling, the members of the assembly may well have an overview of how recycling fits within the jigsaw of other environmental issues in London.
The White Paper Local Leadership, Local Choice referred to the scrutiny committee which is proposed by the Government in their forthcoming local government

1491
organisation and standards Bill. At paragraph 3.19 it states that it should:
"consider and investigate broad policy issues and make reports and recommendations to the executive",
and,
"provide advice to the executive on major issues before final decisions are made".
The next paragraph goes on to state that scrutiny committees,
"would therefore be able to address cross cutting issues …making a key input to the council's policy development process. They would also tackle issues to do with the policy framework for a particular council service and the effectiveness of the delivery of that service".
It went on to say that:
"These overview and scrutiny committees would make reports and recommendations on future policy and practice to the council or the executive as appropriate".
That is a close and useful analogy with the role of the assembly and the way in which the assembly can best work. I hope that we shall be given some assurances that the assembly members can make the sort of input to which I have referred in quoting from that White Paper. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness rightly says that we have been round this course before. I should never accuse her of tedium although I may accuse her of relentless consistency perhaps. However, there is a fundamental difference between us in this regard. These amendments pursue the way in which the Liberal Democrats view the structure of the authority. They would enhance the role of the assembly and give it the right to make executive decisions alongside the mayor.
We do not consider that that is the right approach. There need to be clear checks and balances and there must be a clear separation of powers. Proper scrutiny can only take place in that context. The assembly cannot scrutinise decisions and the implications of decisions in which it is implicated. To a greater or lesser extent, the amendments would undermine that principle. For example, they would give the assembly the right to decide what should be included in the state of the environment report. That would undermine the assembly's subsequent ability of scrutiny.
We have debated this issue many times. I have no doubt that we shall return to it at a later stage. In our view, the separation of functions would logically not allow these amendments. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not pursue the matter.
10 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not sure that I follow the point that if the assembly has a role in advance, it prejudices its scrutiny role after the event. I shall consider that. I think that the Minister paid me a compliment. I would rather have had the amendment accepted, but I shall make do with the compliment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450SB:
Page 150, line 9, at end insert—
("() A state of the environment report shall also set performance targets in the above areas and assess progress in achieving those targets.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 450J. Amendment No. 450SB seeks to insert that,
"A state of the environment report shall also set performance targets"
—in the areas it is to cover—
"and assess progress in achieving those targets".
On another Bill, we have heard relentlessly—I do not say "tediously"—about assessment of performance targets. We have a vast array of systems enabling council leaders to be assessed on them. If they fail, the Government have another set of systems to ensure that those targets are achieved. Yet we do not seem to be placing anything like the same requirements on the mayor in his state of the environment report.
I am aware that in another place the Minister argued that it was inappropriate and unreasonable to require a mayor to set targets in areas outside his or her responsibility. However, if the mayor cannot set the targets, who can? The mayor is able to set goals and aspirations even though those areas may be outside his responsibility. In seeking to raise the quality of life for Londoners, I should have thought that the mayor should be able to raise the aspirations of every sector of the community he serves.
Amendment No. 450J seeks to do the same, but relates to a more specific area: the London biodiversity action plan. Again, there is little point in having a biodiversity action plan if there are no performance indicators. How will the success or otherwise of the plan be measured? Both amendments are extremely important. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can sympathise with the intention behind the amendment. The Government are a strong advocate of the use of performance indicators to encourage improved performance in a range of public bodies. The Greater London Authority should not be an exception to this principle. As the Committee will already know, and as the noble Baroness is aware, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has promoted a Local Government Act this Session. It will establish a best value framework for local authorities which will include a series of performance indicators across the range of public services.
The GLA will be covered by best value and will, therefore, need to have a series of performance indicators in place to assess its level of performance for all its functions, including the environment. Performance indicators will play a part in the GLA's make up as a requirement of best value. We expect that relevant nationally applied indicators will apply to the authority.

1493
However, we cannot support the amendments. They seek to require the mayor to set performance targets for all the areas which the state of the environment report will cover and to include performance indicators in the biodiversity action plan.
As I have already explained to the Committee, the state of the environment report will contain several sections on areas of indirect interest to the mayor, in which he has no strategic role, but where we consider London would benefit from his interest and scrutiny; for example, litter and water quality.
The Government consider that it would be inappropriate and unreasonable to require the mayor to set performance indicators in areas which are not within his or her responsibility. On whom would the indicators bite? Would it be the GLA or perhaps other bodies, such as the London boroughs?
If the indicators applied to the GLA, they would inevitably be meaningless as the GLA would have no direct responsibility for achieving them. If they applied to local authorities, they would be seen as unfair and ineffective because the mayor would have no remit to set indicators and no ability to enforce their achievement.
However, I am more sympathetic to the noble Baroness's suggestion that the biodiversity action plan should contain performance indicators. As she may be aware, my honourable friend in another place made a commitment to examine the case for including performance indicators in the mayor's strategies. We are still completing our considerations of this point and I guarantee that we shall return to it at a later stage. I hope that, in the light of these assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for her reply and I am encouraged to hear that an amendment similar to our Amendment No. 450J is likely to appear before we reach the final stage of the Bill. Naturally, I am slightly disappointed in her reply to Amendment No. 450SB because I believe that the setting of targets for London's society as a whole is desirable, even though no one obvious person may be responsible for them. However, in the meantime, I accept the Minister's reply and shall read it with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450TB:
Page 150, line 12, at end insert—
("() such non-governmental organisations as the Mayor considers appropriate,")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 450UB. Amendment No. 450TB seeks to add NGOs to those who must be consulted before the mayor produces a state of the environment report. Although I am aware that the Government are likely to argue that he already has the power to consult any person he considers appropriate, that gives the mayor a considerable comfort
1494
blanket. In relation to the state of the environment, he might not want to hear what the NGOs have to say and for that reason in particular it is important that he is required to consult them. They are often in the vanguard of indicating problems and their advice is often too radical to take on board, particularly by someone who is coming up for re-election. But even if their advice is uncomfortable and the mayor may not want to hear it, we believe that it is worth having it on record together with the mayor's reaction.
