Lords Sitting of 14 June 1999

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

Young Offenders
Lord Hurd of Westwell Lord Hurd of Westwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in involving the family in planning the sentencing of young offenders.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn):My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that the families of young offenders take responsibility for their behaviour. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced the parenting order, which is currently being piloted. For young offenders, this Session's Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill introduces the referral order. That will involve them and their families attending a youth offender panel to work together to devise a programme to prevent further offending behaviour.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he confirm that experience so far indicates that it is useful to involve the family in plans for the nature of custody of a young offender and in the plans for his release, given that they have to "pick up the pieces" afterwards? I have two specific questions. Are the Government thinking of moving that same principle up the age scale to include
2
young adult offenders? On a smaller, practical point, has the Minister resolved the question of who should pay for transport to and from prison for that purpose?
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords. I unreservedly endorse the noble Lord's first proposition. All informed research—and I pay tribute to the Prison Reform Trust, of which he is the distinguished patron—indicates that the road to criminal behaviour starts at a very early age for most delinquent offenders, and that the sooner we assist them, the better. I wish to keep an open mind on taking the scale up in terms of age. We are presently doing a degree of work in that connection with welfare-to-work schemes in prison for 18 to 25 year-olds. That can involve family contact. In respect of paying for transport to and from prison, in the context of the Crime and Disorder Act and youth offender panels, such expenditure would not be covered. There are schemes for assisting family visits to prisons. They are reasonably well publicised, not least by the Prison Reform Trust.
Lord Janner of Braunstone:My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the steps that the Government are taking on this matter. Does he accept that young offenders' institutions really amount to prison for children and young people? Does he agree that it is better, where possible, for young people to be dealt with and, where necessary, to make recompense for their offences, outside institutions? Should not the community accept responsibility wherever possible?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I accept that if at all possible, especially in the case of young offenders, one seeks restorative justice whereby first-time offenders in particular have to make restoration to the victim, achieve reintegration into the community and, fundamentally, take responsibility for the consequences of their own behaviour. Unfortunately, it will be necessary for some to be trained in closed circumstances. Huntercombe young offenders' institution, for example, is doing remarkable pioneering work—and with the assistance of generous donations

3
from firms in the private sector such as Nissan and Kwikfit. Good work is being done; however, I agree that, if at all possible, we should seek to nip offending in the bud at an earlier stage.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is the Minister aware of research in the United States indicating that prisoners without family support are twice as likely, or even six times more likely, to offend than those who have family support? Is that not also the case with juvenile offenders? Most young offenders who come before the courts in this country are from broken families. Will the Government ensure that the central part of the new juvenile regimes that have been established will provide for the thorough involvement of the family?
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords, I am happy to agree with the theme identified by the noble Lord. The indicators for crime are known. They are: poor or broken family circumstances; families which have themselves been engaged in criminal activities; lack of work; and alcohol and drug abuse. It is important to view these matters on a wide spectrum. The work that my right honourable friend Mr Blunkett is doing in the education context is also of fundamental importance. Both the measures to which I referred—the 1998 Act and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill—put into effect the themes identified by the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the experience of restorative justice schemes, such as that run by the Thames Valley police force, reveals that the involvement of the family in identifying the criminality and the wrongness of the deeds of the young creates a framework in which they are better able to avoid criminality in the future? Would the incorporation of that process in sentencing for "custodiable" offences reduce the number of sentences taking a custodial form, thus reducing the probability of future offending by those young people?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I absolutely agree. I believe that the work done on the Thames Valley pilot scheme is first rate. It is based on the principles of restorative justice of which I spoke a moment or two ago. We believe that these measures assist families, some of whom have neither inner resources nor outward help. I believe that they are key to the problems with which we are wrestling; namely, the reduction of crime particularly among young offenders.
Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the facilities for family visiting at some young offenders' institutions are less than adequate? Can the Minister say whether the criticisms made by the inspectorate are now being addressed?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in my experience, provision for family visits is patchy and variable. That should not be tolerated. The work that the chief inspector does is extremely helpful in pointing out
4
deficiencies. But I stress, as I did with regard to Huntercombe a few moments ago, that some of the work being done is extremely effective and encouraging.

Schizophrenia: Treatment
2.44 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton Lord Williamson of Horton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, since some of the new and effective medicines for the treatment of schizophrenia, the atypical anti-psychotic drugs, are not being made available by some health authorities due to funding difficulties, they will seek to ensure that this situation is corrected as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman):My Lords, we have commissioned guidance to enable mental health professionals to provide the most effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. As part of the new money that we are making available for mental health in 1999–2000, we have allocated an extra £2.5 million for the new anti-psychotic medications.
Lord Williamson of Horton:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and action. A recent survey shows that rationing of these medicines is widespread. Does the Minister agree that greater account should now be taken of the long-term savings through fewer hospital admissions because of these drugs?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the cost-effectiveness of treatment should be looked at in the round rather than simply comparing the cost of one drug as against another. That is why we have commissioned the British Psychological Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists to produce guidelines, which will be published later this year, on effective treatment for schizophrenia that cover both drug and non-drug treatment. I hope that that will be one of the driving forces to challenge unacceptable variations in access to care.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Department of Health's recent paper Safer Services on homicides and suicides by those with mental illness made clear how important was the availability of so-called atypical drugs to ensure compliance. Can the Minister say specifically what action the department is taking in that respect?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the major new report on suicide and homicide by psychiatric patients is very important and highlights changes that could improve the safety of mental health care. There is often a perception that suicide and homicide by people with mental illness cannot be either predicted or prevented. I believe that the report of Professor Appleby in particular shows that there are lessons to learn and steps to be taken to help reduce those tragic incidents. I hope that the national

5
service framework for mental health will allow us to ensure that everyone is working on accredited guidelines and understands the effective treatments in this area.
Lord Skelmersdale:My Lords, that leads me very nicely to my question. Will the late lamented CHIMP, now re-christened CHIM (the Commission for Health Improvement)—because "CHIMP" sounded a bit silly—be studying schizophrenia treatments of this kind, and will the Government encourage them?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, the role of the commission will be to monitor the performance of health service providers in providing high quality care. One of the matters that it will look at is the guidelines that are being implemented and the adherence to accredited advice. One role for the commission is to look at the national service framework and to monitor, through clinical governance and inspections, how that is being implemented. There is also a role for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in looking in particular at the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of the new treatments as they come on stream.
Lord Thurlow:My Lords, while I warmly welcome what the Minister has said about the prospect of a new national framework for guidance, which I believe can make an enormous difference, is she aware that 91 per cent of psychiatrists would like to prescribe the new atypical drugs but are virtually rationed, and that to treat all new patients with them would increase the total bill for mental health medication by only 1 per cent?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, I am aware of considerable support among the mental health professional community, although we should not regard this as a panacea. The new anti-psychotics are very effective in some patients but not necessarily more effective than standard treatment nor are they necessarily without side effects compared with present treatments. I return to the evidence base on which funding decisions should be taken. That is why we believe that the guidelines, which we hope will be published later this year, will be very important in ensuring that we all work from a common set of data.
Lord McNair:My Lords, is not one of the lessons to be learned that the side effects of the drugs prescribed are a major cause of the problem to which the report refers? Does the Minister accept that there is a growing interest among users of mental health services in alternative and complementary methods of treating mental illness symptoms, in particular as regards nutrition? Does she agree that that may provide the opportunity for the cost savings which the questioner seeks?
Perhaps I may recommend that the Minister reads the article, Complementary therapies, in the 10th June issue of Mental Health Care, Volume 2.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion; I shall look at the article.
6
The noble Lord is right to highlight that we cannot consider individual issues in totally self-contained compartments. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, made that point. A range of treatments may be effective. That is why we specifically asked for the guidelines to consider non-drug as well as drug treatments
Earl Howe:My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that when the range of anti-psychotic treatments is examined by the national institute for clinical excellence the issue of affordability of newer types of drugs, as distinct from their clinical or cost effectiveness, will play no part whatever in its deliberations?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, we have not yet announced the programme of work for the national institute for clinical excellence. I should not like to pre-empt that. We have stated clearly that that organisation will look to provide advice based on the issues of cost effectiveness and clinical effectiveness.

Dental Clinics: Standards
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What authority will be responsible for the maintenance of standards of dental treatment provided for patients in the mixed private and National Health Service dental clinics now opening in large retail premises and whether controls and consumer rights will differ between the NHS treatments and those provided privately.
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, large retail premises are no different from any other mixed dental practice. The General Dental Council is responsible for both the professional conduct and fitness to practise of all dentists in the United Kingdom. Additionally, health authorities and the Dental Reference Service of the Dental Practice Board are responsible for the maintenance of standards of treatment for consumers within NHS dentistry.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As an elected member of the General Dental Council I discovered that its responsibility is to issue the educational curriculum and to pick up problems which have reached an impossible point, perhaps then having to take someone off the dental register. Does the Minister believe that there is a great gap between those two areas? Does she agree that an independent assessment system should be available—either run privately or provided by the Government at a cost? Many individuals now have private dentistry treatment either because they cannot obtain such treatment under the National Health Service or because they choose to do so. They should have some

7
means of being assessed independently. Few patients have any idea technically whether they are being treated well, badly or indifferently.
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, the noble Baroness pinpoints an important issue. As are several other regulatory bodies, the General Dental Council is concerned that its powers and abilities are not as wide or sensitive as it would wish. It has proposed a number of amendments to the Dentists Act, including proposals for a private complaints procedure, which I think would be helpful, and a performance review scheme. That could be achieved through the order-making power to strengthen professional self-regulation in the Health Bill, which returns to your Lordships' House this week. There are opportunities for improvement there.
We shall shortly issue a consultation document on regulating private and voluntary healthcare. We shall seek views on whether the current exemptions from regulatory arrangements, including exemption for premises primarily used by dentists for treatment, should continue. I think that there are opportunities for improvement in this area.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the issue is being overshadowed by the fact that the dental service is rapidly becoming a two-tier service under the present national health arrangements? Some attention will have to be given to that fact. Hard choices are now having to be made by people who can least afford to make them.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out that we inherited a situation which was the result of the promises of the former government, who did not invest in dentistry and allowed the rundown of dental services. That led to the inequalities and difficulties which are highlighted in some parts of the country. We have taken positive and successful action to tackle some of the worst areas by investing in dentistry and through personal dental services pilots. Twenty-four new pilots were announced as part of the Government's vision of a more flexible, accessible and convenient health service.
However, there is a great deal to do here. It would be wrong to suggest that we can put the matter right overnight. I hope that the strategy which we shall publish later this year will take us further along that road.
Lord Clement-Jones:My Lords, the Minister referred to drop-in centres that were announced recently. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred to retail developments. Are not these taking place in somewhat of a vacuum? The Minister referred to the strategy document being published later this year. The original intention to have a strategy was referred to in April 1998. Is it not high time that the strategy paper was published—and very soon?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that we shall publish it before too long. But the most important aspect
8
is to get the strategy right. We need to ensure that that strategy reduces inequalities in oral health status, improves access to NHS dental services, builds on the success of investing in dentistry and personal dental services, guarantees high quality services, and ensures that all members of the dental team can make the fullest contribution to improving services for patients. The major job is to get the strategy right, if we are to cover all those areas effectively. As I have said, I hope that the document will be published later this year.
Lord Rix:My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the Office for National Statistics survey of 1997, 96 per cent of all non-disabled children attended for an annual oral check while only 72 per cent of children with a learning disability did likewise? Similar figures apply to adults with and without learning disability. What safeguards and standards are being set for the new-style clinics in regard to the reception, treatment and encouragement to attend of people with a learning disability, both adults and children?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, the noble Lord highlights that in our strategy we need to make sure that we reduce some of the inequalities in oral health status which apply to different groups in the population, including the learning disabled, and in different areas of the country. We have to look overall at access to dental services from different groups which have particular difficulty. Community dental services in some parts have done good work in that field. I shall make sure that the points the noble Lord raises today are taken into account in consideration of the issue.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes:My Lords, does the Minister agree that, welcome though a complaints procedure may be—I am sure that it would be widely welcomed in consumer quarters—it is important that anyone involved in such proceedings should be expert but completely independent so that the advice he or she gives would give the additional help implied; and that, above all, the procedures should be easily available to those who may have to use them?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The procedures should be transparent and independent.
Earl Howe:My Lords, regardless of the position that the Government state they inherited, is the Minister aware that the number of adults registered with a dentist in the UK was 22.3 million in December 1997? However, the figure had fallen to 19.7 million by December 1998, a reduction of 2.5 million? What are the Government doing to make NHS dentistry more available to the many people who are unable to find an NHS dentist?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, my noble friend suggests I say that we should not and would not have started from here. The problem created by the withdrawal from NHS dentistry will take time to turn around. However, we have received 282 bids for

9
funding from investment in dentistry, which have been approved to the value of more than £8 million. That will enable more than 650,000 new patients to receive NHS care. However, some areas of the country have been complete deserts for NHS dentistry for some time and it will take some time to build them up and stop that being the case.

Military Intervention: Justification
3 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the conflict in Kosovo, it is appropriate to intervene in countries where governments are acting violently against sections of the population by methods which themselves cause injury and death and destroy the means of urban life and communication.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean):My Lords, NATO military action against the FRY was justifiable as an exceptional measure on the grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity. It was never part of NATO's agenda to attack civilian targets, nor to wear down the civilian population.
Lord Jenkins of Putney:My Lords, does my noble friend remember the saying of Archbishop Tutu: "If we can get rid of apartheid we can also get rid of war"? Is it not time, in this age of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and otherwise, to decide that war has become too dangerous to start and that all disputes with nations and within nations must be settled by other means?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I am sure that everyone in the House wishes that it had not been necessary to take the military action that we had to take. But we have to remember that our quarrel was not with the people of Serbia, not with those who have suffered inadvertently in this terrible military action, but with the barbaric policies of President Milosevic. I repeat to the noble Lord that it has never been part of our objective to attack civilians. All our attacks were limited to military objectives as defined under international humanitarian law.
I reiterate to the noble Lord, as I have done previously in your Lordships' House, that of course we regret civilian casualties and we have made every effort to avoid them.
The Earl of Lauderdale:My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Security Council has yet passed the resolution which will legitimise our performance and make an honest woman of us all?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not catch the end of the noble Earl's question. The Security Council has certainly passed a resolution, but he asked me something specific about it.
The Earl of Lauderdale:My Lords, we understood from a Statement made last week that the Security
10
Council resolution to be passed would embrace us all and give an overdue legitimacy to our action and—as I put it in a simple phrase—make an honest woman of us all.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I do not believe that we needed a Security Council resolution to make an honest woman of us all. as the noble Earl puts it. But he is right in saying that a Security Council resolution was passed last week. There was one abstention from China. We are all delighted that we were able to reach that degree of unanimity, albeit without China, on the Security Council.
Lord Richard:My Lords, in my view, the Government deserve great credit for their actions in Kosovo in the past few weeks, as do our Armed Forces. It is right that that should be put on record. However, my noble friend in answering spoke of the doctrine of overwhelming humanitarian necessity. Will she recognise that if that doctrine is in international law, it has a serious effect on Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations which states that no activity within the borders of an individual state shall be challengable by outside intervention.
I do not seek to argue whether it is right or wrong, but if we are moving into a time when overwhelming humanitarian necessity is a justification for outside intervention, will my noble friend recognise that it has to be done gradually and by agreement? Will Her Majesty's Government therefore take the initiative in, the United Nations to ensure that the doctrine of humanitarian necessity is properly discussed by the international community?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I believe that on a number of occasion:4 in your Lordships' House we have addressed the evolving nature of the legal basis of such action. I stress to my noble friend that every means short of force was taken to avert the situation. Your Lordships will remember the number of times we discussed the matter in June and October last year, when the Rambouillet talks were taking place. So this matter has not come out of the blue; it is something we have had to face up to. We were not alone in our judgment of the legality of what we were doing; 19 allies of NATO took the same view. We do not believe that we in any way offended against the Geneva Convention. We have also discussed that in your Lordships' House. However, I agree with my noble friend that these issues must be discussed openly and we have made a useful beginning in doing that in passing the UNSCR last week.
Lord Wright of Richmond:My Lords, while fully endorsing the congratulations to the Government and the Armed Forces on their role in Kosovo, and the role of our NATO allies, is the Minister aware that public opinion in some NATO countries has still swallowed Serb propaganda; that the suffering of the Kosovars is the result of NATO's intervention? Can she say what

11
the Government are able to do to correct that impression in other NATO countries and perhaps to some extent in this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright, for his kind words about the Government and the military. I am sure your Lordships will wish to join in his comment about the Armed Forces. I stress that we are not there yet; there is still much to do in Kosovo. The noble Lord said that there is a job to be done in a number of different NATO countries. It is remarkable that we have gone through this period of military action, 19 countries together, with all those countries holding together. We all know that there are differences; we all live in democracies and have a free press. People are entitled to say what they like about what happens, which is different from the case in Kosovo.
However, I suspect that as we go into Kosovo during the next few days we shall see not only more evidence of the dreadful atrocities which took place but shall learn more about what took place. I believe that everything we said about the displacement of people last year, about the 2,000 deaths of innocent Kosovars which took place before the bombing began, will come into focus and people will see that the bombing was a reaction to that and not the cause of it.

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

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg):My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Hacking:My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly before the Bill passes from this House. In doing so, I renew my congratulations to my noble and learned friend not only on bringing forward this important law reform, which has been in the wings for more than 100 years, but also on guiding it through your Lordships' House. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can hear what I am saying because a number of noble Lords are now leaving the Chamber and it is a little noisy.
I repeat to my noble and learned friend that this is a good Bill and a good measure to have brought forward. However, I have continued concerns that both the legal
12
profession and the judiciary will have difficulty in construing the Bill, particularly the terms under which a third party takes its benefit.
Perhaps I may briefly remind your Lordships of Clause 1(4) which reads:
"This section does not confer a right on a third party to enforce a term of a contract otherwise than subject to and in accordance with any other relevant terms of the contract".
That will not be difficult for the legal profession and the judiciary if the promisor and the promisee in the contract spell out in detail the terms under which the third party is to take its benefit. It may be that there will be difficulties if, in the contract, the promisor and promisee agree that not only disputes between themselves should be adjudicated by arbitration but also those between themselves and the third party should be adjudicated by arbitration. Here again my noble and learned friend has come to the rescue. He tabled an amendment in response to representations that I made that a third party will be able to use the arbitration clause in a dispute if it so wishes.
However, in other circumstances, when the promisor and the promisee do not set out in the contract the terms under which the third party is to take the benefit, the difficulty will be how and under what terms the third party receives its benefit. I had a solution which I proffered in the form of tabled amendments on Report; but, my noble and learned friend thought that I was going too far. I certainly received no support from any quarter in the House and I had the noble Lord, Lord Renton against me. That was a little disappointing as I have been his apostle on law reform for years and I thought that I was being his apostle in tabling those amendments.
My solution was that unless the contrary was expressed in the contract, the third party should take his benefit under the same terms as existed between the promisor and the promisee in the contract. As I indicated just now, my amendment was rejected. My noble and learned friend felt that I was taking the matter too far and that the amendment would infringe the freedom of contract.
I therefore ask my noble and learned friend if he could give assistance. He has already kindly indicated that he will look afresh at the Explanatory Notes to the Bill and see if they can be expanded. At the moment, as my noble and learned friend knows, they are somewhat bald in the assistance that they give to Clause 1(4). They read as follows:
"Subsection (4) clarifies subsection (1). The teen being enforced should not be construed in isolation from the rest of the contract".
That is somewhat bald. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could think of ways in which the Explanatory Notes could be expanded. I am perfectly well aware that concerns have been expressed about the use of explanatory notes. If, for example, an explanatory note was contrary to the terms of a Bill, now a statute, or went further than just giving guiding notes, of course it should have no influence on the courts. However, I believe here it would be of great value in giving guidance to the judiciary, and to the legal profession who are asked to construe these measures, if the

