Lords Sitting of 29 July 1999

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to deliver a valedictory address at the Royal Courts of Justice for Sir Stephen Brown, the retiring President of the Family Division of the High Court, on Friday 30th July when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Police Authority Budgets
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the average increase in the budgets and in the number of police officers employed in the police forces of England this year.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in 1999–2000 the average increase in police authority budgets in England will be 3 per cent. At the end of March 1999, the latest date for which we have figures, there were 119,450 police officers in England.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I congratulate my noble and learned friend and thank him for that information. Will he comment on the recent criticism of the Government in some areas, as in South Yorkshire, where they are being blamed for a modest reduction in the number of police officers this year? Would it not be appropriate for my noble and learned friend to remind the police service that, where budgetary resources have been increased above the rate of inflation, as they have this year, it would be appropriate for the forces to accept that they bear responsibility for the use of the resources in making proper operational arrangements? Does he agree that they need to defend their priorities rather than sit back and allow the Government to be blamed?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The budget in South Yorkshire, to which he specifically referred, for the coming year is £173.3 million, which is an increase of £5.8 million. I must remind your Lordships that all the operational
1668
decisions are entirely within the gift of the local chief constable as a result of the 1994 legislation, which was deliberately passed to bring that into effect.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, when the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police addressed the All-Party Group on London a few days ago, he complained that he was 2,000 men short on the beat and that since the Lawrence report street crime had increased by some 35 per cent.
May I ask the noble and learned Lord—and I, too, offer my congratulations—what response the Government have given to the commissioner?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the response we have given to police forces generally is substantially to increase the revenue spending in the coming year. In England and Wales, there will be a spending of £7.4 billion. The Home Secretary has discussed with the commissioner what appear to many to be high levels of sickness, possibly unjustifiable. Every police force under the command of every chief constable has a duty to provide efficiencies and we have no doubt that the means are there for them to do so.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister encourage the Government to do something about rural crime, in particular juvenile drinking in pubs and public places, which seems to be increasing? Will he look at North Yorkshire in particular, where the police say that they are below strength?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, part of the answer lies with the powers of local authorities to introduce bylaws in specific areas where these matters are a problem. They are matters for local operational decisions either by the chief constable or decisions made locally and politically by local authorities.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is not the total police numbers which is important but the number of uniformed officers employed on visible patrol which reassures members of the public? Does he also agree that additional expenditure on matters such as technology and additional civilian support can often assist in freeing up the time of police and personnel for essential patrol duties?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that people feel reassured by seeing officers on the beat, and that can be brought about by the efficient use of resources, which include modern technology and civilianisation.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Attorney-General aware that my noble friend Lord Geraint attributed his promotion to the fact that he comes from a good Cardiganshire family, like his predecessor? However, before leaving Home Office matters, will he note that increasingly warm sentiments are being expressed by the Home Office about the use of private security

1669
firms? Does he agree that it would be dangerous to go down the road of two-tier policing: one for the general public and one for those who can afford extra policing? That is a dangerous road and I should be interested in the Minister's opinion of the use of private security firms for policing duties.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, private security firms, if properly regulated—I stress that—have their place in public order generally. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. It is a fundamental duty of any government to provide adequate policing at public expense.
Lord Plummer of Marylebone: My Lords, will the Minister enlarge on his previous answer and say specifically what budgetary increase there will be for the Metropolitan Police?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot state the increase for the Metropolitan Police. However, I can say generally that there is an extra £1.24 billion in additional government funding over the next three years, and a further £400 million for crime reduction, including £150 million for closed circuit television. Those are quite remarkable figures, substantially in excess of what would have been available had not the Lord favoured us at the last election.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have heard the result of the last election attributed to various factors but that is interesting! Due to the wonders of modern communication, I had the opportunity last night, in his absence, of congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on being appointed the first Attorney-General in your Lordships' House for 400 years. We wish him well in his new appointment and hope that he will still be available to respond on behalf of the Government, at least on some matters. We offer our congratulations to the new Minister in the Home Office.
Was not the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, right in the emphasis he placed on the relatively junior ranks in the police, so far as public perception is concerned? Can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General tell us how many constables he expects there to be in the Metropolitan Police in the coming year? Given the high level of retirements, it looks as though there will be a severe reduction.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for his generous tribute. I shall be available to answer on behalf of the Government, the only difference being that the answers will be much longer and more expensive.

Pension Costs: EU and UK Projections
3.16 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the recent projection of pension costs in Germany, France and Italy at 16 per cent of gross domestic product in 2000, and, if so, what United Kingdom taxes, if any, are likely to be subject to harmonisation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I can understand the noble Lord being a little impatient with my constant application to this Question. Perhaps I may ask for his forbearance as opportunities to ask it are diminishing daily.
Does the noble Lord not agree that whether or not taxes are harmonised, pension costs are an integral part of any consideration of the ratio of debt to GDP, and therefore are relevant to convergence between EU countries and ourselves? Can the noble Lord clarify the Government's understanding of these established facts in the light of the description of them by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in a recent "Question Time" debate as "myths"? Does that not contradict the headline which appeared in The Times which stated,
"Europe's pensions time bomb would send our taxes sky-high"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my Answer was "no", for two reasons: first, we do not accept the projection of pension costs in the noble Earl's Question. The most recent comparable data from the European Commission puts general government expenditure on pensions at 12.9 per cent of GDP in Italy, 11.3 per cent in Germany and 10.6 per cent in France. It is highly unlikely that it would increase to 16 per cent by next year.
My second reason for saying "no" is that even if there is such an increase in pension costs in other countries at some time in the future, they could not apply to this country. When the Prime Minister said it was a "myth", he stated—I quote from the transcript of the television programme:
"This idea of the pension fund, this is just part of the myth. There is absolutely no requirement whatever for us to bail out other countries' pension funds".
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the treaty is quite clear; there is no bail-out provision? However, in addition to the costs referred to by the noble Earl in his Question, there are also the pension funding deficits. In Germany and France, they are running in excess of 100 per cent of GDP and in Italy at something like 70 per cent against 10 per cent in the UK. Those figures cannot be ignored. Somebody will have to meet the bill at some time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have given the most recent figures for government

1671
expenditure on pensions in the three countries referred to in the Question. Of course the noble Lord is right; at some stage somebody will have to pay for this. All the three countries concerned are urgently making reforms to their own pension arrangements. This country will still not be affected because of Article 104 of the EU Treaty.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, with reference to the second part of the noble Earl's Question, perhaps the Minister will forgive a brief promotional soundbite. I commend to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, the report, published yesterday, of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities, on taxes in the European Union. Does my noble friend agree that, as noted in that report, co-ordination, where justified, rather than harmonisation, is how the Commission now more accurately describes its tax policy? When the Paymaster General gave evidence to our committee, she stated:
"tax harmonisation is not on the agenda … in the European Union".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have not had an opportunity to read the report of the committee chaired by my noble friend. That is a pleasure I shall reserve for the holidays. I can certainly confirm that the Paymaster General was right. The tax harmonisation implications of the noble Earl's Question are simply not true.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is the Minister familiar with the great lawyer's dictum, "Never trust a man who says, 'trust me"? On the issue of pensions and tax harmonisation, is that not exactly what the Minister is asking the House to do? Is not the standard lawyer's response the right one? Of course, we trust the noble Lord: we know him to be an honourable and reliable man. It is his heirs and successors whom we doubt. What tangible offer can he make to reassure the House that the darkest fears of noble Lords on both sides of the House will not come true?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have never asked the House to trust me. I asked the House to trust in the facts. The facts are that any change in tax structures of the kind being referred to, other than those of limited circumstances already provided for in the treaty which has been in place for a long time, would require unanimity. As the Chancellor said when the question last arose, that is simply not going to happen.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the time bomb, so far as it relates to pensions, is the disparity between occupational pensions in this country and those of our partners in the European Community? If there is indeed going to be harmonisation, surely anyone who understands taxation is aware that that will apply to pensions. If there is a disparity between occupational pensions and the state pension, someone must find the balance. Would not that duty fall on British taxpayers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know how many times I shall have to say this.
1672
Article 103 of the treaty states that there are no circumstances in which we can be called upon to bail out other European countries. Those countries which spend too much of their government expenditure on pensions are at risk. Under the terms of the growth and stability pact, they cannot meet the problem by excessive borrowing. They must deal with it either by cutting spending or by raising contributions. That is the issue which they are engaged in attacking at the moment. Under no circumstances will there be any consequence for British taxpayers.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to reflect on his remark about how often he has to answer the previous question? Is he not aware that once mythology takes over, there is nothing a rational person can do to destroy it? He must simply accept that these days that is the frame of mind of noble Lords opposite who cannot face reality in any way.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all I can advise noble Lords opposite to do is to stop taking the tabloids!

Inheritance Tax: Exempt Chattels and Security
3.22 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advice they would give in relation to security measures to be taken by owners of conditionally exempt chattels for inheritance tax purposes who are required by the Inland Revenue to open private houses to the public.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Inland Revenue does not make owners open their private houses just to show their chattels. Many owners have already chosen to give public access by opening their houses, and others may find that that is the most convenient way to give improved access for the future. Owners know their own circumstances best and know best where to look for security advice if they want it.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will the Minister comment on the fact that items may in fact now be placed in museums or galleries and not actually be on display but be available for view because there is a great shortage of display room available in galleries and museums? If the items were simply kept in museums to be viewed by appointment, might that solve the problems of a great number of people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the response I gave to a debate on that subject at the end of May, in, which I said that we were open to any suggestions about how to achieve the reasonable public access, which is the requirement of conditional exemption and which has so

1673
far not been achieved in far too many cases. Clearly, I cannot give any answer which could he taken as a judgment on what negotiations might take place between an individual owner and the Inland Revenue. However, the idea of a clearing-house which I put forward is being actively pursued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The idea to which the noble Lord refers of achieving access on demand rather than by prior appointment through the deposit of an item in a public space is certainly one of those being considered.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I ask the Government what security advice they would give to owners of exempt chattels, a description of which must appear on the Internet in such detail as to make it obvious who owns the chattel and where it is probably located.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend has interrogated the Internet. I have, and while it gives details about the chattel itself, the only detail of its location is that of an agent identified by the owner of the exempt chattel. I can find no way of identifying the location of the chattel except by approach to the agent. Our objective for the future is that there should be enough detail on the Internet and on the V&A list to ensure that there will be reasonable public access to the chattel.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I do not wish to appear in any way churlish about the friendly answer given to my noble friend a moment ago. Just for the sake of students of the history of that particular branch of tax law, does the Minister agree that this is in fact a textbook case of the law of unintended consequences? In this case, the Government, wishing to correct the vagueness of a certain tax law, have in fact ended up creating an even worse muddle. If I have understood correctly, having abandoned their first idea of a public right to roam over people's private houses, the Government's new plan is that the owner of a piece of 16th century Chinese porcelain should put it in a van, drive it 100 miles to a museum, place it in a dark basement for between five and 25 days, then collect it and put it back where it was in the first place. Have I understood that correctly?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord has understood the position from the very beginning. Conditional exemption—which is exemption from inheritance tax—was given on the basis that there would be reasonable public access to the chattel exempted from tax. That was the deal. It was intended that access by prior appointment would be the very last resort. The change which has taken place is not that of the 1998 Budget, but in the application of the original deal, which has been widely disregarded so that access by prior appointment is the norm rather than the exception. The result has been that a large number of chattels which the public are entitled to see because tax revenue on them has been forgone are not in fact available.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the large exhibition at the Fitzwilliam Museum in
1674
Cambridge of those conditionally exempt items? That is a precedent which could well be followed. What will he do to encourage other major museums in different parts of the United Kingdom to follow that excellent precedent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is of course right. It is an excellent precedent. Alan Howarth, the Arts Minister, visited the Fitzwilliam Museum recently and confirmed that he would like to encourage an extension of that precedent. I must admit that the Fitzwilliam has the power to pick and choose the works of art which it wishes to show. It is likely that a large number of exempt works of art are not of sufficient quality under the previous definition for open exhibition in the Fitzwilliam Museum. However, we are certainly pursuing the extension and addition of the idea of access in public arts spaces and we shall continue with those efforts.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, since this provision is part of a Finance Act, will the Minister tell us whether the Treasury has any estimate of the yield in terms of money which it is likely to produce, and how that corresponds with the amount of money which the Government hand back to people running the country's heritage who do not have enough money in terms of grants?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the estimate which we have and which I gave at the time of the debate is that the revenue forgone by the conditional exemption agreement is approximately £30 million net of any costs. That is the exact answer.

Kosovo: Murder Investigations
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to investigate the killing of 14 ethnic Serb farmers in Kosovo.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, members of the Royal Military Police investigation branch serving with the British deployment in KFOR are taking the lead in the investigation. We shall do all we can to assist KFOR, UNMIK and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in their investigations.
We wholeheartedly condemn the massacre and strongly endorse the statement of 26th July by the president of the UN Security Council expressing shock and concern and calling for a speedy and thorough investigation to bring to justice those responsible.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and congratulate her neighbour on her promotion to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

1675
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is sitting next to one of the finest models that she could find in this House of those who have had to answer Foreign Office Questions.
I am sure all Members of this House share the dismay and horror at the massacre of the 14 Serb farmers last week and will want to associate themselves with the Minister's remarks about the statement made on 26th July. She will know that Bernard Kouchner, the head of the civil arm in Kosovo, said that the cycle of violence must be broken. Can she therefore respond to two questions? First, is it correct that the number of international police officers in Kosovo still amounts to only a couple of hundred against the original target of 3,000? Secondly, what steps, if any, are being taken to bring about the disarming of the KLA? That is an important factor in trying to re-establish civic peace in Kosovo.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I join in the warm congratulations paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on the promotion of my noble friend Lady Scotland. It is an excellent appointment.
Breaking the cycle of violence in Kosovo is a crucial factor in KFOR's deployment at the moment. The noble Baroness expressed concern about the rates of deployment of police in Kosovo; but it was always envisaged that KFOR would have to undertake such duties until the police force was established. According to the United Nations figures given at the Security Council briefing last week, 126 United Nations police officers were present in Kosovo to establish a headquarters and to do the essential initial liaison work with KFOR. A further 20 were due to arrive on or around 18th July and thereafter it is scheduled that 100 officers will be arriving every five days until 23rd August, at which point deployment will increase to 200 every five days until the full contingent of over 3,100 is in place. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness some specific figures on how we hope the police deployment will go.
The noble Baroness was also concerned about what is happening in relation to the KLA. The undertaking given by the KLA on 21st June is comprehensive. It provides for a ceasefire; it provides for disengagement from the zones of conflict and for subsequent demilitarisation and reintegration into civilian society. We understand that this is a difficult period, but full assessment of the level of compliance is in progress by NATO. It is watching the situation carefully. The general level of compliance is said to be satisfactory.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, the House will be well aware how richly deserved is the promotion of the noble Baroness the Minister and how great a loss I shall feel at not being able to continue our constructive, if somewhat combative on occasions, dialogue on foreign affairs. I can only congratulate the wisdom of the Prime Minister on appointing the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who I am sure will match the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in every respect.
Given KFOR's mandate to provide protection for all the inhabitants in Kosovo—Serb and Albanian alike—and our commitment to provide humanitarian aid to the
1676
people of Serbia, can the Minister update the House on the number of Serb refugees who fled Kosovo and on how many Kosovar Serbs requested refuge in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lord, I thank the noble Lord for his kind congratulations. I am sure that he will enjoy a fruitful relationship with my noble friend, in the best possible sense of the word.
The noble Lord asked what is happening with refugees. A number of Serbs left Kosovo, as the House has discussed before. The figures are not entirely up to date; I am not sure whether the exact figures for this week are available. However, the last time I looked, the figures were in excess of 100,000.
A number of Serbs came to the United Kingdom before the end of the fighting because some Serbs who felt that they could not do Mr Milosevic's work in Kosovo came here as refugees. I am unable to distinguish between the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians who came to the United Kingdom as refugees because we offered refuge in this country to people who were displaced by the Milosevic regime without fear or favour with regard to their ethnic origins. I doubt therefore that I shall be able to give that specific breakdown. However, if more figures become available, I am sure that my noble friend will be able to supply them to the noble Lord.
Lord Merlyn Rees: My Lords, has it been made clear to the officers of the KLA that they have a responsibility to help in bringing to justice the murderers of the Serb farmers?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it has been made clear to the KLA. Your Lordships may have seen a number of press statements on what the KLA said in condemning this matter. I am unable to confirm those statements. I asked about the KLA's official position, but as yet I do not have official confirmation of what the KLA said; I have only the press reports which your Lordships will have been able to read as well.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on stepping into the frocked coat of Lord Kitchener and the cocked hat of Sir Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty.
Many different people are making up the police force in Kosovo. It will not be a proper police force. Would it not have been more sensible to ask just one country to run and recruit a proper police force so that the culture of that police force is homogenous and not heterogeneous?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, uncharacteristically, the noble Earl asked a question based on a false premise. The fact is that there will be an homogenous police force because it will be under the control of the OSCE. The OSCE has been establishing a police training school. The United Nations and the OSCE together drew up the criteria for the selection of officers, and recruitment has begun. Therefore, the

1677
worries expressed by the noble Earl have been taken into account. It is important that it is a multinational police force so that no one side believes that the police force will have a specific preference in Kosovo. The training school will be establishing common criteria and be under common leadership. I hope that answers the noble Earl's point.

Committee for Privileges
3.37 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, for the purpose of hearing the references on the effect of the House of Lords Bill, the senior Lord of Appeal present be appointed Chairman of the Committee for Privileges; and that the Committee have leave to hear parties interested, by themselves, their counsel, agents, and witnesses so far as the Committee think fit.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I may explain the background to this Motion. The House will remember that in November 1996 the House agreed to a resolution providing for a sum of money to be set aside for each of the two main Opposition parties in your Lordships' House. That became known as the "Cranborne money". The Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Blaydon, in its fifth report on the funding of political parties, made recommendations concerned with the Cranborne money, along with a range of other matters which were covered in the Government's White Paper and draft Bill announced by my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn on Tuesday.
The Neill committee recommended that the parties in the Lords should review the Cranborne money scheme with,
"a view to increasing it".
The House will be pleased to hear that the Government accepted that recommendation. The first paragraph of the resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper today accordingly provides that the money available under the Cranborne scheme should be doubled with effect from the start of the present financial year.
The remaining paragraphs of the resolution before your Lordships today propose a new scheme under which the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers would, with effect from 1st October this year, have his own fund to assist him in carrying out parliamentary business on behalf of the Cross-Bench Peers. This scheme mirrors the Cranborne money scheme and is very much
1678
in the spirit of the report of the Neill committee and the Government's response to it. I am pleased to say that both Opposition parties have wholly supported the proposal that the Convenor should be funded in this way. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in supporting this recognition of the important work of the Cross-Bench Peers.
Moved, That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of this resolution should have effect in relation to the giving of financial assistance to opposition parties and to the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers in this House:

(1) The resolution of the House of 27th November 1996 shall have effect as if paragraph (2)(b) provided for £216,842 and £65,052 respectively to be the maximum amounts of financial assistance which may be given for the year beginning with 1st April 1999.

(2) Financial assistance shall be available to assist the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers in carrying out parliamentary business on behalf of the Crossbench Peers.

(3) The maximum amounts of financial assistance which may be given to the Convenor under this resolution shall be—

(a) for the period beginning with 1st October 1999 and ending with 31st March 2000, £10,000;

(b) for the year beginning with 1st April 2000, £20,000, but increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 2000 has increased compared with the index for March 1999, and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and

(c) for each subsequent year, the maximum amount for the previous year but increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that, and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound.

(4) Any claims for financial assistance under this resolution are to be made to the Accounting Officer of the House; and, in claiming such assistance, the Convenor shall—

(a) furnish that officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;

(b) certify to that officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to parliamentary business on behalf of the Crossbench Peers; and

(c) as soon as practicable after each 31st March following the passing of this resolution furnish that officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the financial assistance was claimed during the period ending with that day were incurred as mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) above.

1679

(5) In this resolution

(a) "the retail prices index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index); and

(b) "year" means a year beginning with 1st April.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words of welcome for this resolution. No Scotsman ever looks a gift-horse in the mouth, but I have to say that we did think that this might come a little sooner. Although we are very grateful for what has been done, we are interested to see that the Treasury has decided that the up-rating in your Lordships' House should be less than that for the House of Commons. I hope that that is not a reflection of its view of the success, or otherwise, of the quality of the opposition to the Government in both Houses. I am sure that it is not. Indeed, we are grateful for what the noble Baroness has done.
During the days when the Cranborne money was introduced. I felt that it was absolutely right that we should recognise the position of the then opposition, who were having to work very hard on a number of very important Bills with very few resources. It is a sensible, new suggestion for the way that the House of Lords conducts its business. It is equally welcome that the Cross-Benchers are recognised and that some of the Cranborne money goes to the Convenor of the Cross-Benches.
I am happy to say that this is a rare occasion for me, as I am responding to the Leader of the House in the absence of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—or, as he was wrongly titled yesterday in the Telegraph "the Earl of Strathclyde". He is not in fact out receiving his earldom; he is actually attending a wedding. I am standing in for him on this rare occasion, and I am happy to agree with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I regret that I must delay the further proceedings of the House for some minutes to explain why, from these Benches, we find the resolution thoroughly unsatisfactory and cannot support it. I should like to refer to the course of events which led to this resolution being tabled, to the substance of our objection to it and to the future of the arrangements of financial assistance to parties in the House—as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said, the Cranborne money.
Perhaps I may make it clear that we greatly welcome the help for the Cross-Bench Peers; indeed, we would have been willing to support a proposal for a much larger sum if it had been requested. I should also like to make it clear, as I did to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who explained why he could not be present this afternoon, that we have no objection at all to the quantum, the amount, of the support for the Conservative Peers—namely, £216,842—though it might seem odd to outsiders that this money is to be doubled when the number of Conservative Peers is almost to be halved.
1680
Our quarrel is with comparisons. Doubling the original Cranborne money may be a fair deal for the Conservatives, but I have to say that it is a rotten one for these Benches. In that respect, much as I regret having to say so, I must explain to the House that my quarrel is with the Leader of the House. Perhaps I may refer to the correspondence that I have had with the Leader of the House which led to the resolution before us today.
On 17th March of this year, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wrote to the Leader of the House asking for an increase in the Cranborne money. There was a request from the noble Lord for a discussion "at an early opportunity"; indeed, the noble Lord kindly copied his letter to me. On 23rd March I wrote to be Leader of the House referring to the "Strathclyde letter", and making it clear that I would be happy to join in discussions on behalf of these Benches.
On 24th March, the Leader of the House wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, sending a copy to me, stating that she would welcome "a discussion" After a gap of one month, during which time I heard no further news, I wrote to the Leader of the House again and made a proposal for a settlement. In my letter to the noble Baroness, I said that I would welcome an early discussion. Two months later, on 28th June, I received from the Leader of the House what she called "a final response", which offered a wholly unacceptable solution. There had not been any discussion at any stage whatever, despite my requests and my expectations. I believe that to be totally contrary to the normal courtesies and practice of this House. It was an arbitrary decision. It was only when I said that I could not undertake to support any resolution put before the House that I had a meeting with the noble Baroness, to which I shall refer later.
I turn now to the substance of the issue. Here I make comparisons with the treatment of the Conservative Peers. Again, I am concerned with the differential and in no way with the amount. In my letter of 24th April to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House I referred to the principle of proportionality spelt out in the Government's own Lords White Paper, on the record, fully understood by the House and mentioned in our debates in this Chamber on the Bill currently under consideration. I suggested that, if we were to follow that principle, there would be just over 50 per cent for these Benches of what the Conservative Peers receive. The Leader of the House replied saying, no: she was not
"in a position to agree with this request".
However, at last we did have a discussion. The Leader of the House repeated that she was not able to agree with the principle which I proposed: it was a principle that would set aside the arbitrary nature of the decision; and, indeed, the arbitrary nature of the original decision, welcomed though it was in November 1996. I hoped that the noble Baroness would provide an alternative formula by which these matters might be determined in future. There was a discussion about a reasonable compromise of, perhaps, £20,000 more for these Benches. That was less than I had hoped for, but more than she had hitherto suggested. I thought that that was a reasonable prospect, because at this point the

1681
Leader of the House showed some sympathy with the idea that there might be a settlement which we would be able to support.
However, after an interval of a few days, the answer was, no: not a penny more than she had originally proposed. I break no confidences when I say that the noble Baroness said that the Treasury would not agree. I was once a Treasury Minister. It is inconceivable that, at that time, I would have refused a request for £20,000 from a Cabinet Minister; indeed, £20,000 is peanuts, peanuts, peanuts! In my time, I was also a Minister in a spending department. Had I approached the Treasury at that time, it is inconceivable that I would have been refused such a sum of money. I have to say that either the Leader of the House has no clout with her colleagues—and that is not what I have been led to expect—or she did not really try. With the greatest regret, I have to say that it must be one or the other.
On 8th July, I gladly supported from these Benches the Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1999. The order provides for an increase in the salaries of Ministers in this House. I supported it because they deserve it. The order also increased the salaries of the Leader of the Conservative Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip to £55,000 and £51,000 respectively. I did not, and do not, begrudge that money in any way. But allowing for the Cranborne money, the Conservative Party in this House is sustained to the value of well over £300,000, nearer £325,000, by resolution of this House. However, these Benches will have only the £65,000 mentioned in this order. It is disgraceful.
The role of the third party in this House is recognised. I call it the "third party" but the original resolution of 27th November 1996 referred to the "second largest opposition party". That was defined in paragraph 6 of that resolution. The role of the third party—the second opposition party—is fully recognised on all sides of this House. We contribute to all debates and to the scrutiny of legislation. Custom and practice give us a status here as a third party—a second opposition party—that is not given in the Commons. The Companion to the Standing Orders, which we always have beside us, fully acknowledges our role and our historic position. We are being offered in total one-fifth of the financial help available to the Conservative Party, although in terms of service to the House it should be in the region of 65 to 70 per cent, and I put that modestly.
These are my final words. We must be one of the few parliaments in the world where the government of the day have a free hand in determining financial help to the opposition parties; in other words, deciding how much to give to those who will oppose them. I believe that it is time for a change. If this were the only outcome of our discussion this afternoon, and of the representations I have made to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, it would be a substantial gain for all of us. Indeed, if the Leader of the House is able to
1682
indicate that this proposal is attractive to her, it will do something to soften the sense of outrage we otherwise have.
The principle, the proportionality and also the quantum of support for opposition parties should be decided by an independent outside body. It could be the Neill committee, but if, for whatever reason, the Neill committee is not suitable, an ad hoc body should be established without delay. I believe that that is a reasonable proposition which should recommend itself to all reasonable Members of your Lordships' House in whatever party they sit, or whether they sit in any party at all. The present position, like the resolution, is wholly unsatisfactory, and there is a way of changing it.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I shall gloss over the peculiar lack of grace which I consider the noble Lord has shown in responding to the Motion moved by the noble Baroness. Does he also have it in mind that he is complaining about the sums of money which he is receiving in relation to the party for which he speaks, and in relation to the five or six times greater number of Cross-Benchers who are being treated extremely generously at last? I use the word "generously" as there has been nil before this. Is it not rather odd that the noble Lord has made the speech he has just made?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, if that was an intervention, I am glad to reply. I do not know whether the noble Lord heard what I said initially when I made it absolutely clear that I supported the support for the Cross-Bench Peers. Indeed, I said that I would welcome giving them more if they had asked for more. That stands—and nothing I subsequently said prejudiced that in any other way. I repeat that my argument is with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House who fully understands that. I do not believe that I said anything in bad grace. We have to face these issues head on. If no one else speaks for these Benches, we have to do it ourselves.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, before the noble Baroness the Leader of the House responds, I hope I may say that we on these Benches are not concerned with proportionality. We number 351 at the moment, which is rather larger than the Liberal Democrat Party. Nevertheless, the sum of money which we have been given, £20,000, will enable my successor as the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers to have a secretary to assist him or her, for which we are deeply grateful.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hope that I may delay your Lordships for half a minute and possibly give the noble Baroness a little time to compose herself after that somewhat acrimonious speech from the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I sometimes find these somewhat intellectual, economic arguments a little difficult to follow. Can the noble Baroness explain what is meant by paragraph (3)(b)? It states,
"for the year beginning with 1st April 2000, £20,000, but increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 2000 has increased compared with the index for March 1999, and

1683
(if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and".
I am not quite certain as regards the idea of comparing the relative retail prices indices and what the effect will be.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I say to the noble Earl that I am quite composed. The paragraph he has quoted simply refers to the requirement to index the primary sum agreed—which will be £20,000 from next April—on the basis of inflation. I agree that it is put in somewhat arcane language, but that is how I understand the position. I believe that that is the straightforward explanation. In our positive discussions, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said that he was prepared to accept £10,000 for this year, starting on 1st October, and that the full sum should be taken on the basis of next April's figures.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I understand the noble Baroness, that is straightforward indexation and the index relating to 2000 has nothing to do with the index relating to the previous year.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is an important point. Put in those terms, I am not immediately sure that I can give the noble Earl a precise answer. However, I understand the basic principle; namely, that the £10,000 is agreed, and that the £20,000 from next April onwards has the inflation-related point included in it. However, I shall check carefully the point that the noble Earl has made.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for supporting the Motion on behalf of his party. I believe that it represents a relatively good "deal". I shall not, of course, comment on the relative performance of the Opposition in this House or in another place. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for what he said. It is important that we recognise the significant work of the Cross-Bench Peers and the way in which, up until now, they have organised themselves not on an amateur basis, but on a rather unprofessional basis—in terms of lack of professional support. It is important that that is changed.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I am somewhat disappointed with the response of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, in describing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, as less than gracious. The noble Lord expressed a general dissatisfaction with the Cranborne money scheme and the way in which the Liberal Democrat Party has been treated.
There was an opportunity for the noble Lord and his party to make such representations before the discussion was held about the arrangements for this present settlement, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, held his hearings and took evidence. I am not aware that any evidence was given by the noble Lord on the matter of the Cranborne money. I understand that oral evidence was given by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and that he gave a personal, written submission. However, as I understand the position, there was no evidence from the
1684
noble Lord or his party which suggested to the Neill committee that the basis for the Cranborne money should be reviewed. That seems to me to have been the appropriate opportunity to make such representations.
The noble Lord expressed concern about the proportion of moneys as between the two opposition parties under the scheme. All I can say to that is that we are where we are. When the Cranborne money was introduced in 1996, a proportion of money was made available to each of the two opposition parties and that proportion has been maintained in the Motion before your Lordships today.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, personally feels hard done by. He expressed concern that he was not properly consulted about the details of the scheme. I am sure that the noble Lord will recollect that, following the meeting that I had with him, I put forward a number of options to try to cover some of his concerns. Although they had not been addressed in the conventional forum of the Neill committee, I approached the Treasury but there was no more money on the table. I believe that it is entirely inappropriate for him to suggest that I gave him any kind of understanding that there may be. I point out to the House that the Cranborne money has been doubled in less than four years.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how would making representations to the Neill committee have made any difference if there was no more money on the table?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, if the more general principled points concerning proportionality and the particular virtues and work of the Liberal Democratic Party, which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, expressed at some length this afternoon, were such that he thought they should have been represented in the report of the Neill committee, presumably that forum was the appropriate place to make them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority Bill
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: 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 McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 300 [The Cultural Strategy Group for London]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 452ZAB:
Page 158, line 18, leave out subsection (3)
The noble Baroness said: This is a paving amendment for a later debate on Schedule 25 stand part of the Bill.

