HL Deb 29 July 1999 vol 604 cc1741-5

.—(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—

  1. (a) in accordance with such guidelines as directions may be issued to it by the Mayor under subsection (4) below,
  2. (b) for the purpose of facilitating the discharge by the Authority of the duties under this Act, and
  3. (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—

  1. (a) guidance as to the manner in which it exercises its functions,
  2. (b) general instructions as to the manner in which it exercises its functions, or
  3. (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 I am aware of time constraints, but I am also aware that had the amendment been formally withdrawn I would not have the right to move it.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.

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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 455AXC:

After Clause 315, insert the following new clause—