Amendment No. 450UB is a simple amendment to add to those who must be consulted before the environment report is produced. It lists the Health and Safety Executive, the Food Standards Agency and the regional Director of Public Health. I accept that it is likely that the mayor will consult them, but they are important statutory bodies and I believe that the mayor should be required to consult them. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: Again, I must commend the Liberal Democrat Benches on their consistency. Clearly, had we pursued the earlier amendment relating to the requirements of the environment strategy, it might be logical to require the bodies listed in Amendment No. 450UB to be consultees. However, in that debate I argued that we should allow the mayor some discretion on what is included, particularly as regards the issues over which he has no direct executive powers, and that is also the case in relation to whom he should consult. The present requirement is that he is required to consult the Environment Agency, each London borough council, the City and any other person whom he considers appropriate.
That is a fairly wide discretion, but to prescribe these particular bodies and NGOs would not be appropriate. That would be going too far, particularly in the light of the Government's position, which is that we would not prescribe within the environment strategy areas for which the mayor has no direct executive responsibility. If the mayor wants those areas to be covered, it would obviously be sensible and logical for the bodies set out in Amendment No. 450UB to be consulted, but that is a matter for the mayor.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I believe that by not including these amendments we are leaving the mayor with too great a comfort blanket in place to hear only what he wants to hear, in some cases. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450UB not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): Before calling Amendment No. 450VB, I must inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 450C.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 450VB:
Page 150, line 16, leave out subsection (5)
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 450VB I shall speak also to the other amendments within this group. Amendment No. 450C seeks to broaden the scope of the information that the mayor must include in the section of the report on road traffic. The Bill, as currently drafted, requires the mayor to include information on the number of vehicles, the length of journeys, and the places where, and length of time for which, road vehicles park in Greater London.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would require the mayor to include information about the type, as well as the number of vehicles. My honourable friend, Glenda Jackson, made a commitment in another place to review the need for Clause 281(5), and, in particular, to consider whether it is absolutely necessary to place upon the mayor these fairly stringent requirements. We are still considering that.
Our overall approach to the GLA is to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens. For that reason, we have taken the view that it is more sensible to allow the mayor some discretion over what information should be included in the road traffic section. Amendment No. 450VB achieves that by deleting the subsection altogether. The other amendments in this group would have the opposite effect of imposing additional burdens on the mayor. The Government would not be prepared to accept that.
There are two other amendments in this group which also seek to define closely what information should be provided. Amendment No. 450D would require the mayor to include information on domestic and non-domestic production, recycling and disposal in the section of the report on waste. Amendment No. 450F would require the mayor to include information on specific pollutants.
I understand the reasons behind the amendments. I am sure that much of this would be covered by the mayor in any such strategy. Nevertheless, I believe that our approach of allowing more rather than less discretion and prescribing less rather than more on the face of the Bill is appropriate in these circumstances. It is appropriate to give the mayor a little "elbow room" in determining the priorities within the strategy required from him. I hope that those amendments are not pursued. However, in the mean time, I beg to move Amendment No. 450VB.
Baroness Hamwee: I am happy to see the Government's amendment. The Minister described Amendment No. 450C as broadening the scope of the provision. We tabled that amendment because the clause is already fairly broadly drawn. We felt it was necessary to add a little more to cover the ground.
Clause 281(3)(b) refers to "road traffic levels". Will the Minister confirm that, although the word "levels" is used, distinctions between different types of vehicle can be made? It is important to ensure a more analytical approach to the issue by accepting, for example, that
1496
private cars, bicycles, delivery vans and other vehicles raise different issues and there is different information to be gleaned about them. I hope that the phrase "road traffic levels" as distinct from road traffic does not restrict the report more than we all want.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I was interested in what the Minister said about Amendment No. 450VB and the others in the group, which include my Amendments Nos. 450D and 450F. It is not surprising, although it sometimes seems paradoxical, that whenever we propose a requirement for more information to be provided the Minister opposes it, but if we suggest that the Bill is too prescriptive we usually find the Minister proposing the opposite. That may be inevitable given the nature of debates in Committee.
We were seeking to increase the information available about waste and, perhaps more significantly, about the main atmospheric pollutants, which are a significant part of any serious environmental report. I accept the Minister's argument that it is highly likely that such matters will be reported on in the state of the environment report, but they might not be. We have tabled amendments because we think that they should be included in the report. I shall study what the Minister has said.
Lord Whitty: The mayor can and no doubt will wish to add the details on traffic to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred. We are not prescribing precisely how the issues would be analysed. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the same is true of our overall approach. The issues will he covered in broad terms. The precise terms will be down to how the mayor assesses his or her priorities. That is the right balance and I hope that the other amendments are not pressed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 450WB, 450XB and 450YB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 450B:
Page 150, line 21, at end insert—
("() A copy of each state of the environment report shall he kept available for the appropriate period by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge at the principal offices of the Authority at reasonable hours.
() A copy of each state of the environment report, or any part of such a report, shall be supplied to any person on request during the appropriate period for such reasonable fee as the Mayor may determine.
() In this section "the appropriate period" in the case of any state of the environment report is the period of six years beginning with the date of publication of that report pursuant to this section.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 450D not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 450E:
Page 150, line 21, at end insert—
("() The Mayor shall publish an action plan for London on the basis of the state of the environment report.")
The noble Lord said: The amendment forms an odd coupling with Amendment No. 451ZAF. Amendment No. 450E deals with the state of the environment report, while Amendment No. 451ZAF is intimately involved with waste. I shall cover them in the same speech, although I shall deal with them separately.
Amendment No. 450E would require the mayor to publish an action plan as a consequence of the state of the environment report. It is, of course, entirely proper that the mayor should be required to report on the state of the environment. But, paradoxically, although indirectly throughout the Bill he may be taking actions which will have an impact on the environment, there is no requirement on him to produce an action plan as a consequence of producing the report.
It may be argued that such a report will sum up work that is being done elsewhere on the face of the Bill. But it would be no bad thing for the mayor to be required to produce an action plan on the state of the environment report. It would make the system more open, more accountable and in general would prove to be more satisfactory to everybody.
Amendment No. 451ZAF was slipped into this group. I must admit that I did not pick it up when the groupings were suggested and they normally work out reasonably coherently. The amendment relates to page 151, line 13, and to the way in which we deal with the question of waste. One can see why the amendment was slipped in because, again, we call for an action plan, but this time on the question of waste.
We have a paradox with regard to the mayor and what is to be done in London about waste. Apart from what is in the Bill—we shall in due course be questioning whether this provision should be here at all—the mayor has no responsibility with regard to either the collection or disposal. There is a sense, therefore, in which this is so much hot air. But if the mayor is to have anything to do with waste, clearly he should have to have an action plan.