13
guidelines in the Explanatory Notes could be further developed. I should be grateful to have some assistance oil that from my noble and learned friend.
As the Bill now leaves your Lordships' House, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend what further plans he has to bring forward other Bills based on Law Commission reports. As he will recall, one of his noble and illustrious predecessors, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, set up the Law Commission. If I remember rightly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was its first chairman. The Law Commission has produced a number of reports over the years. However, the number which have been neglected and have not found their way into statutory reform is disappointing. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, expressed that view. My noble and learned friend indicated that he wishes to bring forward more measures based on the recommendations of the Law Commission. I should be grateful, therefore, if he could give some further indication of his plans in that respect.
Finally, perhaps I may personally thank the noble and learned Lord for accepting so many of the amendments that I have tabled. I have never had so many amendments accepted by any government minister, let alone by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am flattered and extremely grateful to him. I wish the Bill all good speed through the other place and congratulate my noble and learned friend on bringing it forward.
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his supportive observations and for his contribution during the passage of the Bill, upon which he has just remarked. That certainly led to some important improvements. I should also like to thank other noble Lords who participated in the proceedings, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Renton, and my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon.
Perhaps I was unwise to concede so much to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, because, as a result, I appear not to have satisfied him entirely and perhaps to have whetted his appetite. However, I am grateful for his appreciation for what I agreed to.
The reform effected by the Bill has been widely welcomed. I should take the opportunity to express my gratitude to the Law Commission for the excellence of the report on which the Bill is based. I am grateful to Professor Burrows for his continued assistance during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. It is primarily thanks to the Law Commission and to your Lordships that this valuable and well-polished piece of law reform is able to begin its journey to another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raised a particular point about the benefits conferred on third parties which third parties will be able to enforce when the Bill passes into law. The principle of the Bill is that third parties have the right to enforce the benefits, to which otherwise
14
they would not be entitled, which the parties to the contract have agreed they should receive. So, the extent of the benefit will depend upon the terms of the contract and, as ever, that will be a matter for the courts, as a court of construction, to determine.
My noble friend asked questions about Law Commission reports generally. First, I believe that we are doing rather well this Session. Two Bills from the Law Commission are going through; that is, this Bill and the Trustee Delegation Bill. No one is more supportive than I am in endeavouring to get upon the statute book as quickly as possible Law Commission reports and draft Bills which are plainly beneficial and uncontroversial. However, it is very often asserted of Law Commission reports that they are not controversial when your Lordships' House disagrees Typical areas in which the Law Commission has been very busy in times past and no doubt will be busy in the future, are family law, divorce law and the criminal law Quite frankly it can be asserted as often as those who support the proposition choose that what they propose is uncontroversial. Your Lordships will not find it uncontroversial; your Lordships will. find it highly controversial and such legislation has to take its place in the competition for scarce parliamentary time.
However, I am endeavouring to take certain initiatives and the Law Commission's recent practice of producing a policy paper in advance of the final report is greatly welcomed because it enables the Government better to plan ahead. I am also seeking to give a new priority to establish, through discussion between government departments, priorities in relation to areas in which Law Commission work could more usefully be focused; in particular, areas where the Government would be likely to desire to legislate.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Greater London Authority Hill
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty):My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Authority]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("or imposed")
The noble Baroness said I should perhaps apologise to the Committee for the fact that such a substantial Bill has attracted as its first amendment something that is not a bang and is barely even a whimper. The bangs, I am sure, will come later.
Amendment No.1 seeks to leave out of Clause 1(3) the term "imposed"—it is a term used in a number of places in the Bill—and to leave Clause 1(3) providing that,
"The Authority shall have the functions which are transferred to, or conferred",
on it, but not those which are "imposed" on it. The amendment seeks to do no more than understand whether the term "imposed" imports some other meaning than transferred or conferred. I suspect that it may be to do with responsibilities as distinct from powers, but the implication of the term "imposed" suggests that functions may be laid upon the authority against its will. I simply seek to understand what the Government mean by the term. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty:The noble Baroness stole my line about "bangs" and "whimpers" which we shall no doubt experience as the Bill progresses. There is nothing sinister about the wording. The term "imposed" is quite frequently used in legislation. It reflects the fact that the word "functions" includes powers and duties. It is common as a matter of drafting to refer to "conferring" powers and "imposing" duties. For example, the same wording was used without any great controversy in the Government of Wales Act in respect of the functions of the National Assembly for Wales. In short, it means that the Assembly will have the functions that Parliament decides from time to time that it should have.
I understand the noble Baroness's anxiety that governments should consult. No doubt this consultative and inclusive government will always consult on such matters. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, for this and for future governments, it is a matter for Parliament what duties shall be undertaken by local authorities, including the Greater London Authority. How those duties are imposed will therefore reflect the intentions of the government and Parliament at the time, but no doubt from time to time Parliament will impose duties as well as confer powers.
I hope the noble Baroness will not seek to press the matter further. There is adequate precedent for using the word "impose". I hope that she accepts that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes:I feel I must comment on the word "imposed". Legislation constantly imposes duties upon local authorities and now on regional authorities but never gives or guarantees the necessary funding to match the impositions. I feel that that point should be made.
Earl Russell:I understand the point the Minister makes. However, can the Government see their way to making it in less imposing language?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour:I did not speak on Second Reading but I am interested in this Bill and hope to join in debates from time to time. I felt that the
16
Minister replied in a very casual way. What would happen if the authority refused to have the power imposed?
Lord Whitty:I am not sure I can better the comment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Obviously my original intervention was not sufficiently imposing for the noble Baroness. I hope it was not casual. It is a matter of convention that the term "imposed" is used in relation to local authorities.
I accept in part the more general point that when we impose we should seek to ensure that we provide the resources to ensure that the duty is carried out. That is certainly this Government's intention with regard to the Greater London Authority. However, the word "imposed" is not inappropriate here. We use it in other areas of local government. In this devolution debate it is right that this Parliament should impose functions on local authorities and other assemblies within our devolved constitution.
The sanctions available if an authority refused to carry out the function would depend upon what function we were talking about. There are some sanctions in local authority legislation; there are others where the sanction is left to the electorate. It depends very much on how we draft the legislation. There are different powers within this Bill with regard to different functions. I am trying to resist the implication that the word "imposed" by definition is a draconian measure. It is not. It is one frequently used by the draftsman over the years.
Lord Avebury:I understood the Minister to tell the Committee that in all legislation it is usual to "confer" functions and "impose" duties. In this subsection there is no mention of duties. If we wish to impose something on a local authority, as we may well do, not just in this legislation but also in future legislation, should they not be duties and should not those duties be mentioned in the subsection as well as the functions?
Lord Whitty:This grammatical debate is taking some time. In my initial reply I said that "functions" subsumed both powers and duties, and that indeed is the case. The normal terminology therefore is to "confer" powers and to "impose" duties. In individual areas of this and other Bills, that is the terminology used.
Baroness Hamwee:My noble friend made the point I had in mind; that is, whether "functions" really does subsume powers and duties or responsibilities. When the Minister said he hoped I would not take the matter further, my noble friends, in a chorus, said, "Why not?". That was perhaps being a little mischievous. This may be an occasion—not to set a precedent for the rest of the Bill—when I can say that, although I shall read the Minister's answer, I do not believe I shall want to bring the matter back later. I thank him for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 2.
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("(4) In this Act, the Greater London Authority shall be referred to as "the Authority.")
The noble Lord said: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we are beginning this massive task with quite a small matter, but it is nonetheless important.
I must confess that on reading through the Bill, which consists of 328 pages, 330 clauses and 27 schedules, I found it occasionally difficult to remember what I had read before and the relationship between the individual parts. That may be inevitable, but the need for the amendment arose when I read Schedules 18 and 19, which relate exclusively to Clause 112.
Schedule 18 commences with the word "Interpretation" and gives various meanings in a list that fills nearly a page: it goes from a borough scheme to a charging area, to traffic signs and trunk roads. There is no mention of the authority.
On previous occasions when I have looked at legal documents I have always referred to the list of definitions. and everything that is required to be defined has been contained in that section. Therefore, I was surprised, having read the list in Schedule 18, to come across the words "the Authority". I had just read a page of definitions, but "the Authority" was not defined. The same situation applies in regard to Schedule 19.
The Bill is full of references to different authorities: all of the London boroughs are authorities; the Common Council of the City, the Police Authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; and even Transport for London can be called an authority. I could not recall anywhere in the Bill where "the Authority" was defined as meaning the Greater London Authority.
My initial reaction was to put down one amendment to Schedule 18 and a separate one for Schedule 19; but I have to confess to the Committee that I could not remember with sufficient accuracy 'whether wherever the words "the Authority" were used in the Bill they were used exclusively and precisely to mean the Greater London Authority, and that they could not mean anything else wherever they had been used.
I invite the Minister to consider the matter and ask him to give me an assurance that wherever the words "the Authority" have been used, they mean the Greater London Authority and nothing else. That would make me a very happy man. If he is unable to give that assurance, perhaps he can accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee:I understand why the noble Lord has raised this point because it is often difficult to see whether definitions relate to part or all of the Bill, and it is a bit like a treasure hunt. I am not sure that it is for me to make the noble Lord very happy, but is he not satisfied with the definition contained in Clause 329 which applies to the whole of the Bill?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton:I am grateful to the noble Lord and even more grateful to the noble
18
Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I trust that the Committee will accept that the amendment is unnecessary in so far as noble Lords will be pleased to note, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that Clause 329 of the Bill is an interpretation clause which sets out the meaning of various terms. In common with normal legislative practice, there is a consolidated interpretation clause in which definitions are brought together. Clause 329(1) states:
"In this Act…'the Authority' means the Greater London Authority".
I hope that reference meets the concerns spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith:I am delighted to receive that assurance. The amendment arose out of what I regard as a logical necessity to put definitions at the beginning rather than the end so that one knows what ground one is standing on before one starts. That is why it slipped my memory. I apologise to the Committee and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Membership of the Authority and the Assembly]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No.3.
Page 1, line 15, after ("London;") insert—
("() the Deputy Mayor;")
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 9, 10, 15, 17, 60, 61, 153, 64, 65 and 68 together. It is not such a formidable list because all of the amendments revolve around one key point; that the deputy mayor should be elected and not merely nominated by the mayor and plucked out of the ranks of the assemblymen. Other amendments are consequential on this amendment. Other amendments rectify the omission to refer to the deputy mayor in places where it would have been appropriate, unless it was the Government's intention that the duties of the deputy mayor were intended to be largely ornamental. I hasten to say that I do not believe that that is the case.
I shall deal first with the principal amendments in this group, which are Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 15. If the deputy mayor is not just to be an ornament, standing in at an engagement when the mayor is double-booked, we propose that the deputy mayor should be directly elected by the citizens—or should I say the people of London—in the same way and at the same time as they elect the mayor.
All the arguments that the Labour Party used for the election of the mayor I believe apply equally to his or her deputy. Electing the deputy will give hint not only status but a greater degree of authority than he can expect if he is merely selected from among the assemblymen. Furthermore, if he were to be selected from among the assemblymen there would be a grave danger of a conflict of interest should the mayor and

19
assembly disagree, as they are bound to do at some point, even assuming that the mayor is of the same party as the majority in the assembly.
Since the mayor and the deputy will not be running on a single ticket, theoretically—although it is unlikely—the mayor and his deputy might not be of the same party, and this of course would make for exciting times in the authority.
For the first time in a statute there is a separation of powers between the executive, in the form of the mayor, and the legislature in the form of the assembly. The mayor is elected on his own manifesto and carries out his own policies. The assembly is there to scrutinise how he does this, and only to a limited extent to exercise a check in circumstances where it disagrees. That check and balance disappears when one of the legislature of 4 per cent—to be facetious—has a dual role as a member of the legislature and as a member of the executive—poacher and gamekeeper simultaneously. I do not understand why the Government are opting for the choice of a nominated deputy mayor. Perhaps they are drawing on an analogy with the Cabinet, which has a Deputy Prime Minister who has absolutely no constitutional status or duties save for those that the Prime Minister may temporarily and revocably hand to him. The members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, draw their authority from their manifesto and majority in the House of Commons. The authority of the mayor comes directly from having been elected as an individual. The Government's whole raison d'être for having a directly elected mayor is to secure his total independence. Yet here they are tying him into the assembly.
Clause 41(2) states:
"The Deputy Mayor shall have such functions as may be conferred or imposed upon him by or under this Act or any other enactment, whenever passed or made".
What are those functions? One such function is that the deputy mayor will be a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. He can have some of the mayor's functions which are delegated to him to if the mayor chooses. Those are defined in Clause 31. While he is performing those duties, how will he simultaneously find the time to perform his duties as an assembly man? Most important, he temporarily acts in place of the mayor if a vacancy occurs, but with extremely circumscribed powers. Those powers are so circumscribed that there may be a virtual hiatus in many of the functions of the mayor's duties until a replacement is elected. There is no provision in the Bill as to what is to happen if the mayor is incapacitated for a while.
If the deputy mayor is to perform some of the mayor's functions either because the mayor delegates them to him or because the mayor becomes incapacitated in some way, or perhaps because the Secretary of State gives them to him under some residual power or other, then the voters are entitled—I stress "entitled"—to know in advance who that deputy will be. Indeed, they should choose him for themselves.
With a properly elected deputy who has the authority which I have already mentioned of being elected by the voters, it would be natural for him to take over the office on a permanent basis in the event of a vacancy or during the mayor's long-term incapacity. In a way, that is just like the vice-president of the United States of America. It would also avoid the rigmarole and expense of a by-election if a vacancy occurred in the office of the mayor.
I acknowledge that if the main amendment is accepted, many amendments will be needed to other parts of the Bill. However, if that must be done to get right the status and functions of the deputy mayor, the extra effort will be a price worth paying. I certainly pledge my co-operation in working out what needs to be done.
I referred to the possible need for amendments to other parts of the Bill if the main amendment is accepted. I do not believe that the Government would complain about that, for the Bill has already grown from 267 clauses and 21 schedules when it was first introduced in the other place to the 330 clauses and 27 schedules which the Committee is now being asked to consider. Legislate in haste and amend at leisure.
That brings me to what I described as consequential amendments, although some stand on their own irrespective of whether the Committee accepts the principle of an elected deputy mayor. Amendment No. 38 makes it clear that the authority consists of the mayor, the deputy mayor and the assembly. Omitting a reference to the deputy mayor from the list is demeaning to the office of deputy mayor, even though the Government's plans were that he should merely be a nominee of the mayor, with very limited powers and duties. Perhaps that omission underlines the absence of status and, perhaps I may say, dignity to which I referred in my earlier remarks.
Whether or not he is directly elected, there is no justification for making him a virtual non-person in the definition of the authority. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment as being right and proper. Amendment No. 17 relating to the term of office of the deputy mayor and Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 63, 64 and 65 relating to the disqualification of persons from being deputy mayor are dependent on it being agreed by the Committee that he should be directly elected. Amendments Nos. 66 and 68 are also entirely dependent on an agreement to elect the deputy.
I hope that the Government will accept that the direct election of a deputy mayor is far more democratic than the mayor selecting his own deputy without the assembly or the electors being able to gainsay it. Perhaps that last thought will make the Government pause and reflect on the matter and accept this and the consequential amendments to which I have just spoken. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee:I am not sure whether in this group of amendments the noble Baroness proposes that the deputy mayor should be elected on a joint ticket with the mayor or whether a separate vote is involved. If it

21
were to be on a joint ticket, then the electors would not be presented with any additional choice. If anything, the matter would become rather more confusing and difficult for the electors.
The manifesto on which the mayor will be elected will be very much the mayor's manifesto. I believe that that is right, given that the model which is proposed in this Bill is that it is for the mayor to create and revise strategies and to put forward policies. The proposal that the deputy should be directly and separately elected may be rather confusing. The noble Baroness compared the situation with the US presidency, but the situation in the United States is different in that there the deputy would take over and literally has the possibility of having his finger on the button for the rest of the four-year term. These proposals would involve a by-election. Therefore, we are not comparing like with like.
To my mind, the most important point is the possibility of the choice of a deputy mayor from out of the assembly, which allows for a pluralist approach and a reflection of the diversity of the assembly which is likely to be created, given the form of elections that we shall have. It may well be that there will be no political majority in the assembly and even if there is, the culture of the authority—comprising the mayor on the one hand and. the assembly members on the other—will be co-operative, consultative, cross-party and extremely constructive. To allow for the appointment of the deputy from among the men and women who make up the assembly may be one factor which helps to encourage that.
Lord Whitty: This is a rather novel proposal by the noble Baroness. She may be at a slight disadvantage because it may be slightly more logical for the amendment to be taken with other amendments to be taken later which deal with the assembly being only effectively a delegate body from the London boroughs. The noble Baroness will not be surprised that we intend to resist that amendment. But were the totality of the Conservative vision for the structure of the authority to be adopted, there may have been some scope for discussing whether the deputy mayor should be designated as a member of the assembly.
However, with an elected assembly and a directly elected mayor, I do not believe there is much of an argument, whether on a joint ticket or a parallel election, for a directly elected mayor. I am not aware of a similar situation being pursued elsewhere in local and city government. The noble Baroness tried to give two analogies to the Committee. The first in relation to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister is not entirely correct. The Deputy Prime Minister currently has a wide range of powers, as the Committee will know because I represent him in this Chamber. However, this is an entirely different situation, with a directly elected mayor and an assembly whose main role is one of scrutiny.
Nor is the analogy with the United States entirely appropriate. Indeed, from the early history of the United States, it seems that the case for a directly elected mayor is fraught with difficulties. The Committee may recall that in the early years the vice-president was not elected
22
on a joint ticket but separately, or in effect as the runner-up. One of the early vice-presidents became fed up with the president. He ran off and tried to declare Louisiana independent. Gore Vidal wrote an interesting although probably not entirely accurate book on the man. Subsequently, John C. Calhoun almost went on, as Vice-President, to declare South Carolina independent—after he had fallen out with his President. Vice-Presidents running on a separate ticket are not a particularly good analogy—unless the noble Baroness wants Hendon or wherever declaring UDI within the Greater London Authority.
If the mayor were to run on a separate ticket, the deputy mayor would clearly have a separate but equal mandate. If they were running on the same ticket, what would be the difference between the mayor designating his or her own deputy and the mayor having a running mate? It certainly would not increase the range of choice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. It is possible that, if there were parallel elections, the deputy mayor would receive a larger number of votes than the mayor—which would create an interesting problem. Because of the allocation of functions, it is clear that the mayor's view would prevail. Were there to be an equal or arguably higher legitimate vote for the deputy, how would that appear?
If the two were elected on a joint ticket and subsequently fell out over policy, how would that problem be resolved? The whole administration could soldier on but there would be a degree of political stalemate and the authority's energy would be diverted to in-fighting and stand-offs because the mayor would be unable to sack or replace his or her deputy with someone who shared his or her views or whose support the mayor needed in the assembly. That seems a recipe for chaos.
As to whether or not the deputy mayor appointed by the mayor should be a member of the assembly, the whole rationale is that there is some division of powers between the assembly and the mayor. The deputy mayor will, in a sense, be a bridge between the two parts of the authority—so that they have a shared sense of purpose and work together for the people of London as a whole. That is a reflection of consensual politics among the institutions in the authority. We propose one or two specific roles for the deputy mayor, including that he or she must sit on the new police authority. That would provide a vital link between the assembly, mayor and new democratic policing structure that we are putting in place. That link would be undermined by the amendments.
The Opposition argue that if the deputy mayor were an assembly member, the role of the assembly would be blurred. That is not the case. The assembly would have clearly defined powers to call to account the mayor, deputy mayor and other members of the Administration. The mayor would have to answer to the assembly and justify actions and reasons. Other than the deputy mayor, no assembly member would have executive functions. The rest of the assembly's scrutiny role, therefore, would not be compromised. The assembly will be seen to be at the heart of the mayor's

23
accountability. The deputy mayor will perform functions that would help the mayor link to the assembly's priorities and procedures.
Were the mayor to be separately elected there would be considerable constraints on the mayor's ability to act throughout his or her term of office. Were a deputy mayor to be designated by the people, the mayor would not be free to structure his administration as he saw fit—which may change during the course of the period of office. The mayor could not, therefore, appoint a new deputy in mid-term whatever the circumstances. The amendment would rule out that possibility, which would seriously constrain the mayor's freedom of action.
The noble Baroness will see that there are many difficulties in the concept of a parallel and directly elected deputy mayor. She herself indicated that there would have to be a large number of consequential amendments, although I congratulate her on spotting the number that she did in this group. Given the structure that we are proposing, which the House and the London electorate have endorsed, a directly elected deputy mayor would not be sensible. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Young: Before my noble friend decides, I want to take up some of the arguments used by the Minister. I was surprised when he said that there is no such arrangement in local government. There is no such arrangement as a directly elected mayor in local government anyway, so we are talking about something quite different. As we are entering into an arrangement that is uniquely introduced into British local government for the first time, it is right and proper that my noble friend should raise the points she has.
In my days in local government, the deputy lord mayor played an important role. Reading the Bill, it seems extraordinary that the office of deputy mayor of London is not stated and made. That office must be a significant part of the governance of London. The Minister said the intention was that the deputy mayor would sit on the new police authority and be the link person. That clearly indicates the importance that the Government attach to the office.
The Minister made much of the argument that the amendment might present the opportunity for conflict. From my reading of the Bill and understanding of the assembly's structure, I would have thought it was a recipe for conflict. All the way through, there are to be two lots of directly elected people in London. There are bound to be endless conflicts between the boroughs and the mayor's department—all directly elected and all arguing for different things. If the Minister is in doubt, any of us with experience in local government outside London knows perfectly well that there are conflicts at this very moment between districts and counties. That will be repeated in London.
The question for the Committee is what is likely to make for the most effective form of government in London, on the assumption—it is certainly mine—that we want this set-up to work and be in the interests of Londoners and good government in London. I do not
24
think that has been thought through by the Government. My noble friend has a real point about the importance of the deputy mayor. I fail to see any reason why he or she should not be directly elected.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I apologise to the Committee and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I did not make it clear that the proposal was for an election on a joint ticket—not a separate election.
The Minister commented on my remark that extra drafting would be necessary. I was trying to make the point that since the Bill left the other place there has already been an enormous amount of redrafting, with 67 new clauses. The Minister said there was more redrafting to come. That is symptomatic of recent Bills. For example, one hardly recognised the Employment Relations Bill when it reached here from the other place. Redrafting is no reason for not being concerned.
The Minister did not answer my point that this is very much a new way of doing things. This is the first statute to attempt to divorce the executive from the legislature. That has to be done carefully and without muddying the waters. Clause 41 definitely muddies the waters. On the one hand, there is an assembly whose duty it is to scrutinise the work of the mayor. Then all of a sudden, the deputy mayor appears to be selected from the assembly. That weakens the whole idea of a separation of powers and must be looked at again.
The other point that I should like to raise with the Minister, because he did not seem to answer it, is one made by my noble friend Lady Young relating to Amendment No. 3. The amendment refers to Clause 2(1) of the Bill, which says:
"The Authority shall consist of— the Mayor of London; and an Assembly for London, to be known as the London Assembly'.
The point I was making was that the wording should read:
"The Authority shall be the Mayor of London, the Deputy Mayor of London and the Assembly".
Whether or not it is decided that the deputy mayor should simply be someone chosen from the assembly, the point is that if the deputy mayor is going to have these roles and functions to stand in for the mayor in certain designated areas under the subsection that I mentioned earlier, he will be an important part of the authority and should be so named. I shall be most grateful if the Minister can comment on that amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister responds, perhaps he could answer some of the questions posed by my noble friend Lady Young. I believe that he was about to do so before my noble friend rose to speak. I shall be most interested to hear his answers. I should like to say to my noble friend Lady Miller that I do think it makes all the difference in the world that she meant that the mayor and deputy mayor should be on a joint ticket. I was picturing the kind of