1685
It may be convenient for the Committee if I do not move the amendment at this stage.
[Amendment No. 452ZAB not moved.]
Clause 300 agreed to.
Schedule 25 [The Cultural Strategy Group for London]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 452A:
Page 316, line 16, leave out from ("or) to end of line 18 and insert ("an even number of members numbering between 12 and 18.
() Half plus one of the members shall be appointed by bodies concerned with such relevant matters as the Mayor and Assembly, acting together, consider appropriate.
() The remaining members shall be appointed by the Mayor.")
The noble Baroness said: I cannot promise to be quite so brief in speaking to this amendment. I apologise for not moving the previous amendment, but I took advice on the matter from the Clerk beforehand and I warned the Front Benches that I would be following that procedure.
In moving Amendment No. 452A, and with the leave of the Committee, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 452B, 452C, 452D, 452E, 452F and 452G, which stand in my name, and to Amendments Nos. 452DB, 452DC, 452DD, 452DE and 453BA, 453G and 455QJA, all in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. She has expressly asked me to speak to them for her.
In the light of that list, it is no wonder that a rumour went round Hansard that I was to speak for 60 minutes. I promise I shall not. If I had done so, before I had finished I am sure noble Lords would have thrown me in the Thames, a fate that I would have deserved.
I have tabled these amendments, relating to the composition and function of the cultural strategy group, in order to probe the Government's intentions behind the creation of that body. I want to find out their expectations of its role and of its relationship with the mayor and the authority. As the Bill stands, it is so vague about such matters that one feels as though one is looking at the Cheshire Cat and that the Government are smiling with satisfaction at leaving us in the dark, with nothing of substance to see.
Amendment No. 452A provides that, while the strategy group should still be under the mayor's guidance—as the Bill provides—the mayor should give at least half of the places plus one to bodies that he or she considers it relevant to consult, and for them to make the appointments. I say "he or she" as there is at least one female candidate and there may be more. In that way the person whom the relevant body—rather than the mayor—considers appropriate will be a member of the group.
The mayor will still be left with the freedom to appoint almost half the members by personal choice alone. That surely should be sufficient for anybody. It is important that the expert bodies should have the opportunity to make appointments of those whom they know to be the right people to advise the mayor and that such experts should be in the majority.
Turning to the other amendments standing in my name, Amendment No. 452B makes it a requirement that the membership of the cultural strategy group shall include those who represent relevant tourism bodies, including the London Tourist Board. Can the Minister reassure me that tourism bodies must be represented on the group, and that, at the very least, the London Tourist Board should have a representative on it?
I make no allegations about any of the candidates currently willing to stand for election, but we do not know what they will be like when in office. They could be completely "off-the-wall". There may be an undeclared candidate whom we have not yet seen who is a most extraordinary person. There may be a peculiar clash of personalities. I make no comment about anybody who has so far declared his or her candidacy. I am sure that they are all extremely worthy people, but there may be someone who has not yet declared his or her intention to stand who may have some extraordinary ideas.
What would happen if such a person with extraordinary ideas had a clash of personalities with those running the London Tourist Board, and he or she decided not to include a representative from this admirable organisation on the group? That would be damaging for London. I am sure that all those candidates who have declared their intention to stand would support the London Tourist Board.
Amendment No. 452C is tabled because I believe that it would be appropriate for the group to choose the chairman, rather than the mayor making the appointment as a personal choice. Amendment No. 452D is consequential to Amendment No. 452C.
Amendment No. 452E restricts the length of time that anybody can serve on the group to a maximum of eight years. I have no special attachment to the period of eight years. I simply plucked the figure out of the air. The objective of the amendment is simply to raise the problems which can arise when one person with unfettered powers to appoint can choose to keep his or her preferred person on the group for too long.
Such a situation may not be a case of cronyism at all, but another scenario altogether. A person who joined the group, fresh from the area in which he or she had expertise, may be left in place because of a genuine belief that he or she is an expert. Sometimes, when a person has been a member of a body for some time, he can become out of touch with the world for which he speaks, however good he is. In those circumstances, that person should be replaced, but the mayor has not done so.
Amendment No. 452F is a drafting amendment. Schedule 25 states that the mayor may pay the members of the cultural strategy group allowances in respect of travel or other expenses properly incurred by them. But they could quite properly incur expenses which have absolutely nothing to do with their work as a member of the group. There is no definition in the Bill, as far as I can see, which links the word "properly" to the

1687
function of the group. Therefore, my amendment makes it clear that the moneys that could be claimed would be,
"in respect of travel or other expenses properly incurred by them in connection with their duties as members of the Cultural Strategy Group".
Amendment No. 452G requires that the mayor shall provide the cultural strategy group with the money towards defraying its expenses. Can the Minister say why the Bill gives the mayor only the option, and not the duty, to pay expenses? Does the Government expect the group's work to be funded by volunteers, individual donations or corporate funding? We need to probe that matter.
I now turn to the amendments that stand in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller. The first group comprises Amendments Nos. 452DB, 452DC, 452DD and 452DE. That group probes the existence or lack of constitutional checks on the cultural strategy group. Amendment No. 452DC proposes that the terms of office of members of the group should be limited to a term specified on the face of the Bill. My noble friend approaches the matter from a different angle from myself. I was concerned about people having membership for ever and ever and not performing their duties properly. My noble friend is concerned that people who are appointed should be aware of the terms of their appointment in a clear manner.
Amendment No. 452DD proposes that the mayor should have a discretionary power to intervene if any member of the strategy group is unable or unfit for any reason to discharge his or her functions.
Without these amendments, it might appear that the mayor may appoint the members for a capriciously chosen period. It is also important that any terms of appointment should be such that a member who is unable to continue with his or her work should be discharged from membership. Amendments Nos. 452DB and 452DE are consequential. This beginning to sound like a list of licence plates on cars—and it will become rather worse as we discuss later amendments.
Amendment No. 452BA relates to subsection (6) by which the mayor may give the cultural strategy group directions to formulate a strategy and a date by which the group should complete its work. This amendment inserts the word "reasonable" into the time-scale, so that when the mayor gives his or her directions to the group, the group must be given a reasonable time in which to complete its work.
Amendment No. 453G refers to the provision which sets out the manner in which the mayor may revise the cultural strategy at a time when he or she has not been asked to do so by the cultural strategy group. The amendment gives the group the power to publish any objections to the revision of the strategy if two-thirds of the group are agreed in their objections to the revision taking place. That would provide a check on the ability of the mayor to take unilateral action in altering a strategy. At least the case against his or her actions would be made public.
Finally, Amendment No. 453QJA gives the authority the power to transfer to the cultural strategy group its own functions with regard to making grants to museums, libraries, and so on, as listed in Clause 302. Again, this is
1688
a probing amendment to seek clarification about the role which the Government expect the mayor and authority to play with regard to the cultural strategy group.
Having managed to spend nine rather than 60 minutes explaining the amendments, I beg to move Amendment No. 452A.
Baroness Hamwee: We have a number of amendments in this group. We made an attempt about 10 days ago to have the grouping split. Something rather odd seems to have happened to it: a few amendments have been removed, but the group remains almost the same length. I am sorry if some Members of the Committee are confused, having been warned that the group would be broken down into smaller and more easily handled groups. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 452AA, 452YC, 452ZC and 452ZD. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury will speak to Amendment No. 452DA, and to Amendments Nos. 452UJ, 452VJ, 452WJ, 452XJ, 452YJ and 453B.
Perhaps I may say in response to a comment made by the noble Baroness that she is obviously as nice a person as I always thought that she was, not having yet seen any characteristics in any of the mayoral candidates that might at some future point lead Londoners to wonder whether, if that candidate were to be elected—and I speak of no particular candidate—the right person was in place. I am also trying to choose words that have no gender designation. The noble Baroness is right. Qualities may emerge, either from candidates whom we know or from those whom we do not yet know, which could be a problem.
The first of our amendments on the general area of the constitution of the group proposes that the group is selected from the bodies designated by the mayor. The schedule requires the members to be representatives of those bodies. We are not clear whether that means that they must be serving members of those bodies in order to fulfil the description "representatives". The word has an "s" on the end, which means that it is slightly different from what might be indicated by "representative of".
Amendment No. 452YC would require the mayor to consult the assembly before the appointment. We make the point here, and indeed as a general point in the various amendments towards the end of the grouping, that the assembly should have a role. There is a particular point in the area of the cultural strategy. This part of the Bill reads very much as though culture is a matter for London as a capital city. As I read it, it fails to place any emphasis on the importance of culture, leisure and so on, for people who live and work in London. Both the Conservatives and these Benches have tabled specific amendments on the matter in relation to later parts of the Bill. We believe that the assembly will be well placed to ensure that the diverse nature of London and Londoners and the sheer size of the place are not overlooked. The members of the assembly will be well placed to assist in the appointment procedure and to ensure that those who think about London do not merely think about culture within the few miles in the centre. A similar point is made in Amendment No. 452ZC.

1689
Amendment No. 452ZD describes the bodies that should be among those to be consulted in connection with the appointments. We do not seek to be exclusive in listing those groups. However, we do want to point up the major areas of experience and interest. One might alternatively refer to bodies with the knowledge and experience of the areas listed in Clause 301(5) relating to the subject matter to be dealt with by the group. In response to a similar amendment, the Minister in another place said that the mayor should not be constrained in promoting and co-ordinating culture. That is not what we seek at all. We want to make sure that the entire process is not exclusive of London's very rich experience. Subsequent amendments deal, again, with the position of the assembly in this area, as there is a particular concern.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 452DA, 452UJ, 452VJ, 452WJ, 452XJ and 452YJ. It is not as formidable as it sounds, thank goodness. They are rather short points.
Amendment No. 452DA relates to Schedule 25. It simply provides that, as regards the chair of the cultural strategy group—an important position—the most apt group to appoint or elect the chair should be the group itself, not the mayor. That is not to cast any doubt on the bona fides of the mayor; it merely follows ancient practice as regards group dynamics; namely, that the best person to lead a group is a member of the group itself, as it may select. The other amendments all relate to the balance of power and responsibility as between the mayor and the assembly under Clause 301.
This is a probing amendment. It seems to these Benches that, as regards the draft strategy, and the final strategy for culture, media and sport in the capital city, a better balance would be to make the mayor and the assembly jointly responsible. Thus, all the amendments require the cultural strategy group to deal equally with the mayor and the assembly.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I must congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay on the extremely succinct and clear way in which she spoke to this large and rather complicated group of amendments. She made her points very clearly, and I was impressed by that.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 452A and 452B. I believe that it would be sensible if the experts on the body were in the majority. If that was known to be the case, it would be more convincing to all concerned. I would have thought that the London Tourist Board had a particular part to play here, and it would be wise to ensure that that body was on the face of the Bill.
It should not be possible for the mayor to inflict on the group for a long time a chairman who was unacceptable to it. I do not know how that is to be achieved or whether my noble friend's suggestions are sensible, but there could be trouble if the mayor selected a crony (for lack of a better word) that the group did not like and left him or her there. I believe that the question whether that should be impossible is worthy of
1690
consideration. It is also probably wise to clarify whether the members of the group can stay for an unlimited time. I should not have thought that that need be left to the mayor. When setting up such a group in this Chamber we usually prescribe terms of office, and that may be helpful in this case. However, perhaps the situation is so different that the Government are justified in leaving it to the mayor. I just wonder whether in this respect too much is being placed on the mayor which may spell trouble.
I refer next to the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has just spoken. He has done so succinctly, for which I am sure the Committee is grateful. But it seems to me that a great many of the amendments moved by the Liberal Democrats in the passage of this Bill say the same thing; namely, that the assembly and mayor should frequently act together, that the mayor should at least consult the assembly, or that the assembly should have much more power than the Government have anticipated. The Government could have introduced a Bill in which the relationship between the mayor and assembly was something like that envisaged by the Liberal Democrats but they did not. The Liberal Democrats have disagreed, but noble Lords on those Benches could have clarified the point in two or three amendments at the beginning of Committee stage and not repeated it over and over again. Today, we have before us Amendments Nos. 452ZC, 452UJ, 452VJ, 452WJ, 452YJ and several other amendments that are to be moved separately. All of them repeat the same point.
Speaking for myself, I believe that there has been an uneconomic use of parliamentary time in debating this point over and over again in different amendments. I do not criticise the fact that noble Lords have taken advantage of our freedom in this Chamber to talk as much as we like. We do not like our freedom to be curtailed, but we owe it to ourselves and the public not to use parliamentary time unwisely. Nor do I criticise noble Lords for what they are doing today. Clearly, the message has got through since this amendment was moved very briefly, but I believe that this is a simple point which has been clarified by the Government. I hope that when we get to Report stage we have only one or two amendments to test the point and do not repeat it over and over again.
I hope that noble Lords will not take exception to my remarks, but as a Back-Bencher—no one has put me up to this—I feel strongly that the passage of this Bill, which has taken nine days in Committee, has been unduly long. There are a number of matters that I would have liked to discuss in that parliamentary time other than this Bill. However, I support the points that my noble friend has made in speaking to these amendments.
Lord Annan: Perhaps I may intervene briefly to deal with the question of the appointment of the chairman. I fully take the point that we do not want the appointment of cronies. On the other hand, this gives rise to difficulties. In the case of the National Gallery, the chairman is appointed by the trustees from among the trustees; in the case of the British Museum, it is a Crown appointment. There is no single method that is

1691
always acceptable and followed by government. Perhaps one can get round the difficulty by saying that if it is for the mayor to appoint the chairman it can be done only through formal consultation with the members of the committee.
Baroness Hamwee: For the record, if for nothing else, perhaps I may explain to the Committee, in response to the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that not only were we concerned about the substantive issue of the role of the assembly but we were also well aware that we would be accused of inconsistency if we did not pick up the point. The issue is slightly different at different points throughout the Bill. Had the noble Baroness been with the Committee two days ago she would have witnessed the extraordinary pace that it managed to keep up in going through the amendments that day. That has been fairly characteristic of the contributions to the debates on a Bill which contains, I believe, 320 clauses—perhaps it is now 330 clauses—and 27 schedules. That is in considerable contradistinction to the consideration of the House of Lords Bill, which contains five clauses and has taken up a very great deal of time. I shall not take up further time in defending what I regard as a position which needs no excuse.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: For the record, I do not believe that I left the Chamber until 10.35 p.m.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness in her opening speech—we are grateful for the 51 minutes that she saved—invited me to respond not only to the amendments in the group but to say a word about the cultural strategy in the framework within which this schedule is placed. Before that, for the record I understand, and in some ways admire, the persistence of the Liberal Democrat Party in discovering every occasion on which the relationship between the mayor and assembly may be questioned and pursuing it. They have done so again today. Therefore, it means that I must repeat the words of the Minister for London in Committee in another place:
"The mayor will exercise the majority of the authority's functions, including the power to promote the authority's general purpose. The assembly will hold the mayor to account for the decisions that he or she takes. That is a model for good, accountable administration".—[Official Report, Commons; Standing Committee A, 2/2/99; col. 220.]
In other words, the distinction between executive power and scrutiny is fundamental. I am afraid that wherever amendments go against that we must oppose them, as we have opposed them in earlier parts of the Bill.
As far as concerns the cultural strategy, we are certainly apprised of the importance to London, the country and the world of Part X of the Bill. We look to the mayor to inspire and lead London, to ensure that all Londoners—I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the diversity of London's population—benefit from an enhanced quality of life and—this is not in contradistinction—that the city enters the next century as the place that others most
1692
admire and wish to visit. The mayor's role in championing the cultural sectors is one that appeals widely to the public. The cultural strategy group for London will be the principal advisory tool to help achieve the mayor's vision for London. Therefore, let there be no doubt about the importance of Part X to the Government in the framing of this legislation.
I turn to the amendments. These amendments would modify Schedule 25, which defines the role and composition of the cultural strategy group for London. We consider that we have achieved the right balance between allowing proper discretion to the mayor and a framework of statutory controls.
The overall purpose of these amendments seems to be to limit the power of the mayor to determine the nature and size of the body and the terms of appointment to it. In this, as I have made clear, they run counter to the intentions of the Bill. In particular, a number of the amendments would couple the assembly with the mayor. That, as I have said, is entirely at variance with the structure of the Greater London Authority.
Others of these amendments are reasonable in themselves. However, it is our policy, embodied in the Bill, to give the mayor reasonable discretion in relation to his advisory body. We have set limits for the size of the cultural strategy group for London within which the mayor can determine its size. To limit the scope further would be to trespass on the mayor's ability to choose his or her own advisory body; that is Amendment No. 452A. It is also for the mayor to appoint somebody to chair the body from among its members. Amendment No. 452D seeks to delete that provision, while Amendments Nos. 452C and 452DA would require the body to elect its own chairman.
I listened, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and I take his point about group dynamics. However, we have here a body of people that is representative of a wide range of fields of culture. It could be as large as 25 people. How are they going to get together to appoint their own chairman at their first meeting, when they probably do not know each other very well because they are in different fields? The power that the mayor has in making the appointment of a chairman is to appoint somebody who has authority and experience over as wide a range of cultural fields as possible.
It is also for the mayor to determine the terms on which members are appointed. Amendment No. 452E would cap the total time that a member could serve at eight years. Amendments Nos. 452DB and 452DC would provide a detailed statutory control on the terms of appointment. The mayor may indeed choose to adopt the terms suggested in the amendment; that would be entirely proper. However, there is no reason for us to fix such terms in statute. The Bill is long enough and detailed enough as it stands.
Above all, it is for the mayor to determine which matters are relevant to the culture strategy. That is a matter which the candidates for mayor will put to the people, and the people of London will judge whether the candidate for mayor is making the right proposals.

1693
He has to determine which matters are relevant. He has to select the members, because it then becomes his responsibility to answer for his selection.
Amendment No. 452AA would have the effect of narrowing the range of bodies. I was asked whether the representatives need to be members of the bodies which they represent. The answer is that in the Bill they do not, but under Amendment No. 452AA they would be obliged to be members of the bodies. Those bodies may wish to have representatives who are not currently members of the bodies concerned.
Amendment No. 452B would make specific reference to the London Tourist Board. Tourism is, of course, a very important topic. We shall be discussing that topic later. The mayor may well wish to include somebody from the London Tourist Board. I repeat the tributes that have been paid in another place to the work of the board. We would welcome such an appointment. However, it is already possible for the mayor to make such an appointment within the terms of the Bill as it stands.
I should not single out tourism and the London Tourist Board alone. Amendment No. 452ZD seeks to define the types of bodies that the mayor will consult in considering appointments to the cultural strategy group. It lists a number of sectors, including arts, museums, and libraries. Of course, this list contains good things. However, it does not appear to include archives. I note this for the benefit of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who makes the point about archives later on. I am sure that the mayor will want to work closely with organisations dealing with all these subjects. They are already represented on the informal London heritage forum, from whose good work the mayor will benefit.
My problem is that this list, like that other one to which we will return, runs the risk of being thought exclusive. This again is a theme which has been present throughout the consideration of this Bill. We have lists in parts of the Bill, but they are intended to be illustrative rather than inclusive. If we did not have them at all, we would be accused of failing to be explicit enough in legislation. If we go on adding to them, we run the risk of, by definition, excluding those who have no champions in this House or in another place. I therefore commend the principle that allows the mayor full discretion to determine those matters and those bodies which should be considered in appointments to the cultural strategy group and to select the most appropriate representatives.
Other amendments seek to nail down the constitution of the strategy group. Amendment No. 452G requires the mayor to make payments to the group in respect of its proper expenses. We wish to be less dictatorial. We are confident that the group, as constituted by Schedule 25, will be able to fulfil its role in advising the mayor on the culture strategy, properly and accountably.
Some amendments are simply unnecessary. Amendment No. 453BA requires the mayor to give a reasonable length of time when directing the group to draw up and present a cultural strategy. The mayor must act reasonably in all legislation. I therefore cannot see that such a provision serves any purpose.
1694
Amendments Nos. 452DD and 452DE are also unnecessary. The mayor can already define the circumstances in which he may terminate the appointment of a member who is unable or unfit to act. The deletion of the word "But" at the beginning of subsection (3) would do little either to add to or diminish from the mayor's powers. I found it a little odd. It is unusual to find the word "But" at the beginning of a sentence in legislation. I admire the grammatical sense of those who question it, but it does not actually make any difference.
Amendment No. 452F relates to the payment of expenses. I am advised that these will be payable only in relation to duties "properly incurred" as members of the group. The proposed additional phrase is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment No. 453G is at least partly unnecessary. It is, in any case, inappropriate. It would give the group the power to publish any objections to any revisions to the mayor's strategy, but only if there is a two-thirds majority. The group can already publish its findings; that is the unnecessary part. Following on from that, to require a two-thirds majority before publication is actually a restriction on the group's freedom; that is the inappropriate part.
However, I am glad of the opportunity to record that the Government propose to table a technical amendment at Report stage to provide an explicit power for the mayor to publish a revised cultural strategy. This will bring the mayor's powers for culture in line with the powers in relation to all the other strategies.
Finally, I come to Amendment No. 455QJA. This seeks to provide an explicit power for the group to act on behalf of the authority in respect of its grant powers. I can confirm that we also intend to lay an amendment on Report that will provide a much wider power for the group to act for the authority in respect of all its functions under Part X of the Bill.
I am sorry to have taken up so much time. This is a very large group of amendments. I therefore felt that I had to respond to each amendment individually. They are all interesting and serious amendments. I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the respective noble Baronesses and noble Lords will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I thank all members of the Committee who have taken part in this fairly lengthy debate on this group of amendments. I suspect that it may be our longest debate on any group today. Perhaps I will be proved wrong by noble Lords.
I am particularly grateful for the support that I have received from my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I was interested in the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, with regard to the method of choosing the chairman of the group. I found it intriguing. I will certainly consider it before Report.
I am particularly grateful to the Minister for putting on record the Government's views. I believe that they are expressed more clearly than they were in another place. I believe that it has been advanced slightly. The Government talk about "soon", "shortly" and

1695
"sometime". This is "slightly" and "perhaps you may have more on another occasion". We shall certainly pursue the matter.
I am interested to learn that there will be two technical amendments at Report stage from the Government. I look forward to the opportunity of looking at those. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I should like to thank the Minister for the way he has expressed his views on the matter. I shall have to accept with good grace the fact that the Government do not agree with the views we hold on these Benches vis-à-vis the balance between the different components.
I should be grateful if the Minister could consider one point, and perhaps write to me on it. Amendment No. 452AA refers to Schedule 25 which talks about the representatives of bodies; that is, the members of the cultural strategy group shall be individuals who are representatives of such bodies concerned with relevant matters, as the mayor considers appropriate. The amendment was tabled in an attempt to de-intensify the relationship between individuals selected by the different members of the key groups within the London art world so that when they came to the cultural strategy group they would not be there as representatives of their different bodies—albeit that they were selected by those bodies. It is to be hoped, therefore, that their prime allegiance would be to the group, even though they came from different sectors of the arts community. That is not an unimportant issue to consider. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining his intentions. However, it is in conflict with the amendment before us. The amendment says that they would have to be members.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: They should be "selected from" rather than "selected by".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In that case, the noble Lord may need to think about what he wishes to do at a later stage. However, I should not invite that.
The Government's position is that the selection shall be made by the mayor, and not by the bodies, from such persons as he considers to be representative. Having said that, it has been left as open as possible. For example, if someone is representative of dance, one can imagine the number of different bodies who would claim to represent a part of the dance community: classical dance, modern dance and so forth. The mayor must choose someone who is as representative as possible. For that reason, we have tried to make the provision open rather than restrictive.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 452AA to 452G not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment: No. 452GA:
Page 317, line 9, leave out ("towards defraying") and insert ("to defray")
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment, but it is not unimportant. It deals with arrangements set out in Schedule 25 for defraying the expenses of the cultural strategy group. Paragraph 7 of the schedule gives discretion to the mayor on the extent to which he may defray the expenses properly incurred by the group. It states:
"The Mayor may provide the Cultural Strategy Group for London with sums of money towards defraying expenses properly incurred".
The two words "towards defraying" clearly imply that he does not need to defray all of the expenses. Paranoia may be creeping in on these Benches, but we would like to see it stated beyond doubt. The proposed amendment will do just that. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not read this as a simple drafting amendment. I thought the wording in the schedule meant that the group could raise a great deal of money itself. The mayor would have the discretion to allocate as much money as seemed appropriate. Will the Minister clarify the issue?
The Bill states that the group may own property. Would it be able to charge rent on a part of that property and use the proceeds for its own purposes? Would it be able to make charges? I thought those matters were implied in this part of the Bill, but perhaps the Minister will explain the situation more clearly.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not see this amendment as a drafting amendment. It is a requirement for the mayor to pay the properly incurred expenses of the group in full, without leaving him or her any discretion to determine how far it is right to defray the group's expenses. There is no question of propriety here and I am not casting aspersions on future members of the group. The schedule makes it clear that in both cases the group's expenses must be properly incurred. However, the group will be free in what it can do. It may decide to undertake certain duties that properly incur expenses but are not considered by the mayor as appropriate matters for support. That is for the mayor to decide.
The group will be a body established to advise and support the mayor, and it will be for the mayor to determine how far—in part, in full or if at all— it will be appropriate to fund the cultural strategy group, which is primarily an advisory body. Clearly, a sensible relationship between the mayor and the group will ensure that there is discussion as to what the group will do and that the mayor agrees that what it does is justified. Under those circumstances there is no reason why the mayor should not defray all the expenses. However, we do not wish to put into statute that that must always be the case.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I did not take it that the alternative would be for the group to raise its own money. It is an advisory body,