Some fundamental problems exist in relation to the disposal of London's waste. As we have discussed before in this Chamber, London's waste disposal arrangements are coming to a point of crisis. Many of the existing facilities are running out of either space or time. A further problem is that there is a greater inclination on the part of the European Community to regulate in the field of waste disposal and to require that waste is not disposed of to landfill. That will impose huge problems, not just in relation to management, but also technical and financial problems, and, primarily, the problem of overcoming the NIMBY factor.
One of the most difficult issues with which an authority has to deal is persuading a community how to dispose of its waste. Disposing of waste can usually be achieved, but it is not easy with a community that is used to disposing of its waste elsewhere. Therefore, if this measure is to be in the Bill, there should be an action plan and that is why Amendment No. 451ZAF
1498
was included in this grouping. The amendments are an odd coupling as to subject, but with regard to intention, they are identical. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: In one sense, the amendments are an odd coupling, but they allow me to clarify what we mean by a report and a strategy. A report is a report, and a strategy, almost by definition, must be an action plan. I have probably conveyed my meaning a little too explicitly. What I was trying to say is that a report is one thing and a strategy includes action points. The mayor will be required to produce eight strategies, most of which will have a relationship to the environmental report. The strategies will be where the action is and they will relate either to where the mayor will have direct executive responsibility or where he will have responsibilities for guiding, and in some cases intervening, in relation to the London boroughs and other statutory authorities.
If the mayor were also required to have an environmental action plan that cross-cut the eight strategies that he will be statutorily bound to deliver, there would be some confusion about where the action points arose. The environment report has to be seen as a report on the state of the environment, and the action plans will be contained within the individual strategies. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will see that the operational arms arise from the strategies and it will be confusing to introduce an action plan as an additional part of the report. As far as the waste disposal side is concerned, the action plan is the strategy as described.
I hope that I have made myself clear, although I doubt it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall have to study what the Minister has had to say. I am grateful to him for doing his best to explain the difference and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450F not moved.]
Clause 281, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 450G not moved.]
Clause 282 [The Mayor's biodiversity action plan]:
[Amendments Nos. 450H and 450J not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 450K:
Page 150, line 40, leave out ("Commission") and insert ("Agency")
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. As the Committee will be aware, on 1st April this year, the Countryside Commission merged with the Rural Development Commission into an organisation called the Countryside Agency. The amendment merely ensures that the correct name is on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 450KA not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 450L:
Page 150, line 41, at end insert (", and
() such non-governmental organisatlons as the Mayor considers appropriate")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 450M, tabled by the Conservatives. They both seek, in one way or another, to ensure that the mayor will consult NGOs when preparing or revising the London biodiversity plan. Bearing in mind the Minister's earlier comments about giving the mayor a little elbow room, he may find our amendment more acceptable.
Amendment No. 450L provides for the mayor to consult NGOs, but he may choose those he considers appropriate. Any of us who have through the years received the excellent briefings from NGOs such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds will recognise the wisdom of the mayor consulting such bodies when preparing the biodiversity plan. The expertise in those organisations is such that he is unlikely to be able to replicate it among his limited staff. The Bill would gain something from having that requirement, while giving the mayor the necessary elbow room. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 450M, which is grouped with Amendment No. 4501., is now slightly inaccurate because the question of an environmental strategy group is no longer relevant in the light of what has happened earlier. However, the amendment seeks to add to the list of consultees in regard to the biodiversity section of the Bill. These are groups such as the London Ecology Unit, the Wildlife Trust, the RSPB and the Groundwork Foundation that have a special interest in certain aspects of the ecology of London. London's ecology is important. It has diverse flora and fauna and in many ways does not suffer from the disadvantages of the countryside where intensive agriculture restricts some of the plants and animals that otherwise one would expect to find. However, while intensive agriculture may be responsible for that loss, intensive agriculture is necessary to feed us all. So one has to live with that. However, there are aspects of London's ecology that are special and well worth preserving. The bodies mentioned in our list have a special interest and I believe it would be worthwhile to consult them. I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: We have returned to the position of prescribing exactly whom the mayor should consult. We have been over this ground before. On the biodiversity action plan the mayor is specifically required to consult English Nature, the Countryside Commission and the Environment Agency. Clause 34 also lists in relation to that plan not only the assembly but also the functional bodies; namely, the London boroughs and anyone else the mayor deems it appropriate to consult.
The additional organisations prescribed in the various amendments would in many cases be appropriate for the mayor to consult. However, I think we need to leave the mayor that discretion. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has referred to the fact that we have
1500
already discussed the environmental strategy group. However, with reference to the London Ecology Group which has been mentioned here, I thought I had already explained at an earlier stage that the London Ecology Unit would be subsumed into the GLA to provide for the authority its core environmental staff. In that sense, the LEU would cease to exist as soon as the GLA carne into existence. So the GLA can hardly consult with itself. I do not think that would be appropriate, even were we to be prescriptive.
Of course I am aware of the sterling work being done by the London Wildlife Trust, the RSPB and the Groundwork Foundation. I would expect the mayor to make his or her own decisions as to which of those groups to consult, but in practice I should expect all of them to be consulted on the biodiversity plan. However, we must leave a few matters for the mayor to decide for himself or herself. We have dealt with this argument previously and I should not flog it to death. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am beginning to find different ways of accepting graciously the Minister's replies, while realising that we will get nothing challenging. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 450M not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 450N:
Page 151, line 8, at end insert—
("() The Mayor shall publish any plan within one year of the first ordinary election and subsequently every two years.")
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to build on our ambitions to keep the mayor up to scratch as regards timing. The London biodiversity plan does not appear to have any great urgency about it. In this amendment we have suggested that the mayor should publish a plan within one year of the first ordinary election and subsequently every two years. There is no time limit on this matter on the face of the Bill. We think there ought to be. The point is simple and we think it is worthwhile. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, this amendment requires the mayor to publish the Biodiversity action plan within one year of the first elections and subsequently every two years. We do not presume to set a timetable for the mayor which would force him or her to work to the Government's priorities rather than his own. Those priorities must be those which have been set out in the manifesto for which the people of London have voted. That may mean that he or she will produce some strategies in advance of others. We believe that that is a totally valid way in which to proceed. We do not propose to put constraints in the way of making this the effective method of working. In the light of my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I will study with care what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 282, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 451 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I should have pointed out to the Committee that Amendment No. 451 is not moved. It therefore follows that Amendments Nos. 451YA and 451YAA may not in those circumstances be moved because they would have been proposed as amendments to Amendment No. 451.