25
disagreements that might arise if they were elected separately. I did not rise to support my noble friend because I could not see that working.
However, if it is a joint ticket, that would be a very different thing. No doubt it would be seen by some as a dream ticket, but these two would doubtless work together in tandem satisfactorily because they would have been elected to do so. It is a much more serious amendment if it is a matter of a joint ticket. Therefore, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply, especially to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Young.
Lord Whitty: I was going to intervene on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in two senses. First, I believe that she misunderstood my reference to equivalence. I was talking internationally in terms of local government or of city governments. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent where you have a separately elected deputy mayor. But I also think that the case is probably true on a joint ticket if there is a mayor and he then appoints the members of his administration. That is how we envisage it.
Secondly, I did not quite follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she said that there is already conflict of authority, if not legitimacy, here between two lots of directly elected people when you interpose a third directly elected person with slightly different functions. The point of the deputy mayor from our point of view is threefold. First, he will be deputy in the strict sense of the word. Once appointed, he can take up duties which the mayor requests him to do. Secondly, there are some specific roles, in particular in relation to the Metropolitan Police, where I believe it would probably not he appropriate for the mayor to be on the authority. But it would make sense for a clear link between the mayor, the assembly and the police authority. The general roles of deputy mayor are outlined to a large extent in Clause 41 of the Bill.
Thirdly, our intention is that the deputy mayor should act as a link between the two directly elected bodies, one of which is there primarily for scrutiny while the other is there primarily as the executive. There is an area of conflict clearly envisaged in that demarcation/separation of powers. Giving the deputy mayor some specific recognition will not make him the equivalent of the mayor, with the equivalent legitimacy of the mayor, as perhaps would apply if one included him in every phrase where, if one referred to the mayor, you put instead "the mayor and the deputy mayor". I believe that that is the logic of the noble Baroness's position.
However, it does give a separate position which, on the authority of the mayor and on the authority of the legislation, can provide a bridge between the two parts of this authority. That is unique. I argued against the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, saying that her position was unique, but this is pretty well a unique link that we are establishing here. It is an innovative position to provide separately for an executive power in local government and for the scrutiny power in local government. Therefore, it is important that we also provide mechanisms which give a link between the two.
26
In our view, the deputy mayor is one of the ways in which that function can be carried out. I believe that that would apply whether we were on a joint ticket or whether there were separate elections. Clearly it would apply even more strongly if there were a separate election, but it would also apply were the deputy mayor effectively to achieve the same degree of legitimacy by being on a joint ticket.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I may pursue that point with the Minister. I listened with great interest to what he said. He has revealed a great deal more about what the Government intend should be the role of the deputy mayor. The deputy mayor is obviously an extremely important person. Not only is he the link with the police authority but, if I understood the Minister correctly, he will also be the link person between the executive and the—I am not quite sure how to describe this—assembly of the new authority. Indeed, I should have thought that the parallel with an American vice-president would in fact become stronger, although it is not one that I would have drawn at the beginning of the debate.
Far from actually strengthening the Government's case, I believe that the argument that the Minister has made out has strengthened the case of my noble friend Lady Miller. If you are to have someone who will be so powerful in this organisation, surely that person ought to be linked with the mayor on a joint ticket for the election so that everyone knows; otherwise, you will have an election and the most important person after the mayor will be chosen presumably by the mayor—or possibly by a few of his colleagues, but how are we to know because the procedure is not laid down?—for a position which will be extremely important. I should have thought that that undermined the democratic element involved: the right of electors to know who they are getting for this important job. I wonder whether the Minister would like to think about this again.
Lord Whitty: There are two points I should like to make, one of which I suppose is the trump card that I was keeping up my sleeve. First, the deputy mayor as described in this legislation and as envisaged for this authority would be an important figure. He would be able to represent the mayor, but he would be a member of the mayor's administration. He would not be of equal or of virtually equal legitimacy to the mayor in democratic terms. It is true that he would perform a hybrid role as a member of the assembly and as a member of the executive; indeed, he would be the only person who would be able to do so as distinct from the current pattern of local government within this country. Therefore, it is a new structure. However, if you put on that very important person the additional power of direct election equivalent to the mayor, you would actually be building in a recipe for further rather than less conflict.
Secondly—I hope that this will not be regarded as a throw-away point—we did of course pass an Act in this Chamber for a referendum. The people of London did vote on the structure of the GLA and that had

27
two directly elected components, not three. Therefore, were we to raise the spectre of a third directly elected element within this constitution at this stage of the proceedings, I think it would be possible to argue that that would undermine what the voters of London had already indicated they were prepared to accept. Indeed, from the overwhelming endorsement that that referendum had, it was very much welcomed. If nothing else, I hope that that will help convince the noble Baroness not to pursue the matter.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: As the Minister continued with his response, I have to confess that I became even more confused, especially when he threw down his trump card about the deputy mayor being part of the administration. The point I was trying to make was that either we have separation of powers or we do not. It is my view that this muddies the water. However, at this stage I shall take the matter away and read in Hansard with great care what the Minister said. Perhaps he will consider the arguments that we have put forward today so that we can pursue the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 2, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—
("(2) The Assembly shall consist of 33 members comprising—

(a) one nominated representative from each London borough; and

(b) one nominated representative from the Corporation of London.

(3) The Mayor shall he returned in accordance with the provisions made in or by virtue of this Act for the holding of elections and the filling of a vacancy in the office of Mayor.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 4 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 38. They all revolve around another point that would certainly alter the constitution of the assembly. It is, I admit, a pretty forlorn hope that having expended so much effort and parliamentary time on the present set-up, the Government will have second thoughts now and allow the sensible and logical set-up that we propose. I understand the difficulties for the Government. However, I hope that by some miracle the light of reason breaks through and the Government accept some of the amendments and some drastic rewriting of other parts of the Bill that would consequently be required.
However, as I have already pointed out, the Bill has been drastically rewritten once since it started life in the other place. Although further changes would involve more investment of parliamentary time I believe that it would be a sound investment compared with the time that would be needed at some future date to resolve the problems that will face our capital city under the present unsatisfactory scheme. I believe that this Chamber is entitled to an explanation from the Minister as to why the Government have chosen this particular mixture of constituencies and PR.
28
The Labour Party promised us when in opposition to bring local government nearer to the people. Its manifesto stated:
"Local decision making should be more accountable to local people".
Yet the Government have created another complete layer of government. The 14 elected constituency members are to represent 14 new giant super constituencies that have no historical connection other than that parts of them happen to border on others. How is bigger better?
There are then 11 members elected on the notorious party list system. If they have any ambitions to stay as members of the assembly from one election to the next, to maintain their position as high up the list as possible, they will need to put party loyalty before concern for the welfare of London. They will, of course, represent no constituency and no constituents. So how are they closer to the people? If recent newspaper reports are correct, the Prime Minister has turned the whole concept of representative government on its head. He is reported as reminding some of his Members of Parliament that their job is not necessarily to represent the views of their constituents but to see that the constituents have current Labour Party policy explained to them and to ensure that they understand it.
The 14 super constituencies are by no stretch of the imagination coterminous with any of the London boroughs. Suppose there was a conflict over some issue between two neighbouring boroughs. How would the constituency assemblyman represent the different interests of the two boroughs in his constituency? The ideal solution, as we have consistently proposed from the outset of the consultation and the legislation, is one member of the assembly for each borough, including the City of London. nominated by the borough that he or she represents. That gets rid of the paraphernalia of electing the assembly and the complicated machinery of elections and by-elections because it can be assumed that the party with the majority in a local council will choose to have someone from within that party to represent its borough. That is democratic enough. The only problem that could arise would be in a borough with no overall control where a certain amount of hard bargaining might be needed.
The Government's answer to the question of why each assemblyman cannot represent a single, historically identifiable borough is that he would be too parochial. That word was mentioned many times in the other place. So much for subsidiarity. So much for bringing local government closer to the people. The Government say that they want the members of the assembly to think strategically, not parochially. The Minister in the other place said that he did not want members of the assembly to push forward their case at a local level but to think of London as a whole. My honourable friend in the other place described that idea as "complete twaddle". He added:
"It ignores human nature but even worse it is an attempt to rewrite the democratic process".
He puts my case precisely.
A survey in the Evening Standard early in 1998 showed that 10 out of 19 town halls were opposed to the Government's proposals on constituencies. The Minister's response on Second Reading in the other place was to trot out a letter dated the day before the Second Reading which stated that the view that the assembly should consist of representatives of the boroughs was,
"not a view shared by a majority of boroughs in the Association of London Government".
I hope that the Minister does not mind my pre-empting part of his response by anticipating that he might quote from the same letter. It will save my having to point out that the view expressed in that letter was not mooted at an actual meeting of the ALG. According to my honourable friend it was mentioned at the leaders' committee several months previously. No vote was taken and there was no debate on it. I shall not take up more of the Committee's time in arguing this matter. I do not believe that I have to make a case for the assembly that I propose. I believe that it is for the Government to justify the peculiar and ramshackle set-up they have constructed. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 to 16 inclusive.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: That is not the reason why I do not agree with the noble Baroness with regard to this group of amendments. We think it is essential that the new authority takes a strategic approach. I accept that the noble Baroness has included that in her "job description" in this group of amendments. However, I believe that the model which she proposes would make it difficult for the members to approach their job strategically.
I believe that the assembly will be rather on the small side easily to permit a mix of constituency and London-wide views. The noble Baroness talked passionately about the need to support the different parts of London and the different boroughs. I do not argue against that. However, I think it is particularly important that the members achieve the right mix of a pan-London approach in their work with an understanding of the particular parts of London. The Government's model proposes that the constituency members will have that mix: other members will have it simply through their backgrounds. I do not think it is necessary for each member to represent one identified, discrete borough in order to achieve the understanding and feel for different parts of London which I believe will be a part of the job.
The remit of the assembly is to be scrutiny, not policy making. I suspect that to have direct borough representation could well be counter-productive to the fulfilment of that role. On considering this group of amendments I wondered whether borough representation might even stand in the way of a good relationship between the authority and the boroughs. It is important that the authority has regard to the views of the boroughs and that it liaises with them. I believe
30
that it should liaise with them direct, not through the representatives who are members of the assembly. In other words, we should not have the situation where individual members attend a meeting of the assembly and speak for the boroughs as that in itself could be a block to the right relationship between the authority and all the London boroughs.
One reason for the need for that relationship may be because any given borough will wish to put forward not just a single, simple view on each issue. Some boroughs will not be under the control of one political party, but even if that is not the case I hope that there will be the scope for all council members who have sensible things to say in dialogue with the authority to be able to put their views forward. I believe that to have a single representative might represent something of a block to that. I can even envisage a situation where representatives of the boroughs, as assembly members, could get sucked into the decisions of the authority. One can see that happening from time to time. That would make it even more difficult for such members to argue a distinct borough position.
We on these Benches believe that London needs a London government. The success of the GLA will in part be measured by reconciling the interests or different parts of London—the different geographical parts, different social parts, people in different types of employment and so on; the list is quite long. To sum up, the GLA should reconcile and take forward the interests of the various communities of London, of which we are all members. Those communities need to be pulled together at a strategic level and not taken over from the boroughs. I stress that in making these points we are not concerned to block borough interests—quite the opposite—but the GLA should be more than a collection of boroughs; in our view, the whole must be more than the sum of the parts.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the amendments moved by my noble friend. On page 9 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill it states that there will be 14 members directly elected under the first-past-the-post system and an additional 11 under the d'Hondt formula. As I understand it, that system was used for the European elections. In my constituency in Oxfordshire, under that system, the Liberal Democrats closed list was so closed that we were not sent the names of the candidates. I found that fascinating.
Any borough se-up would be better than the way suggested in the Bill. Even in the 14 constituencies which are to have direct elections, the candidates will be selected, presumably, on a party basis. I do not think the party selection process is as good as a system of direct election. Under the compromise put forward by my noble friend in these amendments, whereby each borough would nominate someone for the assembly, at least the people nominated would have been directly elected by constituents in the boroughs concerned. They will have been through a direct electoral process, which is much preferable to the d'Hondt system. Can the

31
Minister assure us that the Government are prepared to look at an alternative way? This half PR system seems to me to be only half good.
Baroness Young: I was interested when the Minister referred to the referendum on London government. Although he did not say that he was going to play it as his trump card, he clearly regarded it as very important. If my memory serves me correctly there was a very low poll then of approximately 35 per cent; hardly an overwhelming majority. The likelihood is that, except for about 25, hardly any of those voting actually understood the intricacies of the proposed voting system.
I am even more surprised that the Minister can defend such a system after our experience of the European elections last Thursday. Even in the polling station the ballot paper was regarded as a joke. I do not consider it funny at all; it is extremely serious that such a totally discredited system should be employed in London. I do not live permanently in London, but I would not wish on London that kind of an election. Whatever else the Government do or do not do, they should reconsider the whole system, which has been thoroughly discredited.
Lord Avebury: The noble Baroness has used the word "discredited" on a couple of occasions. Is that simply because of the low poll? If so, would not she then apply the same etiquette to elections which have been held for local government in the past, where polls as low as 10 per cent have been recorded? Does not that discredit also her system as well?
Baroness Young: I have fought a number of local government elections and the poll—although, admittedly, not as high as I wished—was always between 40 and 50 per cent. A figure of 23 per cent throughout the country is a very low poll. I dislike what happened because of the number of people who said to me, "Who are we voting for?" From much of the literature which dropped through one's door, one did not know for whom one was voting. Therefore, although we have representatives in the European Parliament, there will be absolutely no means of communicating with them. That seems to me a "discreditable" election and I stand by that word. The Government should think again.
A further difficulty is that the new constituencies are not coterminous with the London boroughs. Perhaps I may make a very serious point about local government. In my experience of local government, one of the great difficulties—I do not think it has yet been resolved; it is a matter about which all local governments are concerned—is the lack of coterminous areas for the different functions which affect the population at large. In local government there are police authorities, water authorities and so on, all operating under different areas. It is very difficult for people to understand. The idea that this will somehow be made more transparent simply is not true. It is a recipe for conflict.
32
If we are to have a system of voting similar to that of last Thursday, there will be an even lower poll than at the European elections. People will have no idea for whom they are voting or what they are supposed to be doing. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is looking for splendid people who are able to take an overall view of the needs of London and at the same time understand the intricate local details of the London boroughs. She is looking for paragons. If she found them, it would be a triumph of hope over experience. We are unlikely to find people able to fulfil both tasks.
A very complicated structure is being created for London which by no means can be described as democratic in the way that we have always understood. It will have a built-in conflict between the boroughs and the assembly and the party list people. For instance, transport is one of the most difficult issues with which to deal, particularly when one is dealing with road schemes, bus lanes and other matters of public transport. There will be two groups interested in that subject—the new authority and the boroughs—and each group will be represented by different people on different boundaries. It is most improbable that that will be more efficient. The Minister should look again at some parts of this package.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister previously indicated that the Government were not too keen on Amendment No. 4 and the notion of nominated members. If he is to tell us that, will he at the same time give his attention to the notion that there should be 33 members of the authority? Even if the Minister insists on direct election to the authority, if there were to be one member from each authority—and here I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—it would be an enormous advantage to the person taking the strategic view to have been elected from the authority which will have to put matters into practice.
When I was a councillor—it was some time ago; I am not pretending I am up to date but I believe matters have not changed—I was a member of the strategic authority. I came from one of the lower authorities. I would talk to the lower authorities; I would consult them; I knew exactly how the strategic decisions would affect them, but that did not mean that I was not detached when I made a decision.
To be elected from two or two-and-a-half authorities, which is what will happen, is a fairly strange idea. There is something to be said for having 33 members of the authority, even if they are elected. I wonder whether the noble Lord will consider that part of the amendment even if he will not accept all of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who has enormous experience of local government—she knows a great deal more about it than I do—will be able to help him on this matter; perhaps not at the moment, but as time goes on. I think it is one that he should consider.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may express one or two doubts about the amendment to add to those more serious ones raised by my noble friend. If I understand the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, correctly,

33
she is suggesting that the 33 members will be nominated. Yet the processes for the election of London and individual members are not omitted entirely; they are merely modified. So at the end of the day I am not sure whether we are talking about election or nomination.
Perhaps I may respond briefly to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is true that there is a conflict of interest in a county council between one's duty to consider the well-being of the county council and one's desire to represent one's constituents. However, as I understand the Bill, the position will not he the same under the new authority where the assembly members will have a strategic role but will carry out very little day-to-day detailed administration of individual projects.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I wish to ask the Minister some questions. Why was the figure of 25 chosen? Why has that 25 become a division of 14 and 11? I ask the Minister to take seriously the points made by my noble friends Lady Gardner and Lady Young.
I was in Ireland over the weekend. On the lamp-posts, in the streets and in the houses were names and pictures of human beings who wished to represent that country in Europe. I was very struck by that because the European elections have been the first I remember in 30 years where I hardly saw a poster from one end of Britain to the other. Could that possibly be because no one knew who they were voting for? Is it too late for us to acknowledge that the turnout of 23 per cent was not good? Is it too late for him to go back to the Deputy Prime Minister and say that perhaps strategically it is wise to have 25 and perhaps there is a reason for not having 32, but would it not be wise for those 25 all to have to stand in front of the electorate and state that they wish to be elected to the assembly? Is it too late to ask the noble Lord not to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "Frankly, we have decided. We have not taken any notice of what happened in last Thursday's election. We will go back and we will reconsider. It is possible that we may even have made a mistake"?
Lord Tope: The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, has once again provoked me to intervene. I was interested in his experiences in Ireland during the recent European elections. I therefore look forward to his support later on today when we move amendments for elections by the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies, a system identical to that which he has just been praising in Ireland. We look forward to his support later today.
Most of today's debate has been about the shortcomings, or the perceived shortcomings, of the Government's proposals. I have considerable sympathy with much of what has been said about the present system. We will be raising our concerns and our alternative proposals a little later on. However, what I wish to deal with are the amendments before us, which is what I think we should be debating, and the proposals coming from the Conservative Benches. I suppose that I have an interest to declare because the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and I are the only two
34
Members of your Lordships' House who could benefit if these amendments were passed by being in the fast-track to the Greater London Assembly, because we have been elected as members of London borough councils. For that reason, I believe that these amendments are absolute nonsense.
I was elected to Sutton Council to represent the people of my ward on Sutton Council. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, would say the same of his authority. I have not been elected, yet, to the Greater London assembly. There is an important difference. We have seen something of the effect of indirect nomination in Greater London over the past 13 years. For example, we see it on all the joint bodies that have been trying to run London. For a few years I served, for my sins, on the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority which is, as its name suggests, an authority. It comprises representatives of each London borough and the City of London. It does its best to do a good job. In saying this I do not wish to criticise the authority, but it is not the same as having an authority which is able to take a strategic view of London. Every year the London Fire and Civil Defence. Authority has a battle over its budget, every year there is a battle over which fire stations to close or which pumps to remove, and every year the borough representatives, absolutely correctly, fight for their borough interests. Of course they do. They were elected to their borough councils, and that is what they are there to do.
There is an important difference between the proposed assembly and any authority in that the assembly will not be an operational body. IL will not have powers like that. But if people go there directly from their borough councils—not directly elected by the people, but appointed by their borough councils, as was said when the amendment was moved—appointed by the majority party, in those cases where there is a majority party, they will be there and will be expected to be there fighting for the particular interests of their borough, and even more particularly for the interests of their borough council, which is not necessarily always the same thing.
We strongly believe that the Greater London assembly and the Greater London authority must take a strategic view. We have concerns that the 14 proposed constituencies would inhibit that. I am certain that if we go there simply as representatives nominated by our borough councils, as if we were appointed to any other outside body, as every council does at its annual meeting every year—perhaps this authority is slightly more important than some of the others—it will be very difficult indeed even for the paragons of virtue that will form this assembly to take a strategic view for London overall. While I do not support the Government's proposals, I think that the alternatives suggested in the amendments are the worst possible, and we will oppose them.
Lord Whitty: In replying to the debate, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would like to address the amendment that is before the Committee. We have so far ranged rather widely in the debate. The proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