1697
and while it is theoretically conceivable that it might make a profit from owning property, that is not its function. The group should be funded by the mayor to carry out those activities the mayor wants it to undertake.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is it not possible for the group to charge rent? When you own property you may use two-thirds or three-quarters of it, and rent out the rest. Could not the group take on the duty of collecting rent, or would the mayor need do that? I believe that the Bill should be clear on the position.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As I said, it is theoretically possible that the group might do so to cover some of its expenses. However, that is not the object of the exercise.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I presume from what the Minister said that in effect the cultural strategy group will need to enter into a contract with the mayor before it incurs any expenditure in order to be sure of being reimbursed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think we are being too formal here.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I do not think that this is a formality.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The group and the mayor would be well advised to talk to each other. Subject to that, we shall leave the relationship—including the financial relationship—as open as we can. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 452H had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 452HA not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 452HB:
Page 317, line 19, at end insert—
("(3) The Cultural Strategy Group for London may establish such committee or committees comprised of such persons for such purposes and on such terms as it may determine.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment gives the cultural strategy group a clear right to establish committees,
"comprised of such persons for such purposes and on such terms as it may determine".
That is a useful and practical empowerment for which the group will be grateful. I was one of the initial appointees to the National Lottery Charities Board under not dissimilar scheduled powers. I remember that we spent a great deal of time agonising over just what we could and could not do and, on being asked for advice,
1698
there was a huge amount of humming and hawing, thumb-sucking and reference to lawyers because it was not made clear on the face of the Bill what powers we had. The group should be given this essential practical power. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks in order that there may be no humming and hawing and legal advice. I am advised that there is no legal barrier to the cultural strategy group setting up committees, including committees of co-opted non-members. I do not resist the amendment in any spirit of opposition. It is entirely appropriate that the members should be able to draw in others relevant to their work and discuss it with them in committees. It is simply that the amendment is not needed.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: With that assurance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 25 shall be agreed to?
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I gave notice that I would oppose the Question that Schedule 25 be agreed to in order to ask the Government how they would expect the cultural strategy group to relate to other similar groups which, we are told, will be established throughout the regions and how they might relate also to the Secretary of State. In effect, the cultural strategy group is the first of the regional cultural consortiums to be created. It is the outcome of the passage through the House last year of the Regional Development Agencies Bill. In a sense we have been told to expect that RCCs will be set up around the country. How will they relate to each other and how will they relate individually to the overall authority of the Secretary of State? Can the Minister explain how the creation of the cultural strategy group, which encompasses tourism within its remit, will then relate to RCCs and regional tourist boards nationally?
In another place, the Minister's colleague, the Minister for London, Mr Raynsford, sought to answer such questions by referring vaguely to the Government's aim to establish a network of organisations. These organisations are not equal and equivalent to each other. At the moment, of course, only this one is to be created. We have no view of how the others may be constituted or indeed whether there may be other cultural strategy groups for large metropolitan areas as opposed to RDAs. How will these organisations be networked? At the moment, as I have mentioned privately to the Minister, rather than there being a net, I can see the holes but I certainly cannot see the strings holding it all together. I hope that since the Bill left another place the Minister and the Government have had an opportunity to consider this matter further and can give the Committee greater guidance today or, if they cannot, then before the passage of the Bill through the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer I have to give to the noble Baroness builds on what she said a

1699
few minutes ago about the regional cultural consortia, the regional tourist hoards and others not being equal and equivalent. Indeed, they are not. They are developing. They are developing as regional development agencies develop. The relationship between them and the cultural strategy group for London is one which in turn will, and must, develop. I see the noble Baroness's point about the need for a network. What I do not see is why and how it could possibly be a statutory network.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I am not alone in saying that there needs to be a network, which is a fruitful way to function. I pointed out that the Minister's colleague in another place said that there would be a network.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that there will be, but it will not be established by statute. That is the point I want to make. It is so clearly in the interests of the regional cultural consortia and the cultural strategy group for London to talk to each other, to co-ordinate with each other and to ensure that they are not missing things or overlapping that they will do that out of self-interest. What I cannot imagine is how we would amend Schedule 25, which is what we are debating, in order to ensure that that is the case. Perhaps I may give as an example the existing regional arts councils. There is no formal statutory network, but they meet from time to time. Indeed, until recently, their chairmen were members of the Arts Council. But when they ceased to be members of the Arts Council, they still met together. They do it because they need to do it and because they want to do it, not because we impose it by statute.
Schedule 25 agreed to.
Clause 301 [The Mayor's culture strategy]:
[Amendments Nos. 452TJ to 452YJ not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 452ZJ:
Page 158, line 33, after ("tourism") insert ("(including visits for conferences)")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 455WA in this afternoon's alphabet soup. In the amendment we propose to include a specific reference to conferences after the reference to tourism, which is within the culture strategy group's remit. During the proceedings on the Bill and outside the Chamber we have talked about the mayor's role including that of being a voice for London to promote London. That is for many purposes, some of them economic. We suggest reference to London's role as a conference centre because we believe that tourism does not necessarily cover this method of attracting people to our capital city.
I have tabled the amendment in order to seek the Minister's assurance that the point is covered here or that it will come within the remit of the London Development Agency. It is not necessarily an activity that falls within the LDA's remit, which is to do with
1700
economic regeneration, so I think that the issue should be covered somewhere. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: With the permission of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendment No. 455A, which is grouped with Amendment No. 452ZJ.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 455WA.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I am grateful for the Minister's help.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is all part of the service.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I am glad to hear that it is all part of the Government's service. We may call upon that even more later on.
Like the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, my amendment addresses the issue of the conference industry. In fact, 1 would take it rather further. My amendment seeks to raise questions about the Government's intentions towards the meetings and incentives industry. The industry contributes significantly to the United Kingdom economy yet politicians in both Houses pay it relatively little attention. In Clause 306(1)(b) there is a fleeting reference to business travel. That defines "tourist amenities and facilities" to include those used by people travelling in London on business. But it is a very general use of the term "business travel", and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I seek reassurance from the Government. After all, it could simply mean a resident of London who is a sales person travelling within London in the course of his or her normal daily work.
I am advised that the convention and incentives industry is worth about 200 billion dollars worldwide, and in Europe about half that. Its impact on communications and its role in every aspect of daily life—financial, cultural, political and social—are enormous.
Here I can declare something of an interest, which I always try to do when I manage to enjoy one. In May this year the British Tourist Authority was kind enough to nominate me and my Whip, my noble friend Lord Luke, to attend the meetings and incentives annual exhibition in Geneva—at the Palexpo—so that I could learn more about the industry. I was pleased to see the Liberal Democrats also represented. Regrettably, none of the Government's party happened to be there, on the day that I was there, nor, I am informed, later in the week. They missed an interesting and informative occasion.
Europe still has more international congresses than any other continent, but the European market share is being whittled down by other areas, by between 2 per cent and 3 per cent a year. It is the industry's view that this can be stopped only by careful, planned promotion of the industry in all EU countries, aimed particularly, of course, at the North American market.

1701
The industry is well established in London, but it needs to work hard to stay ahead. I am sure that other noble Lords will join me in congratulating the London Tourist Board and the Convention Bureau, which are working hard to do just that. But more needs to be done.
The British Hospitality Association very recently produced a helpful leaflet, Convincing Arguments for the UK Hospitality Industry, in which it argues:
"As one of the world's leading capital cities, London lacks a world-class congress centre which is able to attract the largest international conferences. Such a centre is regarded as a fundamental element in the UK's business tourism strategy and represents a key initiative in developing the industry's full job- and wealth-creating potential. Government support is required to help plan, locate and pump-prime this essential development for the 21st century."
Do the Government agree with that analysis? If so, what measures do they believe should be taken by them and the GLA—the mayor and the authority combined—to create a world-class congress centre in London?
Indeed, what action do the Government expect the GLA to take to develop facilities for the meetings and incentives industry generally? What discussions will they hold at the EU level to ensure that there is EU co-operation on this issue?
Finally, can the Minister reassure us that the Government expect that the Dome site could have long-term use for the meetings and incentives industry after the Dome itself has been hired out very profitably for corporate hospitality uses next year? I am aware that bids are in the pipeline. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could indicate whether there are one or more bids that include the conference industry. I support the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I wish to support my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns and to tell the Minister something that I am sure he is aware of, but which is worth placing on the record.
With regard to the need for a convention centre in London, Munich has a convention centre that holds between 15,000 and 20,000 people, and it is booked up until 2006. Without being rude to the entire German race, I think more people would prefer to have a convention in London than they might in Munich. We now have three or four convention centres in London, ranging in size from 1,500 to—pushing one's luck—7,000.
It is remarkable that in arguably the greatest city on earth we do not have a world-class convention centre. When the Minister responds and says, "I understand the wording clearly to mean that the mayor will have such powers", I hope there will be no doubt that there will be the opportunity for London to have, as quickly as possible, a world-class convention centre, because the
1702
important point about Munich, which will please the Minister and anyone who is privileged to hold the post of mayor, is that it makes a profit every single year. If one is booked until 2006, one obviously has a real chance of making a profit.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that I was not in Geneva. I assume that the Deputy Chief Whip might have stopped me going. The same may be true of Janet Anderson in the Commons.
I am afraid that these are two of those amendments to which I shall have to give the generic answer given throughout the passage of the Bill, that lists in the Bill are exemplary, illustrative and not exclusive. We must have them sometimes in order not to be accused of being too imprecise, but we certainly do not want them to cover everything that can be thought of, for fear that something that had not been thought of during the passage of the Bill should thereby be excluded.
Having got that off my chest, let me turn to the very important subject matter of the amendments, to which we shall return in more detail when we consider Clauses 303 and 304. Tourism makes a unique contribution to the success of London. It is a very important topic, for which the mayor will naturally have important responsibilities, which are set out in those clauses and which we shall be debating later.
In this case, Amendment No. 452ZJ amplifies the reference to tourism to include visits for conferences. Of course, we agree that business tourism makes a significant contribution to the success of tourism in London, and naturally the mayor will take that into account. But there is no need to single it out in this way, because it would give the inference that other aspects of tourism are less important thereby throwing doubt on its illustrative nature.
Amendment No. 455WA proposes to insert a reference in Clause 303, which deals with the mayor's powers and duties in relation to tourism. The amendment would create an additional specific duty on the mayor to promote Greater London as a centre for the meetings and incentives industry. The mayor has a general duty to encourage people to visit Greater London. It is not limited by reference to the purpose of the visit. It will be a matter for the mayor to decide how to prioritise time and resources for the encouragement of different types of visitor. Of course, he will take into account the contribution the business sector makes to the success of tourism, and the powers given in Clause 303 are wide enough to encompass all tourism sectors.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for giving notice of her specific questions. My response is that we recognise that the meetings and incentives industry is a vital part of our highly successful business tourism industry. Together, they are estimated to contribute some £4,700 million to the UK economy. We believe that the GLA will have a significant role in promoting business tourism—for example, by encouraging commercial investors to support proposals for a new international convention centre.

1703
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, about a larger convention centre is well taken. I do not think that he will wish to say in future that this is arguably the greatest city on earth. When he is a candidate, his spin doctors will tell him to take out the word "arguably", which comes from advertising rather than from politics.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: Perhaps I may say with the greatest respect to the noble Lord that in our party we do not have spin doctors.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am tempted! The noble Lord does not need a spin doctor; he is the most expert spin doctor I have ever encountered in my political career.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about the future use of the Dome. Indeed, this is relevant to a very large convention centre. As she said, the site was the subject of a competition launched by the Government in March this year. There have been a range of interesting and imaginative suggestions. The selection of the winning bid will be a matter for Ministers, who hope to make an announcement in spring 2000. Certainly, a major convention centre must be one of the candidates for the future use of the Dome.
The noble Baroness asked me whether the mayor will have the powers to promote business tourism at the European level and to take part in any European co-operation. The answer is that certainly he has those powers. I am sure that he will wish to take advantage of any opportunities at the European level as well as at the national level.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will feel able to withdraw her amendment
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I note the noble Lord's reluctance to acid to the list in Clause 301. Would it not be wise to add conferences to that list? The Minister might well consider that before turning down the idea. Tourism does not necessarily bring to mind the large conference industry which we have discussed. What has been said is extremely important for London.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I assure the noble Baroness that tourism embraces conferences. All definitions of tourism that we use, both for national and local government, include the conference business; and very important it is, too.
Baroness Hamwee: I understood the Minister to give the confirmation that I sought: that tourism included conferences. I believe he said that we sought to amplify the term. That satisfies us entirely.
This is not a list like some other lists. Clause 301(5) contains all the matters which may be included in the culture strategy. It does not have a general provision, for instance, for subjects which the culture strategy group the mayor or the assembly consider should be included. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and I have been concerned to ensure that the terms are precise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clause 301(5) states:
"The policies that may be contained in the culture strategy include policies with respect to each of the following matters".
In other words, they do not exclude others.
Baroness Hamwee: I am glad to know that. References to some lists have made clear that there would be a distinct frown on the face of central government if other items were included. I am grateful for the Minister's explanations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 452J:
Page 158, line 33, at end insert—
("() open space and outdoor recreation;")
The noble Baroness said: We return to the subject of lists, but a somewhat different list. In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 454A.
The purpose of the amendments is to probe the role of the Greater London Authority with regard to recreation—walking, riding, cycling and the use of open spaces for recreation in general—for innocent purposes, and recreation for everyone, whatever their individual needs may be. We may use a wheelchair; we may have difficulties with sight or hearing; but we all have need of recreation and open spaces.
I thank the Open Spaces Society and the National Playing Fields Association for their briefing. I declare a non-pecuniary interest as honorary appeal patron of the National Playing Fields Association's Millennium Appeal, called "Every child deserves a place to play"—a view with which I think no one would quarrel.
Clause 301(5) sets out certain policies to be contained in the mayor's culture strategy. In another place my honourable friend Sir Sydney Chapman asked questions on this issue. As did the Minister today, the Minister spoke of the list not intending to be perfect, full or comprehensive, but illustrative. However, it is important that we probe today the intentions of the Government with regard to the inclusion of the use of open spaces within the work of the group and the authority.
I believe that no doubt should be left by the Bill that open spaces and outdoor recreation are an important aspect of our London culture. It is vital that one notes that there is a London branch of the CPRE. When noble Lords debated the Regional Development Agencies Bill last year—the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, nods her head—we had some interesting exchanges on the role of open spaces and agriculture. The London branch of the CPRE is alive and well. It has written to several noble Lords to give information about its work. It is primarily concerned with the environmental welfare of London and its people, with the aim of making the metropolis a more agreeable place in which to live and work. It points out that the proper and sympathetic management of London's great wealth of public parks and commons is vital to achieve its objective.
The Open Spaces Society points out that there is a crisis in the management of London parks. It directed my attention to evidence by the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management to the DETR Select Committee which recently started an inquiry into local authority town and country parks. Paragraph 24 of the evidence to that inquiry states:
"ILAM's greatest concern is the lack of support from Government itself. In the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport there are two Govemment Departments who appear to believe, perhaps because public parks have both an environmental and cultural dimension, that parks should be the province of neither Department rather than both".
It seems that they fall through the middle. Paragraph 28 states:
"The DCMS does not appear to recognise any responsibility for public parks, either as leisure, culture, heritage or as a tourist attraction, all of which are the remit of the Department…In providing guidance to Local Authorities for 'Local Cultural Strategies' the Department has conceded that public parks and countryside should be included but gives no specific advice".
What is the Government's intention with regard to parks and open places? Do they continue to have objections to the scope of this clause being made plainer; and, if so, why?
The Open Spaces Society points out that the cultural strategy group's outdoor interests should not be confined to parks or other recognised public open spaces. It points out that it is important that the group should also be concerned to protect and enhance all outdoor recreation and enjoyment, whether related to the River Thames, or any of London's other waterways and reservoirs—all of which add to the character of London life and recreation.
On Amendment No. 454A, Clause 302 enables grants to be paid by the GLA for cultural institutions. But outdoor recreational facilities may also need financial help and this should not be excluded by the Bill. Indeed, as the London Forum has pointed out in its briefing to noble Lords, outdoor recreational activities must mean sports plus other recreational activities in the widest sense, which include walking and peaceful enjoyment of the open space. We were reminded recently that inner city parks do not have to be urban wastelands or threatening places. The Urban Task Force reported earlier this month on Barcelona where parks have been a key element in bringing the city back to life. I am sure that that is a good example for all to follow. I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland: Amendment No. 452K refers to parks, landscapes and gardens which we on these Benches would like to see referred to on the face of the Bill as part of the cultural strategy.
It may have been in the minds of the draftsmen that in some way ancient monuments and sites covered some of the points. I shall mention them briefly with some apprehension, bearing in mind the earlier strictures of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. Landscapes, parks and gardens in London are one of the main attractions. They are unique in any capital city. They are more than just places where one walks one's dog, jogs
1706
or rollerblades. In London, they have a cultural and historic importance, probably unparalleled in most other cities of Europe. It may well be the wish and the intention of the mayor and his assembly to make certain provisions in the strategy for the future planning of these parks and gardens. Many of the historical parks, most notably Vauxhall Gardens and Ranelagh Gardens, played a very important part in 18th century history. I am not quite sure when Vauxhall Gardens, which had a somewhat louche reputation, disappeared and I am not quite sure what kind of activities take place there today. Again, that may be something which the mayor and the assembly might like to consider. This reinforces my point that surely these places ought to be on the list of important areas within the scope of the cultural strategy. I and my colleagues would like to see this added to the list.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I should like to say briefly that London is justly famed for its parks, commons, gardens and heaths—over 250 of them—and as things stand many of them cross London borough boundaries and get short shrift from the boroughs which may feel not wholly responsible for them. Also, many of them are in complex forms of ownership and they need explicit inclusion in the work to be done by the group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): The issue of open spaces, rights of way and so on covered by these amendments would modify Clauses 301 and 302. I recognise that the existence of parks, open spaces and other recreational areas in London is a very important part of London life. These places are essential to our urban landscapes and to some extent they define London itself, as well as providing historically, and possibly occasionally today, a broadening of experience and taste, to which the noble Viscount referred in relation to Vauxhall Gardens. I think we are all aware of the history and the current value of these open spaces.
Regarding rights of way, the Government will be bringing forward legislation for London and the rest of the country. We strongly recognise the value of rural open space and access to it. That will certainly be a matter of concern to the mayor also. However, the amendments themselves are unnecessary, in my submission, mainly for the same reasons to which my noble friend Lord McIntosh referred just now. Once or twice on earlier occasions I have indicated that the lists in this Bill in most cases are exemplary and not exhaustive. The more comprehensive and exemplary the list becomes, the greater the danger it runs of being regarded as exhaustive. We want to have a certain amount of freedom for the mayor and this group as they develop the cultural strategy.
On Amendments Nos. 452J and 452K, they would add further activities to the list of open spaces, outdoor recreation parks, landscapes and gardens. I am completely sympathetic to the intention behind the amendments, but the mayor must be able to develop policy for the development of open space in important

1707
aspects, not only in regard to the cultural strategy but also for the spatial development strategy. That does not mean it should be set in this list of the cultural strategy as such. It may well be appropriate to do so, but the mayor does not require this amendment to achieve that.
In addition, the spatial development strategy provides a context for the mayor to develop policy for the promotion of access to open spaces and other similar facilities. That is already covered in the Bill. Amendment No. 454 would enable the authority to pay grants or to provide improved public access to open space, the Thames and other waterways and rights of way in or adjacent to London. Again that amendment is unnecessary. Your Lordships will recall from our earlier debates on Clause 25 that the authority, acting through the mayor, will have a general power to do anything which it considers would further one or more of the authority's principal purposes, including the promotion of social development and promotion of the improvement of the environment in Greater London. Both of these are of direct relevance to the provision of open spaces and therefore to the provision of grants for open spaces. Therefore, if the authority judges that expenditure would meet one of those purposes, it could already act.
There is a caveat here. We have made it clear that the general power is not to be used to duplicate the role of the London borough councils or other public bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is correct in saying that some of the open spaces are in complex ownership. The vast majority are run either by London boroughs, the City of London or the Royal Parks Agency. The sponsoring departments are different, but they have those as well. The role of the London boroughs and other public bodies which have responsibility for parks and open spaces should be respected, and the GLA would not act in those areas. However, where the GLA can usefully act is on the co-ordination of joint initiatives by agreement with other local authorities and public bodies. Without this amendment, it will certainly be able to do so.
Another point concerning Amendment No. 454A is that it refers to areas adjacent to Greater London. As I have said, the power of local authorities is exercisable only in relation to the promotion of their principal purposes, specifically to Greater London itself. The authority would therefore have to demonstrate that any action outside Greater London was intended to further its principal purposes. In practice, it could do so only with the agreement of adjacent areas, and that is something which is not covered by this clause.
Nevertheless, I recognise the importance of open spaces. I believe that all the powers these amendments would convey are already in the Bill, as is the ability to cover these aspects in the cultural strategy, which is clearly there. I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Hamwee: I should like to ask just one question, but I cannot help reflecting aloud on the vision which is conjured up, following my noble friend Lord Falkland having said what he did about Vauxhall Gardens, that the mayor might also have some
1708
responsibility for Soho, since Vauxhall Gardens does not fulfil its original function. He also talked about open spaces being places where roller-blading is done. I think he meant that in a general sense and I am sure that he did not mean to talk about your Lordships roller-blading. But it does conjure up a nice picture.
I should like to ask about the Royal parks, which the Minister has just mentioned. Their management is a separate matter because they are under a distinct ownership, but I am conscious of the work which is done by groups of friends in respect of the different parks. I do not recall the full title, but there is a federation of the groups of friends. Are they a matter to which the cultural strategy group would have regard" I appreciate that there will be no power of direction either on their part or on that of the mayor with regard to their management, but I am unclear as to how they fit into the general scheme of things.
Lord Whitty: The Royal parks are administered by the Royal Parks Agency, which is an agency of the DCMS. That is where the powers arise: they are basically the agency's powers. There are different situations, in so far as London boroughs own many open spaces. In other cases open spaces are owned by trusts or the Corporation of London, but so far as Royal parks specifically are concerned, they are run by the agency.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this small debate about open spaces and recreation. I note the comments of the Minister that the Government do not believe these amendments are necessary because, hey presto, it will all be done anyway since there is some provision somewhere which allows the mayor and the authority to do in effect more or less anything they like. But there is concern on these Benches that one needs to be able to probe more carefully into what powers they will actually have, how they will be carried out and what activities may be covered.
I believe that there are some activities which are so important to the future of London that they will need to be included on the face of the Bill. But I am pleased to have the reassurances given by the Minister with regard to these amendments. One will need to read carefully in Hansard what has been said and consider other matters between now and Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 452J.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 452JA:
Page 158, line 33, at end insert—
("() education as it relates to the promotion of artistic creativity;")
The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 453, 453ZA and 453A. In anticipation of my noble friend's reply, I "got the message" from the previous debates that lists are exemplary, illustrative but not exclusive. I understand the point.
The purpose of moving the amendment is to draw attention to the importance of educational outreach activities; that is, bringing arts into local communities and institutions, including schools in particular. It is recognised that in recent years the arts have made a substantial contribution to the health and creativity of the capital through the involvement of professional artists within the community at all levels and in a wide variety of environments. One example in the City of London is the outreach activities undertaken by the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. They involve both staff and students in projects in local communities of east London as well as in more than 30 schools.
As regards broader community projects, it is worth recording that outreach activities extend to community centres, hospitals, hospices and even to prisons. Recognising the importance of such activities and the anticipated co-ordinating role of the cultural strategy group, it seems to me to be appropriate that reference is made to such activities and that they would fall into the responsibility of the cultural strategy group. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: I want to speak to Amendment No. 453, which deals with a different subject from that addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. It relates to the subject of archives. I must declare an interest in that I have been involved in archives for about 30 years.
The purpose of this short and simple amendment is to ensure that archive services have a firm place in the mayor's cultural strategy. As presently constituted, Clause 301 recognises library and museum services as an essential part of the mayor's cultural strategy, but says nothing about archives. We are all aware of the great importance of libraries and museums, but the value of the library book and the museum exhibit depends firmly on the research which is possible only through a ready access to original historical records. Archives are less visible and obvious to the wider public than libraries or museums, but that belies their fundamental importance to well based historical research.
Indeed, at this very time the national curriculum is placing considerable emphasis on the hands-on use by school students of primary source material. Yet the availability of material at local level across the London boroughs varies from the well resourced and well managed, through the under-resourced but reasonably well managed, to the absolutely pitiful and virtually non-existent.
The situation in London is that there is one very good overall London archive repository, the equivalent of the county record office, in the London Metropolitan Archives, formerly known as the Greater London Record Office. It has been run by the Corporation of London since 1986 and provides a good service as well as original archives in the Guildhall Library. The London Metropolitan Archives perform the important function of looking after the records of London-wide government bodies such as the London County Council
1710
and the Greater London Council as well as manorial and ecclesiastical records and the records of important London institutions and sometimes private companies.
However, it is totally impossible for the London Metropolitan Archives to meet all of London's archive needs, especially at local level. It is not resourced to do so and would not regard it as being within its remit. The preservation and accessibility of local records is the responsibility of the London boroughs. Under the Local Government Act 1972, each London borough is statutorily responsible for its own records, but these duties are expressed in very general terms and in effect allow the extent of the duty to be defined by the authority concerned. In addition, under the Local Government (Records) Act 1962, all London authorities are empowered to make provision for archives and create local history collections, but the legislation is only permissive.
The inadequacy of the statutory provision is one of the main reasons why standards vary so much over the London boroughs. Of the 33 London local authorities, more than one-third have no professional archivist. That fact in itself speaks volumes. Some boroughs do not even make provision for access to the archives created by the local authority itself, much less make provision to take in and make accessible the records of local institutions, businesses and individuals. Organisations creating historic records of local significance experience considerable difficulty in seeking to deposit records in London, as some boroughs are unable to receive collections of important archive material.
In those authorities which choose to take an active role both in the care of their own archives and the provision of centres for local studies, these facilities are much used and appreciated by local people. Even then, they are frequently under-resourced and even those authorities which provide a relatively good service are closed on some days of the week.
What London needs is an even standard provision of archive services across the metropolis. To meet the standards laid down by the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts for the storage and custody of records, access to them and reasonable opening hours does not entail any great expense.
The mayor, in publishing and implementing his or her strategy, will be uniquely well placed to take the lead in stimulating and encouraging those boroughs which are responding to the challenge of providing a suitable archive service, co-ordinating borough services, encouraging the development of centres of excellence and naming and shaming those who lag behind the rest. The proposed short amendment will mean that archives cannot be swept under the strategy carpet, and its general terms means that the mayor's strategy could take account of archives in the private as well as the local government sector.
Some 19 years ago, I proposed an amendment in your Lordships' House to the then National Heritage Bill to add "record repositories" to museums and galleries as eligible recipients for grants. I was told by the spokesman for the government of the day, who was none other than my noble friend Lord Mowbray and