[Amendments Nos. 451YA and 451YAA, as amendments to Amendment No. 451, not moved.]
Clause 283 [The Mayor's municipal waste management strategy]:
[Amendment No. 451ZAA not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 451ZAB to 451ZAE had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 451ZAF not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 451ZAG:
Page 151, line 13, after second ("the") insert ("minimisation,")
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment, we move into the detail of the waste strategy or new waste strategy, or whatever it will be known as. This amendment seeks, as did several other amendments that we had in this group but have withdrawn, to include the word "minimisation" and the concept of minimisation in the mayor's waste strategy.
When we come to the subject of a waste strategy, to omit the word "minimisation" is to ignore what is happening with the whole of the waste production stream. Originally, the Government had a target that 25 per cent of household waste would be recycled by the year 2000. London is recycling 11 per cent of its waste at the moment, and that fairly patchily. Some boroughs are doing very much better than others. The borough of my noble friend Lord Tope is doing especially well in that respect.
However, it is very uphill work. No matter how hard the boroughs work to recycle as much as they can, waste seems to grow and grow. Simply aiming to recycle the waste and transport it in a more efficient way, together with all the other current objectives that the strategy aims to achieve, is absolutely not enough if any real impact is to be made in this area. In fact, minimisation should be the prime responsibility of the mayor if he takes a long term view.
Recycling initiatives have experienced great difficulties for a number of reasons. They are not in themselves particularly energy efficient and it is often difficult to use the end products again, although I believe that industry and commerce are getting much better at tackling this area of work. In addition, whichever way we look at it, the landfill sites are running out. By 2010, the south-east region is likely to run out of space for landfill site disposals. Incinerators
1502
certainly represent one possible change of direction. However, they are going to hit very hard the people who do not want them in their back yards. In any event, in terms of environmental sustainability, minimisation has to be the way forward.
However, minimisation is incredibly much more difficult to achieve. It will mean persuading people that they want to do without things or do them in a more difficult way. For example, when we adjourned for our dinner break—for which we were all duly grateful—many members of staff in the canteen were taking away their meals in take-away boxes. Although that sort of practice makes life easier for all of us, it would have to stop under a minimisation plan because it produces vast amounts of waste.
The mayor needs to be given some ammunition to target those things which people will reluctantly give up. Large shops will be reluctant to give up practices which make packaging and selling easier; they will prefer to recycle them, because it is cheaper in the short term and they do not have to look at different ways of doing things. But minimisation is absolutely essential and must form part of the mayor's strategy. Anything else would be short term. Minimisation is the medium and long-term future. It must be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I find myself in almost total agreement with the noble Baroness in terms of what she said, with the possible exception of the implied abolition of the dinner break. What the noble Baroness proposes in this amendment could actually lead to the exact opposite result. Waste minimisation is such an integral part of waste management that separating it out, as proposed by the amendment, would send the message that waste minimisation and waste management were two different things. That seems to me to be entirely the wrong message and, indeed, the wrong implication of what the noble Baroness was just saying.
Therefore, although I totally agree that waste minimisation is absolutely a central part of waste management and the whole waste strategy, to say that it is different would actually give the wrong message to the mayor as regards the way in which the strategy was drawn up. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my support for almost everything she said, but that she will not actually pursue the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before my noble friend decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may add a few words to the debate. We really are getting into a very strange situation where things which are most important are left out of the Bill and those which are less important are left in the Bill; in other words, part of the waste management strategy is in the Bill but part of it has to be kept out of it. Either we should just talk about waste management, or we should talk about all the elements of waste management. We should not be selecting waste management and some of its elements, which is what is in the Bill at present.
I urge the Minister to rethink these clauses, which are not very well drafted, in the context of the guidance of the Department of Environment and that under the

1503
Environment Act, which everyone has been seeking. The whole idea of waste minimisation is a central part of that process. Although the abstraction by the collection authorities and the recycling of products is very important and forms part of the waste minimisation idea, the latter is also an attempt to try to encourage people—for example, those who run large businesses—to demand less packaging from their suppliers. A whole host of things, like making encouraging noises and the kind of leadership role that we expect the mayor to take, can be exercised through the word "minimisation" in what is, particularly in major cities, one of the major strategies which the mayor has to get right.
We have talked a good deal during the proceedings on the Bill about the effect of what happens in London on other local areas. I do not believe that there is anything that London does which causes more ill-humour and more disadvantage to its surrounding areas than waste management, or lack of waste management. This is something that we need to get right in the context of this Bill. Alongside my noble friend, I urge the Government to take the matter a little more seriously.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: While my noble friend was speaking, I searched again through Clause 283 to determine what the Minister meant when he said that although he agreed with everything I had said the Bill already placed an adequate duty on the mayor to ensure that waste is minimised. However, I failed to find any such duty. Clause 283 refers only to,
"the Mayor's proposals and policies for the recovery, treatment and disposal of municipal waste".
The Bill concentrates on dealing with waste as it occurs and does not seek to place a duty on anyone to minimise it. We shall certainly return to this matter. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 451A not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 451B:
Page 151, line 14, leave out ("municipal")
The noble Baroness said: The object of this amendment is to remove the word "municipal" from the waste management strategy. We could have tabled a large number of amendments all saying the same thing. We have simply chosen this one in order to discuss the principle of the matter.
The definition of "municipal waste" as provided for in this Bill—my noble friend will discuss this in a moment—is rather curious; namely, all that waste which reaches the waste collectors. That is it. However, that is not a satisfactory description of waste. It would be better to talk simply of waste management and not of municipal waste management. Then the mayor would have a strategic role in dealing with waste management and minimisation through to disposal of the waste that arises in London. That would include, for example, builders' rubble and dangerous waste, to which reference was made earlier in the Committee stage.
The Minister has told us many times that we must not restrict the mayor's freedom and capacity for action. However, to my way of thinking this description of municipal waste does just that. I repeat to some extent the point I made earlier. The Bill does not state that the mayor should act in a leadership role to encourage businesses to deal sensibly with their waste. It simply states that whatever waste comes into the hands of the waste collection authorities shall be dealt with under a mayoral strategy. I believe that it would be better for the mayor to have the freedom to consider how all of London's waste is disposed of, whether it is disposed of, or recovered, or managed, or reduced by the private sector under his encouragement, or whether it is dealt with by the waste collection and disposal authorities through their contracts with the private sector. It seems to me that the word "municipal" is a limiting as well as a rather curious definition within the waste terminology. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support the amendments spoken to by my noble friend. I hope that the Minister will explain what is the point of the mayor's waste strategy. It is surely to turn waste into something that is less costly to deal with and to minimise it and, where possible, to obtain energy from waste, for example. Given that those are the sorts of objective that the mayor's strategy should aim at, the kind of waste that he has to deal with is not particularly relevant. He should establish broad, long-term aims that may encompass many kinds of waste which will he dealt with in different ways.