35
and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, are not to be found on the Marshalled List either in relation to this group of amendments or in relation to the next ones. Many of the issues which lie behind their questions are better considered in relation to later groupings.
This group of amendments directly confronts the issue of whether the assembly should be appointed or elected. That is a fairly simple question. The wider implications that have been raised may well arise when we discuss the mechanics of election once we have disposed of these amendments. Of course, if we were to carry the amendments, we would never reach that point. I trust that noble Lords will appreciate that what we are proposing with regard to election is not precisely the same as that used for the European elections. I hope noble Lords will understand that on today of all days I do not wish particularly to dwell on the European elections. They were, however, very similar to those successfully conducted in Scotland and Wales.
So far as this group is concerned, what is proposed is that the London borough authorities should take one of their number from each authority and make them into the assembly. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the councillors for those boroughs, worthy and effective though they may be, were not elected for that job. They were elected to look after, not the strategic interests of London, but the interests of their electorates in a particular borough.
Moreover, the people of London have clearly pronounced on the principle here. The referendum was pretty clear: are you in favour of the Government's proposal for a Greater London Authority, an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly? I do not think there is any ambiguity there. If your Lordships now wish to overturn the referendum decision and what was in the Act passed by this Parliament, then we are getting into difficult waters. I think it is clear that there is a different role for the assembly. The assembly must concentrate on representing the electorate of London over strategic decisions affecting the whole of London. It is not a delegated body, with representatives delegated to represent the individual boroughs.
We clearly want to differentiate between the parochial—perhaps in the best sense—interests of the boroughs and the strategic planning for transport and other powers that we are investing in the authority. That requires a direct relationship with the people through directly elected assembly members. They do not need to be indirectly nominated by the London boroughs whose members were elected for a different purpose. This principle has already been endorsed by Parliament and the people of London. We should therefore reject these amendments and proceed to perhaps a more interesting although more complex issue—the method of election to the assembly. I hope that the noble Baroness recognises that she is attempting to reverse decisions already taken. That is not profitable in this context and perhaps we should move on.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry that I did not explain myself properly. I did not mention proportional representation. I was talking about this amendment and
36
asking the noble Lord whether, if he intended to reject the idea of nominated members, as he has done—and I understand why—he would look at the fact that it might be advantageous to have 33 members, one from each area, coterminous with the authority. I clearly put my question in a muddled way, as I often do. However, there may be something in the amendment which the noble Lord can think about with advantage. I think it worth considering that for a whole host of reasons.
Lord Whitty: I hope that the noble Baroness does not think I was being discourteous. The point I was making was that this amendment clearly includes the word "nominated." As to the size of the assembly, there is an amendment down later suggesting 40 rather than 33, and this question will come up more logically with the next group. I thought therefore I would not deploy the argument here. I apologise to the noble Baroness if she thought I was being discourteous in not directly replying to her point.
Baroness Hamwee: I wonder if I could add one word to what my noble friend Lord Tope said about borough representatives rightly fighting the cause of their own borough. I would have an additional concern: the time and the energy that borough representatives could put into their role on a strategic body. I have had experience of this myself. I have seen the enormous difficulties that borough council members have in carrying out a strategic role. When I chaired a London-wide committee for a number of years, I was impressed by the efforts that were made by individual borough members. I was also very conscious of the great difficulties they had in running the two roles at the same time. It was not for want of interest, but they always had to put their boroughs first. If we got to a point in a meeting where an important decision was coming up, if they had to be back in their own borough for a meeting that evening they would have to go back there. It is not only the balance of interest which would weigh with individual members when approaching the job. There is also a particular difficulty in actually running the two roles.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I served on the regional authority, the Greater London Council, and for eight years at the same time on a local authority. I never had any difficulty. So the generalisation made by the noble Baroness cannot be taken to apply to everyone.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: I know exactly what my noble friend means. The serious point—and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will clarify this—is whether she and her colleagues are seriously suggesting that the new Greater London Authority should override the wishes of the boroughs when considering these strategic matters?
Baroness Hamwee: No, I hope I made that clear earlier. I said specifically that our concerns about the amendment were by no means to be taken as being against the boroughs. It is indeed in part because of my concern that borough interests should be properly

37
represented in dialogues with the authority that I have difficulty with this set of amendments. I hope it will become apparent during the Committee stage that we are very concerned to protect the boroughs and would not want to see the new authority trying to make a takeover bid for the functions of the boroughs.
Lord Whitty: I would ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Miller, whether, in other parts of the country where there are two-tier authorities, rightly or wrongly, they are prepared to contemplate a county council consisting entirely of delegates from district authorities. I suggest that the answer must be no.
Baroness Young: I am not sure whether or not that is a hypothetical question but in the far-off days when I was in local government I had the great good fortune to serve on an all-purpose authority. It was the most efficient and most effective form of local authority. It is a matter of much regret that it disappeared under the 1972 Local Government Act. I am on record as saying so at the time. I think that some effort has been made to put it back. It is because I have seen the difficulties that I raise these points.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was rather disappointed to hear the Minister say that he hoped we would move on to more interesting parts of the Bill because on this side of the Chamber we feel that this group of amendments is very interesting and very important. I hope that the noble Lord did not really mean it.
So far as this group of amendments is concerned, I quite understand when he says that we have moved just a little away from the gist of the matter. I thought that Clause 41 muddied the water in a way. I believe that the whole idea of this assembly muddies the water in regard to the ordinary elector of London—the citizen who is living in London—as to who does what and where they do it, and so on.
There are so many tiers for London under this Bill that I think everything could get very difficult. We felt that in order not to bypass the boroughs and not to cause a conflict between the boroughs and the assembly our proposal would be a very good way of dealing with it. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that he did not think it appropriate for the representatives to be nominated but I believe he also said—he will correct me if I am wrong—that he had been nominated by his borough to serve on the Fire and Civil Defence Authority. Certainly the people in his area would not have known that before, and that does not seem to stop anybody acting in a very proper and strategic way. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that she had no difficulty. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes also had no difficulty, when she served on the Greater London Council, in dealing locally, parochially and strategically. There is no doubt about that.
I noted the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, towards the end of her first intervention that she had no intention of blocking the views of the
38
boroughs. However, in her earlier remarks I understood her to highlight some difficulty in liasing with the boroughs. I shall read her remarks with care.
I shall certainly not press the amendment. I shall read the report of the debate with great care. 'This is an important matter. The other points made by my noble friends—for example, on the number of people voting—have merely been touched upon. It is important for an elector to know who will deal with his or her problem—whether it will be the local council, the assembly, the mayor, the Member of Parliament, the Member of the European Parliament, and so on. The problem is that. the situation in London is becoming so convoluted. That is quite a danger. My amendments offer a way of solving the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In order that my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean may repeat a Statement made in another place, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Kosovo
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on recent developments in Kosovo made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Today is the fifth day since the entry into force of the military agreement. I can report to the House that Serb forces are leaving Kosovo, broadly in line with the phased withdrawal set out in that agreement. Meanwhile, NATO forces have entered much of southern and central Kosovo and are ahead of the planned timetable for their deployment.
"The whole House will wish to congratulate our troops on the professionalism with which they have deployed so quickly and efficiently. Members of the House will have seen pictures of the spontaneous welcome they have received from Kosovo Albanians wherever they have gone. The warmth with which those Albanians have expressed their joy at our arrival speaks volumes for the brutality and the terror from which our campaign has liberated them. For the past two months they have seen their neighbours massacred, their relatives raped and their homes burnt. Now they can see a future in which none of these crimes can return to haunt Kosovo.
"The presence of Russian troops around the airport has not interfered with the deployment of NATO forces. Our forces are entering as planned from Macedonia. It is important to keep a sense of perspective on the numbers involved. There are only a couple of hundred Russian troops in Kosovo, compared with 14,000 NATO troops.

39
"General Jackson this morning had a businesslike meeting with General Zavarzin, the commander of Russian troops at Pristina airport. He has just reported that he hopes that agreement can be reached on assimilating the Russian troops into KFOR.
"Nevertheless, it was plainly unsatisfactory that Russian troops should have entered without co-ordination. Yesterday I spoke at length to Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, and we agreed that there should be no more surprise moves. He gave an undertaking that Russia would not deploy any further troops without prior agreement. Earlier undertakings about Russian deployments have not all been respected. It is crucial that this undertaking should be fully respected.
"Negotiations, led by the United States, continue over how Russia's contribution to KFOR can be integrated into the overall operation. These have been protracted negotiations. On the Russian side, their military have sought a sector of their own. On our side, we have insisted that any outcome must meet the terms of the peace plan for a single operation with a unified chain of command. There is no provision anywhere in the peace plan for partition of Kosovo.
"Several non-NATO countries will contribute forces to Kosovo. I have always made clear that we would welcome Russia also working with us as partners in the peacekeeping force. But it must be as part of a single, integrated operation, not as an independent force.
"That reflects our commitment to liberating the whole, not part, of Kosovo. We now face a major challenge in helping all of Kosovo to recover from the atrocities of the past year. There are four immediate priorities.
"First, we must ensure security and safety for all the people of Kosovo, whether Albanian or Serb, or any other ethnic group. KFOR will be alert and robust in ensuring that all Serb forces withdraw from Kosovo within the agreed timetable, which should be completed over the next week.
"KFOR will also be responsible for the demilitarisation of the Kosovo Liberation Army. I spoke last night to Hashem Thaqi, the leader of the KLA, and stressed that we expect restraint from the KLA as the Serb forces withdraw, and co-operation in our efforts to end all violence in Kosovo.
"Secondly, we must provide urgent relief to the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons who have spent the last two months hiding from Serb forces on the hillsides and in the forests inside Kosovo. A convoy with much British support delivered humanitarian supplies to Pristina yesterday on behalf of UNHCY and is reloading today in Macedonia.
"Thirdly, we must manage the return of the masses of refugees who were deported as part of Milosevic's failed plan for the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. We should not be glib about refugees returning to their homes. Many of their homes have been blown up or burnt down by Serb aggression. We face a major task
40
in helping the bulk of the refugees to rebuild their homes before the Balkan winter sets in. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has today announced a further £50 million for humanitarian relief on top of the £40 million already provided.
"Fourthly, we must record the evidence of the war crimes that have been committed in Kosovo to enforce its ethnic cleansing. There has already been the horrific discovery of a mass grave containing a large number of villagers massacred at Kacanik. We have already started the deployment of a British police team to Macedonia in order that the War Crimes Tribunal can draw on their forensic skill and experience in exhuming victims of the atrocities and identifying the cause of death. Although we have brought peace to Kosovo, its people will not live in peace with themselves unless we bring to justice those responsible for such atrocities.
"For the immediate future, responsibility for the government of Kosovo will be in the hands of an international civil administration. This will be led by the United Nations, but will draw on the contributions of the European Union, the OSCE and the UNHCR. It will be charged with rebuilding the physical infrastructure of Kosovo, regenerating its economy and supervising free elections to new political institutions. Over a period of time, it will transfer its powers to the local people in line with our goal of democratic self-government for Kosovo.
"From the start of the conflict this Government have stressed that we want it to be a turning-point for the whole of the region. All of the many neighbours of Serbia have shown total solidarity with the NATO campaign. We must not now forget the courage and commitment which those governments showed in aligning themselves with us.
"On Thursday, I attended the launch of the Stability Pact, a forum bringing together the countries of the region with the EU, the US, Russia and other key international players. I pledged that, for our part, Britain will be their partner in helping to accelerate their integration into the modern Europe. To do that, we must open up the wealthy markets of the European Union so that they can share our prosperity through increased trade; and we must invest in developing their democratic institutions, civic society and open media in order that they can share in our standards of freedom.
"We hope that one day the people of Serbia will also be able to share in the benefits of the Stability Pact. However, first, it will be necessary for the government in Belgrade to renounce the policies of Milosevic which have brought so much violence to their neighbours and so much poverty to themselves. We cannot embrace Serbia in the modern Europe until Serbia embraces our values of belief in the equality of all citizens irrespective of ethnic identity, and respect for the rights of minorities. There would have been no turning point for the countries of the region if the international community had not demonstrated that we would not tolerate the brutality and ethnic

41
cleansing which Milosevic visited upon Kosovo. The revulsion around the world at the expulsion of the Albanians from Kosovo is confirmed in the text of the Security Council resolution, which was drafted by the G8 Foreign Ministers over 12 hours of negotiation last week. That resolution condemns the violence against the people of Kosovo and demands full co-operation with the War Crimes Tribunal. It meets all our key objectives: the withdrawal of all Serb forces; the deployment of an international military force with a unified command; and the return without hindrance of all refugees.
"There is much hard work still to be done before we have created a Kosovo which will give its people the opportunity to earn their living in peace. The time to celebrate will be when we have settled all the refugees in their homes. But all those in the House who supported NATO's campaign can be satisfied with an outcome that has vindicated the strategy of the alliance and its resolve to defeat the forces of ethnic cleansing. We have compelled an end to the atrocities in Kosovo and secured a future for its people free from fear. We have shown that the era of forced mass deportation of a whole people belongs to Europe's past and that we will not tolerate it coming back again.
"We promised the refugees that we would take them back to Kosovo under our protection. We now have the opportunity to fulfil that promise and we will not slacken in our resolve or determination until we have helped them all go home."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and for keeping this House informed of developments in Kosovo as the KFOR peacekeeping operation commences its first week. Much progress has been made over the past few days. NATO's willingness to stand firm in the face of tests to its resolve has borne the first fruits of peace. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government and our Armed Forces on what has been achieved. In particular, I pay tribute to the critically important role that is being played by General Sir Michael Jackson and to the exemplary performance of the forces that he leads.
Nevertheless, recent developments also demonstrate the scale of the problems still to be overcome in Kosovo and the difficult decisions which will need to be taken. NATO's response to those decisions will be critical in determining the ultimate success of the operation. Since the first KFOR troops entered Kosovo it has been clear that this is a region where feelings are running dangerously high. Kosovo is a tinderbox of tension as the joy of liberation for the Kosovo Albanians is matched by the bitterness of defeat for the Serbs. This has been demonstrated all too clearly by the conflicts which have arisen between Serbs and British and German troops respectively over the weekend.
Can the Minister confirm that the withdrawal agreement is being adhered to in full by the Serbian forces? Will the Minister provide information on the
42
means by which KFOR is reassuring the remaining Serbian population of Kosovo of its impartiality? Does the Minister agree that the decisive test of NATO's success will be whether the hundreds of thousands of refugees scattered across Europe feel able to return to their homes in Kosovo? Further, does she agree that the composition and deployment of the peacekeeping forces continue to be crucial in this respect?
On that note, I share the Minister's concern over the early deployment of Russian forces in Kosovo and their continued occupation of Pristina airport. In a Statement to this House last Thursday the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, confirmed that British troops could enter Kosovo as early as last Friday. Can the Minister confirm that NATO originally planned for British paratroopers to enter Kosovo on Friday morning, 24 hours after the signing and verification of the agreement? Does not Article II, paragraph 2a, of the military technical agreement signed by General Jackson specify that one day after its entry into force FRY forces would have vacated zone 3 and that the international security force would deploy "rapidly" to avoid a "security gap"? Why were these plans cancelled? Why was a technical and logistical briefing which had been arranged for reporters earlier on Thursday also cancelled?
Can the Minister say when NATO first learnt that Russian troops were entering Kosovo? Is she aware that Brcko Radio reported on Friday morning that Russian troops had departed their barracks in Lopare and Zivinice and that at 10.30 a.m. on Friday Russian troops crossed the border into Serbia at Paylovica Cuprija and that these reports were confirmed by SFOR? Is it not the case that, even if at that point, British troops had moved to Pristina, they would have arrived before the Russians? Is the Minister aware that a further 150 Russian troops were reported yesterday morning to be waiting at Bijeljina to be ready to move into Serbia to reinforce Russian troops at the airport? Can the Minister confirm that Russia has given an assurance that there will be no more surprise troop movements in Kosovo, particularly in the light of reports today that Hungary has refused Russia overflight permission to fly military equipment into Belgrade?
Referring to the future control of Pristina airport, can the noble Baroness say when she expects this matter to be resolved and whether, as just indicated by the Minister, it is subject not just to military negotiation on the ground but also negotiation at a political level? To what extent does the Minister consider that control of the airport is important to the success of the NATO operation, in both strategic and political terms? Will the Minister confirm that the alternative base for KFOR is intended to be temporary in nature?
The deadlock over control of Pristina airport has further highlighted the disputes over Russia's role in the international peacekeeping force and the difficulties that NATO has encountered in seeking to establish a unified chain of command for KFOR with NATO at its core. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, last Thursday ruled out a partitioned Kosovo, as the Minister has just done. Can the Minister, therefore, comment on media reports over the weekend that, in the light of the stand-off at the report, US envoy Strobe Talbott has offered to allow