1711
Stourton, that archives and record offices were covered by the phrase "other similar institutions" and that it was unnecessary and undesirable to add further to the list of institutions specifically mentioned.
It was therefore with some amusement that I noted the response of a Minister of the present Government, Mr Nick Raynsford, to an amendment similar to the one I am proposing today, which was moved during the Committee stage of the present Bill in the other place by my right honourable friend Mr Peter Brooke who, as your Lordships will know is the Member for the City of London and Westminster and who made a most interesting and comprehensive speech which I recommend to those who wish to extend their knowledge of the subject. In rejecting the amendment, the Minister cautioned about adding to a list which, he said, was in any case meant to be illustrative. He said:
"Once we go beyond an illustrative list and start adding other items, there will be no limit on how many others can legitimately claim to he included.".
In other words, the floodgates will be opened. Quite how the addition of archives will open the floodgates when museums and galleries, library services and even treasure and antiquities of a movable nature are specifically mentioned seems to be curious, to say the least.
I was even more amused to notice that immediately after the exchange over this amendment in Committee, another Minister, Miss Glenda Jackson, moved, as an addition to the Bill, the present Clause 302 which states that the new authority may pay grants for the purposes of any museum, gallery, library, archive or other cultural institution. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to single out archives in this clause but not in the previous clause.
However, I ask the Minister to consider that by accepting the amendment he would be advancing the Government's policy as recently announced in A New Cultural Framework issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That publication recognises the importance of archives alongside the libraries and museums in the decision to create the museums, libraries and archives council in the planned regional consortia.
The Earl of Clancarty: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 453 concerning archives, which I very much support, although I have sympathy with the other amendments in the group.
The Minister said that lists are intended to be illustrative and not inclusive. However., I have to say that I find that rather ingenuous. Any list will inevitably highlight what is listed and will do so at the expense of what is not.
The London Archive Users Forum states:
"despite improvements in recent years …there is widespread neglect of archives at borough level".
So, as well as the question of profile, there are real practical problems which a cultural strategy group should be addressing.
1712
A point worth mentioning concerns specialist archives such as film archives. There are significant film archives at Southwark and Bermondsey. One of the functions which the National Film Archive at the BFI has taken on is to help place archives within the regions, as regions have become more conscious of and interested in their own history. I do not think that archives in general fit into the list in subsection (5). One certainly would not automatically think of film archives. One might if archives were separately listed. Many perceive cine film as representing the most significant documentation of the 20th century.
My other point concerns access. If the Government are serious about access to museums, they should also think in terms of raising the profile of activities which have traditionally been considered "backroom activities", such as archival research, whether carried out by museum staff or members of the public. The British Museum, for example, has an important archive department.
The Minister may well point out that archives such as those are covered by museums, but that is the point. They are covered; that is, hidden. The question of relationship between access and profile is an important one which in itself justifies the separate listing of archives.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: From what has been said by the Government Front Bench so far, it will be difficult for the mayor to exceed his powers as the Bill is so widely drawn with so little detail in that respect. On the other hand, there are some areas where it is important to be more precise. The House, when it meets on Report, might well want to add to Clause 301(5) because that is necessary.
As regards archives, I suggest that they are not like any other contents of museums. Many archives are carefully kept in special places under special conditions. Any vagueness as to where they are may mean that they will disappear, or disappear from view. It is crucial that the Bill should be clear about what the mayor can do in that respect and, if necessary, what he cannot do about archives which are elsewhere within the city.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I should like to speak to the two other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 453ZA and 453A. Amendment No. 453A, to some extent, reflects the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on which I shall comment shortly.
Amendment No. 453ZA would seek to add music to the list of those cultural activities in respect of which the cultural strategy group is empowered to develop policies. Like other noble Lords, I have listened several times to the Government's approach to any "tampering", as they appear to see it, with the magnificent list of arts and cultural activities in Clause 301(5). As a lawyer, I am deeply unimpressed. In modern psychological jargon, there is a degree of "anal retentiveness" on the part of the Government about their wording.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, demonstrated, to exclude archives but allow treasure and antiquities seems unnecessary. One could select other bizarre items listed in

1713
subsection (5). However, to exclude music, of which there is no mention, and to refer only to arts seems also to be unnecessary. One has to ask why the Government are being so extraordinarily unmoving about this.
In the view of these Benches, music is naturally put alongside broadcasting and film in subsection (g). It is one of the principal activities of the arts community in London. Forty per cent of all musicians in the British Isles reside in London. London is the music capital of the world for disks, tapes and videos. It is an extraordinarily vibrant, diverse industry. We simply ask, therefore, as regards Amendment No. 435ZA, that music should be admitted to subsection (g).
Amendment No. 453A would specifically empower the cultural strategy group to have education as one of its principal areas of concern in policy development. I am sure that we all agree that the vibrant state of London arts is dependent in the long term upon educating the public to appreciate the full range of those artistic endeavours. Some parts of the London arts scene are not too healthy at present and could do with imaginative, public artistic education. On those grounds, we hope that the Government will smile sympathetically on both the amendments.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I should like to speak in support of Amendment No. 453, to which I put my name. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for speaking to it so expertly. It was grouped with other amendments, so it was the proper place to speak to it. I know that he was trying to save the time of the House in obliging them with this grouping. I appreciate, therefore, that the Minister has had to get his mind round rather a large number of subjects on the little list that we want to make a little less little.
I do not think I can add to the arguments so forcefully and expertly put forward by my noble friend. I should simply like to add my own personal feeling about archives and their importance from the point of view of somebody who at one time taught history and perhaps did not quite appreciate the value of local archives as effectively as I should, though I had access to national ones at the time.
I should like to thank my own county archivist, David Robinson, for having my mind opened. He gave up a couple of hours of his time to show me both behind and in front of the scenes in my own local archive centre. In the public mind, archives are a dusty collection of old papers. Old they may be; sometimes they are papers, but dusty they are not because of the great care taken to preserve them. I believe that the use of such archives can unlock for the readers of tomorrow the history of today and yesterday. They are certainly vital to our culture. My noble friend pointed out that at the moment there is a great disparity in the provision of services throughout London. I believe that his amendment—should we return to it at a later stage, if not today—is indeed vital for the face of the Bill.
Lord Whitty: I am afraid that we are on lists again and our view is that the lists are reasonably succinct and adequately illustrative. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips,
1714
accused us of being "anally retentive". When the Bill first came out and people saw the size of it, we were accused of a rather different and opposite medical condition.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I must say that that is not typical of the rest of the Bill.
Lord Whitty: I shall not repeat the arguments about exemplary and exhaustive lists. In relation to the noble Lord's amendment concerning music, clearly any definition of the arts which is listed cannot possibly exclude music. That probably also applies to a number of the other amendments. Amendment No. 452JA, which deals with education promotion in so far as it leads to the promotion of artistic creativity, and Amendment No. 453A, which deals with educating the public in the matters listed in the cultural strategy, raise slightly different issues. They stray in part into areas which are the responsibility of other public authorities.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the cultural strategy must and can include both the sort of outreach activities referred to by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and the rather broader term of public education in the arts referred to here. It is clear that those are already covered by the mayor's ability to draw up the strategy and to make it deliverable.
The position in relation to archives is slightly different. They are arguably part of museums, which are referred to, but they raise rather different issues. I agree in part with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. The Government are actively engaged in raising the profile of archives through the forthcoming establishment of the museums, libraries and archives council. It is clear that that means archives of all forms—film and electronic as well as paper archives. In London there are many valuable archive collections of all sorts. The GLA and the functional bodies are also responsible for preserving their own archives. Many other public bodies also have that responsibility.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, himself pointed out, the support for archives is referred to in Clause 302 with an explicit reference to the powers of the authorities to give grants in relation to archives. I recognise the strength of noble Lords' views on archives. I believe that it is slightly different from the attempt to draw up a totally exhaustive list which mentions each of the arts in some detail. If the Committee will permit, I shall look again at the question of whether we have said enough about archives on the face of the Bill, taking into account what the noble Lord said in speaking to his amendment. I should argue again that the other amendments should not be pressed. We are again in an area where an exhaustive list could constrain, rather than enhance, the creativity of the cultural strategy.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the Minister for his comments. He made the point that there was no necessity to refer to film, because it was covered by the word "arts". Yet paragraph (g) refers to film. It refers to broadcasting and film. My proposal was to add "music"

1715
to those two live, electronic—as they largely are—arts. The linkage seems entirely natural. Will the Minister explain why he sees no relevance to the amendment?
Lord Whitty: I did not say that I saw no relevance. I did not specifically refer to film. I referred to music, which is clearly subsumed within the term "arts". The reference to film production is of course slightly different—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he quite specifically referred to film. If he looks at the record tomorrow, he will see that he did so.
Lord Whitty: We shall no doubt both check Hansard tomorrow on that point. I believe that we are all agreed that music, and indeed, film, are subsumed under "arts". Some of the other aspects have been referred to because there is an industry in terms of film production, which is slightly separate from music. I suppose that we could argue frequently on the head of a pin as to where one definition ends and another begins. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that it is possible for the mayor to engage with all the issues raised in this debate and it is almost inevitable that the cultural group would engage in drawing up the strategy.
As I have said, archives are in a slightly different category, but there is no inhibition against the strategy covering a major substrategy relating to archives. I shall take away that particular matter. However, whether or not Hansard makes it absolutely clear, I hope that noble Lords will accept that the list includes all their anxieties.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am terribly sorry to tax the Committee's patience, but I should like to ask one more question. The Minister said that film production was one thing, but music production another. I do not see the distinction. That is to say, music production is a distinct and hugely important part of London arts. Why should film production be specifically mentioned and not music production?
Lord Whitty: Film production is a whole and total industry. Music is a much wider entity than the industry. Music can be individual music, produced music, electronic music. Film production is a rather specific and economically quite significant industry. Music subsumes the music industry in the sense to which the noble Lord refers, but it is also a much wider artistic endeavour. Nevertheless, it is subsumed under the general title, "arts". That will have to do for now.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I was quite happy with my noble friend's response as regards educational outreach activities. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is not happy, but I believe that the Minister has made one man in the arts very happy tonight—that is, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 452K to 453C not moved.]
[Amendment No. 453D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 453E to 453G not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 453H:
Page 159, line 17, at end insert—
("(9) In this section, reference to the arts shall include all performing arts, applied arts, fine arts, and other visual, aural and plastic arts, and the policies that may be contained in the culture strategy may extend to the commercial, subsidised and voluntary sectors.")
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that we are back to the age-old subject of lists. I feel slightly more reinforced in pressing the amendment, given the backing of my noble friend Viscount Falkland, and the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam, and Lord Bragg, who know what they are talking about. The idea of adding subsection (9) to Clause 301 is, in a way, to sweep up a great many of the reservations and unhappiness which many Members have expressed both here and in the other place as to the wording of Clause 301, in particular that of subsection (5).
I put it to the Government that it cannot be right to rest on the two words "the arts" the huge corpus of activity which they say is or may be embraced within it with no attempt at clarification—not even open-ended clarification which this amendment would provide. The amendment does not pretend to be exhaustive; it simply says that arts in this section "shall include." I urge the Government to examine the matter with great care; otherwise some of the examples of arts specifically referred to in Amendment No. 453H will be the subject of doubt on the part of the cultural strategy group as to whether or not it is empowered to make policies with regard to them.
My other point is that the amendment expressly makes clear that which is not clear at the moment; that is, that the policies which the cultural strategy group may develop may extend,
"to the commercial, subsidised and voluntary sectors".
The importance of that, for which the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Bragg, if they were here, would vouch, is that it is essential that the policies to he developed should be able to embrace the whole of the London arts scene, from whichever part of the spectrum it comes. The fact that it may devote most of its attention to the subsidised theatre, for example, or in another part of the arts spectrum, the voluntary sector, is neither here nor there. We on these Benches feel that it should be plain that the group has the power to look right across the arts board and develop policies it feels are in the interests of London and Londoners covering; all parts of that spectrum.
Despite what has been said, therefore, about specific additions to subsection (5) thus far, this is a slightly different approach to the unease expressed by many Members of the Committee. I hope therefore that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not going to accept this amendment, but I love it. It is so much in line with the

1717
way in which we have been talking about the arts for the past two years; with the way in which Chris Smith, Mark Fisher and Alan Howarth have been talking about the arts. I do not want it in legislation, but I want to acknowledge the wisdom of the thinking behind it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that this case is rather different from the ordinary "list adding" argument we have heard in the past, because the arts are already explicitly listed in the Bill. Amendment No. 453H expands that simple one-word reference to provide a fascinating definition of the arts but one which it is not necessary to include in the proposed legislation. It would cover all performing arts, applied arts, fine arts, other visual, audio, oral and plastic arts. It would spell out the policies that may extend to the commercial, subsidised and voluntary sectors.
Chris Smith, the Secretary of State, made a keynote address recently to the Royal Society of Arts in which he re-emphasised his own passion for the arts in the widest sense. They matter for their own and our sakes because they help to shape and characterise society. As he said, they are a civilising influence. It is of the greatest importance that they should be accessible to all. Of course, that implies that we should be covering the commercial, subsidised and voluntary sectors.
The fundamental purpose behind this Government's arts policy is to make the best things in life available to the greatest number. Our approach is therefore one of passionate commitment to the arts with a determination to ensure that they are well managed. I am sure that the mayor will want to seize these opportunities. That is what the Bill provides for him. The arts will provide the opportunity to celebrate the cultural diversity of the City in many ways. But we should not be getting into a lengthy debate over the relative merits of the categories of art defined in this amendment—I am not accusing the noble Lord of making a lengthy speech.
There is also a danger that by trying to introduce so specific a definition, some art forms might be excluded. It is the old problem. In my judgment we have gone almost too far in our lists and have run the risk of the criticism that if we include something like "treasure", why do we not have a wider definition of "the arts?" Why do we not have a wider definition of "tourism?" Why do we not have a wider definition of "sport?" Why do we not go into more and more detail? But we cannot rival the Oxford English Dictionary. In expressing my enthusiasm for the widest possible definition of the arts, let me plead with the noble Lord not to try and put it on the face of the Bill.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am not assuaged by the eloquent defence of the policy of the Government on this matter. I wonder why the Government will not put certain matters beyond doubt. If they were on the face of the Bill, they would be beyond doubt. Since the clause is couched in non-exclusive language, I do not accept his argument. But follow it I must, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 301 agreed to.
Lord Freyberg Lord Freyberg moved Amendment No. 454:
After Clause 301, insert the following new clause—

Greater London Authority Bill

  IMPLEMENTATION OF CULTURE STRATEGY
  (" . The Secretary of State shall by order transfer to the Authority his responsibility for London museums and historic properties in the Authority's area.")
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 454 is a probing amendment and is only intended as a means of asking the Government about their plans for London museums under the new GLA.
  In the White Paper of March 1998 the Government proposed,
  "a more radical approach with regard to the Mayor's relationships with other bodies and organisations".
  Since then there has been no further indication of any rearrangement envisaged by the Government with regard to the capital's museums and galleries, nor of what powers the mayor will have over them. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update and tell us along what lines his department has been thinking.
  In particular, I shall be grateful if the Minister can let us know what has become of the proposal to transfer responsibility for museums such as the Geffrye Museum, the Horniman Museum and the Museum of London from the DCMS to the GLA. The Geffrye and the Horniman, though both formerly under GLC control, have adapted extremely well to being part of a wider museum umbrella under the DCMS with all the back-up and resources that that involves. There have been rumours that there are proposals for the mayor to have the powers to nominate two trustees for those museums. Is that true? If so, can the Minister give us more details? What will the benefits be?
  Furthermore, are there any other plans which might affect the funding of those museums? There will inevitably he serious anxieties if any core funding were to be split between the DCMS and the GLA. Can the Minister reassure us that the museums' funding will be secure, if necessary by some form of ring-fencing within the GLA budget, and will not be gradually whittled away by other demands? The DCMS has all the mechanism and experience necessary to run important national resources. Is it wise to contemplate handing any of its powers over to a body whose composition is as yet unknown and which has no proven track record? Why change a structure and a system that works well for an unknown quantity just for the sake of it? There must be a greater benefit than merely providing the mayor with some museum as part of his or her responsibility. It seems essential that the cultural sector of the GLA should complement rather than duplicate the grant-giving powers of the current cultural funding agencies. In such circumstances it would be of real value.
  Can the Minister also inform the Committee as to whether or not there are any plans with regard to the Theatre Museum, the Museum of Childhood, the Sir John Soanes Museum or any other museum? If in the end a small number of museums come under the GLA's aegis, will the Minister be able to put in place a mechanism to ensure that the GLA will not be able to manipulate them, either through funding or direct

  1719
  intervention by trustees, in order to make political points? Also touched on in the White Paper was the possible transfer to the GLA of historic properties now managed by English Heritage. Could the Minister comment on whether this suggestion is still being considered? I beg to move.
  The Earl of Clancarty: In speaking to Amendment No. 454, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 454XA and 455QJB which are tabled in my name. I very much support the probing intentions behind the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Freyberg and hope that the Minister feels able to give us a fully informative answer. The intention of the amendments that I have tabled, taken together, is to provide a safeguard—I stress that it would be a safeguard and not a prediction—to prevent the kind of crisis that occurred last year from happening again; in particular, what was suggested in terms of moving the responsibility for funding certain museums over to the authority.
  It is important that such proposals should not be made lightly. It is important as well—indeed for all of us—to understand in a sensitive manner the very different characters and lines of development of the various institutions: for instance, developments variously in local, national and international terms, clearly part of the agenda of some museums. These agendas need to be encouraged in the right kind of way.
  One of the things that has become clear is the great importance that certain museums attach to the superstructure that the department affords. It is not just a matter, as I am sure the Minister appreciates, of a hopefully secure a funding base but also expertise in terms of access, education, national and international links and in many other areas—and it ought to be said that in this regard the department is clearly getting a big pat on the back from the museums.
  My understanding is that no museum wants to rule out any possibility for the future. For instance, we do not know exactly how the authority will develop. But the authority, at least as it is construed at present, does not necessarily offer the best scenario for the future development of certain institutions. In his reply, I ask the Minister to confirm that there would be proper, up-front consultation and discussion over such proposals if they came forward again—consultation which in a sense is not locked into or in effect hidden away within a separate agenda.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: When I read through this amendment, I thought that I was quite opposed to it or, indeed, worried by it. It seemed to me that it was suggesting that this responsibility should be transferred to the authority. However, when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, his speech appeared to be contrary to what is in the amendment. Therefore, I like what the noble Lord said but I do not like the wording of the amendment.
  I would be very sorry to see the Horniman Museum transferred to the authority. The noble Lord quoted a number of others, but I take the Horniman as a example in this respect. It has built up a great rapport with local people, as well as gaining quite an identity as a museum
  1720
  and as a tourist attraction in London. Indeed, it has often been debated in this Chamber. On one occasion, my noble friend Lady Trumpington told us how she had been offered the opportunity to be weighed, against the seal or the walrus which are on show in the museum. It really is quite a famous establishment. However, I should like to feel confident that such museums will be able to carry on in the same way that they have been doing, and doing so well, over the past 10 years. I support the principle behind the noble Lord's point, but I do not know whether the wording of the amendment is what it ought to be. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I speak in support of Amendment No. 454, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I am most grateful for the intervention by my noble friend Lady Gardner because it gives me the opportunity to point out that, when the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and I first discussed this amendment, I made the point that if I attached my name to it my noble friends would think that I had lost my senses. It is a vehicle by which one can probe the Government's intentions. I am glad that my noble friend gave me the opportunity to put that on record.
  I also speak in support of Amendments Nos. 454XA and 455QJB, which were spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I am very appreciative of the cautionary words that he spoke with regard to those amendments. The purpose of this group of amendments is to ask the Government questions about their plans for museums in London. The Bill merely gives the GLA the power to pay grants to any museum. The only strings attached are that there should—quite rightly—be financial accountability for the expenditure and that one might have to pay back the whole or part of the grant.
  However, that is in sharp contrast to the extensive changes which were proposed in the White Paper. I was intrigued by the gulf between the proposals in the White Paper and the matters which appear on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, went into some detail in that respect and I shall not attempt to repeat what he said. I merely endorse his argument and the points that he put. But I have a few questions which the noble Lord did not mention in detail.
  My honourable friend Peter Ainsworth tabled a Written Question in another place recently to ask the Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport whether he intended to transfer responsibility for any of his department's sponsored museums to the GLA. I was intrigued to note that the Written Answer, which was printed on 8th June, was given as a "holding answer 13 April 1999". I hope that the Minister can take the matter further today. The Written Answer states that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to transfer to the GLA the responsibility for making some appointments to the boards of museums which were previously funded by the GLC. The Secretary of State also said:
  "I am considering with colleagues the extent to which the Greater London Authority might he given further responsibilities in respect

  1721
  of museums and galleries in order to enhance the cultural role for the Authority".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/99; cols. 229–230.)
  I believe that it is important for this House to be able to debate such proposals, if there are any, at an early stage; if, indeed, they are to form part of this Bill. Obviously, another place will have no opportunity to scrutinise such proposals in Committee. Therefore, it will be our duty to do so here, if such proposals come forward.
  I gave advance notice to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of the four detailed questions that I have for the Minister. First, can the noble Lord say to which museums the Government are referring in that Written Answer? I ask that because it does have a bearing on the Bill. Secondly, can the noble Lord say what number of appointments would be transferred to the GLA as a proportion of the total number at the disposal of the DCMS? Thirdly, what would be the legal basis of the transfer of the right to appoint in this Bill, and would there be other statutory powers which could quite properly be used to make such a transfer? That certainly may be the case. I simply do not know, and seek elucidation on that point. Fourthly, what "further responsibilities", to quote from the Written Answer, are the Government thinking of transferring?
  I am perfectly well aware that, in his characteristic way, the Minister will try to be as helpful as possible. Indeed, when responding to a Question in the House earlier this summer, he gave a fascinating reply which implied that the Government might be going down the route of "privatising"—that is the only word that I can think of—the management of national museums. It interests me to see that the Minister very vigorously shakes his head. That response is echoed in the Written Answer given in another place on 25th May. However, can the Minister say what proposals the Government have for the museums in London—and for which museums?
  Viscount Falkland: I have attached my name to this amendment. I did so because I find the concept to be very interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who moved the amendment, stated quite clearly that it is a probing device and that he is seeking the response and the view of the Minister. The amendment appeals to us on this side of the Committee because if museums within the area of relevant responsibility of the department were transferred to the authority, they might want quickly to change their ideas about presentation. I give the example of the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich which is an extremely interesting and comprehensive museum of our maritime history. A strategic decision was taken to present that museum not just as an historical record of Britain's sea power but as a museum covering all aspects of maritime life and the sea. That decision is already starting to show great benefits.
  To my mind other museums throughout the country will need to take such decisions. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, were accepted, these kind of strategic decisions would be easier to make and—this is probably more important—they could be
  1722
  made more rapidly. These are, of course, costly decisions, but I believe that the noble Lord has made a valid point.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As regards what Amendment No. 454 of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, actually says, I hope that the Government will bear in mind that London is the capital of the United Kingdom and that people throughout the whole of the United Kingdom regard many of the museums and historic properties as of enormous interest to them and as belonging to them. To go too far in the direction of giving the mayor responsibility for these things might be a bit tricky. I hope that the Government have that in mind; I feel sure that they have. However, when we discussed time zones the other day it seemed that some noble Lords had forgotten that London is the capital of the United Kingdom and that the Government have responsibility for looking after the whole of the United Kingdom and not just England or London.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee for the genuinely probing spirit in which these amendments have been tabled. Neither of the substantive amendments defines the word "responsibility". I shall attempt a simplified definition because to give a sensible answer I suggest that responsibility can take two forms: one is funding and the other is the role in management which consists of appointments to the trustees. I shall deal with each of those as I deal with each of the institutions that I mention.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was intrigued by the differences between the proposals in the White Paper affecting museums in London and those we are now considering. There are indeed differences but there are no sinister reasons for them; they simply reflect the more detailed consideration during the Comprehensive Spending Review which followed the publication of the White Paper. The White Paper itself made frequent reference to the fact that the review was under way and might affect the outcome, as indeed it did.
  In a Written Answer on 24th March—I think this is the key—Nick Raynsford, the Minister responsible for London stated,
  "the White Paper raised the question of future responsibility for some London museums currently directly funded by the DCMS…Following the conclusion of his departmental Comprehensive Spending Review, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport…has concluded that there should he no change at the present time to the funding arrangements for these bodies, but that the GLA's role in funding the museums should be reviewed in due course".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/3/99; col. WA 252.]
  I believe that that is the basis of the answer that I want to give. The museums referred to are the Geffrye Museum, the Horniman Museum, the Museum of London, the Theatre Museum and the Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood, all of which are mentioned in the White Paper but all of which have different considerations which I have to cover.
  Let me deal first with the most straightforward points concerning appointments. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has indicated his intention to transfer to the mayor some of the appointments for