The source of waste is perhaps the least important concern; what matters is where it goes and what benefits and drawbacks there are in its disposal. Perhaps the Minister could define how this purpose is served by trying to split waste into many different categories. The waste collection and disposal authorities at borough level should have regard to dealing with particular kinds of waste, not the mayor.
Lord Whitty: There is something in what the noble Baroness has said. We believe it is right that the mayor should have a view on other waste streams and how they are dealt with. There are many lessons of good practice. In the earlier provisions dealing with the environment report, the Bill provides for the inclusion of information on all waste, including the kinds of waste to which the noble Baroness referred. That is where the leadership, the education and the best practice roles arise.
The municipal waste strategy deals with the area where the mayor—either directly or more generally—has powers relating to the public sector but where the local authorities effectively have the control. We want the strategy to be a vehicle for real and concrete change. It should therefore contain policies that the mayor can deliver and which are capable of being implemented in the main by the local authorities, if necessary through powers of direction.
There are no mayoral powers of direction over the private sector. There would be little value in developing a strategy of action for the management of waste generated by the private sector, especially if it contained

1505
measures that it was not prepared to accept and which would be unenforceable. The municipal waste management strategy relates to an area where there is ultimately a mayoral power of direction but which is primarily a local authority responsibility. The other areas are of course important and will be covered within the environment report and what flows from it. With that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: We accept that the Bill as drafted does not give the mayor powers of direction in respect of non-municipal waste, as it is defined. But in these days of partnerships—often very productive partnerships—is it right to stop the mayor including in a strategy proposals as to how other types of waste might be dealt with? There might be advantages in dealing with municipal and other waste in the same way—or, at least, in relating the issues which arise one to the other. To preclude the mayor from extending a strategy simply because he cannot enforce it seems to me—I am sorry for the pun—to be a wasted opportunity.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The Minister's response to what we have said rather proves the point I was trying to make: the emphasis on municipal waste, as my noble friend has just said, rather limits the mayor's power to take a leadership role in this area.
Let us take, for example, the dangerous waste that emanates from hospitals. That can be disposed of in a number of different ways. A mayor may be able to encourage hospitals to deal with their waste in groups and possibly persuade them to dispose of it on their own sites, or on sites of hospitals in less crowded parts of London, in a way which is specifically directed at the disposal of that dangerous waste.
Of course the mayor could not force hospitals to do that; however, a direction to hospitals, a leadership or partnership approach, might well result in a satisfactory method of disposing of dangerous waste. The same could be said, for example, about the minimisation and disposal of the cardboard packaging which surrounds so much of what we buy and in particular what is delivered to large companies. I know of quite small authorities which have already started in a small way encouraging local businesses not to dispose of their waste into the waste stream but to sell it directly to those who recycle or re-use such waste. That has come about as a result of the leadership role taken by those authorities. I see no reason why the mayor should not be encouraged to take that kind of role in relation to London. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 451C not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 451D to 451M had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 451N:
Page 151, line 30, at end insert—
("() such non-governmental organisations as the Mayor considers appropriate,")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 451P and 451Q.
Amendment No. 451N would require the mayor to consult NGOs when preparing or revising the waste strategy. I shall not re-run at length the arguments I gave as to why the mayor should consult on the environmental strategy. But some of them are equally pertinent here.
There may be difficult issues that the may or may not wish to confront. I give merely one example of an area where volumes and volumes of waste—I do not have the exact figures—are produced every year. I refer to the area of disposable nappies. Few organisations have done more to raise that issue than has the Women's Environmental Network, and few organisations other than that one have come up with alternatives acceptable to mothers with small babies. That is the kind of organisation that the mayor should be required to consult.
Amendment No. 451P is a fairly obvious proposal. It requires that the mayor should consult not merely disposal authorities but waste collection authorities in Greater London when preparing or revising the strategy. That seems to me self-evident and I should not need to explain it at length. However, if it is not and the Minister does not agree with me, I shall return to the matter.
Amendment No. 451Q requires the mayor to consult not merely on the disposal of waste but also on its handling and transportation. When we consider the amount of waste that is shifted around the city and the fact that one waste company alone shifts 600,000 tonnes a year by river, thereby saving some 400 lorry movements a day, we can begin to see the scale of the involvement as regards handling and transportation issues. These matters should be included alongside disposal, as they can play a major role. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: So far as concerns waste collection authorities, under Clause 34 the list of statutory consultees for all the mayor's strategies, including this one, includes the London boroughs, which are the collection authorities. As regards the rest, again we are in a situation where I wish to give the mayor discretion and the noble Baroness wishes to prescribe. I do not know whether we want to go over those arguments again. The more one prescribes certain bodies, the more one excludes other bodies. Again, I should prefer to leave it to the mayor's discretion.
11 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I hear what the Minister says, and once again I am struck by my inability to find new ways of saying that I will withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 451P and 451Q not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 451 to 451X had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Clause 283 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: In moving that Clause 283 shall not stand part of the Bill, for the convenience of the Committee I should like to couple with it Clauses 284 to 289. The amendments are a series of probing amendments, which I do not really expect the noble Lord to accept. However, I find myself wondering why we inserted into the Bill the suggestion of handing the mayor the problem of handling London's waste disposal when in fact he has nothing to do with it. He will have nothing to do with collection or disposal. The Environment Agency regulates quality control of the business and the Secretary of State has overall control. The only reason I can see is that it might just pull the Secretary of State's irons out of the fire in that it might save him from having to take a number of difficult decisions which he might hope that the mayor would take on his behalf.
There is yet another problem. It is that the Bill has no timescale for the mayor to produce an effective strategy. By the time he is likely to do it, given the generous timescale being given in regard to other things, the crisis over the disposal of London's waste will have come and gone, because it will have to have been dealt with before any strategy is required to appear. I have not found a timescale on the face of the Bill.