43
Russia a "zone of responsibility" in Kosovo; or is it still the case that, as US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has previously said, NATO will be "embedded in every sector"?
We welcome the acceptance by the Minister that such a Russian-controlled zone would undermine the key principle reiterated by the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday and that there will be no partition of Kosovo, since such a zone would amount to a de facto partition. To agree to a Russian-controlled enclave would, surely, have the disastrous result of creating a haven for Kosovo Serbs and a no-go area for Kosovo Albanians. While discussions on this critical point continue, can the Minister say to what extent the arrangements in Bosnia, where the Russians are spread across the UK-led Multinational Division (North), are seen as a model for Kosovo?
Does the Minister agree that these events have demonstrated once again that any agreements over Kosovo must be absolutely watertight? The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, spoke last week about the importance of unified control for all allied troops and for non-NATO troops in Kosovo. The Foreign Secretary said this morning that the Russian Government made a commitment yesterday that Russian troops would be integrated into the overall peacekeeping force. When does the Minister envisage that the terms of this agreement will be finalised?
There are reports today, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, that the first hard evidence of the type of atrocities which refugees have been consistently describing for months has been uncovered. At Kacanik, for example, reporters have counted 80 fresh graves. War crimes investigators are travelling to the site to begin the process of verification of the evidence. In addition to her comments, can the Minister inform the House what specific arrangements are being made for the investigators of war crimes to be given unhindered access to the evidence that they need? Finally, can the Minister provide a little further detail on the developments associated with the first convoy of humanitarian aid to Pristina? How will the Government continue to ensure that the humanitarian and reconstruction efforts are co-ordinated efficiently?
From these Benches we hope that the many issues raised in the Minister's Statement can be covered in depth in a full day's debate in your Lordships' House. I hope that the usual channels will take note and action accordingly, for the events of the past week have lit a beacon of hope for the future of Kosovo. We must ensure that our efforts to secure a lasting settlement for all the population of Kosovo keep alight that beacon of hope and that no one is allowed to extinguish it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I echo the congratulations expressed to our Armed Forces and add my congratulations to the Government on the resolve and determination they have exhibited over the past few weeks. Many people criticised the operation, saying that it could not succeed, and that air power alone would
44
be unable to secure the objectives at which NATO was aiming. The Government persisted in their resolve and proved the critics wrong
There has been an excellent start to the implementation of the agreement under which the NATO forces have entered the territory without encountering serious resistance and were successful in disarming the remnants of the Serb forces which remain with only a handful of small incidents. The Statement mentions the excellent reception that our forces received. It is a reflection of the suffering and hardships endured by the people of Kosovo and vindicates the action that we have taken to restore to their homes those 708,000 people who have been expelled from their own country as well as the additional hundreds of thousands who are displaced within Kosovo.
The more we uncover what has been going on, the more we prove the moral legitimacy of the operation since the Serbian authorities were in the process of murdering, indirectly causing the death of, or expelling from their homes the whole of the population of Kosovo. If one looks at the history of Milosevic's activities in Kosovo, and before that in Bosnia, there is no reason to doubt that if we had not intervened that would have been the end result of the policy.
I take the point that there are only 200 Russian troops in Pristina airport. Can the Minister say whether the Russians have indicated definitely that that is the ultimate size of its contribution to the occupation forces? Alternatively, if agreement can be secured, would they bring in larger numbers of troops; and, if so, would they use Pristina airport to bring them in?
The Statement states that it was the military on the Russian side which sought a sector of its own. Does that mean that there is a difference of opinion between the Russian military and its political masters, with the political masters not insisting on a special sector but the Russian military saying that it should have one? If that were so, it is difficult to see how the undertakings now given by the Russians, and mentioned in the Statement, could be honoured.
I was glad to hear that British police officers have already entered Kosovo and are beginning to investigate the war crimes. No doubt this will be an extremely large job. It is essential that the resources should be brought in as early as possible so that the evidence can be secured. Will the noble Baroness say what arrangements there will be for the storage of forensic evidence, and the taking of statements in accordance with the rules of evidence which apply before the international tribunal on former Yugoslavia so that whatever evidence is uncovered by our police officers can be presented ultimately to the War Crimes Tribunal without doubts about its authenticity?
I was also pleased to learn about the additional £50 million provided by the Government. Is there a budget for the overall operation of getting the refugees and displaced persons back into their homes by the winter, and looking after them until they are able to earn a living? Can we yet begin to work out the costs of rebuilding the houses and infrastructure of Kosovo?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Avebury, for their support and the kind remarks they made about Her Majesty's Government; and most particularly about the British forces which have gone into Kosovo.
There has been a great deal of progress over the past few days, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the vindication of the Government's position over using air strikes as the primary means of bringing Mr Milosevic to the point of deciding to withdraw the Serbian forces from Kosovo. In particular we must all wish General Sir Michael Jackson and his forces well. They have done a splendid job so far and I am confident that they will continue to do so over the next few days. They will have a difficult task. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear that in many ways it is this stage of the operation that is so delicate and sensitive. As both noble Lords made clear, we have all seen on our television screens how high feelings are running on this issue. It has been heart-warming, even moving, to see the welcome accorded the NATO KFOR troops going into Kosovo. However, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right: the reverse side of that coin can be very ugly feelings towards some Serb neighbours whom individuals may hold responsible in part, perhaps mistakenly, for some of the atrocities visited upon them, their neighbours and their families.
Over the next few days or so, I suspect that we shall find evidence of more appalling atrocities. This will not just he a case of word of mouth and the terrible descriptions that we have all heard over the past 10 weeks or so. I suspect that we shall see some truly dreadful footage on our televisions; and that will make feelings run very high indeed. The troops will also have to cope with the terrible problems which we know exist of booby traps, mines, and everything else. It is a very difficult time for them. I am sure that we wish them Godspeed in the difficult work that they are undertaking.
The noble Lord asked me whether Serb troops are withdrawing. Yes, they are withdrawing. As the Statement I repeated earlier made clear, the NATO troops are ahead of schedule in going into Kosovo. The troops have explicit instructions that they are there to enforce peace across the whole of Kosovo. The Statement makes clear that it is not just a question of looking after the interests of the Kosovo Albanians but of looking after everyone irrespective of ethnic origin. Some noble Lords may have heard, as I did last week, young British troops saying how clear that had been made to them. I think that there was a report on the "Today" programme. I found it reassuring that not only was the message being sent; it was being received by those troops as part of their remit.
As the Statement makes clear, of course we found difficulty with what happened at Pristina airport. But I understand that the MTA was the practical understanding of how the military would work on the ground: that it was a question of military logistics. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that it has not
46
delayed the KFOR troops going in. Indeed, as I said, they are ahead of their schedule. In any case, as I understand it, they could not have gone into Pristina airport because the airport was at the time ringed by the VJ—that is, Serbian forces. All those issues have been discussed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his counterpart Mr Igor Ivanov. We have been assured in the way that the Statement makes clear. On the ground, General Sir Michael Jackson has reported that as a result of the discussions he had this morning he is optimistic that these matters will he sorted out. But the noble Lord is right: at one level there As a military discussion going on on the ground in Kosovo; but at another level there is a political discussion—as the Statement makes clear—between the United States and Russia about how the chain of command can be integrated.
If noble Lords read the UNSCR and the annexes to it they will see that the unified chain of command is part and parcel of the understanding reached in New York last week. Of course there are a number of different discussions going on about how to give that some practical impact as regards not just Pristina airport but the whole of Kosovo. Those discussions continue. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right: one model which can be looked at is the Bosnian model. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about numbers. So far there are only 200 Russian troops in Pristina airport. On the ground there are about 14,000 NATO troops. We hope that that figure will rise over the next: few days and weeks to 45,000 of the KFOR force, of which some 13,000 are expected to come from the United Kingdom. We would like to see more Russian input into KFOR for the final arrangements and we very much hope that the Russians, who we always hoped would be part of the peacekeeping force, will take that opportunity. Indeed, I am sure that that is their intention.
The UNSCR also makes clear that it is the duty of everyone to co-operate with the War Crimes Tribunal. That "everyone" includes the government in Belgrade. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked particularly about the arrangements in that respect. The senior FCO official, David Gowan, has been appointed to be the Kosovo war crimes co-ordinator. lie will have responsibility for ensuring that our Government pass on to the ICTY as much information as possible. However. I hope that the teams which will be going—one from the United Kingdom and others from elsewhere in KFOR—will be able to make some progress on that front.
The humanitarian aid which my noble friend announced today will be going across the board in Kosovo, not solely to one part of the community, in order to help to improve the standards there. ] t will be part and parcel of the civil implementation arrangements which have been agreed, and to which reference was made in the Statement. Those civil arrangements include not only the return of the refugees, which is a UNHCR return, but I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for International Development will be planning a great deal of help. The arrangements will also include policing, de-mining, which is an important part of the work, and work as regards war crimes.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that surprise moves have long been the currency of Russian diplomatic and military tactics? Does she further agree that undertaking not to make surprise moves are their coins of currency and that in that context it ought to have been possible to foresee and forestall the unfortunate move of the Russians to Pristina airport? Furthermore, is she aware that Russian diplomatic and military strategists have always been taught of the need to be good chess players? Will she ensure that the NATO headquarters have an equally good supply of chess players?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that there are many excellent chess players in NATO headquarters. As regards surprise moves, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is right and that they are not without precedent, if I may put it that way. I believe that what has been agreed in a telephone conversation between my right honourable friend and the Russian Foreign Minister will hold up. It is that there should be prior agreement with NATO countries before any more Russian troops are moved into Kosovo. There is an agreement to carry through the principles in the Security Council resolution for the shape of the peacekeeping force. Of course, the Security Council resolution makes it absolutely clear that there must be a unified chain of command and that the objective is to create a single, whole Kosovo under international administration.
These points of principle have been agreed between my right honourable friend and his counterpart. But it is amazing, in view of what has happened during the past 10 weeks, how well the relationship with Russia has stood up. No one denies that it has undergone a good deal of strain, but it is remarkable that, throughout, the relationship remained remarkably robust, that the channels of communication have been opened and that we are in a position to act as joint partners in a peacekeeping force.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that poker is a more challenging game than chess and it is wrong to portray the swashbuckling antics of the Russian forces as some kind of publicity stunt? The truth is that a lack of clarity has been exposed between their foreign and defence ministries, which should be of serious concern to the NATO commanders who have to deal with the Russian authorities. Can my noble friend say whether General Zavarzin disobeyed NATO orders when he pulled his troops out of Bosnia and whether the SACEUR knew that he was pulling out his troops and directed them to stay?
Secondly, can my noble friend say something more about the stability pact to which she referred? This morning I returned from the Western European Union in Paris where the gossip in the corridors was that there is a jockeying for position as to where the headquarters of the distribution of those funds will be located, perhaps in Hungary, Greece or wherever. Can my noble friend assure me that wherever the office is located,
48
lessons will be learnt from Bosnia where there was a slow and not particularly well directed disbursement of funds and that a more effective disbursement will be the case with this new pact?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend invites me to make a judgment on the relative merits in the context of chess and poker. Having always been hopeless at both, I find it difficult. Bridge has always been my forte, if at all. It is important that we do not dwell on this issue. The whole House knows that the Russians have not found this easy and that it has been a difficult few days for them, too. I have no doubt that within Russia there are considerable diplomatic strains.
My noble friend asked me to dissect the reasons for what happened. The honest truth is that I do not know what happened or whether someone disobeyed someone else. However, I suggest to my noble friend that while such questions are interesting they are not helpful. What is helpful is to build on the understanding of my right honourable friend and his counterpart, which was reached at the weekend, and to ensure that that understanding, with its three principal aspects, will be nurtured and cherished in order to ensure that a relationship with Russia continues to the full over this period.
My noble friend asked about the stability pact which was launched on 10th June. It is important because it provides for a forum for discussion for countries in the region on how to operate on a range of issues. We believe that European integration will be faster and more inclusive as a result. All participants were consulted when the stability pact ideas were being worked out. When countries have told us that they have concerns about the pact, we have made the EU presidency aware of those concerns.
I know that there are difficulties in working out the detail and no doubt we shall report further to your Lordships on that, but I believe that Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the stability pact provides us with a real means of meeting the interests of all the participants who are covered by it.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the selection and maintenance of their aim. But secondly, I congratulate the Royal Air Force on enabling us to go in with our ground forces and ensure that President Milosevic threw in his hand. Finally, I congratulate the ground forces who have moved in to secure peace.
The noble Baroness mentioned the interim administration. Will she assure us that it will use the Albanian leaders at all levels to assist in establishing peace in this war-torn area and encourage the restraint of extreme elements who are extremely embittered by what has happened to the local population?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, for those remarks. I would also wish to add our thanks to all our allies, as I am sure he would. I commented a moment ago, to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, upon the remarkable way in

49
which our relationship with our friends in Russia has stood up. Within some countries, on occasions, relationships in NATO have been strained. There has been no secret about that; we have been quite open about it. Again, it is remarkable that the alliance has withstood so well over this period.
The noble Earl asked us to consider the political future of what is happening in Kosovo. We know that the Kosovo Albanians are a fractured group in many ways. Different groups speak for different parts of the ethnic community. We are encouraging them to realise the importance of rebuilding Kosovo and to move towards a process of free and fair elections.
It has been agreed that the political settlement will take account of the Rambouillet Accords. We have discussed such matters on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. The mechanisms that are set up, the parliament or assembly, should reflect the views of all the ethnic groups in Kosovo. The OSCE are charged with the oversight of this. A great deal of work has to be done by them, including the setting up of an electoral register. It will not have escaped anybody's attention that a great number of the Kosovo Albanians have been robbed of their identity. There will be all kinds of matters of that nature to be dealt with including restoring people's identity papers to them, setting up electoral registers and ensuring that the whole panoply of the civil administration works. The OSCE will be looking forward to that and, I hope, to the elections, in due course.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Baroness on the marvellous quick-witted cool with which, week after week, she handles questions on this very complicated matter. We admire her very much for that. I wanted to say that last week but I was unable to get in.
I have several questions for the noble Baroness which I hope she will take in good part, as she always does. First, during the original Statement which she repeated she mentioned that in some way we will rely on the support of the KLA. Is it not the case that the United Nations resolution requires, among other things, the disarmament of the KLA? Will that be achieved and has its disarmament started yet?
Secondly, while we are busy congratulating ourselves on a great victory, is it not the case that when this operation started, the idea was to remove Milosevic; but he is still there as large as life, indeed larger than he ever was? Finally, with regard to the political problems of the future, the noble Baroness very rightly pointed out that a great deal needs to be done in running any kind of democratic election when we do not even have an electoral register and when people's identities are very much in question following the atrocities triggered by the KLA in the first place.
Finally, is it not the case that the United Nations resolution specifically refers to the disarming of the KLA and that, therefore, the KLA's part in what the
50
United Nations and NATO are doing must be pretty suspect—that is, until they have been properly disarmed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, for his kind words. I know he has very strong feelings about this issue. He has been very kind in the way in which he has put his questions.
However, we were not congratulating ourselves upon a victory. The Statement of my right honourable friend makes clear that the time for congratulations will come only when we have ensured that the refugees are able to return to their homes in safety. We have not completed that job. We are only part of the way through—an important part, it is true, but we are nowhere near completion of the task we set ourselves among the objectives.
I remind the noble Earl that one of those objectives was not the removal of President Milosovic. Your Lordships have asked me on a number of occasions whether his removal was, I believe the words used were, "one of the war aims". I have told your Lordships on a number of occasions that, much as we believe that Serbia will be better off without Mr Milosevic, that is a matter for the people of Serbia. It has not been one of our war aims to remove him from power.
The noble Lord specifically asked about the question of the KLA. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 15 of the SCR. It states:
"the KLA and other armed Kosovo Albanian groups [must] end immediately all offensive actions and comply with the requirements for demilitarisation as laid down by the head of the international security presence, in consultation with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General."
I know that the noble Earl is very concerned about this point. I hope that spelling it out in that way makes quite explicit to the noble Earl the requirements of the UNSCR as regards its demilitarisation.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for giving fuller and more regular Statements on Kosovo. I look forward to hearing more over the coming weeks, because it is not yet over. However, could she undertake to consult with colleagues about giving us a fuller humanitarian Statement? After all, the United Nations are just as accountable as our own Armed Forces and diplomats. We need, for example, to have an up-to-date account on how the UNHCR will manage to receive refugees both in neighbouring states and in Kosovo. Will it be the lead agency or will we see the office of co-ordination of humanitarian affairs play a more active role? The noble Baroness may not be able to answer that question now.
Finally, I also thank the noble Baroness for the statement of the new contribution from the Department for International Development. I know that will be warmly received by the refugees as and when it arrives in material form.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for his congratulations on the extra aid. I am sure we are all

51
very pleased that the Secretary of State at the Department for International Development has been able to secure it.
The DfID produces each day a statement about the numbers of displaced people. I refer to those who have gone to the camps in Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania and, indeed, those who have been airlifted out of the whole region. I do not know whether the noble Lord has access to such statements but they are readily available. They are usually accompanied by an update of the latest humanitarian relief received not just from the United Kingdom but from all the countries which have been concerned to co-ordinate over humanitarian relief. I am sure that if the noble Earl contacts the DfID, he will be able to receive such updates.
However, I take the point that what he really wants is for us to have a fuller debate in your Lordships' House on that subject. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also indicated his desire to have more of a debate about the whole of this issue, of which I am sure the humanitarian aid issues would be part. I do not have the authority at the Dispatch Box to say that I think that would be a good idea, but I am sure it will be sorted out by the usual channels in their usual efficient way.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House a little more about the setting up of a unified civilian authority in Kosovo? I understand that the United Nations resolution under which it will be set up is our sole legal basis for being there at all. Therefore, everything depends upon getting it right. How far has the planning proceeded in the construction of that authority? What relations are intended between it and NATO on the one hand and the Russian force on the other; whether it remains of a joke-size like now or becomes a more serious matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the UN Under Secretary-General, Vieira de Mello, has been appointed by the Secretary-General as his special representative on Kosovo as an interim measure. There is no decision as to the long-term appointment, but an interim appointment has already been made.
The UN will lead, devolving certain tasks to other agencies who have particular expertise to ensure success in meeting its objectives. The European Commission will take the lead on economic reconstruction and, as I indicated a few moments ago, the OSCE will deal with civic society and the election arrangements. The head of mission will be accountable to the Secretary-General of the UN and to the Security Council. Therefore, the point made by the noble Lord about integrating others into the arrangements will be covered by the arrangements of reporting and accountability.
We believe that the key is to get the civil implementation structures established quickly so that the military can progressively hand over responsibility. I am sure that is an aim to which all your Lordships would adhere. The priorities are policing, which is a United Nations lead; secondly, the war crimes and we have already spoken about how vital it is that the ICTY personnel get into Kosovo quickly and they are already
52
working with KFOR; and, thirdly, de-mining, which is a very important point and KFOR will clear mines and unexploded ordnance to the extent needed by the forces deployed throughout Kosovo. Our colleagues in the DfID will be assisting with the de-mining effort and working with the UN and NGOs. There is then the lead that will be taken by the UNHCR in the refugee returns.
Those are the main priorities that the civic implementation plan sets itself.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, if I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she suggested that it is not helpful for us to explore any further the question of the Russian seizure of Pristina airport. With respect, I beg to differ with her. That event holds potential for future trouble in view of the light that it throws on Russian attitudes and concerns. It is therefore important that it should be satisfactorily and quickly resolved.
Since this coup is entirely characteristic of President Yeltsin, and since the international agreements and the United Nations resolution do not spell out a clear role for Russian forces, it is surprising that this event was not anticipated by NATO. The noble Baroness said that our forces could not have gone in before the Russians arrived because the Yugoslav forces were still surrounding the airport. Is she suggesting that if we had landed a battalion of paratroopers on the airport at that time, they would have been forcibly resisted by the Yugoslav forces despite the fact that the international agreements had already been signed and the United Nations resolution passed? Or is she suggesting that the Yugoslav forces were in complicity with the Russian forces whereas they would not have been with ours?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did not suggest for a moment that we should not hasten to resolve the issue of Pristina airport. Indeed, the Statement I repeated on behalf of my right honourable friend made it clear that discussions took place this morning on that very issue and that General Sir Michael Jackson is optimistic about resolving it. The issue that I suggested it was not entirely helpful for my noble friend Lord Ponsonby to air was why this happened in the first place.
I do not know the operational military instructions of the Russians. The noble Lord seems to suggest that we should have anticipated this happening. One might anticipate all sorts of things. I do not know whether or not it was anticipated. As I understand it, the airport was surrounded by VJ troops. The noble Lord suggests that perhaps we should have taken them on. But to put ourselves in so much confrontation was not necessarily the sensible course of action. The sensible thing was to do what was done; that is, to ensure that this was resolved properly and constructively through sensible discussion in the way that we have resolved all our other difficulties, not by possibly precipitating or provoking some kind of action.
This is an extremely delicate, difficult task in getting not only the NATO countries to co-ordinate over the KFOR, but ensuring that Russia too has the confidence to be part of KFOR. We very much hope that there will

53
be more Russian troops, but the noble Lord understands that this is an extremely difficult task and must be undertaken with due diplomatic sensitivity.

Greater London Authority Bill
5.44 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2. line 2, leave out ("twenty five") and insert ("forty")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 18, 20 and 22. To explain briefly, Amendment No. 5 seeks to increase the number of members of the assembly from 25 to 40; Amendment No. 8 seeks to provide that the constituencies will be determined by the Local Government Commission; Amendment No. 18 seeks to remove the requirement for 14 constituencies; Amendments No. 20 seeks to remove the requirement that each constituency will comprise of two or more entire boroughs; and Amendment No. 22 seeks to remove the requirement that no borough is included in more than one constituency.
Amendment No. 5 is related to the amendments in the next group dealing with the electoral system. It is not easy to see where the dividing line should be drawn between the different amendments. The thrust of these amendments is to increase the size of the assembly. We chose the figure of 40 in part because that number would be sufficient for an electoral system based on the single transferable vote to work. But that comes in a later group. The increase will also mean greater representation of Londoners but that is not the main point that I wish to make.
The main issue, quite simply, is that we believe that 25 assembly members is not enough to do the job that will he required of them. We understand that the Government designed a lean and mean assembly. That language may not appear in any governmental publication. I am simply not sure where it comes from now because it has become so accepted a description of the proposed assembly. But 40 is not a great number. In fact it is considerably less than the size of some London borough councils. If nothing else in the Bill were to be changed with regard to the assembly's functions and operations, we still believe that 25 is too few. I make this point because it relates to points that we will make on later Committee days with regard to what the assembly should do.
The assembly's job in the Bill as drafted is to scrutinise the exercise of the Minister's functions and to conduct investigations into London issues. It is also to consider the budget for the GLA and other functional bodies. It can also overrule the mayor's proposals by a two-thirds majority. I shall take first a point with regard to the majority, though not perhaps the main point. Two-thirds of 25 is 17 and one might ask whether 17 is adequate on the model proposed. Conversely, and
54
perhaps more importantly, is eight, one-third, too few to support the mayor's proposals? The proposal for 40 would mean equivalent numbers of 27 and 13.
The job is not to make policy; it is to scrutinise. But each assembly member will have to cover a wide subject area. The members will have to acquire a detailed knowledge of each subject, both in breadth and depth. I anticipate that they are likely to specialise to some extent, both in the areas scrutinised and in the functions; and of course they will provide membership of certain bodies. The Metropolitan Police Authority is to include 12 assembly members and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Body is to include nine. Out of the 25 there will be the deputy mayor and the chair and deputy chair of the assembly. Those members will have less time—perhaps in the case of the deputy mayor, no time—for the scrutiny of functions. I am, in short, suggesting that London may not be served by having quite so lean a body.
It is not just a question of becoming familiar with the subject; there is also the issue of group dynamics, interplay with other members within the assembly as a whole and perhaps within each political group. However, as I said, we hope that the assembly will work in a constructive and co-operative manner. There will be political groups, and, even if no group has an overall majority, there will be dynamics within each group which will feed into the way the assembly operates.
It is important that when the assembly meets in plenary session or when groups of assembly members meet there are enough members to enable ideas to be bounced off one another. In that way the contribution will be more effective than on an individual basis.
It is envisaged that there will be constituency members as well as London members. Although we support a constituency comprising more than one borough, it is still likely that there will be a local interest and that the member will spend some time on local issues, because that is in the nature of both politics and human behaviour. That may also reduce the time available for the scrutiny function.
We are not suggesting that the time of assembly members will be best spent sitting in committees. The organisation of the authority will mean a move away from behaviour that tends to give politics a bad name. as if the ivory tower—in this case the headland—is complete in itself and does not need to relate to the world outside. I do not believe that that will happen for one moment because London is big in terms of area and population and members will have to become familiar with London and the surrounding areas. They will therefore be able to properly consider whether London is appropriately relating to those surrounding areas. Therefore, to cover the ground in every sense, we believe that there should be a number greater than 25. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As I indicated during discussion on the previous group of amendments, some of the issues relate to this group of amendments and some to the following group. There are only three issues relating to this group; the function of the authority, the size of the authority