  1723
  which he is responsible on the boards of the Geffrye and Horniman Museums. We have been advised that this does not require legislation and could not in fact be implemented by legislation without the risk of making the Bill hybrid. He proposes that the mayor should be involved in one of his three Geffrye appointments and two of his four Horniman appointments. I think that answers one of the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
  The situation with regard to the Museum of London is more difficult. The board appointments to the Museum of London are shared between the Corporation of London and the Prime Minister. Although the Secretary of State and the Corporation of London have indicated that they are willing to transfer to the mayor responsibility for three of the corporation appointments and three of the Prime Minister's appointments, legislation is needed to give the mayor a role in appointments. However, we have been told that this would make the Bill hybrid. Therefore we shall have to consider separate legislation to achieve this change.
  The position with regard to the Theatre Museum and the Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood is even more difficult. These are not separate institutions but branches of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Both have a national role which goes beyond the GLA's remit. This does not mean that we shall not consider the future of these two museums, but there would be practical and policy difficulties in trying to transfer these museums to the GLA as they are not separate entities.
  All these museums are important to London and it is right to consider how the mayor might be involved in supporting the work they do. However, as our consideration during the Comprehensive Spending Review has shown, these amendments raise valid questions about the transfer of full responsibility, including funding, to the GLA. The Comprehensive Spending Review revealed potential problems in transferring responsibilities. In the White Paper we said that we would consider further the case for transfer of funding to the London, Geffrye and Horniman Museums. The review suggested difficulties in each case. It may be possible to meet these concerns, but it would be better to wait to decide on the scope for a transfer once the authority has been established. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said that the GLA was a new institution.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about the Government's plans for the management of national museums. I do not think that I gave an unwise answer but I think that she misinterpreted me because we were certainly not talking about privatisation. At the request of the National Museums Directors' Conference, we have been looking at—and we are still looking at—how to give them greater financial and managerial autonomy. We are keen to see how this can be achieved within the current trustee and management arrangements and in the context of the modernising government initiative. Certainly that goes nowhere near the concept of privatisation. In the meantime I can assure the Committee that the Government value all these
  1724
  museums and we shall not take any hasty steps which could endanger the good work they do for London and the nation as a whole.
  I was asked about the Sir John Soane Museum. There are no proposals to alter the current status of that museum. I hope that on that basis noble Lords will not feel it necessary to press these amendments.
  Lord Freyberg: I wish to thank everyone who has spoken this evening. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, if I created a misunderstanding as regards the intention of my amendment. The Public Bill Office advised me on tabling a suitable probing amendment. I thank the Minister for his extremely full and helpful answer. I shall clearly want to mull over this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 302 [Grants by the Mayor for museums, galleries etc.]:
  [Amendment No. 454XA not moved.]
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 454YA:
  Page 159, line 18, leave out ("pay grants") and insert ("grant such financial and other assistance as it thinks fit")
  The noble Lord said: I speak to this amendment and to Amendment No. 454ZA. They both relate to a very important provision in the Bill which allows the authority to "pay grants"—that is the expression used—
  "for the purposes of any museum, gallery, library, archive or other cultural institution".
  These two amendments are designed to widen the scope of that allowance.
  Amendment No. 454YA goes beyond the mere payment of grants to allow the provision of,
  "such financial and other assistance as it thinks fit".
  That would cover such things as loans, advice, guarantees and so on and gives the much wider possibility of meeting the needs of the cultural institution.
  Amendment No. 454ZA seeks to make plain what is meant by "other cultural institutions", about which there is uncertainty at the moment. At present the only institutions mentioned are museums, galleries, libraries and archives—all non-performing institutions, if I can use that phrase. In legal interpretation there is a tendency to interpret according to the particular examples which are in a clause. The addition of theatres, cinemas, concert halls and opera houses is designed to make it absolutely clear that performing institutions are as much within the capacity of the authority to assist as the non-performing institutions.
  Again, I draw the attention of the Committee to two uniquely experienced Members of the Committee—the noble Lords, Lord Bragg and Lord Puttnam—both of whom feel that this amendment is desirable and necessary. I beg to move.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Freyberg: Can the Minister confirm whether the phrase "any museum" in Clause 302, with regard to the powers of the authority to pay grants, refers to independent museums as well as those funded through the DCMS?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer to that point is yes.
  I ask the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to hold firmly on to his seat. I think he has a point. In Clause 303 we already use the phrase "other assistance" in relation to the power of the authority on tourism. That it should be extended to Clause 302 is an interesting suggestion. We shall have to consider the implications of the amendment, so I cannot accept it immediately, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling it. I shall give it full consideration between now and Report stage.
  I cannot be quite so friendly to Amendment No. 454ZA. That amendment would add to the list of purposes for which the authority may pay grant. The proposed additions—theatre, concert hall, and so on—are all worthy institutions and eminently suitable. They all relate to activities and institutions which have much to offer, and are highly valued by the Government. However, the argument is still that the list is illustrative and not exhaustive. The phrase in subsection (1),
  "or other cultural institution",
  is a catch-all that makes the addition unnecessary. Such institutions are all already eligible for grant. I hope that the noble Lord will not press Amendment No. 454ZA.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for those replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 454ZA and 454A not moved.]
  Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 455:
  Page 159, line 19, at end insert—
  ("() The power in subsection (1) shall be exercised so as to support the provision of central facilities to be approved by the Authority for the study and performance of music by young people with musical talent from schools in the London area.")
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 455 is to reinstate the core funding for the Centre for Young Musicians. Both the relevant Green Paper and the White Paper recommended that the Centre for Young Musicians should be a recipient of GLA funding.
  The amendment is specifically worded to try to avoid any complications with hybridity. I am particularly grateful for the support I have received on this amendment, especially from the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who I know has an interest in that institution.
  The Centre for Young Musicians is a pan-London training provision for over 2,400 young Londoners aged between seven and 19, recruited principally from the
  1726
  state schools. They attend the centre regardless of their ability to pay fees. There is a 1:3 hardship factor and a 1:4 minority community representation.
  The Centre for Young Musicians also produces London's youth orchestra, the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra. I shall now blow my own trumpet. Over 20 years ago, I played the trumpet in the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra for three years. With a great deal of prejudice, I can say that it is one of the finest youth orchestras in the world. It is an ambassador for London. This year it will travel to Argentina to strengthen further links between the United Kingdom and Argentina. I believe I am right to say that it is a world-renowned youth orchestra, and to have played in that orchestra is certainly my greatest ever achievement.
  The Bill represents an opportunity for the centre to return to London, having been divorced from its single London authority by the abolition of the ILEA in 1990. Currently, the Government fund, through the DfEE, less than 16 per cent of the moneys raised by the centre's supporting foundation towards central organising costs. That is less than 5 per cent of the overall budget. After nine years, the foundation is experiencing genuine difficulty in finding the centre's central organising costs because of donor fatigue.
  Under the White Paper, the DfEE had been recommended to transfer its role and responsibility in that regard to the GLA and we want to see that provision on the face of the Bill. I understand that it is the Government's belief that the LSSO and the CYM should be treated separately and differently from any other youth orchestra or centre for young musicians in any other metropolitan centre or county youth orchestra in Britain. It is the only youth orchestra that has to obtain its finance from the private sector. That situation is unhealthy. It is in the interests of London and the GLA that core funding, which is the most difficult funding to obtain, should be provided by the GLA.
  I do not know which of my noble friends will respond, but I argue that the CYM and the LSSO are special. Some form of words needs to be found to make sure that their core funding is a direct responsibility of the GLA as that institution plays such a visible and important role in promoting London to young people, within London and abroad. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 454A also stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Newby. He is very sorry not to be present to support the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. In the briefing that was circulated, I was struck by the comment, put even more bluntly than the noble Lord has put it in talking about the core funding, that benefactors are reluctant to finance unglamorous administrative costs previously met by government. That seems to be precisely to the point. We support the amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise briefly to support the amendment, which also stands in my name. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has set out the case for it superbly.

  1727
  I simply add a reference to a Written Answer in another place on 24th March, the day before the Committee stage in another place, that cast a little light on the gloom. There is reference in that Written Answer to,
  "Specific provision is not required in the GLA Bill to achieve any transfer'".— [Official Report, Commons, 24/3/99; col. 252.]
  Therefore, I merely endorse questions as to when the transfer is to take place and what are the legal grounds on which the transfer may take place outwith the remit of the Bill.
  Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I support the amendment. In doing so, I must declare an interest as one of the trustees of the Foundation for Young Musicians, which raises finance for the Centre for Young Musicians and for the London Schools Symphony Orchestra. We have been greatly assisted over the nine years of our existence, since the Inner London Education Authority was disbanded, by successive grants from the Department for Education and Employment and its predecessor, particularly towards the central core costs.
  It is increasingly difficult to find private sponsors who are willing to support those kinds of costs. They are happy to support activities carried out by the centre and the orchestra, such as the visit to Argentina to which the noble Lord. Lord Ponsonby, referred. However, it is much more difficult to find people who are willing, year after year, to support the central core costs. The foundation of which I am a trustee is very glad to go on raising funds for the activities, but badly needs support towards those core costs. The amendment is designed to ensure that it receives that support.
  The activities of the centre and the London Schools Symphony Orchestra are deeply worth encouraging, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said. It would gladden your Lordships' hearts to go into Morley College on a Saturday and see young schoolchildren from all over London coming together to learn and practise their instruments and to play chamber music together. Some noble Lords may already have heard the London Schools Symphony Orchestra. It is one of the best youth orchestras, if not the finest, in this country and indeed the whole of Europe. Its activity is well worth supporting.
  It is also well worth supporting institutions which channel the talents and energies of young teenagers into this kind of social activity. The young people make music together and learn not only to perform to the best of their ability, but to do so in a social context. That in itself is an objective well worth supporting. I am happy to support the noble Lord's amendment.
  Lord Harris of Haringey: I, too, support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I have no interest to declare other than the fact that I have attended a number of performances by the London Schools Symphony Orchestra. I have heard the assurances that have been given in another place and have discussed the matter with a number of people. I am told that the funding arrangements may continue.
  1728
  Nevertheless, the amendment proposed by my noble friend would provide considerable reassurance. Not only would it ensure the possibility of the mayor and the authority providing the necessary support to continue the excellent work that is done by the Centre for Young Musicians, but it would also provide encouragement for any similar initiatives that might be undertaken in the future.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: I do not wish to take anything away from the positive comments on the Centre for Young Musicians and the orchestra; however, I find the amendment problematic. It effectively seeks to constrain the mayor's discretion to pay grants for the purposes of any museum, gallery, library, archive or any other cultural institution in the arts world in London by requiring specifically that grant is paid to support the provision of central facilities,
  "for the study and performance of music by young people with musical talent from schools in the London area".
  It is true that my honourable friend, the Minister for Transport in London, explained in another place that, despite the commitment given in the White Paper, it had become increasingly clear as the legislation was developed that it would be wrong, as well as legally difficult, to single out the Centre for Young Musicians as the only voluntary organisation that the GLA would be required to fund.
  The amendment attempts to arrive at the same end by introducing a category of people; namely, young people in London who study and perform music. But once again, it requires that they must, under the grant giving provision, be provided with central facilities by the GLA.
  The arguments against requiring the singular provision of funding for that category of people are exactly the same as those against requiring the funding of a single organisation. It is difficult to explain why that should be the only category of people that is designated on the face of the Bill. If young musicians must be funded, then why not young actors, young sportsmen, young painters, young sculptors, young architects, or indeed young carers or young gardeners? Indeed, to declare a negative interest, why should such a requirement be limited to the young?
  It is difficult in a general grant giving power to specify one particular category. There are many London voluntary organisations, covering every conceivable category of human interest, which provide encouragement, inspiration and training for a range of people and interests in London which, broadly speaking, could be regarded as cultural. There is no proposition that the GLA should be required to fund any of them, although many would merit funding and there are many that the GLA would wish to fund. Many are of parallel merit to the organisations that promote the interests of young musicians.
  The GLA will of course be able to co-operate with the responsible statutory authorities and other bodies in the co-ordination and facilitation of specialist services. We expect organisations such as the Centre for Young

  1729
  Musicians to fall into precisely the category of organisation that the GLA will choose to help. It is our view that that could be done either under the general powers or under the provisions of Clause 302(1) as it now stands. However, by specifying a particular group, that group is singled out and at the same time provided with a degree of preference over a whole range of other potential organisations which might legitimately have equal call.
  That is not to say that we are unsympathetic to the cause of the Centre for Young Musicians. It does a very good job. We are keen to encourage a close association between the centre and the GLA. As regards its funding, as my noble friend Lord Harris hinted, I am pleased to confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has recently agreed to extend his department's grant to the CYM until the year 2002. He will in due course make regulations to permit him to pay grant-in-aid to the GLA, on the condition that it must be used by the GLA to provide a discretionary grant to the CYM covering the period April 2000 to April 2002. The grant will be in the region of £50,000 per annum.
  In continuing that assistance to the Centre for Young Musicians, our assumptions are that, by 2002, the GLA will have worked with the centre to find alternative sources of funding—some of which may come from the GLA direct in the form of a grant. That indicates our respect and the desire for continuing support that the Government wish to provide for the Centre for Young Musicians. I hope that my noble friend will not pursue the amendment. It is essential that the mayor retains a discretion to decide which categories of interest will be supported through grants. It would be wrong to place a requirement on the face of the Bill for him or her to favour any particular interests.
  I hope that my noble friend will accept that, where the mayor does choose to exercise his or her discretion in that way, he or she will have sufficient powers to do so under this clause and other provisions in the Bill. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary to achieve my noble friend's aim. In the meantime, I hope that the confirmation of the good news relating to the grant from the DfEE will give some comfort to those who support the Centre for Young Musicians and to noble Lords who have spoken on its behalf in this debate.
  The Earl of Gowrie: While I greatly welcome the stay of discretionary execution just outlined by the Minister, perhaps I may pick up the reference to the degree of preference. As he and all those involved in the educational sector are aware, the problem is that over the past 20 years—that indicates I am not making a political point—there has been a withdrawal from, and decline in, musical education. Through the intervention of Sir Simon Rattle and others, and with the encouragement of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, the Government have taken action to put some vitamins back into the diet of musical education. What I believe worries the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and
  1730
  certainly my noble friend Lord Armstrong and others, is that here we have something that works, and to cast a blight of uncertainty over it means that it will work less well. Therefore, it is not quite as simple as an ordinary degree of preference.
  Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I welcome particularly the intervention of the noble Earl. My noble friend's answer disappoints me. While it is true that the extension of the grant is welcome, I do not believe that he addresses my argument; namely, that the Centre for Young Musicians and the LSSO are special organisations. As the noble Earl said, they work but will work less well because their long-term future is not secure. Having said that, I shall read my noble friend's response with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 455QJ:
  Page 159, line 24, after ("records") insert—
  ("() conditions with respect to the setting of concessionary user charges for certain categories of user;")
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 455QJ is again related to the very important provisions in Clause 302. Subsection (1) is concerned with grant-making; subsection (2) provides that any grant may be subject to conditions; and subsection (3) brings into prominence two issues that the Government believe should generally be the subject of conditions when grants are made— accounts and repayment. This amendment seeks to persuade the Government of another matter that should be given prominence when grants are made; namely, the potential benefit to London and Londoners of requiring the recipient, in appropriate cases, to make concessionary fare arrangements as the authority may specify.
  The arrangements may relate to old people, disabled people or young people. Different categories may, depending on the particular grant, be relevant for the purposes of a concessionary arrangement. The amendment forces nothing on anyone but gives prominence to the potential importance of concessionary arrangements in the making of grants. We hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Government who have made plain their concern that the arts in London should be available to all. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had a very simple answer to the noble Lord. It was that the mayor already had power to make such conditions for any grant that he might wish to make. If the mayor wishes to target particular categories of users to give them cheaper access to the cultural purpose in question, that is quite legitimate. That is a 100 per cent knock-down argument

  1731
  against the amendment. However, in moving the amendment the noble Lord referred to concessionary fares.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I apologise for that slip of the tongue.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am much relieved and grateful. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that my original response that Clause 302 already does what he seeks to do persuades him to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The noble Lord spoke about the mayor having power to impose conditions. Did he mean the authority?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is the mayor who has the power to do it, because he sets the conditions.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 455QJA not moved.]
  Clause 302 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 455QJB not moved.]
  Clause 303 [Duty of the Authority to promote tourism]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 455RJ:
  Page 159, line 27, after ("people") insert ("from within and outside the United Kingdom")
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 455RJ I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 455WAB and 455WAC. My noble friend Lord Falkland will speak to Amendments Nos. 455XAA and 455ZAYA. For the record, these amendments are grouped with Amendments Nos. 455UA, 455VA and 455ZAA, to which other noble Lords will speak.
  Amendment No. 455RJ is designed to encourage visitors from within as well as outside the UK; in other words, not just overseas visitors. I am concerned that the Bill places emphasis on encouraging visitors from outside. I dare say that we, who by definition spend a good deal of time in London, are above all the ones who miss all the great benefits that London has to offer. Of course, London provides attractions for UK visitors, but I have tabled this amendment to try to understand the Government's thinking on this matter. Amendment No. 455WAB is similar, and Amendment No. 455VA in the name of the Conservative Front Bench is one to which I have added my name.
  Amendment No. 455WAC picks up the references in the Bill to those who visit the UK by way of London. Clause 303(4)(b) provides that the authority shall have power to encourage people coming to and through London to visit, not just London, but the UK. Visit, yes, but I believe that it is not necessary, and quite possibly undesirable, that all transport should head for London. In tabling this amendment I had particularly in mind the strains placed on London, as well as the benefits conferred upon it, by its major airports. I also had in
  1732
  mind the disadvantage that is often suffered by regional airports because so many visitors to the UK arrive in London rather than go directly to the regions.
  I also refer to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link which I hope will soon persuade visitors to the UK not to go straight to London or to the south coast and then, because of the way that services are organised, head for London. We are glad to have the visitors, but I do not believe that in this Bill we should be so ambitious as to disadvantage other parts of the United Kingdom. We should be aware of the dangers of overheating and stress by bringing in everybody through London. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 455UA, 455VA and 455ZAA which are in my name and are grouped with Amendment No. 455RJ. I share some of the intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The reason for tabling these amendments is to put to the Government the general question: how and for whom should the mayor and authority promote tourism in future? At this stage all of these are probing amendments.
  Paragraph 5.96 of the White Paper states:
  "Tourism is vital to London's future. It contributes some £8.5 billion to the economy of the capital and 220,00 people are directly employed in tourism-related jobs. Tourism in London is very important to the UK as a whole. Over half of nil overseas tourism expenditure in the UK is spent in London and London is the best known image overseas of the UK".
  I agree with those sentiments.
  Clause 303 imposes on the GLA a duty to promote tourism. It is intriguing to note that this clause: was not originally on the face of the Bill. It was added by the Government at Committee stage in another place. It was something of an afterthought, albeit a very important one, and one that I was pleased to see.
  My amendments address the question of who should benefit from the GLA's promotion of tourism. Knowing how widely read the Minister is—it may sound as though I am creeping, but he has caught me out on matters such as this before—I suspect that he has had the opportunity to read the report Making the Connections, which was recently produced by the English Tourism Council, the English Historic Towns Forum and English Heritage. The report claims that England's historic towns are in danger of being swamped by tourists.
  The newly appointed chairman of the ETC, Alan Britten, was quoted in the Guardian on 19th July as saying:
  "We have to promote an awareness so as not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg … You certainly don't want to take away the volume, but you have to try to find a way of handling the volume".
  I believe that he hit the nail very firmly on the head.
  As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, Clause 303(1)(b) imposes a duty on the GLA to encourage tourists from overseas to visit the UK by way of London. I echo the concern that she has raised regarding the question of whether it is necessary and desirable, and whether there are other ways in which

  1733
  tourists can be encouraged to come to the United Kingdom and spend as much as possible of their money to contribute to our economy.
  Technically, as a result of my other amendments, Amendment No. 455VA amends Clause 303(1)(c), to make it clear that the promotion and provision of tourist amenities in London should be for the benefit of London's residents and workers, as well as for the benefit of visitors. Amendment No. 455ZAA is consequential on Amendment Nos. 455UA and 455VA.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Gordon of Strathblane: From my accent, it will not surprise anyone that I support the amendment. I believe that the Government might be wise to think again about promoting London as the gateway to Britain. London is, de facto, a wonderful destination in its own right.
  I happen to believe that it is singularly unfortunate that we have in this country decided to concentrate exclusively on London in terms of air transport, thus preventing many people from visiting other parts of Britain simply because they have arrived in London and find it expensive on occasions to move onwards. I believe that it would be greatly in the public interest to encourage the use of major regional airports. I would obviously prefer Scotland to be one of the destinations—and Glasgow would be the obvious airport—but Manchester may also be considered.
  Some of our American visitors who came to the Open Golf Championship at Carnoustie had to fly for an extra hour across the Atlantic, bypassing Scotland, in order to arrive in London; they then had to purchase expensive air tickets to return again to Scotland—a ridiculous situation. Some of these people will no doubt be returning next year to St. Andrews.
  We really must be very careful that we do not concentrate too many resources on London. It already is, quite correctly, a huge draw in its own right. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, pointed out, 54 per cent of our tourism expenditure overseas is spent in London. That is undesirable. It is a matter of regional policy which we should be spreading around the country.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I take quite a different view of this matter. I believe that if this person is elected to be responsible for London, London is certainly the cause that he should be promoting.
  I listened with some sympathy to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, in relation to Scotland. However, I believe that it is up to Scotland to solve their own problems. It is not for the mayor or the Greater London Authority to decide what should be done to help Scotland. The rest of the world—and I speak as someone who has come from 12,000 miles away—believes that London is the hub of the universe to visit. That is what brings people here. It provides a huge source of employment.
  1734
  I do not believe that any improvement in other areas will result from the mayor denigrating or taking less interest in the promotion of London. I believe that such improvements are more likely to be achieved as a result of the mayor promoting London. I therefore oppose this amendment.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, for the speech that he did not make! He suggested that visitors should go direct to Scotland or Northern Ireland and thus relieve London of the responsibility about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has complained.
  As Clause 303(1)(b) is worded, it gives the impression that the idea is to persuade people to go to other parts of the United Kingdom, using London as a point of entry to the country, as they did for the Open Golf Championship the other day. Scottish tourism needs to point out to visitors to London the fact that they can go on to visit other places. They may also wish to encourage such visitors to give London the benefit of their custom but point out that there are other parts of the United Kingdom that they could visit. There are several angles to this amendment.
  I was rather disappointed to hear that my noble friend on the Front Bench does not like Clause 303(1)(b), because I believe that that is what it means. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.
  Viscount Falkland: I speak to Amendments. Nos. 455XAA and 455ZAYA standing in my name and the names of my noble friends Baroness Hamwee and Lord Phillips of Sudbury. We have returned to the question of lists.
  On this occasion, however, we seek to add the London Tourist Board to the list of bodies named in Clause 303(11). Five boards or authorities are listed in this paragraph: the British Tourist Authority, the English Tourist Board, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board. It seems to us both necessary and appropriate that the London Tourist Board should be added in this part of the Bill.
  The second amendment at the beginning of Clause 304 deals with the Authority's duty to advise on such matters relating to tourism in Greater London as the Minister may think fit or as the authority may refer to it. For the same reasons, we would add the London Tourist Board to "any Minister of the Crown, the British Tourist Authority, or the English Tourist Board", as a body to be advised. If there are to be fairly comprehensive lists, we believe that it would be appropriate to add the London Tourist Board.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I start by acknowledging and trumpeting the unique contribution that tourism makes to the success of London and London makes to the success of tourism in the United Kingdom. The mayor will certainly need to develop clear policies to help him fulfil his role with respect to tourism in Greater London, and he will be free to adopt whatever strategic approach to tourism he considers appropriate.

  1735
  In general terms, the clauses require the mayor to promote Greater London as a tourist destination, both in its own right and for overseas visitors, as a gateway to the rest of the United Kingdom. I shall return to that point later. The authority will have broad powers to achieve this general objective, including powers to undertake publicity and promotional activities, provide advice and information, and offer financial assistance for tourism-related initiatives.
  In order to carry out his duties with respect to tourism, he will receive grant-in-aid from the Secretary of State. With the assistance of grant-in-aid, it is intended that the mayor should implement nationwide tourism schemes and initiatives in Greater London in a manner that is consistent with the national strategy for tourism. In exercising his general duties in relation to tourism, the mayor will be required to give consideration to consulting and co-operating with the Secretary of State, the existing tourist boards and other relevant persons and organisations. He will also be required, if asked, to give advice to the tourist boards and Ministers.
  Clause 303(1)(a) places a duty on the mayor to encourage people to visit Greater London. The effect of Amendment No. 455RJ is to state expressly that such visitors may be people either from within or outside the United Kingdom. The provision the amendment seeks to amend already encompasses people generally, in other words, both inside and outside, and therefore the amendment is unnecessary.
  It is intended that the mayor should have statutory duties to promote tourism in Greater London in all its forms. Although it is recognised that London is not the only "gateway" for tourists to the United Kingdom, it is clear that it has a very significant role as such. The provision that Amendment No. 455UA seeks to remove was included to highlight this important aspect of the tourism industry in Greater London which the Government would not wish to see undervalued.
  We need a little further explanation on this matter. The British Tourist Authority is the authority that encourages visitors to go to other areas of the United Kingdom. The authority is funded by taxpayers, including the taxpayers of Greater London. However, over 50 per cent of visitors want to come to London, and it is very difficult to stop them if they want to do that. Our intention is to persuade those visitors to move beyond London. That is the object of the exercise. Noble Lords have interpreted subsection (4)(b) in two different ways. One way is to encourage them to come via Greater London and not any other way, and the other is to visit the United Kingdom via Greater London. If that has caused confusion then I think we should look at the wording again in order to ensure that everyone interprets the clause in the same way. It is certainly not the Government's intention to cause confusion in this way.
  The mayor also has a duty to the promotion and development of the tourism industry in Greater London. We do expect that tourist amenities and facilities provided or improved by the mayor will benefit residents and workers as well as tourists. However, it would be casting the mayor's powers too widely to
  1736
  create additional duties to provide and improve amenities and facilities for residents and workers, as is proposed by Amendment No. 455VA.
  It would not be helpful to remove the definition of tourist amenities and facilities as is proposed by Amendment No. 455ZAA. The definition of "tourist amenities and facilities" in the Bill is intended to cover any amenities and facilities that might be used by visitors to the area or other people travelling within the area for the purposes of business or leisure. The definition is intentionally wide so as to allow the mayor broad powers to enhance Greater London. Removal of the definition could confine the scope of the mayor's duty to those amenities and facilities used only by tourists, which would be inconsistent with the objectives of these provisions. Incidentally, the amendments themselves are mutually contradictory.
  Amendment No. 455WAB concerns the promotion of London outside the UK in itself and as a 'gateway" to the rest of the country. It seeks to add the encouragement of visits from people within the United Kingdom, which makes nonsense of the provision.
  Although we recognise that Greater London is not the only "gateway" for tourists, it is clear that it does have a role. Amendment No. 455WAC would remove the mayor's power to encourage people to visit the United Kingdom by way of Greater London. I referred to this issue when I said that we should think again about the wording to make sure that it is unambiguous.
  Clause 303(11) defines the term "tourist board". It is intended that the definition should mean the national tourism bodies and the British Tourist Authority, which are responsible for promoting Britain overseas. These bodies are referred to in the Development of Tourism Act 1969. Amendment No. 455XAA seeks to add the London Tourist Board. However, the London Tourist Board is not a statutory body and it would be inappropriate for it to be written into the Bill. So the amendment is inappropriate.
  Lord Gordon of Strathblane: The Minister may wish to bear in mind that, although he is correct in stating that the London Tourist Board is not a statutory body, it is given observer status on the board of the British Tourist Authority. I believe that it is recognised that London is almost sui generis in this regard and perhaps should be graded up to the level of a national tourist board.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not putting forward an argument against the mayor having dealings with the London Tourist Board. I say only that because it is not a statutory body, it is not appropriate for reference to it to be made in statute. My noble friend can achieve what he wants without amendment.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The London Tourist Board is a company with limited liability.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is true. Regional tourist boards are also companies limited by guarantee, but they are statutory. The position is not entirely symmetrical.