This is what I would call a general shot across the bows. I would accept that there is some validity in what is proposed in the Bill if in fact the mayor was going to be given some responsibility for the provision of facilities for the disposal of London's waste, or some such power. But he has nothing. All he has to do is to write a plan, and I do not think that is likely to achieve anything. We have heard enough about the problem of London's waste and I will not talk more about that problem at this stage.
I think there is a case to answer as to why these clauses are included, and I look forward to what the noble Lord the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says that this is a shot across the bows and he has coupled with his Motion a number of subsequent clauses relating to waste. Of course it is true that direct powers of the GLA with regard to waste are not there, but the powers of direction are there. We said in the White Paper that we had considered the option of making the GLA the disposal authority for the whole of London, but that we considered that to be unnecessary and likely to involve a massive duplication of bureaucracy. It would require the GLA to become involved in areas which, by and large, are being dealt with adequately by the local boroughs within London. Nevertheless, there are some very serious pan-London issues involved here which affect areas beyond London, including the Royal County of Essex. So there are some very serious strategic issues involved here which, with the re-creation of a strategic authority, it is sensible for the GLA to undertake.
1508
It is important that, in relation to the collection, recovery, minimisation, disposal and transportation of waste—all the issues that the Committee has debated for the past hour or so—the GLA has a coherent strategy. It may well be that by better co-ordinating the boroughs and, if necessary, using a degree of direction in so doing, there will be a more integrated approach to waste disposal across London. In any case, as part of the general environmental obligations on the GLA it is necessary that, in conjunction with the other public authorities involved, waste disposal is seen as a major arm of the delivery of a better environmental quality of life within London, of which municipal waste disposal is a very important aspect.
Clearly, there is a national waste strategy into which all of this must fit and to which, in many ways, the Greater London waste strategy will make a major contribution. The fact that the GLA is not itself a waste disposal authority may perhaps make it easier for it to provide strategic direction. Were it to be bogged down in the detailed logistics of individual waste disposal operations, as the London boroughs inevitably are, the commitment to the strategic approach would be that much less.
Therefore, I hope the noble Lord agrees that a strategy for waste disposal is in the best interests of London and that the necessity for the GLA to co-operate with the London boroughs and neighbouring authorities around Greater London is an important responsibility. I hope that the noble Lord will allow this clause to stand part and not press his opposition tonight.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister has had a pretty good shot at replying. I need to study his observations with care. Although we are dealing initially with Clause 283, this is a series of probing amendments. I have spoken to all the following clause stand part amendments, and I do not intend to raise the issue again this evening. I must decide whether or not to raise the matter on another occasion.
Clause 283 agreed to.
Clause 284 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 451Y to 451ZD had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 451ZE not moved.]
Clause 284 agreed to.
Clause 285 [Duties of waste collection authorities etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 451ZF and 451ZG had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 285 agreed to.
Clause 286 [Directions by the Mayor]:
[Amendments Nos. 451ZH and 451Z1 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 451ZK:
Page 152, line 30, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 451ZK, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 451ZKA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord

1509
Dixon-Smith. Amendment No. 451ZK proposes the omission of paragraph (b) of Clause 286(1). That paragraph would allow the mayor to give a direction that required a waste collection or disposal authority not to exercise a function. Perhaps the Minister can give an example of how that power might operate. I assume that the function in question would be a statutory one. I have been trying to think of a regal analogy. Perhaps this is not a Henry VIII clause because the Secretary of State does not put himself in that position, but, as I read the provision, someone is promoting the mayor to that position by allowing him to stop a waste collection or disposal authority from exercising a function. It is not immediately obvious to me what circumstances would give rise to that, and I should be glad if the Minister could put some flesh on the bones. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Amendment No. 451ZKA involves a slightly different matter. Clause 286 deals with the question of the mayor giving directions with regard to the disposal of waste and municipal waste management in relation to his municipal waste management strategy. The amendment requires him to have some regard to the costs of what he is proposing to regulate on and the effect of those costs on either the disposal authorities or the collecting authorities—the boroughs.
The question of costs in waste disposal is significant. The cost of disposal through incineration, with energy recovery and an element of waste recovery, is very high. Nonetheless, I suspect that that will have to be the main means of disposal for London's waste in future. London's waste which is sent to landfill now suffers a considerable fiscal penalty, quite deliberately to discourage waste from going that way and, more importantly, to try to encourage recycling. The recycling market is in a very bad state—in nearly as bad a state, I might say, as farming, if one wants a valid comparison. However, the amendment seeks simply to make costs an important consideration to which the mayor should have regard. The Minister will say that we do not need to tell him that, but I believe that the amendment was worth tabling and I look forward to his response.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord will not be surprised that I regard the amendment as unnecessary. When preparing or revising a strategy, the mayor must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. That guidance advises that when choosing the waste management option to be followed, all authorities must be guided by the principle of using the best practicable environmental option, which, as I said earlier, was defined by the Royal Commission as a procedure which establishes, for a given set of objectives, the option which provides the most benefits or least damage to the environment as a whole at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as the short term.
Therefore, the question of acceptable cost will be covered by the guidance which the mayor will be following. Moreover, we are looking at the scope of the mayor's powers of direction in that respect, and we are looking at the impact that it will have on the London
1510
boroughs and the waste industry in general. Constructive discussions are already taking place between ourselves and the London boroughs over those issues. Before the Bill finally leaves this House, I hope to write to the noble Lord and others setting out the proposals in that area. It is hoped that that will be before we reach Report stage.
The noble Baroness's amendment seems to me rather illogical. It seeks to remove the power to require an authority not to exercise a function, but it leaves standing the power to direct an authority to exercise a function in a manner specified in the direction. The amendment is therefore seriously flawed in that respect. The noble Baroness asked for an example where a direction might work. One example might be where a direction might seek to deliver good practice by directing an authority to adopt better methods of collection or processing which were currently being used by another authority, whether inside or outside London. That would provide the mayor with a power to direct an authority to operate a better practice which was already extant in another authority. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: That example seems to fall squarely within Clause 286(1)(a) where the direction can require an authority to exercise a function in a manner specified in the direction. I do not seek to take out that provision. I had hoped for an example from the Minister where the direction tells an authority not to exercise a function.
I remain concerned. Perhaps it is arrogant of me to think that because I do not understand a provision, I should be concerned about it. Is it possible for the Minister to write to me following this stage to give me a practical example of how this power could be used?