55
and matters of election. It is a little difficult to disentangle them before having a discussion on the other matters. Nevertheless, I shall try.
Our view is set out very clearly in the White Paper and, indeed, was clear when the Government initially set out their views on the future of London government. This authority should be small, streamlined and strategic in focus. We do not want there to be a detailed policy-making function in the assembly. Its function is one of scrutiny. We are not creating committees in the normal sense of a local authority or in the manner of the former GLC. We therefore consider that a small authority of 25 members will be sufficient to enable it to perform effectively its scrutiny and investigative role without becoming unwieldy and excessively bureaucratic. Were the assembly to take on the type of executive powers found in other authorities, different arguments would arise.
The question then arises of whether 25 can be sufficiently representative of the population of London. It is clear from all the analyses of voting systems that the smaller number of direct first-past-the-post seats, the less representative is the result. We therefore suggested that, as in Scotland and Wales, whatever the total—and we are proposing 25—there should be a mixture of directly elected seats and a corrective mechanism to ensure that the views across London were represented in the assembly. We therefore suggest 14 and 11 to make up the full 25.
Were we to make the number 33, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, it would not be possible to have a representative body if it was all done on a first-past-the-post basis.
Having taken the decision to create a small, streamlined authority and an authority sufficiently representative of the whole population, we then had to decide where the boundaries would be in the directly elected assembly. That was a matter for the Local Government Commission and not primarily for ministerial decision. The boundaries of the directly elected proportion of the 25-member assembly were therefore chosen on as subjective a basis as possible. That means that they cannot represent every London borough, nor is there a direct relationship between a grouping of London boroughs.
The academic work that has been done indicates that it is possible to achieve a representative reflection in a 25-member assembly. Professor Patrick Dunleavy and Dr Helen Margetts have carried out extensive research on the most appropriate voting system for London's assembly. That research is in the Library here. It shows that with 25 members it is possible to have a broadly proportional outcome.
The argument for having a larger figure is one which states that there should be a larger assembly because it would be undertaking functions more akin to a normal local government structure, which we wish to get away from, or an argument that areas of London that are self-identified in terms of boroughs or existing identities should be directly represented. That would mean there would have to be well above 40 before getting a
56
first-past-the-post system which, at the same time, reflected the balance of opinion across London with some accuracy.
The combination of a streamlined assembly and an assembly that represents the balance of opinion across London gives a split of approximately that which we are proposing. A body of 40 would not significantly improve that position, certainly if it was all first past the post. If it was a similar split, it would not give a better representation than the split at 25 and it would be a more unwieldy body performing the central function we have set out which has been endorsed by the people of London.
We therefore resist the proposition that it should be extended to 40 and also the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lade Carnegy of Lour, that there should be 33 members who would directly represent the boroughs. That has the potential additional disadvantage that a direct representative of the borough would have some of the disadvantages of an indirect representative in that the carve-up would not be strategic but would be on the balance of interest between the boroughs. We want an authority that looks at London as a whole and not primarily through the eyes of representatives of the boroughs. We therefore hope that the amendment will not be pursued.
6 p.m.
Lord Tope: I listened with care to what the Minister said. Perhaps I may start by dealing with the points with which I agree. He said that the Government want an authority which is small, streamlined, strategic and focused. I believe that those were his exact words and I agree with that entirely. However, "small" is a relative term—25 is small; 40 may be slightly larger but in my view, it is still small. Therefore, I cannot accept the argument that 40 is too large and 25 is fine. For an assembly representing the whole of Greater London—7 million members—40 is small, and rightly so.
My noble friends and I do not pretend that there is any special magic about 40. If the Minister were to say that he cannot accept 40 but he will accept 38 or 42, then I expect that we should graciously accept. I do not want to argue strongly about 40 and no more and no less, but it is indicative of the size which we feel will still be streamlined, will certainly be strategic and, it is hoped, will be focused.
It also needs to be representative, as far as anything can be, of a large diverse population such as that of London. It is extremely important that, as far as possible, all Londoners feel that the assembly fairly represents the mix in London of gender, ethnicity, geographical location and so on.
The Minister said that he did not believe that 40 members elected by a first-past-the-post system could possibly achieve that. I agree entirely. It will come as no surprise to him that we do not propose that they should all be elected by first-past-the-post. As he will know, we shall be proposing that none of them should be elected by first-past-the-post. He is quite right that the next group of amendments are connected with this

57
group because we are talking about the size of the authority and the way in which it is to be elected. The two go together.
Our objection to the previous set of amendments was not in relation to the magic number of 33 but that they should be tied to and come from the boroughs, which happen to number 33. That is the objection with which we have dealt. We believe it should be the larger number if it is to be properly representative and also, if the members are able to carry out the range of duties expected of them. I understand as well as anyone what the assembly is proposed to be. I note that it is not to be a local authority with executive powers and so on. I understand that it is to be a scrutinising body. But I hope that it will be the focus of a lot of interest and attention from a wide range of interest groups in London. Of course they will focus primarily on the mayor, and rightly so. But they will also wish to talk to, lobby, relate to and engage the interest of assembly members.
At this stage, we have no idea at all what administrative support assembly members are to receive. But even with a reasonable level of administrative support, it will be extremely difficult for assembly members to carry out their range of duties conscientiously, across the whole of London, with the wide range of interests involved.
There is no magic number but a greater number, such as 40, would necessarily make the sharing of that burden a little easier. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about the responses to the Government's White Paper which asked specific questions about the proposed size of the assembly, while making it clear that it should be small, strategic and so on. Sadly, I forgot to look up the figures before I came, but I believe I am right to say—and perhaps the Minister will confirm it—that the greater number of responses which referred to the size of the assembly all suggested that it should be larger than 25. I accept that some suggested it should be very much larger, and we do not share that view. However, I suspect that 40 was nearer the number suggested in those responses that referred to size than is 25. I suspect that the Minister will tell us week after week that we are responding to the wishes of Londoners. Therefore, I play that back to him and ask him whether that is the case when dealing with the size of the assembly.
However, as I said earlier, the most important reason is to enable there to be enough assembly members, although not too many, to carry out their duties while remaining strategic and focused and, above all, in order for them to be representative of London's very diverse community.
Lord Renton: This group of amendments contains several quite separate issues which perhaps should have been dealt with separately. However, the matter to which I wish to refer briefly is that covered by Amendment No. 8. That amendment refers to Clause 2(4) which states:
"The Assembly constituencies shall be the areas, and shall be known by the names, specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
58
As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, knows well, some of us feel that it is wrong to have subordinate legislation governing important matters rather than having primary legislation. I should have thought that the constituencies in the future Greater London should be in primary legislation which is brought before Parliament for Parliament to consider in detail and to amend if necessary. But if we have an order made by the Secretary of State, we must either accept or reject it. We have no detailed say in the matter.
A good compromise is covered by Amendment No. 8 which refers to,
"following a review carried out by the Local Government Commission under the terms of Schedule 1 to this Act'.
I should prefer to see it spelt out on the face of the Bill. As we are at an early stage of the Bill. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to replace the prospect of an order by the Secretary of State by some detailed provisions in the Bill.
Lord Whitty: A number of points were raised after my first intervention. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that, as I pointed out on an earlier group of amendments, the boundaries have been drawn up on the recommendation of the Local Government Commission. Therefore, they are not a political fix, so to speak, by the Secretary of State. The Government have accepted the Local Government Commission's recommendations in relation to the boundaries as they stand. Putting that into effect by order is the normal procedure in relation to local government boundaries, as the noble Lord will know.
Lord Renton: Will the Minister explain to us why, therefore, that is to be finalised by an order by the Secretary of State over which Parliament has no control except to say yes or no?
Lord Whitty: If I am incorrect, I shall write to the noble Lord but as I understand it, all changes in local government boundaries are implemented by order of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must accept or query the boundaries as suggested by the Local Government Commission. In this case, we accepted its proposals and we shall carry them through by order. I shall ensure that the noble Lord receives any further clarification which may be required.
I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that I do not have the numbers off the top of my head or instantly recoverable. There were a number of responses which suggested that there should be more than 25. But there was also a significant number, not least from the business community, whose views were that we must ensure that the assembly is small and streamlined. Our view is that 25 is the appropriate number. It is certainly true that in the responses others took a different view. Some took the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and others took a different view. In order to achieve the object of establishing a new, unique structure of government for London, we have always taken the view that the assembly should be small and

59
that 25 is the appropriate number. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue this matter, at least at this point.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps not at this point. I read into the Minister's comment on the Green Paper that some respondents wanted more members and some fewer, so the Government have come up with a figure in the middle. It would be interesting to know for a future stage whether the figure of 25 received support.
I took also from the Minister's argument that the electoral system was dictating the figure of 25 members. The Minister did not directly answer the points made by my noble friend and myself about the functioning of the assembly—other than to say that 40 members would be unwieldy. I am sure that 40 members could be controlled by any half-way competent chair. Forty is not all that different from 25.
My noble friend forcefully made the point that we are concerned that all Londoners and all London interests are properly represented. We are concerned also that assembly members have a job that is practicable. I am not sure whether the muttering—I do not mean that unkindly—of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was on my point about numbers. I am absolutely sure that in dealing with his members in Haringey, which is more of the order of 60 than 40, the noble Lord is totally competent and has them all exactly where he wants them.
Lord Harris of Haringey: Perhaps I could clarify the mumbling. I was trying to understand why, although 40 was not thought a very different number from 25, it was nonetheless preferable because it was larger. I suspect that the figure of 40 was advanced because it fits much more neatly with the principles and requirements of the single transferable vote—which is, I gather, the hors-d'oeuvre up to which we are building. In which case, can the noble Baroness explain why it is appropriate to structure the assembly to fit the convenience of an electoral system, rather than meet the needs of the functions of the assembly that is being created?
Baroness Hamwee: We would be happy to accept 42, 39 or even 35. We would not accept 33 members, for the reasons given in the previous debate. We do not want members tied directly to London boroughs. We believe that would work against the strategic nature of the authority. I apologise if I gave the wrong impression, in suggesting that there is not much difference between 40 and 25 members. I was speaking in the context of whether or not the assembly would be unwieldy. I do not regard 40 members as unwieldy or 25 as particularly more "wieldy"—if there is such a word.
This is a serious point and not an hors-d'oeuvre to the main course of a different electoral system. All my noble friends on these Benches tonight and many of your Lordships have said that they are not theologians with regard to electoral systems. They are not a subject that attracts us as a technical matter. What is of importance is good representation and good
60
government. As I made clear to the Minister privately at a meeting last week at which a number of your Lordships and many officials were present, we are concerned about this matter entirely separately from how assembly members are elected. It is not that we feel compelled to argue points so that we may argue the next group of amendments. I dare say that we will reflect on the issue and may return to it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("members") to end of line 6 and insert ("representing the multi-member constituencies determined by the Local Government Commission under subsection (4) below")
With this amendment I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 23, 27, 27A, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 41, 45, 47 and 49.
Amendment No. 6 removes the distinction between constituency and London members and provides for the Local Government Commission to determine constituencies. Amendment No. 7 says that there shall be more than one member per constituency—in other words, that there shall be multi-member constituencies. Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 16, 23, 27A, 29, 30 and 45 all remove mention of London members. Amendment No. 34 adds a section explaining the filling of vacancies by alternative votes, because the single transferable vote cannot be used to elect one person. Amendment No. 35 explains the STV system. Amendment No. 36 removes the detail of London members' elections. Amendment No. 41 explains that seats are allocated to candidates with the most votes. Amendment No. 47 makes provision for by-elections. Amendment No. 49 removes the reference to the highest-placed candidates being elected. After that, I feel confident that the whole Committee will wish to support that group of amendments.
The art of good leadership is delegation. My noble friend and leader for this purpose, Baroness Hamwee, has kindly delegated this task to me. In more than 30 years' membership of the Liberal Party and latterly the Liberal Democrats, I have managed never to make a speech explaining the intricacies of the single transferable vote—for which there is a good reason. I have, however, made many speeches on my genuinely held belief in the beneficial effects of such a system.
We touched in an earlier debate on the Conservative amendments relating to borough representation and their views, which I think we share, about the inadequacies of the proposals for 14 fairly large constituencies and a top-up list of 11 London members. Whatever system is used, the one we have is by no means the best. The 14 constituencies will be too large to be in any sense local and too small to be in any sense strategic to two or, in some cases, three boroughs. There will still be a degree of local interest, with the focus still very much on borough interests—although a little less than single-borough interests. But the constituencies will not be large enough to be strategic.
The Electoral Reform Society states that based on the 1998 borough election results—I know as well as anyone that things can change but those are the most recent and reliable indicators—only one of the proposed 14 constituencies can genuinely be held to be marginal. All but four would be regarded as safe. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is looking at me with interest. That is not a claim on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Nevertheless, four seats could be and are considered as safe for one party or the other.
Even more important to Liberal Democrats is that, based on the 1998 borough elections, only three of the 14 constituencies would have elected a winner having more than half the votes. That is a fundamental democratic flaw. As to the 11 top-up seats for so-called London members, two different categories of assembly members are introduced. I hope that will not show too much in practice, but it is an undesirable division. There is no need or real justification for two different sorts of assembly member. I hope that they will not come to be seen within the assembly or, more likely, outside it as being in some way different—one more legitimate than the other.
Putting the list system together with the constituency system as I described it means, according to the Electoral Reform Society, that something like 20 of the 25 assembly members will be able to count themselves virtually sure of election once they have secured their party nomination; in other words, we are adopting a system in which, even more than present systems, the assembly membership will be determined not by the London electorate but by the London political party members. That is inherently undemocratic.
The proposal that we are putting forward is for election by the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies. We would envisage four or five large constituencies, which could perhaps be based on the old county boundaries, but that would be a matter for the Local Government Commission to determine. It would give a degree of local representation—I use that word loosely; perhaps geographical representation is a better expression—shared with others but with a large enough interest to be able to be genuinely strategic.
That is the argument for the multi-member constituencies. The argument for STV within those constituencies is based on three principles, which I believe any election system ought a have. First, and most important, there is fairness to all voters. Secondly, there should be real natural constituencies; and, thirdly, there should be genuine voter choice. All of those will be met by STV in multi-member constituencies. We would stand to gain the best opportunity that we are going to get of actually electing an assembly—be it 25 or, as we would prefer, 40 members or thereabouts—which would be more likely to be at least reasonably representative of the many communities of London, as opposed to 25 members who would, in effect, be almost entirely chosen by the political parties. That is another advantage of what we propose.
STV would also allow voters to express preferences for individual candidates both within a party and between parties. Again, it would allow much wider voter
62
choice. It would also help to create an assembly which would be more representative. It is interesting to note that STV is the system used in Ireland, and the noble Lord, Lord Archer, was kind enough to express his enthusiasm for it earlier. It has worked well in Ireland and, interestingly, it is the system which was introduced by the previous government; indeed, it is still used in Northern Ireland, as witnessed in last week's European elections. There is a very good reason for that: again, as far as possible, to enable the communities in Northern Ireland to be more fairly represented.
We propose STV for multi-member constituencies, not because any of us is an election anorak or, indeed, because I wish to be known, as my noble friend said to me privately earlier on, as "Lord Nerd"—because I do not—but because we genuinely believe that it is more democratic and that it will produce a much more representative assembly elected with the best possible voter choice and the least possible political party choice. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thought that STV would be debated under Amendment No. 14. However, as it has been mentioned now in such detail, perhaps I may say a few words at this stage. I was born and brought up in a country where the single transferable vote was the system. When I first came to the United Kingdom, I thought that it was better than the existing system in this country. But, as time has gone by, I have decided that it is very definitely not comparable. I strongly support the first-past-the-post system.
The single transferable vote does not produce the candidate that most people like; it merely gives the result. The elected party is the one which is least generally disliked. It is a totally negative form of election whereby, even if you do not get your choice, you can, out of pique, use the system to go against whoever you want to avoid being elected. I really do not support STV. I lived in Australia long enough to vote under that system. Indeed, the complexity of it whereby you will have many candidates produces a further Problem. I feel that this is yet another push. I do not go along with those in this House and in that party generally who support proportional representation, STV or any old system at all except first-past-the-post. I do not know whether my remarks are suitable at this point or whether they would be more suitable under the debate on Amendment No. 14, but I shall not repeat them. I wanted to make the point very strongly that I oppose the single transferable vote.
Lord Whitty: There is a large number of amendments in this group, some of which raise certain issues which have not yet been mentioned. Nevertheless, it is clear that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to ensure that the system of voting for the assembly is STV. Despite the fact that he claimed that he had never made such a speech before in his life, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, did not make a bad fist of advocating the STV system. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, gave it fairly short shrift and pointed out the main objection to it; namely, that at best you get

63
everyone's second choice and in some cases everyone's third choice, depending on the size of constituency and the way that the votes fall.
I am slightly concerned. We on these Benches often get accused of not having a coherent approach to the devolution agenda in general. However, being a bit of an anorak myself—or, nerd, which I believe was the term used by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—I was still awake late last night and watched the broadcast on the European elections. I must be totally objective because I think he is the only member of the parliamentary Liberal Party who is not actually running for election at this point, but I am pretty confident that I heard Menzies Campbell making it absolutely clear that they favoured the additional member system, in which the Liberals joined with us in Scotland on the convention. He said that the system in Scotland and Wales had been entirely successful in that it allowed people to maintain the link with the constituency but that, on the top-up list, it made sure that the number of members eventually returned reflected the total proportion of votes. If the additional membership system is good enough for the Liberals in Scotland and in Wales, I fail to understand why the Liberals in London would wish to revert to an atavistic attachment to STV. I applaud their consistency in this matter in some respects, but they appear to have abandoned it in relation to other aspects of constitutional change in this House.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I, too, heard the words of the Liberal Member. But did the Minister then hear Mrs. Margaret Beckett say immediately afterwards that she had never been in favour of proportional representation? I wonder where the Minister stands on that.
Lord Whitty: I believe that my right honourable friend was responding to the question as to whether the results of the European elections had set back the campaign for first-past-the-post in relation to Westminster. She made her own particular view known on that issue. Indeed, those of us who know her will have heard her rather forthrightly express that view many times. She did not express a view in relation to London or, indeed, to Scotland and Wales on that occasion. As noble Lords will know, the Government as a whole have thought it appropriate that, in relation to the new parliament and the new assembly—and, of course, in relation to the GLA—an additional member system which maintains, on the one hand, the constituency link while, on the other, ensures that the total balance is more proportionate, is an appropriate innovation in our constitution at that level. That is an entirely different argument as to whether that should be the system which defines the Government of the United Kingdom. That is no doubt one to which the Liberal Democrats would wish us to return very rapidly; and we have to watch that space.
64
However, I had better return to London rapidly. The additional member system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—
Lord Tope: It was probably a slip of the tongue, but I would not wish it to go on the record. It is the Minister who is proposing the additional member system, although he is now suggesting that I proposed it. That is not the case.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I apologise to the noble Lord. I was so persuaded by my own argument I assumed that he had been persuaded too. The noble Lord advocates an STV system. I thought I heard him mention four or five constituencies, presumably in the context of a 25-member assembly. That would probably enable an STV system to work adequately. The London constituencies are pretty huge. Even with a system of 40 members—as advocated just now—the constituencies would have to be pretty huge to enable STV to work. The degree of identity that could be achieved with those constituencies would be extremely limited. Therefore the constituency geographic identity—which we seek in our suggestions for representation—would not be met by creating four or five STV-based constituencies across London. That is much better met by the 14 directly elected posts under the first-past-the-post representation which we propose. However, we recognise—as we would with any size of assembly so far suggested—that that could lead to a serious distortion. We need to correct that distortion—in the same way as we have in Wales and Scotland—by introducing the top-up system.
The noble Lord suggested that this was a way of ensuring that the party would control the choice. With the system at present in place the party controls the choice. In Scotland and Wales the party controls the choice of candidates put before the electorate. The electorate then have the ability to decide whether or not to support the candidates put before them. That is the case with any of the systems that we propose. It allows for a potential independent element.
The issue of open lists as opposed to closed lists has detained the Chamber in a different context for a considerable amount of time. However, in an additional member system as distinct from a pure list system—as we operated during the European elections—the strength of any argument which the Committee may have against an open system is much weaker because there is still a constituency base determining the majority of candidates, as in Scotland and Wales. Therefore I do not think that the historic arguments used by this Chamber in relation to open lists apply to the same degree in this case.
I believe that the burden of the feeling in this Chamber is not to pursue the STV option—although I have no doubt that the Liberal Democrats will continue to do so—but to pursue a system of representation envisaged when we put forward the previous legislation for the referendum and now made manifest in this Bill. As this process was carried out in Scotland and Wales, I do not think it will be a problem for Londoners to be faced with two votes in relation to the assembly