  1737
  The same consideration applies to Amendment No. 455ZAYA. It is intended that the mayor should advise any Minister of the Crown, the British Tourist Authority or the English Tourist Board on matters relating to tourism in Greater London. We cannot add to that the London Tourist Board because it is not a statutory body and it would be wrong for that to be written into the Bill. I hope that I have dealt with the points raised in this rather long list of amendments and that noble Lords will not seek to press them.
  Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for his assurances as regards visitors to London. I am grateful to him for agreeing to take away the point made on the wording in subsection (4)(b). That raises another issue; namely, whether the mayor should properly have powers to encourage overseas visitors to the UK. I have read the provision that covers encouraging visitors to the UK by way of London and I have laid emphasis on the latter part because I wonder whether the mayor should be given wider powers. The situation is complicated and I look forward to seeing new wording from the Government at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 455UA to 455WA not moved.]
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 455WAA:
  Page 159, line 32, after ("shall") insert ("without limiting the provisions of section 28")
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment adds a cross-reference to Clause 28. Clause 303(2) gives the authority power to do anything to discharge,
  "the functions conferred on it by this section; or … incidental or conducive to the discharge of those functions".
  This is a probing amendment. It seeks to understand how this provision lies alongside Clause 28, which confers on the authority the power to do,
  "anything … calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of any functions of the Authority".
  After I had tabled the amendment I noticed a query from the City of Westminster asking whether this provision meant that the mayor could clear streets for the purposes of tourism. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance on that kind of issue. I may be told that I am scoring an own goal because I realise that Clause 28(2) states that,
  "The Authority shall not by virtue of this section raise money".
  If Clause 303(2) allows the raising of money, then perhaps I shall wish I had not opened my mouth. However, I shall be interested to learn how the two parts of the Bill fit together. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clause 303(2) gives the authority the power to do anything for the purpose of discharging its tourism functions. The power exists of course within the normal limits of local government financing. Clause 28, to which the amendment refers, is a general subsidiary power permitting the authority to carry out a number of duties which it is not specifically empowered to do, provided that they relate in a
  1738
  demonstrable way to one or more express functions. That is the equivalent of Section 111 of the Local Government Act. For the very old hands here it was Section 132. For even older hands it was the sixpenny rate. I acquit any noble Lord of being as old in the tooth as I am. The tourism power complements this general power.
  In so far as the noble Baroness's intention is to ensure that these powers are complementary, I can reassure her, but I am aware that she previously proposed to delete subsection(2) of Clause 28. That is the subsection that makes it clear that the general subsidiary power is not a way around the controls on GLA finance. If the intention behind the amendment is to permit the GLA to raise money outside the controls specifically for tourism purposes—I take it from what the noble Baroness said that it is not—I have to say to her that she knows what the Government think about that. My noble friend Lord Whitty has made it clear that the GLA is to be subject to the normal local government finance regime. That is not in any way to seek to dent the noble Baroness's enthusiasm for tourism, which we share entirely. But I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, she will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: The Minister, or possibly the officials, sees more in my amendments than I do myself. I am grateful for the explanation of how the two clauses work together. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 455WAB and 455WAC not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 455XA:
  Page 160, line 10, after ("Board") insert ("or Tourism Council")
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 455YA and 455ZA. The purpose of these amendments is to put on the face of the Bill references to the English Tourism Council in place of references to the English Tourist Board. On 19th July the English Tourist Board officially changed itself into the English Tourism Council. 1 am sure that all noble Lords wish it well in the future, particularly its new chairman, Alan Britten, to whom I have already referred. It still has a vital job to do on behalf of England, despite being stripped of its important domestic marketing remit. The ETB was highly successful with the help of its excellent staff. I was disappointed to read in the June edition of Leisure Management that 13 jobs have already been culled from the ETB itself. I hope that the expertise of those staff will not be lost to the industry.
  I am aware that the ETC has taken a positive approach to its new role. Today, noble Lords will have been circulated with two publications from the ETC. One is called Focus on the English Tourism Council and the other, A Framework for Action. I have no doubt that it will take positive action. I was intrigued to note that the Bill as currently drafted refers to the extinct ETB. Can the Minister explain why the reference to the ETB

  1739
  has been left on the face of the Bill and not changed at this stage to ETC? I assume that there is a sound legal reason for the name being left unaltered, but I should like to be persuaded of that.
  I note that a Written Answer of 30th June from the Minister for Tourism to my honourable friend Richard Spring stated:
  "Following its launch on 19 July, the English Tourism Council will be the trading name for the English Tourist Board. The new name reflects the change in the body's remit and will be changed formally when a legislative opportunity arises".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/99; col. WA 201.]
  That Written Answer raises further questions. If the ETC can now trade legally as the ETB, why do the Government need to find time in another parliamentary Session to make what must then be expensive statutory changes? We have the chance to do it here. If the ETB can trade as the ETC, why change the name of the organisation at all just for the matter of a relaunch? What does "Tourism Council" as a concept convey so much better than "Tourist Board"? Was this a spin doctor's wonderful imagination coming out with some fantastic new title? I wonder, perhaps; rather unkindly, how much money would have been saved in promotional costs if the ETB continued to trade as the ETB.
  I read in Design Week of 4th June that the Government have appointed Springpoint to create a new corporate identity for the ETC. I understand that a new logo will be applied to buildings, signs and stationery and that it might even be used, intriguingly, to endorse tourist accommodation. What is the budget for that exercise and which organisation will pay? Finally, if there really is to be a change of name, why not use the Bill to achieve the change of status? As at least one of those questions was a serious legal question, I gave advance notice of them. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, both for the way in which she moved the amendment and also for giving us advance notice of her questions. She quoted the Written Answer given by Janet Anderson. The new name has trading status only and no statutory basis. It is perfectly possible for any organisation to have a legal name and to trade under another name. Such names used to be registered in the register of business names. I suppose that they are not so registered any more, thanks to the reforms of the previous Conservative government. As the English Tourist Board is still the legal name, the terminology in the Bill has to be consistent with the existing law, which is the Development of Tourism Act 1969.
  The noble Baroness asked when and where the change will take place. It cannot take place in this Bill because the Long Title of the Bill concerns London. The English Tourist Board is outside London. We cannot change the Long Title of the Bill in order to bring in something quite different. We are not in a hurry. We are not looking to create a legislative slot. We will not spend extra money on drafting and legislation. But when there is a wider package of changes, we will bring in this change, and parliamentary time will not be wasted.
  1740
  The noble Baroness cast doubt on why the name should be changed at all. The point is that the functions have been changed. However, as the noble Baroness knows from our previous discussions, a number of the functions are being transferred. The balance of funding is being transferred to the regional tourist boards, which—perhaps I may take the opportunity to correct something I said earlier—are not statutory bodies either.
  The ETC is a different body in a number of ways. It is much more concerned with research and marketing and is less concerned with those matters which are now dealt with directly by the regional tourist boards. Therefore, it should have a new name to recognise its new role. The noble Baroness asked about the cost of the contract to rebrand the ETB. It comes out of the ETB/ETC budget and the contract with Springfield is for £36,315. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will not find it necessary to press the amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I am grateful for that explanation. I look forward to seeing how a tourism council differs so radically from a tourist board. But I do of course accept the Minister's technical explanation and the good will with which it was given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 455XAA and 455YA not moved.]
  Clause 303 agreed to.
  Clause 304 [Authority's duty to provide advice on tourism]:
  [Amendments Nos. 455ZA and 455AY A not moved.]
  Clause 304 agreed to.
  Clause 305 agreed to.
  7.30 p.m.
  Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 455ZAZA:
  After Clause 305, insert the following new clause—

  MAYOR TO NOMINATE BOARD MEMBERS
  (" . With the approval of the Assembly, the Mayor may nominate a member to the board of each of the following bodies—

  (a) the London Arts Board;

  (b) the South Eastern Museums Service, or its successor bodies;

  (c) the London region of the Sports Council; and

  (d) the London region of English Heritage.")

  The noble Viscount said: The amendment seeks to formalise on the face of the Bill the ability of the mayor, if he wishes, to nominate a member to the board of the London Arts Board, the South Eastern Museums Service or its successor bodies, the London region of the Sports Council and the London region of English Heritage. There may be perfectly good reasons why he may not wish to, but it seems to those of us on these Benches who put our names to the amendment that it is appropriate that this power should be on the face of the

  1741
  Bill. The wording is "may" and not "shall", giving the mayor the possibility of considering whether it is appropriate in each case. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The issue raised by the noble Viscount is the mayor's role in appointments to four London cultural bodies—the London region of English Heritage, the London Arts Board, the South Eastern Museums Service and the London region of the Sports Council.
  The intention in the White Paper was, and remains, that the mayor should be closely involved with important London bodies and should work fully in partnership with them. Participation in appointments will serve an effective as well as a symbolic role. However, after looking at the proposals in detail we have concluded that legislation is not the right approach to achieving this. We had discussions with the organisations before the Bill was published and we are revisiting the subject now that the Bill is in progress to ensure that our intentions are fulfilled.
  What we intend is that the mayor should nominate members to the appropriate boards or committees. This will be achieved either by agreement and partnership or by changes to the organisations' constitutions. Our proposal will accord with the arrangements outlined in the White Paper, which says that the mayor will be consulted by the chairs of English Heritage, the London Arts Board and the South Eastern Museums Service.
  As we made clear in the White Paper in paragraph 5.189, we are looking for,
  "a partnership model for the relationship between these bodies and the Mayor".
  Given the non-statutory status of the various boards and committees involved and the willingness of the bodies themselves to co-operate, we have decided that it is both impractical and unnecessary to use legislation to achieve this partnership. That is why we are adopting a non-statutory approach.
  I hope that the noble Viscount will feel that we are achieving the objective of his amendment, although we are saving statutory time and the time of parliamentary counsel.
  Viscount Falkland: I thank the Minister for his very full answer, which I shall study in Hansard. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 306 [Interpretation of this Part and exercise of Authority functions]:
  [Amendment No. 455ZAA not moved.]
  Clause 306 agreed to.
  Baroness Gardner of Parks Baroness Gardner of Parks moved Amendment No. 455A:
  After Clause 306 insert the following new Clause—

  PART XA HEALTH GREATER LONDON REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY
  .—(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Greater London Regional Health Authority.
  (2) The Greater London Regional Health Authority shall have the functions conferred or imposed on it by this or any other Act, or made exercisable by it under this Act, and any reference in this Act to the functions of the Greater London Regional Health Authority includes a reference to any functions made exercisable by this Act.
  (3) The Greater London Regional Health Authority shall exercise its functions—

  (a) in accordance with such guidelines as directions may be issued to it by the Mayor under subsection (4) below,

  (b) for the purpose of facilitating the discharge by the Authority of the duties under this Act, and

  (c) for the purpose of securing and facilitating the implementation of the health strategy.

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

  (a) guidance as to the manner in which it exercises its functions,

  (b) general instructions as to the manner in which it exercises its functions, or

  (c) specific instructions as to the exercise of its functions.")

  The noble Baroness said: I move the amendment disappointed that the two noble Baronesses and the noble Lord who put their names to it have decided not to do so, as it is an important amendment. It has been tabled, and it is therefore open to any Member of the Committee to move it. I am aware of time constraints, but I am also aware that had the amendment been formally withdrawn I would not have the right to move it.
  Earlier today Amendment No. 454 was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, when the wording of his amendment did not agree with his speech. He said that he had been instructed by the Public Bill Office that he should describe it as a probing amendment, and under those circumstances any amendment could be put, whether or not one supported what it said.
  In particular, I do not support the idea of a health authority for London. Such an important issue having been tabled, an answer should be received from the Minister on this point, which is why I am moving this probing amendment. I understand that it is over 30 years since London regional government had a health responsibility. To reverse that situation now would be a very retrograde step. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: Before the Minister responds I should like to explain that, as I know the Minister is aware, our health spokesman, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, had hoped to be here. We had originally expected to come to the amendment at an unearthly hour on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. My noble friend cannot be here this evening. It is not a matter of our not choosing to move the amendment. I am sure that the noble Baroness did not intend to suggest that we do not have faith in our own amendment. That is not the reason for our not moving it.
  It is an important issue. Other health issues have already been raised in the course of the debate on the Bill, issues to which we shall return at a later stage. We too look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was aware of the difficulty that was created for the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, this evening.

  1743
  We have made it clear in our previous responses on health issues raised by the noble Lord that, while health considerations would be taken into account in the preparation of the mayor's strategies and the exercise of the general power, we believe that there is no case for a formal health strategy as the mayor would not have control of health services in London. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, will withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Baroness for that very clear reply.
  I know that the content of the Liberal Democrats' amendment has been their policy for many years. When I said that no one was moving the amendment from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the point I was making was that I understood that there was a procedure by which the amendment could have been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. If that had been done, I would not have wasted all this time speaking and having the answer. But I am grateful for it. Of course, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 307 agreed to.
  Clauses 308 to 314 agreed to.
  Clause 315 [Research and collection of information: London Research Centre etc.]:
  [Amendments Nos. 455AW A and 455AXA not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455AXB:
  Page 164, line 44, at end insert—
  ("() The Mayor shall from time to time, and at least once in every year, consult each London borough council and the Common council about the exercise of the Authority's functions under subsection (1) above.")
  The noble Lord said: The amendments grouped with Amendment No. 455AXB are Amendments Nos. 455AXC, 455AXDA and 455AXE and they set the framework within which the mayor can work with the London boroughs and the common council to promote research and monitoring work. They provide for a continuing involvement of London local authorities in pan-London research, and they ensure that the mayor has all the tools necessary to inform line development and monitor the implementation of strategies for using the resources of the London Research Centre. They supersede the provisions recently discussed in relation to Clause 276, reflecting points raised in consideration of those provisions in another place and the undertaking given there by my honourable friend the Minister for London to bring forward amendments; to meet those concerns.
  In their development, the amendments have been the subject of close consultation between the Government and representatives of London government. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, in his Association of London Government capacity, for his considerable help in reaching what I think is now a satisfactory conclusion. I beg to move.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have one question, which is about subsection (7)(a) in the new clause to be
  1744
  inserted by Amendment No. 455AXC. It concerns the costs of collecting or providing information. I seek an assurance from the Minister that there are no severe cost implications for local authorities, costs that could be without their control, with the Greater London Authority imposing very expensive demands on them.
  Lord Whitty: The schemes will be brought together by the GLA in partnership with the London local authorities; and who bears the costs will be by agreement in that context. The short answer is no, there will not be an additional cost to which the local authorities would be subjected without their consent.
  Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the amendment. There have been extensive consultations with the Association of London Government on this provision. The proposal here meets many of the concerns and issues raised. For that reason, I welcome it.
  I retain a nagging concern. On an earlier amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, referred to the possibility that we might have an elected mayor who did not always harbour the best of intentions towards everything that exists in London. I have a slight concern as regards existing research work carried out by the London Research Centre on behalf of the London boroughs. There might be pressure from a future mayor who may not understand its importance to request that a scheme be agreed. The London boroughs would clearly wish the work to continue and would no doubt agree to such a scheme. However, the resources to pay for that work might already have been transferred to the mayor. I seek the Minister's assurance that the Secretary of State will use the powers available under this group of amendments to ensure that under those circumstances the Secretary of State might intervene to protect the boroughs' resources and research requirements.
  Lord Tope: I echo but do not repeat the noble Lord's words. I do not do so because I happen to be a vice chair of the ALG and of course support my chair occasionally!
  The reason that we did not move the two previous amendments was that we felt it appropriate to hear first from the Minister on these amendments which were clearly more substantial, and provided in large measure what we had hoped for. I place on record our thanks to the Minister and his officials for the considerable discussions that have taken place with the ALG to try to resolve the issue. It has been, and still is, a matter of some concern to the boroughs, for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
  These amendments go a long way towards meeting the provisions we sought. We are grateful that they have been tabled at Committee stage so that we have the chance to consider them. If there are matters about which we are still unsure, or improvements we believe can be made, we shall have the opportunity to return to the issue at a later stage.
  I am a little unclear on two small points. There is a requirement for the mayor to consult each London borough council. There is no requirement for the mayor

  1745
  to take any notice of that consultation. I am sure that it is implicit that he or she would do so. Perhaps there is a last resort for the boroughs: if they do not get what they want, they withhold their two-thirds support. However, it would be helpful if the Minister would spell out clearly that the mayor is expected not only to consult but to listen and then to act in line with what the boroughs say.
  On a similar point, the mayor is rightly given a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. Some criteria are suggested on which the Secretary of State, after consulting the boroughs, might consider that appeal. What is the position if the boroughs wish to appeal against the mayor's refusal to carry something out? I can see no provision—I may have missed it—giving the boroughs a similar right of appeal. If they do so, under what criteria would the Secretary of State consider such an appeal?
  It would be helpful if the Minister were able to respond on those points. I again thank the Minister and his officials for bringing forward this provision at this stage.
  Lord Whitty: Consultation here, as elsewhere in the Bill, means that the mayor needs to consider any representations before making a final decision. Therefore he has to take them into account. Given all that, I recognise that there may be a final position of conflict. There is a reserve power here for the Secretary of State when there is a dispute—for example, where the majority of boroughs may wish to carry out research but the mayor is unwilling to co-operate—if the boroughs could persuade the Secretary of State to use that power, and vice versa. So there is a reserve power— it is to be hoped rarely used—to enable both those circumstances to be met. I commend the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 315, as amended, agreed to.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455AXC:
  After Clause 315, insert the following new clause—

  INFORMATION SCHEMES
  (" .—(1) The Mayor may make schemes for the collection of information relating to any matters concerning Greater London or any part of it.
  (2) The schemes that may be made under this section include schemes under which each London local authority must provide to the Mayor, in accordance with the scheme, information—

  (a) required by the Mayor to be provided; and

  (b) falling within such description of information as is specified in the scheme.

  (3) A scheme under this section may be made only after consultation with each London local authority.
  (4) A scheme under this section shall have effect so as to be binding on all the London local authorities only if at least two-thirds of those authorities give their agreement to the scheme.
  (5) A scheme under this section shall state whether or not it is to remain in effect indefinitely and, if it is not to remain in effect indefinitely, shall state the period for which it is to remain in effect.
  (6) A scheme under this section may include provision relating to—

  (a) the method by which information to be collected or provided under the scheme is to be analysed;

  (b) the form in which such information is to be collected or provided;

  (c) the ownership of information collected or provided under the scheme;

  (d) the method by which information is to be transferred or stored under the scheme;

  (e) the persons to whom information collected or provided under the scheme may, or must not, be disclosed;

  (f) bearing the costs of the scheme.

  (7) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (6)(f) above includes in particular provision—

  (a) for the costs of collecting or providing information of a description specified in the scheme to be borne by the Mayor or a London local authority or by both the Mayor and a London local authority in such proportions as may be specified by or under the scheme;

  (b) for the recovery of costs related to the scheme by the Mayor from a London local authority, by a London local authority from the Mayor or by a London local authority from another such authority.

  (8) A scheme under this section may contain such supplementary provision as the Mayor considers necessary or expedient.
  (9) The powers of the Mayor under this section are without prejudice to any other power of the Mayor under or by virtue of this Act to require any London local authority to provide information.
  (10) For the purposes of this section "London local authority" means a London borough council or the Common council")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 455AXD had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Whitty moved Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455AXDA:
  After Clause 315, insert the following new clause—

  SCHEMES FOR THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY LONDON COUNCILS: SUPPLEMENTARY
  (" .—(1) Where—

  (a) a scheme is made by virtue of subsection (2) of section (Information schemes) above, but

  (b) the agreement of at least two-thirds of the London local authorities is not given to the scheme as mentioned in subsection (4) of that section,

  the Mayor may apply to the Secretary of State for a direction that the scheme is to have effect so as to be binding on all those authorities.
  (2) A direction by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above shall specify the date from which the scheme is to have effect by virtue of the direction.
  (3) Before giving a direction under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall consult each London local authority and may give such a direction only if he considers—

  (a) that the provision of information of the description which may be required by the Mayor to be provided under the scheme is necessary for the exercise of functions of the Authority; and

  (b) that the provisions of the scheme will not impose an unreasonable financial burden on the London local authorities.

  (4) For the purposes of any scheme made by virtue of subsection (2) of section (Information schemes) above each London local authority shall have power to collect any information which is required to be provided by that authority to the Mayor under the scheme.
  (5) For the purposes of this section a London local authority means a London borough council or the Common council.")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455AXE:
  After Clause 315, insert the following new clause—

  REVOCATION OR VARIATION OF INFORMATION SCHEMES
  (" .—(1) A scheme under section (Information schemes) above may at any time—

  (a) be revoked by the Mayor; or

  (b) be varied by the Mayor in accordance with the terms of the scheme or by agreement between the Mayor and at least two-thirds of the London local authorities.

  (2) Before deciding whether to revoke or vary a scheme by virtue of subsection (1) above the Mayor shall consult each London local authority.
  (3) Where the Mayor revokes or varies a scheme by virtue of subsection (1) above he shall notify each London local authority of the revocation or variation.
  (4) For the purposes of this section "London local authority" means a London borough council or the Common council.")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 316 [Accommodation for Authority and functional bodies]:
  Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 455AYA:
  Page 165, line 38, after ("for") insert ("the Authority or")
  The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks clarification from the Minister. Clause 316(4) states:
  "The Secretary of State need not provide accommodation for a body under subsection (1)".
  We seek clarification from the Minister that, although the subsection refers to a body, it does not mean only the functional body but also includes the authority. If the authority should say that it does not need or wish to have the accommodation, the Minister is not still required to provide it. I am sure that the Minister will be able to clarify the provision.
  Lord Whitty: Since subsection (4) refers back to subsection (1), its reference is to include paragraphs (a) and (b): that is, the authority and each of the functional bodies. The objective of the noble Lord's amendment is met.
  Lord Tope: I felt sure that that was the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 455AZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 316 agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455AZAA:
  After Clause 316, insert the following new clause—

  THE LONDON PENSIONS FUND AUTHORITY: MEMBERSHIP ETC
  (" .—(1) The functions conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the provisions of Schedule 1 to the London Government Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) Order 1989 ("the 1989 Order") specified in subsection (2) below are transferred to the Mayor by this subsection.
  (2) Those provisions are—

  (a) paragraph 1 (appointment of members etc.);

  (b) paragraph 2(b) (which makes provision about tenure of office by applying paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1985);

  (c) paragraph 2(c) (which makes provision about determinations relating to remuneration etc. by applying paragraph 3 of that Schedule);

  (d) paragraph 2(f) (which makes provision about reports and information by applying paragraph 10 of that Schedule).

  (3) In the application of paragraph 3 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1985 (determinations relating to remuneration etc.) by virtue of subsections (1) and (2)(c) above, sub-paragraph (5) (which requires the consent of the Treasury to any determination) shall be omitted.
  (4) In the application of paragraph 10 of that Schedule (reports and information) by virtue of subsections (1) and (2)(d) above, in sub-paragraph (2) (which requires the authority to send a copy of its annual report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State to lay copies of it before Parliament) the words from "and the Secretary of State" to the end of the sub-paragraph shall be omitted.
  (5) Any appointment—

  (a) made by the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1989 Order, and

  (b) in force immediately before the coming into force of subsection (1) above, so far as relating to subsection (2)(a) above,

  shall have effect as from the coming into force of subsection (1) above, so far as so relating, as an appointment made by the Mayor under and in accordance with that sub-paragraph (and subject accordingly to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1985 as they have effect by virtue of subsections (1) and (2)(b) or (c) above).")
  The noble Lord said: The new clause implements our White Paper commitment to bring the London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA) under the control of a democratic London-wide authority. Further amendments dealing with the detailed consequences for financial accountability and audit arrangements will not be tabled, I regret, until Report stage. The LPFA is currently a quango accountable to the Secretary of State. We consider that a body focused on London and affecting the lives of many people across London should be answerable in some way to a democratically elected London authority. This clause puts right that anomaly in a simple way. It transfers from the Secretary of State to the mayor responsibilities for the appointments and tenure of office of members of the LPFA board, for determining their remuneration, and for receiving reports and information. This will be to the benefit of the pensioners and others for whose interests the fund is responsible, and to London as a whole. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 317 agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 318 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Young of Dartington: When I spoke in favour of urban parish councils on the Second Reading of the Bill I was urging the Government to bring London into line with the rest of the country. Scotland and Wales, as I said then, have small community councils and the whole of England has the right to urban parish councils by virtue of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997.

  1749
  This Act was supported by all parties and is now being vigorously promoted by the same Department of the Environment which has been refusing London the same rights as other parts of England. Urban parish councils are being set up in Leeds, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Portsmouth, Tameside, Hartlepool and quite a number of other places and so the question inevitably arises: why the rest of the country and why not London?
  The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is to be congratulated on his stamina and skill in bringing us so far with this complex Bill. He argued powerfully in the course of the debate on 7th July, when opposing amendments about the Metropolitan Police, that the Met should be under the same statutory obligations as the rest of the country. The noble Lord urged consistency about police authorities, and I hope that tonight he will accept that there should also be consistency across the country about urban parish councils.
  Clause 318 is in an unusual position. It was introduced, I understand, into the original Bill as a government amendment late in the discussions in the other place and so was not very fully debated. It confers very sweeping catch-all powers, or it seems almost catch-all powers, on the Minister to make orders for,
  "incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as appears to him to be necessary or expedient … in consequence of the provisions of any other Act passed previously",
  like the Act to which I have just referred.
  I seek from the Minister—I wrote to him in advance to give him an idea of what I was proposing to say—an assurance that these wide powers include the power to apply the provisions of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997 to London. That would be an important step forward for those who do not want London to be excluded from what has become a national movement for urban parish councils everywhere else.
  I am pushing this issue, and have been doing so for 40 years, because I believe rather passionately in communities of place. It is often argued that communities have changed their character, and of course they have. They consist in particular of all sorts of special interest groups: football clubs, religious groups, people who use the Internet to join up with other people who believe in black magic, or special diets for cancer and all sorts of other things. There is a great host of worthy voluntary bodies and groups which exist.
  Of course I accept that it has happened. There are more specialist interest groups than there used to be, and the Internet is adding to their number. However, communities of locality are still, in my submission, of enormous importance. The community formed around the place where people live still matters. People's homes are obviously precious to them. This is the bit of the world to which they have a special attachment and in which they feel most fully themselves. But some of that attachment also spreads out into the little districts around their homes. If you ask people where they belong—as I have, in a number of surveys—they may say "England." They would certainly say "London" and often, with most feeling, one finds, they would refer to
  1750
  the little district—their own street and the streets around that, the district that has shops which they use; the district which has a church and a few local pubs, a post office and a primary school and maybe a small local park and a swimming pool.
  London is not a vast undifferentiated urban area. It is made up of a series of much smaller places within the whole, which are living cells of that whole. Gertrude Stein, of blessed memory, said about Los Angeles, the world's largest city in terms of territory, "There is no there there." She could not have said that about London. There are many local "theres" in London. Here are many "heres" in London: from Pimlico to Bow, from Kentish Town to Brixton.
  David Hume, the great Scottish philosopher, wrote a lot about propinquity as a basis of common association. It is now a quaint word, but one that I much like. I believe that people's sense of their own identity, even now in this small mobile age, is still partly bound up in their own home, in their own homeland territory around it and in their local public realm, as the recent report which appeared under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, called it.
  If they care about it, as so many people do, that is a good basis for local political life, focused on the common concerns and aspirations of the citizens who are near enough to each other to have a sense of propinquity—that word again—and a recruitment ground for people who are going to seek wider public responsibility. This is where people can become engaged in their common affairs at their most basic. This needs to have its most democratic institutions if democracy at higher levels is to be enhanced.
  All we are saying is fully compatible with what the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, in his report, is recommending about home zones. The new parish councils could introduce such home zones. Based on the best German and Dutch examples, home zones would be groups of streets which create living spaces where pedestrians have absolute priority and cars travel at little more than walking pace, suitable to a parish. Why, if it all happened, children might emerge from their homes and once again be playing in the streets.
  I think I can recommend any of the candidates for mayor of London to put elected grass-roots councils into his or her manifesto. I believe that could yet be, strange as it may seem, a winning card which makes much of the little and puts himself or herself on the side of the small man or woman in a big world and a big London.
  Anyway, back to my question: I want to ask the Minister whether he can confirm that the sweeping powers given to the Minister by Clause 318 could be used to apply the relevant parts of the 1997 Local Government and Rating Act to London, as it does to the rest of the country. I beg the Minister to help us.
  8 p.m.
  Lord Borrie: I want to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington, as I did during Second Reading. The points which he then made and has repeated today have a great deal of force. People identify most closely with the immediate neighbourhood

  1751
  in which they live. In London, there are numerous villages not unlike the rural villages with their parish councils; and certainly not unlike the areas where neighbourhood councils are permitted. The residents of those areas petitioned for them to be allowed. Perhaps because London can be so impersonal, there may be a greater need for community councils than elsewhere. It is remarkable that only in London are they not permitted.
  The Bill, which my noble friend has been so diligent in taking through nine days of Committee, is concerned with setting up an authority with a mayor and an assembly. The members of the assembly, apart from those who are chosen on the basis of party lists, will each represent some 300,000 electors. Surely, there should be a link between them and the electors. Let us hope—although I do not have great hopes—that the electors will be larger in number than we have become accustomed to in recent months. The greatest enemy of local government, as my noble friend said on other occasions, is apathy. But there would be no apathy about electing small neighbourhood community councils.
  I recall that the White Paper, which preceded the Bill, indicated that when the members of the assembly are concerned to discuss strategy and policy they should be sure that they reflect people's views. Let them have, to aid them, the eyes and ears of community councils in local neighbourhoods where people feel they belong.
  Will Clause 318 enable an order to be made by Ministers to allow in London what is feasible and allowed in other parts of the country without difficulty? That is all that is being asked for and I hope that the Minister will be able to give encouragement to my noble friend who has raised this important matter tonight.
  Baroness Hamwee: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young, on his ingenuity in finding not just a hook on which to hang an argument but a substantive point which could enable what many of us have long argued for to come about. We tried to table a more direct amendment on the subject of parishes in London, only to be told that it was not within the Title. I said to those in the Public Bill Office that I should reserve the right to argue that at a later date. However, we are pleased to have the opportunity to support the noble Lord tonight.
  It has long been the policy of these Benches, and it was argued in this House and in another place during the course of the 1997 Act, that London should not be excluded from parishing. As I have learnt during the course of the Bill from my noble friend, one should talk about spheres and not tiers of government. That is a good term. Parishes ought not to be regarded as junior; they are important forms of government in themselves.
  London is often described as a world city. It is made up of many villages and even smaller entities. I was interested in the guidance issued by the previous government in relation to the 1997 Act, which stated that the larger the town the greater will be the scope for
  1752
  the identification of distinct communities within it. That is an interesting point which applies in particular to the biggest of the lot.
  The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: I spend most of my life trying to help communities to evolve in London. I have been at it for 25 years. The Church has parish church councils throughout London. I have joined the debate only today and it is most refreshing to hear such a proposal rather than dealing with only structural backgrounds. Having been a practitioner, I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Young.
  Sadly, propinquity was no longer the people's personal propinquity. In other words, the area idea survives in some parts of North and East London. I was part of a new town and I know that in many places people's neighbourhood was where they worked, where they had interest groups, where they played golf and so forth. Sometimes, people did not know what was in their area. Whereas Bethnal Green might have had a real identity it is now very different. It contains several communities and it would take great subtlety to create a parish council.
  Lord Young of Dartington: I beg the right reverend Prelate to recognise that there remains a sense of identity in Bethnal Green, even though the composition of the population has changed.
  The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: I have based a great deal of my work on that belief, but I am not sure how far we are trying to reimpose the village concept in a city which is extremely mobile and diverse and, it must be said, often apathetic.
  The noble Lord's argument would be that his proposal would undermine the apathy and that people would discover their identity and community. Maybe, just maybe, but before one created another level I should like harder evidence that it would work. The apathy found in large estates can be countered by estate battles, but nearly always a battle against an outside body such as an authority. There is a great deal of anonymity and I am weary of going down an idealisation of reality.
  The Earl of Sandwich: It has been a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. I hope that he will remain with us for our subsequent debate on international development where he will find similar views expressed.
  Lord Tope: I hesitate to delay the debate on international development. However, I cannot let this pass without saying a few words. It is very nearly 26 years since, to my considerable surprise, I was successful in the Private Members' ballot in another place and chose, as my Private Member's Bill, The London Parish Councils Bill, for exactly the reasons expressed so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington.
  The case for parishes has been strongly and eloquently made tonight. I support all that has been said. I feel as strongly on the issue now as I did 25 or 26 years ago, even though in the intervening time I have