Lord Whitty: I am happy to undertake to write to the noble Baroness. However, the example I was given would direct an authority to stop using a direction and to replace it by another method. Therefore, there is a direction to stop doing something, as well as a direction to do something. However, I shall try to find a specific example which may clarify the point.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that. I make a distinction between the function and the manner in which it is exercised. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 451ZKA not moved.]
Clause 286 agreed to.
Clause 287 [Interpretation of sections 283 to 286]:
[Amendments Nos. 451ZL and 451ZM not moved.]
Clause 287 agreed to.
Clause 288 [Waste recycling plans]:
[Amendments Nos. 451ZN and 451ZP not moved.]
Clause 288 agreed to.
Clause 289 [The Mayor's air quality strategy]:
[Amendment No. 451ZQ not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 451ZR:
Page 154, line 24, at end insert—
("() matters which the Mayor considers should he drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State.")
The noble Baroness said: This provision would amend the clause dealing with the mayor's air quality strategy. It seeks to include in subsection (3) information on,
"matters which the Mayor considers should he drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State".
I make a distinction here between information, which is the subject of subsection (3), and proposals and policies which are the subject of subsection (2) where the mayor has the opportunity, as set out on the face of the Bill, to add to the short list.
Whether or not the mayor is specifically allowed to do so, I dare say that the mayor would wish to do so. However, I seek to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot say, "It is outside your remit to have views about specific types of information". For instance, the mayor or Transport for London might undertake research on attitudes to fuel, and the likely use of different types of fuel, such as liquid petroleum gas, or powering vehicles by electricity. It would be daft if the mayor could not pass on to the Secretary of State the results and information obtained. I refer, for example, to whether a level of tax might have an effect on the public's decisions about choice of fuel. If the mayor is aware of actions which could be taken, not necessarily by the GLA, but which could improve the air quality of London and are the responsibility of central government, I believe that the mayor should be able publicly to say so.
I hope that we can have an assurance from the Minister either that such an amendment would deal with the matter or that it is not necessary to have such an amendment because the points I make are implicit. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 451ZR would require the mayor to include in the air quality strategy such matters which he or she considers should be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State.
In many ways, the Bill's provisions on air quality are among the most radical it contains. They effect a comprehensive devolution to the mayor of the Secretary of State's role in local air quality management, as defined by Section 85 of the Environment Act. The mayor will, through the air quality strategy, set a framework within which air quality is managed at a local level. And it is the mayor who ultimately will approve local air quality management plans.
The Secretary of State will retain responsibility for setting the national strategy and national targets, but it will be for the mayor to oversee its implementation in the capital. Of course, it is the integration of strategic responsibilities for air quality, planning and transport at the heart of the Bill which place the mayor in an ideal position to do it.
1512
Having said that, the Secretary of State will retain an interest in what happens in the capital and in the effect that that might have on the rest of the country. And it is the Secretary of State who will be held responsible for ensuring that national targets and international treaty obligations in respect of air quality are met. That is why we have included provisions at Clause 290 enabling the Secretary of State to issue directions to the mayor in certain tightly defined circumstances.
I therefore accept absolutely that the Secretary of State will need to be kept informed of progress in the managing of air quality in the capital. Provisions in Clause 289 already set out a range of types of information which must, be included in the London air quality strategy. We have been of the view that the provisions in subsections (2) and (3) covered all the kinds of information that the Secretary of State would wish to have drawn to his or her attention.
I am sympathetic, however, to the suggestions that there might be a particular class of issue which was so important as to merit being highlighted by the mayor as deserving the Secretary of State's particular attention. I would therefore ask for the opportunity to consider this suggestion, with the possibility of returning to it at a later stage. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I am delighted to beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 289 agreed to.
Clause 290 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 451ZS not moved.]
Clause 290 agreed to.
Clauses 291 to 293 agreed to.
Clause 294 [Directions under the Environment Act 1995]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 451ZT:
Page 156, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("The") in line 10 and insert—
("(3) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and the following amendments seek to correct an error in the Bill's drafting relating to the mayor's powers to direct London local authorities in respect of European Community air quality obligations and other international agreements. The Bill as drafted would have the effect of giving the mayor the power to transpose EU directives on air quality and so forth. That is obviously nonsense. It is a legislative function properly the responsibility of the Secretary of State. These amendments correct the position and ensure that the power to transpose remains solely with the proper authorities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 451ZU to 451ZX:
Page 156, line 13, leave out ("(5C)") and insert ("(4B)")
Page 156, line 14, leave out (", or subsection (5) above by virtue of subsection (5A) above,")
Page 156, line 16, at end insert—
("() In subsection (5) (power of the Secretary of State to give directions relating to obligations under the Community Treaties or to international obligations) after "local authorities" there shall be inserted ", other than local authorities in Greater London,".")
Page 156, line 21, leave out subsection (5)
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 294, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 295 agreed to.
Clause 296 [Consultation with the Mayor]:
[Amendment No. 451ZY not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 451ZZ:
Page 157, line 9, at end insert—
("(c) any local authority other than those in paragraphs (a) and (b) above which shall be otherwise affected"")
The noble Lord said: I am not optimistic about this amendment. However, as regards air quality, the atmosphere moves in mysterious ways. In Clause 296 we see, as a matter of substance on the face of the Bill, that there shall be consulted any local authority in Greater London or any local authority whose area is contiguous to the area of Greater London. Our amendment suggests that we should add to that:
"any local authority other than those in paragraphs (a) and (b) above which shall be otherwise affected".
Anybody who studies atmospheric movement in relation to pollution knows that it is an imprecise science. As knowledge is built up, one realises that the relationship between a source of pollution and the people it affects can be remarkably remote. The east coast of England, in periods of still, anticyclonic weather, suffers greatly from atmospheric pollution whose source of origin is in the Ruhr in Germany. Much of the sulphur dioxide that arrives in this country is not generated here but in the south of France and Spain. If we wanted to go back to the atmospheric movements that resulted after the Chernobyl disaster when the movement of radioactive materials made chasing what was happening rather more easy in tragic circumstances, we would find some mysterious facts.
Where an authority can show that it is directly affected as a result of air pollution deriving from London, it should be included in this list of consultees. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am afraid that the amendment does not do what it is intended to do. Clause 296 of the Bill is all to do with whom local authorities consult when carrying out their own air quality management functions. It provides that local authorities in London and those whose areas adjoin London consult with the mayor of London when carrying out air quality reviews, assessments and preparing action plans. That is essential to the mayor's ability to fulfil his or her role.