65
elections. That did not confuse the electors of Scotland and Wales and it is hardly likely to confuse the electors of London. Nor is it likely to create two tiers of member, as the noble Lord implied—I think he then rapidly retreated from that view—as I believe it is clear in Scotland and Wales that there is no distinction between the functions and the legitimacy of the two different methods of election to the Parliament and the Assembly. There is no reason why there should be that distinction in London.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord leaves that point I hope I may suggest to him that the Government would be wise before they proceed any further with this system—which I gather is identical to the one used for the Scottish Parliament—to find out what effect it has had on the political parties and whether they are completely happy with it. The Government should also find out from the Scots Parliament whether the two sets of members will in fact be equal because there has already been a big argument about that in the Scots Parliament. It has been decided that the two sets will have different levels of expenses—I think I am right in saying that—and there has been trouble. The Government would be wise not to gloss over this matter and think that because nothing has been said in the newspapers about the whole matter going wrong everything is all right. I can give them one instance of where within a political party the system has worked extremely unfairly. The Minister may find that that is the case in his own party and in other parties. It may be wise to take that into account for the future of the system. It is best to arrange it so that it works out as fairly as possible.
Lord Whitty: In response to the first point of the noble Baroness, the system is effectively the same—although the proportions are somewhat different—as in Scotland and Wales. I have no doubt that there are a number of teething problems in both those countries and there will be a number of teething problems in London. We are talking about creating new institutions with a new range of powers and a new basis of legitimacy. However, I do not believe that any fundamental problem experienced by the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly—despite the problems they have—relates to the fact that they allegedly have a two-tier level of membership. I do not believe that that is a huge problem although there may be some difficulties at the margin.
As to whether political parties are satisfied with the respective results, given that in neither case was an overall majority won by any party, none of the political parties will be entirely happy. They will find other reasons to explain why they feel that the system does not entirely reflect their interests. The idea that we have created assemblies and parliaments with two tiers of members is erroneous and will be erroneous as far as London is concerned.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I did not mean that the political parties did not think the system was fair on them. I refer to the fact that the people who get elected
66
to the assembly may not relate to the votes that are cast. I could give the noble Lord an example which may be helpful although I shall not do so now. It would be wise for the Government to talk to the political parties about how the system has worked. I refer to the mechanics of the system. Various details could be stipulated which would make the system clearer.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before my noble friend responds to the amendment, I should like to make two points. First, I do not believe that the Minister has responded to the point of representation of different interests as an advantage of a proportional system like STV which was put forward by my noble friend. The great advantage of STV is that you can vote for any candidate from any party in any order you wish. I take an extreme example of a woman who has never had the chance to vote for a woman representative. There are women in England who have never had the chance to vote for a woman to represent them. That woman can, if she wishes, vote only for women representatives, taking those from her own party first and then perhaps those from another party. Someone from an ethnic minority can do the same with regard to his choice of candidate. The evidence from countries where STV is used shows that any proportional system tends to assist the election of women but STV is particularly effective in assisting with the election of women and those from ethnic minorities. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did not respond to that point when my noble friend mentioned it.
Further, I disagree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I am rather a "nerd" on this subject and I shall not bore the Committee by describing the whole system. We elect all our committee members at a national level on STV. The votes are counted from those who have the most votes downwards. Anyone who has more votes than he or she needs to get elected—that is, more than their quota—finds that the excess votes trickle down. Therefore the most popular people are elected first. It is not a case of the least popular people being elected first. The people who are elected are those who have accumulated the most votes. People do not necessarily understand how the voting system works. It favours those who have the most support, not those with less support.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I cannot let that pass. When I was in Australia at Easter I was shown the size of the single transferable vote list for the Senate. It was as big as an enormous tablecloth. That is the kind of thing one gets when matters reach a ridiculous level.
I was elected to the General Dental Council on the basis described by the noble Baroness. That still does not alter my view. I do not think that I was necessarily the most popular person but I was fortunate enough to be elected on a single transferable vote when, at a

67
certain time, there was a need to elect one dentist to represent general practitioners. I am not convinced and my arguments still stand.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am sure that when the noble Baroness was elected to that committee she was one of its most respected members.
Lord Whitty: With due respect to both august bodies, I am not sure that the internal committee of the Liberal Democrat Party or the General Dental Council are good models for how we should run London in the future.
As to the noble Baroness's first point, I strongly recognise the need to ensure that minorities are represented.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I really must stop talking about women as a minority. I am talking about getting elected to elected bodies people who are not normally elected. That is the point I was making. STV gives people the chance to do that.
Lord Whitty: I accept that. I thought we were talking about the under-represented part of the community, whether they are women, ethnic minorities or other minorities. It depends on the size of the STV constituency whether or not an STV system makes that easier. If political parties are committed to greater representation of women or ethnic minorities, a topping-up list system is a very effective way of increasing their representation. That is an opportunity the political parties in London will have through the London-wide election lists.
Lord Tope: The Minister began by suggesting that there was some possible difference of view between myself and Menzies Campbell about the benefits of PR systems. That is a conceptual impossibility. There is no difference between us at all. We believe that any genuine proportional system is better than the first-past-the-post system but that some proportional systems are better than others. That is a perfectly clear and consistent view. It has always been and remains our preferred option to use the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies. Where that is not achievable—either because of an intransigent government or for other reasons—then an alternative proportional system is certainly still preferable to first-past-the-post. If we fail to get into the Bill the best electoral system, we will undoubtedly end up supporting the second or third best, or whatever grade one gives to the system proposed. At least that will produce a proportional result in spite of the defects that I and my noble friend have spoken to. Although my noble friend tells me rather late in the day that she is a "nerd" on these subjects—I wonder if "nerd" is a parliamentary term—I am sure she could have moved the amendment far better than I.
The Minister made a number of points. He referred to larger constituencies. That is certainly true. "Constituency" is an electoral term. I accept that we are
68
talking more accurately about sub-regional areas in the London context. I accept that they are much larger areas. We spent some time earlier arguing very strongly that this is a strategic authority whose members must take a strategic view. The word "parochial" was used. It is not a word I would wish to use, particularly in relation to boroughs, but too local, too parochial a view would at best inhibit a truly strategic view. That is the argument for having larger constituencies—sub-regional areas, if you like—represented by a number of members who will work together for the interest, where appropriate, of that larger area, but still large enough to have a strategic impact on the future of London. As one would expect, there are fierce debates, even rivalries, quite properly, between east London, west London, north London and south London. That will continue. We do not want to make it into too small an area.
The Minister said that I referred to the possibility—I certainly meant to say it—of the danger of two types of members of the assembly emerging and that I then retreated from it. I do not think I retreated from it. It is a fear I have. I expressed the hope that it will not happen; that is not the same as retreating. I hope that it will not happen; I fear that it might. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. She indicated that if the Scottish experience is borne out and continues, that may well happen. I can envisage arguments about expenses at an early stage. Constituency members will argue that they need higher expenses because they have constituents to deal with; London members will argue that their constituents are the whole population of London. They both will be right.
I hope very much that such arguments will not happen. I do not want to see that emerge—I do not want to be a part of that in any way—but it is a fear I have. It is a situation we could avoid by adopting the eminently sensible and particularly democratic system—which will apply very well in the small strategic authority for London we are debating—of the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.
I am not sure whether the Minister expressed a hope or an expectation when he said that we will return to this subject again. I do not wish to disappoint him but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 13 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 20, after ("election") insert ("under the alternative vote system")
The noble Baroness said: We are now moving to the amendments on which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, felt we would have our discussion on the different systems of voting. The amendments are not concerned with voting for members under the STV system but propose that the election of the mayor shall be by alternative voting and not by the supplementary vote system proposed in the Bill.
Amendment No. 14 inserts the first mention of the new system in Clause 2 at page 2, line 20, of the Bill; Amendment Nos. 24 and 25 change references from "supplementary" to "alternative" votes as a consequence of Amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 26 removes the reference to a vote being transferred to only first and second candidates. Here we come to the crux of the amendment—to which I shall return later—namely, that under an alternative vote system the voter has more than two choices. Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 substitute the counting system for alternative votes for the explanation of supplementary votes in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Supplementary votes and alternative votes are both systems for electing one person from a field of many or several candidates. Even the supplementary vote has only a marginally more proportional effect than the first-past-the-post system. Under the supplementary vote, voters can mark their ballot papers with a cross for their first choice and another for their second choice. Even so, the person elected may not have received 50 per cent of the vote. Under the alternative vote, voters rank the candidates in order of preference and, because of the system of counting, the winning candidate will have the support of more than half of the voters.
We believe that the mayor should be elected using the alternative vote because it would give the mayor a better grounding, a better foundation, in terms of the support of a large percentage of the population of London. In addition, election by supplementary vote involves a form of guesswork, because the voter must guess which of the other candidates will be knocked out and which will remain after the first round of counting. If he or she does not vote for one of those who still remain, their second vote is lost. So it will not increase their chance of having voted for the mayor. As a consequence, the supplementary vote does not eliminate tactical voting.
Interestingly enough, the Government's Green Paper, New Leadership for London, did not mention the supplementary vote for the election of the mayor, but suggested three options: first-past-the-post; second ballot and alternative vote. The second ballot is like the supplementary vote, but it does not require the voter to guess. The voter who votes in the second ballot knows the candidates who still remain in the field and he or she can pick the one of his or her choice.
The alternative vote was proposed as an option in the Green Paper and yet, without there being any mention of the supplementary vote in the Green Paper, it was introduced in the White Paper as a simplified version of the alternative vote. Why does the Minister think that Londoners need a simplified version? I suppose that we might reliably anticipate there being candidates from the three major political parties represented in this House. Presumably there would be a green candidate, and possibly a BNP candidate. There might be one or two others, but the number of candidates can be restricted in any voting system by the conditions which are imposed for the nomination process. So it would probably be possible to limit the candidates to a sensible number.
If the Government are telling us that Londoners are not clever enough to rank five or six people in the order of their preference, all I can say is that that gives a rather poor impression of the respect with which the residents and voters of London are treated. I believe that the supplementary vote may have been introduced into the Bill because it is a cheaper version of the second ballot. It does not require a person to go and vote again, as is done in France on the second ballot procedure. We feel that it is very important to have a system for election for the mayor which guarantees that the maximum number of people have supported the candidacy of the particular person who wins that election. That is why we support the alternative vote system for electing the mayor, rather than the system suggested by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: It is on occasions like this that I miss my noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield, who would take us through the intricacies of the various systems of voting, as he did some years ago when he convinced me of the importance of the supplementary vote system. I am sure that the same arguments still apply. The reason that we have proposed the supplementary vote system here is not that it is cheaper, or that it is simpler for Londoners to understand, or even that it would give a better result for the Labour Party, as some have alleged. The reason is that the supplementary vote system, as distinct from the alternative vote system, could in certain circumstances, if candidates are ranked one to five, lead to a situation where the third or fourth most popular candidate would in fact win. In the STV system this applies for the second, third and fourth elected candidates rather than the first. But here we are discussing the alternative vote system.
The supplementary vote system, where you vote for your first and second choice, is a two-ballot decision all in one. Whereas under the French system you do not know who the candidates will be in the second ballot, you will know who all the candidates will be in the election for the mayor. If the second votes are transferred, the system would give a majority to the successful candidate. In this the first election of a mayor of London, with a directly elected executive role, it is important that the method of election attunes itself as clearly as possible to the expressed views of the electorate. We want a strong mayor with whom people can identify, and whom they feel they have chosen. If we were to go on to the alternative vote system, under which in certain circumstances it would be possible for a third or fourth preference to be elected, that could seriously undermine the credibility and the mandate of the mayor. We do not believe that that is the best way forward.
I accept that the noble Baroness considers, as do various political parties in Australia, that the alternative vote system, with all its slight perversities, gives everyone a say, but it does not necessarily result in the election of the candidate who is the most popular and has the strongest mandate. The absolute objective of any system for introducing a mayor of London is that the population who voted in London can believe that whatever the system, the most popular candidate was

71
elected. That could be jeopardised by a full alternative vote system. I ask the noble Baroness to consider that point and not to press the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The Minister wished for the attendance of the noble Lord, Lord Plant. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, might be on our side of the argument and not on the Minister's side. Furthermore, the noble Lord should not tempt me to argue about the effects of STV by making inaccurate statements about it. However, I shall ignore that challenge. I certainly would never allege that the Government had chosen a system of election because they thought it might benefit them.
The perversity of the supplementary voting system arises when, for example, four candidates have fought an election and have come very close together in that election. The votes of the candidate with the fewest votes would be redistributed, but the people who had voted for that candidate might have no sensation that their second choice had been considered because they might have given their second vote to the person who is ultimately elected. The person who is ultimately elected can be elected with less than 50 per cent of the poll. That is the disadvantage of the system.
I do not think it is worth going into a long argument about this issue. I would simply point out that in the 1930s a Bill was introduced into this Parliament to provide the supplementary vote system for elections in this country. During the passage of the Bill the method was changed from SV to AV and the Bill was abandoned after a disagreement with the House of Lords. Indeed, AV is also used for the election of the Irish President, a person who almost inevitably commands the support and respect of the majority of his or her countrymen. However, perhaps this is not the time to go into all the intricacies of the system. I suspect that we may well come back to this amendment. Therefore, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
7 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 18 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 19.
Schedule 1 [Assembly constituencies and orders under section 2(4)]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 22 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Voting at ordinary elections]:
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 30 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
("(10) At an ordinary election a person may not be both a candidate to be an Assembly member and a candidate for Mayor or Deputy Mayor.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 31, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 39. Both cover an identical point in different parts of the Bill. There is a clear objection to a system which can almost automatically create a by-election. A candidate for mayor or as an assembly member should not in effect have two bites at the cherry. He should make up his mind which he wants to be and if he fails in his first choice, well, that is politics and he should finish up with nothing, at least for that election.
If we draw an analogy with the United States of America, if a senator wishes to stand for president he has to resign his seat. These amendments are entirely consistent with the provisions that the Government have included in the Bill in connection with the filling of a casual vacancy in the office of a constituency assemblyman. Clause 10(10) says:
"(10) A person may not be a candidate at an election to fill a vacancy if he is

(a) the Mayor;

(b) an Assembly member; or

(c) a candidate in another such election".

Similarly, in the case of a vacancy in the office of mayor, Clause 16(10), which has been included in the Bill by the Government, says:
"(10) A person may not be a candidate in an election to fill a vacancy in the office of Mayor if he is a candidate in an election to fill a vacancy in an Assembly constituency".
In other words, the Government have already legislated against candidates trying to ride two horses at once in the case of by-elections. We agree with that, but the same principle has to apply for the sake of consistency to the original elections as well. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments would prohibit a person from standing simultaneously as a candidate for both mayor and the assembly. I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be unacceptable for someone actually to serve simultaneously both as mayor and as an assembly member. The Bill makes provision to prevent such circumstances arising. Clause 4(7) specifies that:
"The persons who are to be returned as—

(a) the Mayor, and

(b) the constituency members,

must be determined before it is determined who are to be returned as the London members".
This means that in those circumstances where someone has stood for mayor and is also on the party list and has gained enough votes to win both elections, that person would be returned as mayor and discounted from the allocation of London member seats. If someone was returned for an assembly constituency he or she would also drop out from the London member seat election.

73
In addition, if someone was elected as mayor and as an assembly constituency member, the Bill makes provision for action should a vacancy occur in the constituency seats. However, it would be heavy-handed and serve no practical purpose to prevent people standing as a candidate in both elections. I can well imagine a situation in which the party's leading lights would wish to contest both the mayoral and assembly elections. If those candidates lost the mayoral election it would be perverse to have them already rendered ineligible for consideration as assembly members. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. I believe I understand what she is saying—that if standing for mayor and as one of the London members, a person would automatically come off the list after being elected as mayor. I understand that, but I think the situation is different if the person is standing as a constituency member. If that person were to be elected mayor, then as I understand it there would automatically have to be a by-election, and that is what we are trying to suggest should not happen. I may perhaps have misunderstood and would be grateful if the noble Baroness could comment on the point.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My understanding is that the Bill prohibits anyone from standing in more than one assembly constituency, but no prohibition has been placed on standing both for the mayor and the assembly. There seems to be little reason to constrain individuals from doing that.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I have to confess that I do not agree with that, because one would be causing a by-election just as we are starting at the very beginning of it all. As I said, in America if a senator wants to stand as president, he has first to withdraw from being a senator. I would have thought that perhaps it would be more sensible for us to consider that as a pattern. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I may wish to pursue the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Voting at elections]:
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 182, line 27, at end insert ("no later than 55 days prior to the date set for the ordinary election")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 37 I should like to speak to Amendment No. 40. The latter amendment is a technical one, largely dependent on the passing of Amendment No. 37. Its object is to make the necessary amendments to the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 consequential on the passing of Amendment No. 37. The 1998 Act, as your Lordships may recall, was expressly passed to
74
make way for proportional representation by party list: that is, the system which has just been used for the European elections.
Even though Amendment No. 40 is largely related to Amendment No. 37, it also serves to tidy up the 1998 Act by setting a time limit for the registration of a political party for a particular election, which will always be on a fixed date. I need not say more about that amendment because, as I say, it is mainly to provide the machinery connected with Amendment No. 37. I suggest the amendment to your Lordships for separate consideration. Amendment No. 37 adds 14 words to paragraph 5(2). It requires the names of persons that a party wishes to have on its list of London candidates to be submitted to the returning officer no later than 55 days before the date of that election.
The first matter to be borne in mind is that the date of that election is fixed, unlike the date of a general election, and the date is certainly known for years ahead. The parties therefore have a long period in which to select their list of candidates and to place them in their order of preference. However, I would suggest that it is important for the voters and the media to have the opportunity to become aware of who the candidates are and to check their antecedents, if that is what they wish.
In the ordinary local and parliamentary elections it is common—indeed the normal practice—for voters to know or to be able to find out, if they are interested, who their candidates are. More often than not it is the incumbent who is standing again. However, under this new alien system which has just been introduced, we no longer vote for a candidate but for a party. Which candidates are likely to be elected for that party depends on how high they are placed on the list. So while the names of the candidates are not of interest on a personal basis, it is important for a voter to know the order of the candidates. In this kind of election it is vital for the public to know that as soon as possible. This amendment would make the parties commit themselves to the running order as soon as it is possible to do so. Since a member of the public cannot in the polling booth exercise a personal choice among the candidates of the party, then he ought at least to know the kind of package for which he is voting. Even a lifelong supporter member of, let us say, the Moon is Made of Green Cheese Party might decide not to vote fix that party on discovering that his vote will help to put someone whom he absolutely detests into the assembly.
This amendment does nothing except further the democratic process if we are to have PR by the party list system foisted upon us. I did not intercede on any of the groups of amendments on the voting systems, but the Government will know the view of this side of the Committee in favour of first-past-the-post.
The amendment sets a viable time limit on the selection of the lists and of their running order 10 reduce the time for internal party machinations and wrangling. Above all, my intention is to concentrate the minds of

75
the parties on who their candidates shall be, so that they can get on as soon as possible with the issues of the campaign. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was slightly taken aback by the apparent reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, to people who were failing to get publicity in advance of the closing date for nominations and people not knowing who was interested in standing. I should have thought that in some cases people are only too aware of who is interested in standing.
I have listened with great interest to the noble Baroness's explanation of the reason for these amendments, but I cannot feel that they would add value to the Bill. The amendments propose to place a requirement on the Registrar of Political Parties to register a political party which intends to contest the GLA election and which has applied to him for registration before 31st January, no later than 70 days before the date of an ordinary election. Ten weeks before the first Thursday in May would give a date in late February, giving the registrar effectively three weeks in which to register a late-arriving application.
While I am sure that that would not present problems for the registrar, given that his own aim is to decide straightforward applications within five days, I can see no need for such a requirement. It is certainly not justified by the registrar's performance so far. Even where the registrar has referred difficult or sensitive cases to the Advisory Committee on the Registration of Political Parties, there has been no significant delay in the registration process. Why, therefore, impose on the registrar a requirement so far in excess of his actual practice and which does not exist in respect of any other election? Admittedly the amendment does not include the proviso that failure would lay the registrar or the returning officer open to action; even so, I am bound to say that I doubt the value of the proposal.
The requirement is not therefore needed in practice. Nor has it been imposed in relation to any other election. It seems an odd proposal to modify the Registration of Political Parties Act to impose a time requirement on the registrar which exists in respect of no other election. For that reason alone I would oppose it.
I was similarly in some difficulty trying to understand why it was thought a good idea to have the party lists with the returning officer between eight and 12 weeks before the poll, when the normal time-scale for local elections would only call for their delivery four or five weeks before the poll. The time-scale for these matters is normally set out in election rules, rather than enshrined in primary legislation; and it is our intention, once Royal Assent to the Bill has been received, to lay before the House election rules based on the local government principal area rules.
No special time-scale was imposed on the submission of lists for the AMS elections conducted recently in Scotland and Wales for their national assemblies and I have not so far heard any compelling argument in favour of doing so for the GLA election.
76
Having heard the noble Baroness's explanation, I am still far from convinced either that this is a matter which needs to be dealt with by primary legislation or that it is a good idea. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall read what the Minister has said. My concern is with London. It is not what happened in Scotland and Wales, or in the European elections. I am concerned that we get it absolutely right for London. I should like to think that the noble Baroness agrees that that is the matter of most concern.
This new system is not unique—it has now been used three times—but the fact remains that it is completely different and new to London. Another point mentioned today by journalists in regard to the European elections is that it is believed that one of the reasons the Government did not do particularly well in Scotland, for example, is that some voters did not like the deals that resulted from the election of the Scottish Parliament. I merely mention that en passant. It is important for people to know in good time which candidates will be on the list. That might obviate the cause for such comment. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Adoption and Fostering
7.17 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any proposals to reform the law and practice relating to adoption and fostering.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, First and foremost in regard to adoption and fostering there is the question of the future legislative framework for adoption. Our existing statute derives from the time when adoption was still largely concerned with babies rather than older children.
As long ago as July 1989, a comprehensive review of adoption law was started. After four discussion papers, three background papers, a report to Ministers, a White Paper and a separate consultation paper, that review culminated in March 1996 when the Department of Health and the Welsh Office issued a consultative document and a draft adoption Bill. The final consultation period ended in June 1996. The draft Bill was far more than an updating of the law to bring adoption more in line with the Children Act 1989, although that is important in itself. It was an attempt to bring the law into line with developments in social work practice and to meet criticism of the working of the present law. The draft Bill included express provision to avoid delay in the whole legal process. It also