  1753
  been a London borough councillor, which I was not at that time. I am well aware that some who have been county councillors or even district councillors are not always enthusiastic about parish councils.
  However, the issue tonight is not whether we favour parish councils in London; it is for the Minister to explain to us—and to give me an answer to a question which I have not received in 26 years—why in England, London alone is not allowed to have urban parish councils. Even if a community in London clambers and demonstrates 100 per cent support and enthusiasm for a parish council, the law does not permit it. Why are Londoners alone so discriminated against? Why have successive governments refused to provide legislation to enable London to be like the rest of the country? Indeed, would this Bill give us that opportunity?
  The Earl of Listowel: Perhaps I may speak briefly about the Walthamstow Housing Action Trust, which I visited recently. Tremendous changes have happened there. Many people say that that is simply because the Government have poured millions into it. However, it all started because a few women went to Horseferry Road with fallen masonry from their housing estate and said, "Look; this housing estate is falling to pieces around our ears. You have to do something about it". So, local action can be vigorous and effective.
  Lord Whitty: It has been some considerable time since we had this level of passion for the GLA Bill. I suppose I should thank my noble friend Lord Young for intervening at this stage and giving us something to think about. Perhaps I may make two comments: first, the Government do not agree with him, for a range of reasons, partly related to the comments made by the right reverend Prelate and partly to another aspect of practicality.
  Secondly, even if I had been convinced over the last 20 minutes and we did agree with him, the amendment is not appropriate in this Bill. It is certainly not appropriate to link it to this clause. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, stated, it is outside the scope of the Bill which deals with the construction of a Greater London Authority above the level of London boroughs, not with the structure of local government below that level. There may be appropriate Bills which deal with London government in general, but this is not the appropriate Bill. Even if that problem was overcome, this clause, which has been described as containing "sweeping powers", is not. Clause 318 only allows the Minister to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in order to achieve the general purposes of the Bill. It does not allow him to do anything else in London in relation to the structure of local government or London democracy but to deal with the issues covered by the purposes of the Bill.
  There is clearly a large number of empathetic arguments for the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, said and others have echoed. However, the Bill is not the appropriate Bill and the clause is not an appropriate clause. I am sorry to be so
  1754
  boring and legalistic about this, but that is the fact. I would therefore ask my noble friend not to pursue the amendment at this stage and on this Bill.
  Lord Young of Dartington: I thank the Minister for his courtesy, but not for the content of what he said. I did not find it wholly surprising, but sad. I believe that the Government are missing a real opportunity to show that, given a change in structure, considerable energies could be brought forth from people who at present do not think anything of politics and do not see themselves as playing any part in representative institutions.
  This is a feeling which, so far as it exists, and it does, we need to combat in every way possible. Admitting that London should have the same rights as the rest of the country would show, as it would in practice, that it really does something when people have a right which has been denied to them.
  I agree with the right reverend Prelate that there are many parts of London which are not perhaps in the first line of suitability for having the new kind of council for which we have been urging. However, the beauty of the Act—if an Act which has "Rating" in its title can have any beauty—was that it did not impose anything; it gave the right to people who wanted to have a council of this kind, with enough support to petition the Secretary of State, to be allowed to have it. Obviously if the Secretary of State wished, he or she could turn it down. However, the opportunity was there. A new choice was and is being presented in Leeds and all the other cities of Britain. We will have an opportunity to see whether it really does work to reinvigorate local politics, as I hope it will.
  However, I accept the Minister's comments as being telling. I am glad to have had the opportunity, with some support, to have made my points. I intend to pursue this matter with all strength wherever I can. However, I do not intend to do so further tonight.
  Clause 318 agreed to.
  Clause 319 [Transfers of property, rights or liabilities]:
  Lord Dahrendorf Lord Dahrendorf moved Amendment No. 455AZAB.
  Page 167, line 26, leave out ("Corporation of London") and insert ("Common Council")
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 455AZAB and 455AZAC standing in my name have acquired an almost Old Testament designation, if I may say so with due reverence to the right reverend Prelate. I do not propose to offer anything either as serious or as long as that text. I propose a simple drafting amendment; at least it is unless the Government intend to nationalise the private assets of what is commonly known as the Corporation of London. But so far as I know, that is not a part of government policy.
  Clause 319 is about the transfer of property, rights and liabilities of local authorities and other bodies in London by orders of a Minister of the Crown. Subsection (2)(d) mentions specifically local authorities and in Subsection (3)(b) London borough councils. In both cases it adds:
  "or the Corporation of London".
  The amendment standing in my name suggests that a more correct reference would be to the Common Council. I shall not spend time going into the many designations of institutions in the City. However, I would emphasise once again, as I did at Second Reading, that the corporation has a private as well as public element. If the property rights or liabilities of the corporation as a whole were within the ambit of a clause, the result would be that the power of transfer would extend well beyond local authority activities and would take in private interests which have no relevance to and are not funded by the local government finance system. Moreover, the clause would apply to property which is neither required nor held under local government powers. The proposed amendment is in line with local government legislation, and indeed with other parts of the Bill before us; for example, Chapter 13 of Part IV. It would therefore seem appropriate to refer to the Common Council, or even to the Common Council in its capacity as a local authority instead.
  I shall not press the amendment tonight. I hope that the Minister will assure me that he will look at and consider these arguments. If so, it may not be necessary to return to this matter at Report stage. I beg to move.
  Lord Harris of Haringey: I shall not detain the Committee for any length of time at this stage. It has been put to me that the use of the phrase "Corporation of London", blurs the distinction between the private and public assets of the corporation. Therefore, it runs the risk that the Bill is rendered hybrid. I am not entering into a debate about the assets of the Corporation of London and the Common Council, but I am concerned that if the Bill were inadvertently rendered hybrid, all the work carried out by the Committee would somehow be rendered invalid. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance on that point.
  Lord Whitty: I greatly hope so. I should tear out my hair were I to discover that the nine days that we had spent in Committee were to be rendered invalid. However, I cannot give a definitive answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, tonight. I believe that he may well have a point. Clearly there are some arcane legal matters here. My officials have been in contact with the Office of the City Remembrancer as to the way that the City is referred to in the clause. We have not as yet fully resolved the matter. It seems even more complicated than described by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, but I hope that we can resolve all these points in a satisfactory way by the time we reach Report stage.
  Lord Dahrendorf: I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 455AZAC not moved.]
  Clauses 319 and 320 agreed to.
  Schedule 26 agreed to.
  Clauses 321 to 324 agreed to.
  Clause 325 [Regulations and orders]:
  [Amendment No. 455AA not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455AB:
  Page 173, line 43, at end insert ("or
  (c) section 317(1) above,")
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 455AC and 455EA. The amendments seek to apply the affirmative procedure orders made under Clause 317(1), which we are bringing forward directly in response to the recommendations of the 16th Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I am grateful to the members of that Committee for their careful and detailed scrutiny of the Bill. This was their major point on the Bill and we believe that these amendments meet it. I apologise to noble Lords inconvenienced by the relatively late tabling of the amendment. Nevertheless, I believe that by this group of amendments we have met in full the requirements of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. Therefore I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise briefly to express the support of these Benches for the amendments. They seem to meet the objectives which we have sought in tabling Amendments Nos. 455B and 455E at a rather earlier stage than the Minister's amendments, but we certainly appreciate that the Government have now met those objectives.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455AC:
  Page 173, line 45, at end insert—
  ("() Subsection (3) above shall not have effect in relation to a statutory instrument containing an order under section 317(1) above making—

  (a) amendments or repeals in an enactment contained in a local and personal or private Act,

  (b) amendments or revocations in subordinate legislation which was not subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure, or

  (c) provision of any description by virtue of section 317(21 or subsection (1) above in connection with any such amendments, repeals or revocations,

  if it would not have effect in relation to that instrument apart from those amendments, repeals or revocations or that provision.")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 455B not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No, 455BA:
  Page 174, line 21, leave out ("paragraph 16(2)") and insert ("provisions specified in subsection (4) above")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455BB:
  Page 174, line 22, leave out ("paragraph 22(2)") and insert ("provisions specified in subsection (4) above")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455C:
  Page 174, line 25, at end insert—
  ("section (Power of Mayor to transfer functions)(4);")
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 455D and 455J. The first two of those amendments ensure that the Secretary of State will be made subject to negative procedures as a result of government amendments made earlier in Committee. They therefore follow through earlier decisions of the Committee. Amendment No. 455J relates to the designation of paying parking places which was missed at an earlier stage in the Bill. At present, boroughs may designate paying parking places where they are the highway agency for the road. The amendment provides that a borough would have to obtain the consent of the traffic authority before it designates paying parking places. That is an important provision in the question of the management of roads, but at this point it is a relatively technical amendment. I beg to move.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am sorry, but I feel that I must speak out on the issue of having to apply to the Greater London Authority for all one's parking places. I recall that that was a terribly long-winded procedure. Boroughs were driven mad. The procedure took so long and one could not obtain permission to use parking places. Perhaps the noble Lord would—even if we pass the amendment tonight—look at the matter again before Report stage.
  Lord Whitty: I shall certainly undertake to have another look at it. It does not reproduce the old two-tier system which we had before. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455D:
  Page 174, line 27, at end insert—
  ("section (Restrictions on contracting out certain services);")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 455E not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455EA:
  Page 174, line 34, at end insert—
  ("() For the purposes of this section, the subordinate legislation which is "subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure" is any subordinate legislation contained in an instrument which was subject—

  (a) to a requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament, or

  (b) to a requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons,

  or which was not subject to such a requirement by reason only that it re-enacted subordinate legislation (with or without modification).")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 325, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 326 to 328 agreed to.
  Schedule 27 [Enactments repealed]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 455F to 455H:
  Page 320, line 11, at end insert—

  ("1965 c. 63.

  The Public Works Loans Act 1965.

  In section 2(1)(a), the word "and" immediately preceding sub-paragraph (iii).

  1968 c. 13.

  The National Loans Act 1968.

  In Schedule 4, in paragraph 1, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority", the word "and" immediately preceding sub-paragraph (iii).")

  Page 321, line 13, column 3, at end insert—
  ("Section 107.")
  Page 321, line 13, at end insert—

  ("1988 c. 41.

  The Local Government finance Act 1988.

  In section 88(2), paragraphs (c) and (d).")

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455J:
  Page 322, line 19, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 45(1), in the second paragraph, the words "outside Greater London".")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455K:
  Page 322, line 19, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 55(4), the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (d).")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 27, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 329 [Interpretation]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 456:
  Page 175, line 33, leave out paragraph (b)
  The noble Baroness said: I was surprised to see that this amendment was not shown as having been debated. It was certainly debated in substance if not at this point. However, I shall take just a few seconds to use this opportunity heartily to thank both Ministers for their patience and good humour through this enormously long Committee stage. I know it is normal to offer thanks at the end of a Bill, but I wish to include the officials. They have not only managed to stay awake; they have managed to get through quite a lot of written material as well.
  My noble friends and I do not wish to have these remarks used against us as supporting the Bill any more now than when proceedings started. But we are extremely grateful for the way in which progress has been conducted from the Government Benches. I hope that I have not started a long debate. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness, not with regard to her amemdment, but with regard to the assistance given by the officials and the good temper and temperance—in the sense of being restrained—of the Government during the course of these nine days.
  Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 329 agreed to.
  Clause 330 agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Business
8.32 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, consideration of the Greater London Authority Bill has now been concluded. It is rather later than I and others expected and I thank those noble Lords who have been waiting to take part in the Unstarred Question for their forbearance. The Unstarred Question is now no longer limited to one hour, as it would have been had it been heard during the dinner break; the one-and-a-half hour limit now applies. That does not affect the time allowed for the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friend Baroness Amos. It increases the time available for all other speakers from four to eight minutes. However, if noble Lords have prepared four-minute speeches and prefer to avoid the frightful inconvenience of extending them at such short notice, they are perfectly free to do so, so long as they stay within the eight-minute time limit.

Overseas Development
8.33 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what examples they have of good practice in long-term overseas development, with special reference to Africa and India.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I thank the House for the final opportunity to raise this Question and all distinguished noble Lords who will be making their contribution. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, has chosen the debate to make her maiden speech and I hope we hear from her many more times in the future. I have received apologies from other noble Lords who have been called away to overseas business.
My purpose in this week of end-of-term reports is to look ahead now that the Government have completed two years in office and invite them to set aside conflict and emergency and indulge in a little imagination in their overseas programme in answer to the question: what do we regard as good practice in international development?
Some may say it is unrealistic to ignore emergencies which are present, by definition, in the poorest communities. HIV epidemics, for example, as some of
1760
us pointed out earlier this year, undermine development in southern Africa and many other areas, including India. Malaria is another elusive enemy Floods set back agriculture. More subtly, malnutrition and infant mortality are hallmarks of poverty and can be seen as daily family emergencies.
It is hard to separate emergencies from development in our overall image of development in the least developed countries. In fact, it is sometimes tempting for NGOs and the media to shock people into a sympathy which rarely extends to true understanding of the difficulties on the ground. Yet, from time to time, it is essential to stand back and reassess the achievement of government in meeting their long-term objectives. Those have been expressed in the White Paper in the context of aid targets, broadly to halve poverty in its various forms by the year 2015. If we can in a short time examine some of that visible success on the ground, we shall gain something from the debate.
In 1996 I asked the previous government to give more attention to increasing public awareness and the accountability of the aid programme. I am pleased to say that this Government responded positively to those concerned in that campaign. Much of that energy is now rightly channelled into discussions around the national curriculum. I would meanwhile like to see more emphasis on the visible image of the measured benefits of our international development aid programme, not just splendid images of our troops or our experts in the field, indispensable though they often are.
What is happening to our aid programme? May we be told more about it or is it something to hide? Sustainable development is in fashion and I will have every reason to believe that this Government are focusing more intently on people-based programmes if they can demonstrate that they are working. We are told that the Government are moving away from the prestige projects associated with the aid trade provision, the arms race and huge power schemes such as characterised the 1980s. In fairness, much of this new direction came from the time of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker.
Yet more is being committed to NGOs, human rights and the much vaunted rebuilding of those twin edifices—good governance and civil society. At the same time I believe the Government have not abandoned any of the tenets of British enterprise in the high-tech, information, transport and engineering industries. It is difficult in a few minutes to generalise about the good practice in international development without looking at detailed country programmes. The Minister may agree that there is an element of favouritism in the aid programme. Some post-conflict countries like Uganda and Mozambique are in favour because they now meet most of the ESAF (enhanced structural adjustment facility). Others, like Kenya and Zimbabwe, are on hold because they do not. Yet the poorest communities can manage good projects within less than good governance. The best guides are the country strategy papers and I intend to look at only two current favourites—Mozambique and India.
Here I must acknowledge the help of one NGO which I know well and of which I am trustee—Christian Aid—and in particular the work of its development policy team. I also draw on some experience with Save the Children and Care International. There is a built-in anomaly in Mozambique which is the difficulty of spending money wisely because of the war, the lack of infrastructure and the desperate lack of trained professional people. There is an urgent need for rebuilding civil society and it should become a classic case of the new style development based on what people really want.
DfID is a significant donor, on the one hand supporting programmes like railways or the customs service through the Crown Agents; on the other, looking for ways of developing health, education and social services. This means strengthening the local non-government organisations. Here I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will work sensitively with both local and international NGOs and Churches and will not inhibit them from maintaining links with the NGO network at large. This has been a problem in many countries where foreign donors in their search for community-based development have tended to monopolise the NGOs and the community-based organisations because of their presence inside those countries. Equally, the NGOs are hoist by their own petard because they cannot afford to refuse government money, provided that it does not stifle their independence.
Having made a big commitment to Mozambique, the DfID is aware that it is too thin on the ground and now intends to strengthen its staff in Maputo. This is essential if it is to achieve one of its stated aims—an improvement in the education and health of the poor. In part, this must be done through sectoral programme aid to the Mozambique Government. However, my guess is that it will still not have the capacity to realise this aim and evaluate such a programme effectively on the ground.
The same dilemma occurs in Ethiopia. The temptation, because of the need for our skilled personnel, our consultants and our experts, will always be to remain in the important sectors of transport and public services and encourage private investment, especially along the Maputo corridor. The Government are also part of the IMF-led donor consultative group, which is behind the Mozambique Government's drive to catch up with the rest of southern Africa and even attract investors in the United States. Perhaps I may urge the Government to press ahead with their debt relief in Mozambique, which is still insufficient even after Cologne. It needs to be linked directly to the poverty alleviation targets. Unless this Government can demonstrate that link, I cannot see how they will meet their international targets. They are already approaching a 75 per cent target of bilateral spending in the poorest countries by 2002, and trying to persuade the European Commission to do the same. This is commendable.
The DfID has similar problems in poor regions of countries like India, which have not recently experienced conflict and where one would expect there
1762
to be more highly developed social services. The UK is still among India's major aid donors, third in line after Japan and Germany, and the largest contributor of grant aid. While most foreign aid is still allocated to energy and infrastructure, the UK's former ODA made a conscious effort to move away from large energy projects towards social services. Unfortunately, the same cycle has occurred. The more it concentrated on people-based development, the more difficulty it had in strengthening local capacity and meeting people's needs. In fact, a lot of UK aid has been spent, not to say wasted, not on corruption but on proper evaluation and assessment of the mistakes made and the lessons learned. The two projects concerned are the Orissa Health and Family Welfare project and the Andhra Pradesh Primary Education Project, both since re-named under DfID.
Only after 15 years was it fully appreciated that these projects had relied too heavily on the local health and education authorities and not enough on the communities themselves. While the statistics of thousands of trained health workers and teachers were impressive, buildings were put up which were inadequately designed and located, and so not properly used. To their credit, the ODA and the DfID recognised the problems and remodelled both projects, with some involvement from NGOs. But the question remains: how can an outside government support sustainable projects in remote rural areas without either creating its own imported models or depending too much on inadequate local government and NGOs?
In conclusion, it will be hard for this Government to associate themselves too closely with the NGO and civil society world, because of local under-capacity, the pressure to find good projects, the need to relate to government structures and the demand for skills and investments which the UK can provide. However, I admit that a positive move has now been made, perhaps along the Scandinavian pattern, to identify those needs which people feel rather than those dreamt up by outsiders.
I shall never forget the recent story of some UN school furniture provided for an Afghan village. Being of the latest design, it ensured that, because the children normally sat on the classroom floor, only half of them could now be taught. The developing world is still trying to understand what developing countries and societies need and failing to come up with adequate answers.
8.44 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this House for the first time. It is rather daunting, but I am much supported by the kindness that has been shown to me on all sides since I was introduced just two weeks ago. I just wish that someone had warned me that a degree in orienteering would have been helpful in navigating the complicated corridors of the House. However, the patience and friendliness of your Lordships, and, indeed, of the officers and staff, in guiding me in this and in other ways, has been of enormous help.

1763
I was advised that a maiden speech should be uncontroversial, so I am delighted that the opportunity has arisen to speak on a subject on which there is much bi-partisan support and one which is very close to my heart. The UK has one of the largest development programmes in the world. I know that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give us many instances of good practice, of partnerships, of good governance initiatives, of local capacity building and of the empowerment of women.
However, in my brief speech, it seemed sensible to me to look at one aspect of good practice about which I can speak with some familiarity—that is, the unique contribution of international volunteer sending agencies to long-term overseas development. These agencies, largely funded by DfID, respond to the needs of developing countries by sending aid not in the form of blankets or money, but through people with skills and experience.
I chair VSO (Voluntary Service Overseas). For 40 years, the service has been enabling men and women to live and work alongside people in poorer countries in order to share skills. Just recently, I was in Rwanda, where the educational sector has faced widespread destruction of schools and the loss of trained teachers. I was there to see the way in which 15 young teacher volunteers were working side by side with local partners to help.
I suppose that noble Lords may ask why I am so confident that this is good practice. I think that the proof is there on the ground. I shall give your Lordships just one example. In Zimbabwe, following independence, the government prioritised a rapid expansion of education to cater for young black people previously excluded from the system. The UK provided 500 volunteer teachers who taught an estimated 75,000 pupils. Eighteen years on, those same pupils are professionals in their own right—trained nationals to take the place of volunteers. This is a text book example of what we seek to achieve through capacity building.
However, many people forget that volunteering is a two-way street. Whenever I meet returned volunteers, I am always struck by their insistence on just how much they have gained from the experience. They come back energised, full of the desire to share new skills and ideas. But, in fact, for some of them—perhaps even many of them—the return home can be really negative, especially when employers undervalue their experience. So they become a wasted resource.
For many employers, in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, multi-cultural awareness is at a premium. I shall take, for example, just one employer: the National Health Service. On their return to the UK, volunteers make a crucial contribution to developing cultural awareness and sensitivity within the NHS. Professionals who have lived in Hindu, Sikh or Moslem communities bring to their work in the UK a genuine understanding—indeed, a respect and liking—for diverse cultures. By questioning values and assumptions, they can help to change attitudes.
1764
Over 80 NHS trusts are now involved in partnerships. I hope that more trust managers will follow suit. There is no better time for employers to take action to ensure that we in this country benefit, along with our partners overseas, from this element of best practice in development. I hope that the Government will take a lead in encouraging employers to appreciate the value of volunteering. I look forward to participating in future debates in your Lordships' House.
8.49 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, it is an extraordinary privilege to be able to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on her splendid maiden speech. The noble Baroness spoke about VSO, an organisation which is extremely worthwhile. I think that VSO can take pride in having such a formidable champion for its cause. That is not surprising in some ways because the noble Baroness comes from the north country and has had a remarkably successful and distinguished career in the trade union movement. My researches reveal that she was appointed to the general council of the trade union movement at a remarkably young age. Subsequently, as I understand it, she has become the chief executive of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors. Anyone who can keep a grip on that lot must have some pretty formidable talents because it must be a hard task!
I notice also that she is interested in the theatre, a love of which we both share. To a certain extent she has now moved from the audience to be a participant in something which is a cockpit of its own kind. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to hearing from her a great deal on future occasions.
We also owe a great debt to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing this subject tonight. He has had a long career in overseas affairs. It is a complex subject. Aid covers a great variety of activities and diverse relationships. There are many aspects to it, but he spoke about Africa, which is a continent of which he has a great deal of knowledge and I regret to say I have none.
But there are similarities in the whole programme of aid which run through all continents. I have to admit that I have been extremely doubtful about the value of handing out great tranches of money to overseas governments, who generally misspend it and often it ends up in the wrong place and in the wrong hands, achieves little and is impossible to measure I have always thought it much more important to concentrate on technical assistance. Indeed the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned this aspect. We have a great deal of expertise in this country which we can deploy. We have a great deal of knowledge of certain technical subjects dating right back to the time of the Industrial Revolution.
There is a huge number of projects with which we can become involved such as water purification and the supply of water. This is particularly relevant in India and Africa. Not only does this employ NGOs and consultants but it also involves the deployment of people, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich said, because

1765
people can then implement the projects. There is little possibility of the funds going astray if we indulge ourselves in technical assistance programmes, which can involve the supply of both high level expert consultancy and the machinery in the establishment of the programme itself. Water purification in rural areas is but one aspect of that, but there are others such as rural electrification programmes and communications. There is a multiplicity of these things (for example, healthcare equipment and crop improvements), all of which are highly desirable in the countries to which we refer, namely Africa and India and to a certain extent Latin America, although it is a more developed area. Latin America is an area that I know more about.
I believe that if we could concentrate more on technical assistance development in the whole of our overseas programme we could achieve more effective results at lower cost and improve the lives of a greater number of people without anything going astray. I hope that this is a thrust that can be developed in our aid programme over the next few years. I very much look forward to hearing what other speakers have to say on this subject. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will, I am sure, give us an interesting overview of the Government's thinking.
8.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for bringing this important issue before us. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her marvellous speech. She has made a great start by sticking to a four minute speech when she had eight minutes in which to speak. That seems to me quite a precedent but I am not sure whether it is one that I shall follow!
We were glad when the Secretary of State visited the General Synod last year and recognised the important role the Churches play in the long term in these important issues. I wish to talk briefly about the links of our dioceses in the Church of England with dioceses throughout the two-thirds world and of my own experience in Namibia and Zambia. I hope that these smaller experiences parallel in a sense the large-scale scene. The same issues seem to arise in both the large and the small-scale scene.
As has been mentioned, one of the strengths has been the exchange of people. Bishops, clergy and lay people have travelled both ways and have stayed, learnt, received and given. There is a tremendous exchange of people between all our dioceses and the dioceses in the two-thirds world. I refer to a recent visit of a priest and his wife who are computer experts to help the Zambian Church tackle setting up its computers and e-mail system to improve its communications. That is a small but sensible thing to do. Exchange visits of young people take place, especially choirs—which are a wonderful experience for us all—but also other youth groups. I was told this afternoon that a group of fanners from the Hereford diocese are visiting Tanzania, not just to teach the Tanzanians about agriculture but also to learn about agriculture there for their own benefit.
1766
The experience of those at both ends who share in these links is that of a steep learning curve. As we have heard in the case of VSO volunteers, the political, cultural and spiritual exploration and discovery that people make is of tremendous value. We are fortunate when that experience is brought back to the Church here, which on the whole is receptive to it. Such awareness training produces real loyalty and commitment, and not just for an elite few because through the parish, school, college and hospital links, the awareness spreads and grows. That results in much more direct and personal giving of support and help.
As I saw in Zambia, the burden of international debt has meant that education exists on a shoestring. I saw a football made of shoestrings and other strings shared between 100 children. It gave great pleasure but demonstrated the basic lack of any kind of sporting facilities. There are schools without books, paper, writing implements and equipment. In fact we were asked by people in several schools whether the missionaries could not come back to run the schools again as they had fallen into such disrepair. Teachers there also need support and encouragement. The exchange of teachers between our diocese and Zambia has been a tremendous help and has been an eye opener for both sides. As we have heard, education resources are one example of the kind of support which really works if it is relevant. In some primary schools we found huge, unpacked sets of books that had been sent by American business schools and by various bookshops in this country. They contained information that was totally irrelevant to the school in question. There again the help must be relevant to the place it is sent.
There was a famous Christian Aid advertisement which asked people to help that body stop feeding hungry people and teach them to fish so they could support themselves. That advertisement changed many people's attitudes. I refer to the whole philosophy of getting people to help themselves. One of the tragedies in Lusaka, for example, is that international governmental aid has been used by the national government to provide subsidies that have attracted people from agricultural areas to the slums of Lusaka. As a result, in the long term local people were deprived of skills which could have supported them and much of that beautiful, fertile land was left untended. Help with a well, support for a school, encouragement and support to a church does not disable people, but strengthens them.
Even in such personal links there can be problems and pitfalls. We have heard mention of the imperialist problem. How far do we as a diocese have the right to lay down conditions for the reception and use of money? Do we trust the recipients? Do we hear them? Do we know what they really want? Do we know what would be for the best? Even at our level, we have learnt that money can hideously corrupt when there is none. At the point of entry it can divide people and destroy trust among them. Money requires care and good relationships without domination and demeaning attitudes.