1514
The Bill does that by adding the mayor to the long list of consultees listed at paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 11 to the Environment Act 1995, whom local authorities are required to consult when carrying out air quality management functions.
The amendment would provide that any local authority affected by its own air quality management activities would have to consult the mayor. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intended.
The Bill already provides that the mayor should consult with the Assembly, the functional bodies, the boroughs, boroughs adjoining London and the Environment Agency when preparing or revising the air quality strategy. The Bill also provides at Clause 34(1)(e) that the mayor shall consult
"any other body or person whom he considers it appropriate to consult".
That clearly includes local authorities that might be affected by the strategy.
Clause 290 would also enable the Secretary of State to intervene when the air quality strategy was considered likely to be detrimental to an area outside Greater London. That is a further safeguard for authorities outside London.
In the light of that reply, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment and will understand that the amendment that he intended is not necessary.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation, which I shall study with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 296 agreed to.
Clause 297 [The London ambient noise strategy]:
[Amendment No. 451ZZA not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved amendment No. 451ZZB:
Page 157, line 25, leave out ("services")
The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 452WA and 452XA. The clause deals with the ambient noise strategy.
The first is a probing amendment. Ambient noise is defined to include noise related to transport services. I am querying the addition of the word "services". Will the Government confirm that cars, which are not transport services in the normal sense of the term, will be included and the noise from car traffic will be covered by the provision?
The other two amendments would add to the definition of ambient noise caused by construction works and roadworks. On reflection, I am not sure how appropriate the amendments are. Perhaps the Minister will assure me that they are matters for the local authority and that we are not missing an opportunity in the Bill.
The issues occurred to me on a Sunday morning, when the noise of pneumatic drills started on a building site almost next door to me, followed swiftly by the concurrent noise of the road outside being dug up. There is an expression of frustration in the amendments. The point is that we want to be assured that such noise is covered somewhere. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is the Government's intention that the mayor's strategy will include noise related to all modes of transport. That includes services for which the mayor will have responsibility, other road traffic, rail traffic, aircraft and water transport. Local authorities already have adequate powers under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to control the levels of noise and the times during which it may be emitted from construction and roadworks. It is not intended that the mayor should be consulted on the actions that local authorities may wish to take on local situations as they arise.
The noble Baroness specifically asked me to refer to services, including cars. This is one of the issues we are considering. Road traffic is included. The drafting may not be quite right yet. Nevertheless, I should like to consider in more detail whether or not the provisions in the Bill are sufficient and I wish to retain this clause for the present. I shall write to the noble Baroness when we have more fully considered the wording of the clause and hope that she will therefore feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall be happy to do so on that basis. My noble friend asked why I had not included church bells. I had to tell him that at the time the roadworks were taking place I could not hear the church bells which were being rung immediately across the road. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 452:
Page 157, line 26, leave out ("aircraft")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 452 seeks to remove aircraft from the noise regulations. This is purely a probing amendment to discover what are the intentions of the Government as regards the mayor and aircraft noise.
There is concern at Heathrow about this matter because Heathrow is the world's busiest airport. It is a gem in the crown of all airports and a reason why London is such a successful city. There are two areas for consideration. First, at the present time noise is the responsibility of the Government and therefore we want to know what it is conceived the mayor could take over. Secondly, noise regulations are laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in relation to Chapters 2 and 3, and we recently narrowly avoided a huge dispute with the United States about the phase-out
1516
of Chapter 2. This is purely a probing amendment. What do the Government consider the mayor may do in that regard?
Furthermore, the planning for Terminal 5 is now in the hands of the inspector and we do not know what he is going to say. Also, we do not want to influence him. The regulations covering noise in relation to London City Airport are laid down in guidelines. So what, if anything, do the Government consider the mayor's position on noise to be? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am glad the noble Lord said that this was a probing amendment and I am sure he will forgive me if I do not pursue him down the road of discussing Terminal 5, for obvious reasons.
The definition of ambient noise for the purposes of the strategy will include aircraft noise, principally because such noise contributes significantly to noise levels and has its effect within the capital. However, the inclusion of aircraft noise in the mayor's assessment of the ambient noise climate will provide information. It will not alter the essential powers but its inclusion will help to inform him as to the impact of his strategies and enable the development of proposals to promote measures to reduce ambient noise levels and their impact on those living and working in London.
The only power that it is envisaged may be changed is one to give the mayor the right to be consulted about any changes in departure or arrival routes, or changes in capacity at the airports which may have significant environmental effects, and for his views to be taken into account. That is the only power the mayor will have in respect of aircraft movements. Existing powers, both national and international, will therefore not be affected. Amendments to give that right to consultation will be brought forward at Report stage and we may wish to look in slightly greater detail at whether the clauses as drafted are sufficient.
We will come back at Report stage on that wider issue, but as far as the noble Lord's concerns about where the power of final decision will lie, this will not affect those powers and responsibilities as they stand at present. I hope that the noble Lord will, therefore, withdraw his probing amendment. We shall doubtless return to the point on Report.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That was a most successful probing amendment, because the Minister has said that he will bring something back on Report. I hope that he will consider in the meantime the question of international obligations which are laid down in Section 33(9). Will that include the guidelines of the international civil aviation organisations? I hope that the Minister will consider that point on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 452WA and 452XA not moved.]
Clause 297 agreed to.
Clause 298 agreed to.
Clause 299 [Abolition of the London Ecology Committee]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 452YA:
Page 158, line 4, leave out ("On the establishment of the Authority,")
The noble Lord said: I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 452ZA. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill will abolish three existing organisations—the London Planning Advisory Committee, the London Ecology Committee and the London Research Centre—and subsume them into the main body of the Greater London Authority. We have already made clear our intention to abolish all three of those organisations on 1st April 2000 in order to allow a smooth transition to the new authority.
The amendments deal with a technical problem in that the Bill, as currently drafted, only allows us to abolish the London Ecology Committee on the establishment of the authority—that is, after the GLA elections have taken place. That would not allow us to plan properly in advance for the establishment of the GLA, which is clearly desirable. The amendments correct the position and put the London Ecology Committee on the same basis as LPAC and the London Research Centre. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 452ZA:
Page 158, line 6, leave out ("shall cease to exist") and insert ("is abolished by this section")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 452ZAA not moved.]
Clause 299, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to.
Employment Relations Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day with the Lords amendment in lieu agreed to.

Local Government Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before midnight.