1767
Contrasts between our two standards of life are dangerous. For bishops to stay in the palace at Wells, to visit the cathedral and, worse, to visit Wippell's, the ecclesiastical outfitters, is a seduction that can cause real problems if people cannot see through it. It is easy to undermine indigenous cultural strengths by the way in which our aid is given.
So much of what we do is carried out at the local level, but it is very important. I assert that small can be beautiful. I remember visiting the Archdeacon of Odibo in Northern Namibia, who lived in a bombed-out theological college during the war. I brought some relief and encouragement that I hope was useful.
However, I remember most that we received so much. As we arrived in that bombed-out building, in the middle of a five-year drought, the archdeacon greeted us with the question, "Would you like a shower?" We said, "Yes, that would be wonderful". We had a shower and watched the water go down the drain. We then asked him how he had acquired all the water. He told us that for six months they had been saving it for our visit. The idea that somehow aid is a one-way process is quite mistaken. The sooner we recognise how much we receive, the sooner the climate in which we give aid will change.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I too want to congratulate my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe on her maiden speech. It was excellent. I am sure that her expertise on overseas development will greatly extend that already present in the House. I greatly welcome her contribution.
I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for raising, as he often does, such an important issue. We now have quite a gathering of Peers who are interested in overseas development.
I agree with much of what the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, said on the importance of technical assistance. The last time I spoke in a debate with the noble Viscount, he said that that was his valedictory address. I believe that he has given quite a few valedictory addresses. However, I am glad of his involvement in the debate.
I want to concentrate on the role of girls and women in enhancing social development, first, in relation to education. Education for girls is a powerful means of strengthening women's position in society, socially, economically and politically. To most people's satisfaction, the evidence is clear that if we disproportionately give resources better to educating young girls, we achieve a better result for the money that is put in. I hope that DfID recognises that fact in many of the programmes that it seeks to support.
In Kenya, crop yields have been shown to increase by as much as 24 per cent through educating female farmers properly. That is a result of improving primary education. Some DfID supported projects in India have increased primary education for young girls, thus improving their position, particularly those from scheduled castes and tribes, who find it difficult to get
1768
decent primary education. That shows good practice and proper targeting of resources currently undertaken by DfID.
My second point concerns empowering women to take control in making decisions about sex. Important aspects of that are family planning and checking the spread of HIV and AIDS. In Zambia, which I visited a couple of years ago with the CPA, DfID is supporting and subsidising the marketing of the new female condom. That is particularly important as it gives power to young women to control the spread of AIDS and HIV as well as helping them to develop safer sexual relationships. At the moment the power is disproportionately weighted against them.
The matter goes further, as it also addresses social and educational frameworks, particularly in parts of society where violence against women is quite prevalent. There is an adverse power relationship. I applaud DfID for subsiding female condoms. That kind of programme can have far-reaching and desirable consequences.
I close by saying that, from my limited experience of travelling to what we call the "two-thirds" world countries, there is a strong argument for working directly with particular interest groups and as far down the institutions as possible. When one tries to work directly with senior government departments, one often comes up against the problem of elected politicians, who are not in my experience particularly sympathetic to many of the aspirations which DfID rightly wants to fulfil. I hope that my noble friend will bear that comment in mind when she looks at the distribution of DfID moneys.
9.8 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this debate. I should also like to congratulate the noble Baroness on her maiden speech. My experience of sub-Saharan Africa, which is the subject of my remarks, comes from being in the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Quite a number of those employed by the CDC have had experience with VSO, and VSO literature regularly falls through my letterbox. It is a fine organisation.
I should like, I hope not discordantly, to pursue hard values rather than soft values. That is the jargon that is employed in industry for the difference between market economics and all the subjects about which your Lordships have spoken so far. As my experience is confined to the area of market economics, I have to go down that road.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation, for which I worked for a number of years, works in about 20 sub-Saharan African countries and has some 200 investments in equity and loan capital in those countries. The Commonwealth Development Corporation Act, which recently completed its passage through this House, creates a public/private partnership and is intended to give the CDC a new focus and a new lease of life after its first 50 years. That is very welcome. The CDC is in pursuit of long-term sustainable private sector development, which sub-Saharan Africa badly needs.

1769
There are many economic opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa but as yet no equivalence to the Asian tiger economies. It is that challenge that I want to address. The necessary condition to become an Asian tiger—I suppose that in Africa they would be called leopards—is to attract foreign capital, because such countries lack the savings and the tax base to bridge the gap between their state of economic development and something approaching ours.
It is interesting to note that, at the time of independence, the population of Malaya, as it then was, now Malaysia, was similar to that of Ghana, as was the per capita income. Now, the per capita income of Malaysia is many times that of Ghana. Yet if one looks at the underlying "gift of God", there is not a great deal of difference between the potential of Ghana and that of Malaysia. So the attraction of foreign capital is essential.
It is not surprising that such capital is difficult to attract. If £1½ billion will be invested in an Internet provider that has yet to make a profit, it will not be all that easy to obtain support for private sector developments in sub-Saharan Africa, where there is, in addition to the problems of logistics and distance, a political and economic risk that would normally make a venture capitalist or a provider of capital look for even higher returns than he would look for in developed economies. Therefore, because of our rate of technological advance, there is a great force sucking capital into the developed world and not allowing much of it to find its way into the developing world.
There have been instruments for bridging some of that gap, of which the CDC has been one. It has been charged with creating economic development in countries in, for example, sub-Saharan Africa, where it has about half of its business; and it has not been charged with achieving the kind of return that venture capitalists look for. So in those countries the CDC has found many economic opportunities.
Perhaps I may briefly give a few examples. The first is that of citrus in southern Africa. Only 15 per cent of the world's population lives south of the Equator. There are very few places where counter-seasonal pink grapefruit can be grown, for which the Japanese will pay a great deal of money. Southern Africa is one such place. Swaziland has also done that, with much support from South Africa. Tanzania has a teak planting project. The world's supplies of hardwood are under threat, as we all know, and it is a long-term project. If Tanzania could achieve a sustainable resource of teak, which it could cut on rotation, it would have a strong position in the hardwood markets of the world. There is tea production in Uganda. Luckily, even after the many years under Amin, the tea trees can be pruned back and Uganda can recreate an export business in tea.
One hears people ask, "Why cash crops? Why exports?" The answer is that unless these countries can create export economies they cannot buy the things that they need to modernise those economies and make progress. Not all of it will be done by handouts; it must be done by trade and economic development as well. That is true also of many other projects. Reference has
1770
already been made to Zambia. A cement plant in the public sector in that country, which caused pollution but did not have the necessary capital to bring it up to date, was re-privatised. Shares were issued to the Zambian public, which they took up briskly. Today that company is in a partnership with cement plants in Malawi and Tanzania.
One turns to telecommunications. Without telecommunications one cannot run a modern economy. It is extremely unlikely that sub-Saharan Africa will ever be hard wired with telephone systems. Luckily, there are cellular telephones. If one seeks to export tea from Uganda it is as well to have a telephone to inform one of market prices all over the world. Without a telephone one is in the dark.
Although all of that may sound rather conventional and pedestrian, it is only through the creation of productive enterprises that provide employment, cash flow, profits and taxes that one can have long-term development that leads to self-sustaining growth. Africa requires self-sustaining growth. We must do all that we can to assist in the long-term economic progress of sub-Saharan Africa, and we should not despise market mechanisms.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, DfID has rightly identified security in the context of dealing with poverty as a new priority. The situation in Sierra Leone was a major threat to peace and security within the West African sub-region. The Lomé peace agreement was signed on 7th July between the Government of Sierra Leone on the one hand and the Revolutionary United Front on the other. Yesterday, in recognition of this the Sierra Leone contact group, representing 23 countries, met in London to seek ways to further its implementation. President Kabbah attended.
While Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on being the facilitator of the agreement, the role of the United Nations, regional governments, ECOWAS, particularly the Commonwealth secretariat's special envoy, Dr Moses Anafu, are acknowledged as pivotal. Interestingly, even the World Service of the BBC played a role in enabling the peace negotiators to make contact with the rebel forces.
The people of Sierra Leone have peace after many years of brutality and the horrors of war. They are a traumatised nation and require urgent international help to sustain the benefits of peace. The Lomé agreement has set itself a number of testing objectives that require the total commitment of all parties if they are to be achieved. It is appropriate to remind ourselves that the rule of law and respect for human rights is fundamental to the continuance of peace, and that the ongoing support of ECOMOG and the United Nations, in its peace-keeping role, is deemed essential.
The rebuilding of Sierra Leone's armed forces to ensure the country's security is also of paramount importance. Experiences in Zimbabwe made us aware of the delicacy of persuading rebel forces to hand in their weapons. Implementation will be difficult, although I envisage that the programme of cash for

1771
weapons is a useful incentive. That said, location and subsequent security of these weapons is a matter of real concern and will need careful handling.
Signatories to the agreement must address the problem of reconciliation between those who perpetrated crimes and the victims. Humanitarian assistance to the victims of the war, particularly the countless limbless children, will need to be co-ordinated. A truth and reconciliation commission has a vital role to play, and its prompt implementation will assist the peace process.
Finally, and arguably most important, the agreement addresses the problem of demobilisation and the re-integration of former combatants. It is in that context that I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions. In so doing, I declare that, in greater part, I facilitated a meeting between President Kabbah and a British logistics company that I have occasion to advise. What will be the role of our armed forces and police in this peace agreement?
A number of nation states, the United Nations, the World Bank and NGOs have committed aid in various forms. How is this to be co-ordinated and what are the priorities? What provision has been made for the logistic support of the military equipment already given to Sierra Leone? Previous experience dictates that, without proper back up and technical support, equipment soon deteriorates and becomes unserviceable.
Do adequate workshop facilities exist to sustain the promised programmes of aid? Do we need to recruit specialist teams and provide the necessary infrastructure that will provide the long-term stability of the security forces?
Finally, what provision has been made for the resettlement and training of ex-combatants who have been persuaded to hand in their weapons? The point is—and I echo the views of President Kabbah—that demobilisation and training for civilian life are essential factors if we are to encourage and prevent ex-combatants taking up arms and returning to the bush.
These questions need to be answered if we are to sustain the peace in Sierra Leone. I would be grateful if the Minister will undertake to write to me with the answers to any specific questions that she feels unable to address this evening.
9.20 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I too add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Earl for introducing this debate. Although I know that we have a little more time, I promise to be brief.
I begin by declaring an interest. I am the patron of RICO, the Black International Construction Organisation. BICO's members are civil engineers, architects, designers, surveyors, transport planning specialists and other professionals working in the built environment—housing, infrastructure and commercial construction. BICO is an NGO dedicated to promoting grass-roots development in poorer countries.
The first point to be made is that in one respect there are no examples of good practice which follow the policy laid down by the Minister for Overseas
1772
Development in her White Paper, Eradicating World Poverty. She very wisely stressed the importance of involving members of ethnic minority and migrant communities in the development process. So far, there are no examples of good practice which follow this criterion. There are, of course, other criteria, but since the Secretary of State took the trouble to include this in her White Paper it is only fair to assess progress in that direction. Why has more progress not been made? Lead time is, of course, an issue. Is the culture of the department resisting the implementation of this policy?
The experience of BICO's members is that there is a problem here, although there are some indications, some straws in the wind that look as though they may be blowing in a helpful direction. The problem is that the selection procedure for consultants for projects naturally contains, as part of the department's own due diligence procedures, a requirement that consulting firms such as civil engineers, transportation engineers, and so on, must already have completed 10 such projects of a certain size. This creates an instant glass ceiling. How does a firm obtain the experience if it is denied the opportunity to tender?
There is another reason why it is important to give effect to the department's policy to which I have referred. It is now widely recognised that development needs to be culturally sensitive. Indeed, there is a project in northern Zambia to be tendered for. It would be quite inconceivable, given the terms and scope of the project, for a wholly European consulting group to complete the project. Black-led NGOs have to be involved. It is really quite simple; there is no option.
I suggest to the Minister and her department that partnering arrangements are necessary to enable black-led consultancies to acquire the necessary track record to enable them to give effect to the intention expressed in Eradicating World Poverty.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, as I have done so often. I also commend his ability to raise once more the issue of international development, even at this late stage in the Session. I should also like to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and to commend her on her admirable maiden speech. I know that she also worked for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and I believe that she will be a welcome new member to the small happy band who speak on development issues. It is my contention that good practice in development depends on the implementation of democracy, especially in emerging economies.
Development in Africa and India has always been hampered by poverty. However, the two new threats to successful development that threaten the 2015 DfID target of reducing poverty are the AIDS epidemic and international debt. I had assumed that I would have only a short time in which to speak, so I shall target my speech on AIDS.
AIDS, I believe, will be the greatest challenge to successful development. In the two decades since the first cases of AIDS appeared in the US and Africa, over

1773
47 million people are estimated to have been infected with HIV, nearly 14 million of whom have already died. More than 80 per cent of people with AIDS come from Africa. According to the World Health Organisation, AIDS is now the leading cause of death in Africa, causing one-fifth of all deaths on the continent. Six in every 10 HIV-infected men, eight in every 10 infected women and nine in 10 infected children live in sub-Saharan Africa. That accounts for nearly half of all the new infections worldwide.
The implications of these statistics are that the progress of nations is measured in the life expectancy of their people. HIV is robbing 20 years from the people of Africa and, as a result, taking 20 years off developmental gains. AIDS in these countries is intensifying their need for debt assistance which in turn is crippling their development. The reduction of HIV infection rates is dependent on what has been proven to work: information, education and improved services.
I should like to focus on one country in Africa in which I have lived and worked. It has also been mentioned by a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness. When I first went to Zimbabwe I worked in clinics throughout the north of the country. The overall impression among the people was that AIDS was a problem that was being brought in from outside. The belief was so entrenched that it hampered education about prevention.
That probably leads to one of the facts I have found most shocking. Zimbabwe is the world's most infected country. Approximately one-quarter of the adult population is HIV positive. In many urban areas infection runs to 40 per cent, and in the army it is 80 per cent. This brings life expectancy down to an estimated 38 years. Zimbabweans are now unable to obtain modern anti-retro viral drug combinations due to an annual health budget of £5.50 per person. I may be wrong, but I looked up some figures on National Health Service spending on each AIDS patient in this country. I worked out that £5.50 would provide about five hours' treatment a year.
The effects of rapid AIDS infection during 1991–96 had no visible effect in the early years. I visited a large number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa and for many years AIDS was an issue that was seen to be surrounded by shame and was ignored. However, today, some years later, profound effects are being felt and the general performance of these countries is suffering. The problems include poor school attendance by young children due to sick parents being unable to afford school fees or needing them as carers at home.
Savings and investment suffer as households burn up slim reserves due to an absent family breadwinner. There is also the malfunction of the financial sector. The crippling impact of HIV and related pay-outs for sickness and disability prevents individuals buying adequate life insurance. Negative HIV tests are prerequisites for significant cover. Eighty per cent of people wanting cover in fact decline to take the test. Absenteeism is high and staff turnover results in less incentive to train.
1774
In the case of Africa, the impact of HIV is particularly intense, killing its strong, its productive and its parents, those on whom a well functioning society relies. The DfID has concentrated in its work against AIDS on education, the availability of condoms, the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, which, through research funded by the DfID, has proved to be one of the major causes of infection, and uncontaminated medical blood supplies. The work of the Churches has been extremely useful in reducing the AIDS infection rate.
The real hope for the future lies in the development of an affordable vaccine. I shall ask a question which I have asked previously. I hope the Minister will realise that if I am given the opportunity I shall ask it again. Will the Government look again at increasing the amount of money being spent on the development of an affordable vaccine? If the progress that has been achieved in successful development projects is to be maintained throughout sub-Saharan Africa, the problem of AIDS has to be tackled.
9.31 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is to be congratulated on raising this matter, the more so because of his impeccable timing. I shall say more about that later. But it would be remiss of me if I did not begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. We have all enjoyed her contribution today and I am sure that we all look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness on many occasions in the future.
Of course, it would be impossible to give an adequate answer to this Question without reference to appropriate criteria. Happily, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out, these are clearly defined in the 12 strands of the Government's approach to international development listed in the White Paper. I wish to touch on one or two of them.
Strand 6 avers that the Government will:
"Ensure that the full range of Government policies affecting developing countries, including environment, trade, investment and agricultural policies, takes account of our sustainable development objective".
Given this, does the Minister agree that it is important that,
"good practice in long-term overseas development",
as a generality, needs to avoid too ethnocentric a bias? It seems to me that this lies at the heart of the sensible comments of my noble friends Lord Montgomery of Alamein and Lord Eccles.
It is an obvious point, but most accept that technical assistance—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, paid tribute to volunteering and the right reverend Prelate delineated the role of the Church and NGOs—is a much better mechanism for overseas development delivery than cash in hand. Not only does it target resources at "the purposes intended" but also ensures that those most in need, as well as projects that will provide the most sustainable outcome, are the beneficiaries of those resources, both financial and human.

1775
By way of example, the Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce said:
"Public utilities are not efficient. Electricity is sporadic, roads are inadequate and communication is poor. All this increases the cost of doing business in Nigeria and impedes our ability to compete globally. In this context, privatisation is the key".
Does the Minister agree with this view that Nigeria's development is effectively being stifled by the failure to provide proper public facilities?
I turn to strand 7. This cites the commitment to,
"give particular attention to human rights, transparent and accountable government and core labour standards, building on the Government's ethical approach to international relations".
All well and good. But it will not have escaped the attention of the Minister that Select Committees of another place have expressed considerable concern here. As one item in the press puts it, their reports highlight,
"double standards in Labour's efforts to promote 'good governance' amongst repressive regimes".
Can the noble Baroness clarify how proposals to give extra aid to countries that Amnesty International has identified as perpetuating grave abuses of human rights—for example, Pakistan—advance the cause of human rights?
Of course, there is nothing wrong with the attempt to facilitate "joined up" government in the sense of cross-departmental application of human rights principles. But this raises a question. Few would argue anything other than that the policy of selling our gold reserves has acted detrimentally upon developing countries that rely on gold as a major source of income, many of them in sub-Saharan Africa. We have all read of the mounting tally of job losses in the gold-mining industry. Thus the policy is impacting most seriously upon those for whom government international development policy has been designed. That being so, were the Department for International Development and the Secretary of State consulted about the potential repercussions of the policy in advance?
This leads me to strand 9, which could be said to address some of the wise counsel of my noble friend Lord Eccles, in that it states that the Government will,
"encourage financial stability and the reduction of the external debt of developing countries to sustainable levels".
Again, there is an obvious question: what financial stability in the developing countries has been encouraged on the back of the policy to sell gold?
I turn briefly to the welcome speech of the Secretary of State yesterday. In the context of the annual £3.3 billion EC aid budget, she said:
"The weaknesses in the EC's development work are serious and we let down the European inspiration if we allow this to continue".
None of us can have any complaint about a desire to root out bureaucracy, mismanagement and a failure to ensure that funds are targeted effectively. That, after all, underpins the 12 strands of the Government's policy approach. Thus, can the Minister confirm that the Government are actively promoting the Secretary of
1776
State's views with our partners in Europe? Moreover, can we expect that the Secretary of State will in due course be as robust in her approach to other multilateral and international aid organisations such as the IMF and the World Bank?
The Government, on the back of their commitments in the White Paper, have in place what amounts to a code of best practice for delivery of our overseas development strategy. That is very welcome. I would not wish my comments tonight to be seen as carping. The point should be made, and has been made, that there are many excellent examples of successful implementation of that strategy. However, what should concern us is that, equally, there are more examples than is comfortable where it is not working. I simply express the hope that the Government will be rigorous in ensuring that the virtues of their policy are imposed across the board.
It is worth making a final, more general point, which is about what one might call the creative tension between government and opposition whenever this topic is explored. Every government, from the day after they are elected, live in a space where compromise is king. Every opposition revel in the luxury of purity of thought and opinion. But it is the duty also of every opposition to expose small compromises so as to strangle at birth the large compromises, the gross mismatches between identified tyrannies and our open cheque book. I hope that the debate has contributed to our understanding of this duty which is in truth a duty of care.
9.39 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing this important debate. His commitment to development issues is well known in this House. I should like also to congratulate my noble friend Lady Warwick on a notable maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear more from my noble friend in development debates in this House. I can assure her that such debates are always conducted with knowledge and expertise.
I shall speak in general terms. There are extensive examples of good practice projects in the country strategy papers which the Department for International Development has published. Noble Lords have given a number of examples in the debate.
World poverty is an immense problem, with a quarter of the world's population subjected to extreme poverty. There are no quick and easy solutions. That is why the Government have undertaken to mobilise domestic and international resources, and given a commitment to a determined long term assault on poverty.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned our commitment to a set of internationally agreed development goals to be achieved by the year 2015. Those goals are ambitious, but they are achievable with strong development partnerships. Most of all, success depends on the commitment of southern governments and on the vision, determination and example of southern leaders.

1777
In Africa we have seen in recent years what can be achieved by progressive governments in countries such as Ghana, Uganda and South Africa. Clear definition of our goals is of course important. But we need effective policies which will deliver results, and we need to take practical steps to ensure effective delivery. That is what good practice in long term development is about. It is about developing and implementing the right policy and it is about delivering those policies in ways which are effective, efficient and economical.
Let me say a word about our development policy principles. Our commitment is to coherent policy making—a point referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. At national and international level, trade investment, agriculture and environment policies must all support development. The debt burden of the poorest countries must be reduced if they are to be able to allocate funds for development, and especially for development of the skills and capacities of their own people.
The east Asian crisis has shown us that transparency and accountability are important if development is to be sustained over the long term. Sustainable development is achievable only if the right conditions—what we call an enabling environment—can be established. This would include development of a sound, consistent policy framework including a secure and stable economic and political environment which is open and equitable.
We need a sound, well co-ordinated institutional framework with an appropriate balance between the public sector and a well-regulated private sector. We need local leadership and ownership. We need sufficient local capacity and revenue. We need protection of the physical environment and in particular avoiding unsustainable exploitation. And we need consistent and well co-ordinated support from donors and the international financial institutions.
As I said earlier, committed partnerships are the foundations of successful sustainable development. We need long-term partnerships based on a predictable level of resource, and part of that resource transfer is of course technical assistance—a point which was promoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, and other noble Lords.
An example of a long-term partnership is the ten-year agreement signed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development with the Government of Rwanda. The agreement commits us to a fixed level of funding against measurable progress to be achieved in areas such as national reconciliation, good governance, poverty reduction and good economic management. We hope that the agreement will provide a framework around which other donors can also plan their long-term assistance. In India we are developing similar understandings with partners at state level.
Of course, central government cannot do everything. Local government, the private sector and civil society all have important roles to play, and local ownership is crucial. Local government can bring decision making for development closer to the people directly concerned.
1778
Civil society plays a key role in holding governments accountable, both in the North and the South, and in ensuring that citizens can realise their rights.
Local participation in ownership, including the participation of women and socially excluded groups, is essential for development if intervention is to work effectively and to be sustained over the long term. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the important role of the churches, and I would have to say that this is not just at local level, which was the point made very powerfully by the right reverend Prelate; we have also seen their important role in the debt campaign, which was a large international campaign.
Many projects and programmes supported by DfID promote community management, and there are examples of water supply and sanitation projects in India, Zambia and South Africa. We have education projects in Malawi and India. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we want to ensure that we are working sensitively with NGOs on the ground.
I would also like to say to the noble Viscount. Lord Eccles, that the state and markets also need to play a proper role. We know that authoritarian states are economically inefficient. We have learnt that unregulated markets lead to corruption, inequality and social exclusion. Sustained poverty reduction requires the engine of private sector investment to drive it. The noble Viscount referred to the important role of the CDC in driving some of this investment. That is why the Government have created the public-private partnership and, underpinning that partnership, stressed the importance of the CDC's investment policy.
Let me now turn to some of the specific points that were raised by noble Lords. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich mentioned Mozambique. We have fully and actively supported extending debt relief to Mozambique, and our wider policy on debt relief is focused on ensuring that the benefits of debt relief reach the poor. The Mozambique Government's poverty action plan, adopted in April of this year, provides a framework for achieving this.
The Government's commitment to increasing expenditure on health and education and improving quality and access, will also generate direct benefits for poor people. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede talked specifically about the importance of educating women and girls. Taking account of gender is a key dimension of good practice across all aspects of international development, and the removal of gender discrimination is one of the Government's key development objectives. Gender equality is essential for the elimination of world poverty, and we will shortly be undertaking an evaluation of our progress in this area.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, spoke specifically about Sierra Leone. During her recent visit there my right honourable friend Clare Short and President Kabbah agreed that top priority for bringing security and stability to the country was to implement the disarmament, demobilisation and re-integration programme as a start to rehabilitating the communities which have been devastated by the conflict. Teams from the UK are helping to train a new democratically

1779
accountable Sierra Leone army and they are also helping to establish the civilian structures necessary to ensure democratic control of the military. Given the time available, I shall write to the noble Viscount on the other points he raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned health and in particular HIV/AIDS. UNAids reports that 33 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, 95 per cent of them in the developing world, including 70 per cent of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Some 5 million people in India are infected. AIDS is contributing to worsening poverty and increased inequality. Good practice in combating HIV/AIDS is based on prevention and our growing knowledge of what works. We take a fourfold approach. First, information is important; secondly, condoms must he used to prevent infection; thirdly, STD treatment should be given; and, fourthly, blood must be safe. We are helping poor countries across Africa and in India to work on the basis of those four areas of good practice.
As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, knows, the Government have put resources into seeking a long-term vaccine for HIV/AIDS, but that is a long-term aim. Prevention is important.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, spoke about Nigeria. I am afraid that time does not permit me to go into detail, but I can say that as we re-engage with the Government of Nigeria, we believe that our priorities should be to look for opportunities to strengthen economic management alongside the World Bank and the IMF; to encourage the government to develop a coherent strategy for poverty reduction; to look for opportunities to strengthen public institutions; to replicate and develop the successful aspects of our decentralised projects in health, education, rural livelihoods and water; and to continue to build on our relations with civil society groups. I shall write to the noble Earl on his other questions and I shall also send him copies of our institutional strategy papers which cover the European Union and the UN.
Good management is critical in delivering good results consistently over the long term. However, sustainable development depends critically upon the management capacity of our national partners. We are working across the programme to enhance management
1780
skills and knowledge. Part of that capacity building is achieved through the commitment of volunteers, a point made eloquently by my noble friend Lady Warwick, An important aspect of good management is effective monitoring and evaluation. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that in recent years DfID has improved the quality of monitoring and evaluation in all its projects. Reviews and evaluations are carried out jointly with partner governments and increasingly to promote effective aid co-ordination in collaboration with other donors.
I say to the right reverent Prelate that we are also committed to ensuring that those who are intended to benefit from development are able to make their voices heard. Participatory monitoring and evaluation is one mechanism for ensuring that that happens. Another is the use of participatory poverty assessments which seek the views of poor people about what matters most to them.
It is also important that we recognise good practice, learn from it and share lessons learnt. The lessons that we learn need to be fed back systematically into policy, planning and implementation.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that ethnic minority groups are not involved in the development process. We have engaged in extensive civil society consultation and sought to include ethnic minority-led organisations in the development process. There are many examples where the department has supported organisations to enable them to access resources from the department.
In closing, I repeat that it is unacceptable that one in four of the world's population should be living in abject poverty. Changing that will not be easy. It will require concerted, long-term effort but we now know what works and what good development practice looks like. I endorse entirely the comments of my noble friend Lady Warwick that we need to build on and share experience and expertise; not only north-south but south-north. The world is changing. We must all give greater prominence to valuing diversity and difference and learning from it.
House adjourned at four minutes before ten o'clock.