77
recognised that a larger proportion of children available for adoption were not small babies but children with views and wishes of their own.
The draft Bill received cross-party support and (perhaps more importantly) was generally welcomed by those who work in adoption. Nothing happened. It was speculated that the previous government, in their final days, became reluctant to get involved in awkward questions such as trans-racial adoption, adoption by unmarried couples and "open" adoption.
Unfortunately, the present Government have yet to show their hand and take on the proposed changes to adoption law. All we have are two paragraphs in the consultation document Supporting Families about changes to adoption guidelines and reports of some other rather general remarks by Ministers. I accept and welcome the fact that the question of inter-country adoption is now being covered by a Bill introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Winchester—that measure has also recently been introduced into your Lordships' House—but to some extent the problems created by overseas adoptions are a reflection of the perceived difficulties of the adoption process here.
If the substantive changes to domestic law are not brought forward, not only will a great deal of time, hard work and hard thinking have been wasted but cracks in our existing law will widen and be exposed to the Human Rights Act. In particular, it has been suggested that the existing provisions relating to freeing for adoption are unsatisfactory, add to delay and create "legal orphans", to adopt a description used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in a recent case. The provisions for placement in the shelved draft Bill are a carefully crafted alternative.
One area that needs to be thought through carefully concerns the mechanisms for facilitating contact between adults who were adopted and their natural parents. It is a difficult and delicate task. There is a diversity of practice and resources provided by different local authorities which is almost capricious. There is now much research into post-adoption contact which needs to be reflected in modern legislation. Adoption can be an agonising process, particularly for natural parents for whom a child out of sight is never out of mind. The popular concentration on abused and neglected children overlooks the trauma and stigma felt by those natural parents who are not abusers. Likewise, the caricature of the politically correct social worker is equally unfair. Social workers recognise that children who are unable to stay with their birth families deserve the best that can be obtained by way of a secure permanent home environment. Usually, the worst that can be said is that sometimes they try too hard, and therefore too long, to get the right match for a child.
It is beyond dispute that some children are not easily placed, and in some cases local authorities are compelled to use expensive specialist agencies. Research by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering (BAFF), assisted by the Department of Health, into children adopted from care revealed, among a number of worrying points, that a declining number of
78
children were being adopted from care, confirmed recently by latest statistics; that it took an average of four years for children to be adopted after beginning to be looked after; that 36 per cent of the children adopted had experienced three or more moves; and that 16 per cent of children freed or relinquished for adoption two years before had still not been placed with new families.
Last year BAFF launched its action plan to improve adoption services with many positive features that I hope the Government support. Those who are willing to adopt and foster children are a valuable national resource, particularly those who will. take on older children, siblings or the disabled. Foster parents in particular may have to deal with demanding and damaged children with remaining attachments to their original families. Adoptive parents offer a total commitment, usually without any financial cushion. To make the most of that resource we need a framework of law and support, including post-adoption services, which will encourage and not discourage. We should be aiming at a system which inspires confidence that it will work well, fairly and quickly and provides an independent and robust complaints procedure when it does not work well.
If the law is not changed, there will be yet further pressure to amend the Children Act 1989 to remove the inability of the courts which make care orders to reconsider cases when care plans have not been implemented after a year or some other fixed period. Judges and practitioners see too many children who drift in the care system and are subjected to many placements.
Since I tabled this Question a comprehensive volume of research directed by Professors Lowe and Murch, and funded by the Department of Health, entitled Supporting Adoption: Reframing the Approach, has been published. It is not possible to do that work any justice in a time-limited debate, but it is a rich source of information. Among other things, it draws attention to the diversity of ways in which agencies work and suggests options for restructuring. At the end the authors say:
"We support the Department of Health's decision to set up a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Roy Parker to consider and refine messages for practice arising from this and other recent adoption research. However, we think that a focus. on practice development alone is not enough. Law reform arid structural change, insofar as they set the context for practice, are of fundamental importance and, as we have sought to demonstrate, also need to be addressed".
I turn briefly to fostering. I ask the Government about their attitude to the payment, status and regulation of foster parents. Is there not now a need to recognise that foster parents, who are often doing full-time paid jobs, should not be deemed to be volunteers? There. is a need for a standardisation of payments to foster parents rather than the present diversity across the country; and serious consideration should be given to providing pensionable status. Will voluntary organisations be able to approve foster carers rather than by the somewhat tortuous arrangements through local authorities as now exist? What arrangements are proposed for the inspection by local authorities of foster carers in the independent sector?

79
In this short speech I have touched on only some of the problems which arise, but I look forward to the response of the Government.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for asking this Unstarred Question tonight. I am very conscious that he is infinitely more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, but I put down my name to speak for three quite personal reasons. First, when I was in local government—I now realise that it was a long time ago—I was chairman of what was then known as a children's committee, which became an adoption agency. I was the first chairman of that body. I then realised what an immensely important but very valuable task it was.
Secondly, I know very well three couples who have adopted children. As to one of those couples who adopted those children as babies, I am godmother to one of them who is now an adult. One can see how tremendously successful they have been. Certainly, in at least two cases the prospects for those particular children would have been very poor indeed. As it is, no one would know—unless someone happened to ask—that they were not the natural children of the parents. It is very important to recognise that love is everywhere. You can love an adopted child, who is yours in law, just as much as a natural child—and, for all I know, sometimes a bit more. When it works it is a wonderful relationship.
My third reason for speaking tonight is the tremendous importance that I attach to support of the traditional family. For those children who do not have that benefit, if it is possible to find them an adoptive family it is a miracle, assuming that it works well.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, one of the tragedies in the figures one sees is that the number of adoptions has fallen recently concurrently with the fact that there are now more children in care. Unfortunately so many children who spend a long time in care suffer from acute educational disadvantages and, sadly, end up in prostitution and homelessness. As patron of a special school which helps children with terrible educational problems. I visited recently and heard of a little girl aged nine who, I think that I am right in remembering, had had 40 different placements in her life. It is hardly surprising that the child was unable to learn. If one considers for five minutes what that child must have suffered, it is a terrible situation.
In this debate it is important that we address this point. My figures may not be correct. I am sure that the Minister will correct them. However, there are something like 87,500 children in care, four out of 10 of whom are under the age of 10; and one in 20 is a baby under one year. Although those figures may not be absolutely correct, the position is something like that. Children are in care for a variety of reasons. Some will unquestionably return to their families: they are in care for a specific reason for a short period of time, and will go back to the family. I do not suggest that all those children are suitable for adoption or fostering. But many will not return to their natural parents.
80
I am concerned that, as the noble Lord said, it takes over three years for an adoption to take place. One can imagine the feelings of the prospective adoptive parents; and the child may be old enough to know what is going on during this lengthy period. Perhaps the Minister will say something about the apparent—I should like to be corrected on this—somewhat anti-adoption culture among some social services departments. Many of those organisations need to undergo a culture change.
It would be interesting to hear comment, if it were possible, on the case of the couple who hoped to adopt two little girls and, quite improperly I agree, as it were kidnapped them because they were afraid they would be unable to adopt them. One has to ask this question. Whatever the outcome, if the two little girls are not adopted what are their prospects?
I sometimes think that social workers are looking for perfect parents. They simply will not find them. None of us is perfect. Most parents are good enough. That may be a general definition, but good enough is what many parents are; and they bring up children successfully. They make their mistakes, but who among us can say that we have never made a mistake as a parent? I certainly could not make that statement, and I do not know anyone with whom I have discussed the matter who could.
I read the interesting action plan to improve adoption services by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. It makes a number of extremely valuable suggestions as to what might be done. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has referred to them. I shall not repeat the points he made. Many children could find happiness in a stable home. Many couples long to adopt children. If one cannot have children, one has to make a tremendous commitment and to want children very badly to undertake such responsibility. There is the cost involved, and the time that one has to give up. As we all know, delightful though children are, they are with us for a very long time, and the older they get the nicer it all is.
I agree that we need legislation. I make only one comment on fostering. When I was in local government, I used to consider that foster parents were rather like the lifeboats of society: they rescue people in very difficult circumstances. I have never seen any objection to their being properly paid for this job. It requires professionalism of a high degree. Clearly if they are busy being foster parents they will not be able to undertake any other occupation. It is not unreasonable that they should be paid properly for what they are doing. I am sorry to hear that there is inconsistency of payment. I imagine that each local authority has its own ideas on that issue. Many women might be perfectly happy to look after children—they might find it an infinitely more interesting job than the alternatives—if they were paid properly to do so, and it would be valuable for society.
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It is an important question. I very much hope that the Minister can say something constructive on what is one of the most important tasks in society.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord on initiating this debate on a subject of great importance to the well-being of many children and young people in public care. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness made a number of important comments about adoption. I wish to begin by making some points about fostering.
Whether the figures of children in public care refer to the United Kingdom or England, the fact is that about two-thirds of those children are this evening with foster parents. That illustrates the important contribution that foster parents make to the well-being of children and young people in our society. But it was not always like this. Perhaps I may be excused a personal comment. When I first trained as a social worker, I visited a number of extremely large institutions which were geographically isolated, and where the young people in those institutions lived a structured and formal life, cut off from the rest of society. Noble Lords can well imagine what it must have been like for those young people when they left the institution and returned to society without the experience of using public transport, or doing the ordinary everyday things that other young people did in the normal course of their development.
We welcome the fact that in the 1960s there were two major changes in childcare in this country. The first was the development of preventive work which aimed at enabling families to overcome their difficulties in particular at times of crises in order that they could continue to look after their own children with proper support and help. The second was the promotion of foster care so that the children in public care had the possibility of experiencing living in an ordinary home and enjoying the benefits of being part of a family, albeit a substitute family.
As has been indicated, we should pay tribute to the thousands of families who have opened their homes to take on the care of other people's children. Those families have done the most extraordinary things. Sometimes they have been willing to operate in emergencies, receiving a call at any time of day or night. At other times they have taken on the care of children on a long-term basis when there was no prospect of those children becoming permanent members of their family. Other foster parents have been willing to open their homes to children who have been abused or neglected by the adults in their lives and who have therefore understandably behaved in a distrustful, challenging and sometimes destructive way. Other foster parents have been willing to open their homes to children with severe physical disabilities or severe mental impairments.
Foster care is a great success story in this country. While I was in the Department of Health, I became increasingly aware of how frequently other countries envied the contribution of foster parents and the part they play in childcare services in this country. However, here, I begin to express concerns about the present situation. While the closure of the vast institutions to which I have referred was to be welcomed, I fear the pendulum has swung too far. Many local authorities have closed their smaller-sized children's homes and
82
some have even closed all of their children's homes. While the desire to give every child in care the opportunity to experience life as part of a normal family is laudable, the fact is that many such young people need time to recover from the trauma of earlier events. They need space in a safe place and they need intensive and skilled counselling. Some need firm control and a secure and consistent framework in which they can work out their pain and conflicts.
Therefore, it cannot be a case of "foster care, good; residential care, bad". The fact is that we need both, and we certainly need good quality residential care. When I was a director of social services, my regard for the foster parents was equalled by my admiration for the excellent work undertaken by staff in residential care units. Some authorities have closed a large number or all of their residential units, which has too often resulted in a great burden being placed upon foster parents with inadequate support. As a result, too many young people are experiencing far too many moves, as has already been indicated. Those moves serve only to increase their insecurity, disrupt their education and provoke much avoidable disturbed behaviour.
It has also resulted in another trend; that of young people being placed in residential centres many miles from their familiar environment. It is bad enough to lose your family, but much worse to lose all contacts with your friends and with familiar places such as schools and leisure centres. Even worse, there is a real danger that some of these young people will feel abandoned and it may be a case of "out of sight, out of mind".
I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on having forcefully reminded local authorities of their duty to be good parents to every child and young person in public care. With that in mind, I urge the Minister and her colleagues to continue to press that every local authority achieves at least the following standards. First, every child and young person in public care should have a named social worker in charge of protecting his welfare and promoting his interests. Secondly, each child should have a personal care plan which is reviewed regularly against indicators of progress or problems. Thirdly, each child should be safe from harm and everything should be done to promote his security and stability.
Fourthly, each local authority should behave towards each child as we would hope and expect a good parent to behave. Fifthly, foster parents and residential workers should be valued as partners in the caring process and their skills and knowledge should be respected. Sixthly, local authorities should display a greater ambition for each of the children and young people in their care. It is necessary to be a good parent for a child to achieve its full potential, and too often that has not been apparent in the way some local authorities have carried out their corporate duties. Seventhly, every local authority should demonstrate that it has access to a full range of provisions at local level so that children are not just fitted into inappropriate placements.
One recommendation to the Government is that organisations such as the National Foster Care Association should be given adequate core funding to

83
ensure that they continue to be well managed and to play an important part in fostering and adoption services in this country.
Finally, perhaps I may add to the points which have been made about adoption. We all agree that keeping families together is a worthwhile objective. A number of authorities have developed helpful and excellent family support services. Many voluntary organisations contribute a great deal to this work. But as a result of that and smaller families, fewer children are placed for adoption. However, the children should not be allowed to languish for years in uncertainty waiting on the convenience of the adults in their lives. The early years pass all too quickly and each young person needs to have a sense of security during his childhood. Adolescence can be difficult enough without the added uncertainty of not knowing where you belong or constant disruption resulting from the behaviour of the adults to whom you should look for your well-being.
I say that because some no longer regard adoption as a positive option to be considered alongside all other options. Too often it seems that adoption is regarded as a last resort and not as an option of equal status with other possibilities. I was most interested in the document published earlier today from the Social Exclusion Unit on teenage pregnancy. The graph on page 59 shows clearly how in recent years the number of adoptions has reduced dramatically in this country. Adoption should be regarded for some children and young people as the positive option, the option of choice. With that in mind, it is important for everyone associated with the adoption process to recognise that we all have limited abilities to predict and, in many instances, looking for the excellent parent is unrealistic. We need to ensure that apparently suitable people are not ruled out on the basis of some generality and that adoption should be freed of unproven ideological baggage.
I know that the Government and the Association of Directors of Social Services are giving thought to these matters and I wish them all well in their endeavour to achieve a better and lasting outcome for every child and young person in public care.
7.47 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, for the second time in as many sitting days, the House is debating the protection of children. Surely, few other issues have as great a bearing either on the well-being of society or the values which society professes to uphold. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has chosen to highlight the needs of children in care and I agree with almost all of what he said.
The Government are to be commended for all they have done to improve the law and practice relating to adoption, not least in their support for the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill which received its Third Reading in another place last Friday. I commend, too, the excellent circular issued by the Department of Health last August to local authorities which contained some fundamentally important messages for adoption agencies, social services departments and all those who
84
are concerned with children's services. Those messages stand four-square with the work done by the previous government; notably the Children Act 1989, but also the 1993 White Paper on adoption, the impetus for which came from my right honourable friend Mrs. Bottomley, to whom credit should be paid. That was followed by the consultation document and the draft Bill issued in 1996.
I wish to concentrate on two particular aspects of the adoption issue—the place of adoption in the hierarchy of available options and the defects in the current system. Both take as their starting point the sobering picture revealed by recent statistics. My noble friend Lady Young pointed out that over the past few years we have seen a rise in the number of children coming into care, including a rise in the number of care orders being made through the courts, and at the same time a steady fall in the number of adoptions.
Underlying the fall in adoptions is a pattern of performance by local authorities which can most kindly be described as variable but which, in reality, contains some truly woeful track records. It was not for nothing, therefore, that Mr Boeteng's circular of last August had to spell out some of the fundamental facts of life on adoption.
We know from research studies, as we should know from sheer common sense, that the longer a child remains in the care system the worse his chances of emerging into adulthood undamaged. By contrast, children who have been adopted fare a great deal better emotionally, socially and at school. The success rate for adoption is typically high. The sense of security and well-being engendered by being a permanent part of a loving and supportive family is of inestimable value and, not surprisingly, the earlier the age the adoption begins, the better the prospects.
Again, we would do well to remind ourselves of the statistics. Young people who have been in care are 50 times more likely than other children to go to gaol. Those who have been in care comprise 38 per cent of young offenders and 23 per cent of adult prisoners. When we look at the hard costs of dealing with youth crime, never mind the cost in damaged lives, it really is extremely difficult to argue that the under-resourcing and under-performance of adoption services are shortcomings that we should be content to live with.
However, youth crime is only part of the story. Emotional deprivation spawns a whole host of social problems. Children growing up in council-run homes are statistically many times more likely to leave school without any educational qualifications and to become jobless. They are 60 times more likely to be homeless and 88 times more likely to be drug abusers. I noted with interest the launch today of the Prime Minister's campaign to cut the incidence of teenage pregnancies. One in four teenage girls in care becomes pregnant, and their babies, not altogether surprisingly, are 66 times more likely than other children to finish up in care. So the whole cycle is self-perpetuating.
The scandal of the numbers of children in care homes is not just the numbers, and not just that they are increasingly stuck there. It is that many local authorities

85
have no information about how well pupils in care are doing at school, no means of adequately monitoring care plans for such children, and seemingly no sense that their strategic plans for children's services, including the recruitment of adopters, should occupy centre stage instead of being, as it so often is, a bit of a side-show.
In defence of some of these local authorities it is often said that because a large proportion of children placed for adoption are aged five and over—some 70 per cent—the system has to be geared to the difficulties and needs of those children. Clearly, it must be true that the effort required to place an older child successfully is more demanding of resources than that required for a younger child.
However, one needs to look behind those figures. It is, for example, perfectly true that only a very small number of children under one year old are adopted each year but the statistics on children who are adopted from care show that no less than 28 per cent of them started to be looked after by the childcare system under the age of one month, and a further 24 per cent between the age of one month and one year. In other words, even though most adopted children are adopted when aged 5 and over, well over half have already been in the system virtually all their lives. If I have one criticism of the circular issued by the Department of Health in August last year it is that it fails to bring out that point sufficiently.
As my noble friend Lady Young emphasised, the average length of time a child in care has to wait before being adopted is three years eight months. One in six children freed for adoption is not placed with an adoptive family for two years. Clearly, in many such cases there are perfectly valid reasons why some delay occurs. However, it is right that in the early period following a care order every avenue should be explored in an effort to return a child to his or her parents of birth. But there is strong evidence to suggest that with many social workers these efforts are continued for far longer than can possibly be justified by the interests of the children themselves. There is no doubt that the problems experienced by some adopted children are made worse by having been shunted from pillar to post in the preceding years and by the delays they have had to put up with in finding a placement.
There seems to be an automatic presumption that genetic parents are preferable to adoptive parents, even when there is a history of cruelty and neglect. All too often what is counted as "a successful outcome" to care is the return of a child to his birth family, almost without regard for the long-term result of that arrangement.
At present there are about 10,000 children awaiting adoption and 1,100 approved adopters waiting for children to adopt. Social services departments talk about the risks involved in failing to match a child with the right parents and that, of course, is a fair point. However, there are times when a risk needs to be put in context and then accepted. The context, in this case, is surely the recognised risks associated with leaving a child in care.
I am afraid to say that one of the most pernicious features of the current system is the misguided attitude taken by some local authorities to trans-racial adoptions.
86
Matching a child with parents of the same race is clearly a highly desirable objective but it is an ideal that should not stand in the way of common sense. The alternative to placing a black or mixed race child with white adoptive parents is all too often a succession of placements over many years with white foster parents. The success rate in trans-racial adoptions is very high, yet local authorities and adoption agencies have continued to ignore departmental directives that have explicitly discouraged the assiduous pursuit of racial matching. I sense that more than just repeated guidance is needed if the prevalence of that syndrome is to recede.
I read in the press that the Cabinet committee on the family is launching a full-scale review on adoption. I should like to ask the Minister whether that is correct. It is impossible for me, in a short debate of this kind, to list everything that I feel such a committee should be looking at. However, can the Minister say whether some of the ideas advanced by the previous government will be examined? Will the Government, for example, consider broadening the base of adoption panels to include more independent members? Will they look at the possibility of giving children above a certain age the legal right to participate in their own adoption proceedings, or making the welfare of the child subject to more explicit legal tests for the court to assess? Will they consider the setting up of a complaints system as well as ways of ensuring that local authorities publicise their range of adoption services so as to encourage more families to consider adoption?
Can the Minister say whether the Government are open-minded about an automatic cut-off point so that when a child has spent a specific amount of time in the care system there will be a presumption in favour of adoption for that child? Will they also consider a similar procedure in the case of ethnic minority children for whom adoptive parents of the same race cannot be found but where white adopters are available'?
Finally, what are the Government doing to promote the dissemination of best practice among local authorities including active partnership arrangements and training opportunities for staff? I do not know, but I would be interested to find out, whether the Government will continue to examine the case for setting up a central authority for adoption as not only a guardian of standards but also to maintain a central register of adoptable children.
These are only some of the issues that should be addressed. I sometimes think that the more departmental activity there is on this subject, and the more Ministers make worthy pronouncements on it, the worse the statistics seem to get. I hope that the Government will succeed in translating some of their undoubtedly laudable intentions into concrete achievements.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for raising this important and timely question in your Lordships' House tonight. In our short debate it elicited some considered and well-informed contributions. I ought perhaps also to add my own thanks for the support in trying to assist me to be a good parent in terms of the timing of our debate.

87
I hope that I can reassure those who have spoken of Her Majesty's Government's commitment to improving standards and services for children, including adoption and foster care. Not only was it boldly stated in the White Paper, Modernising Social Services, but it is also being translated into action. In particular, we are heavily engaged in introducing forward-looking programmes and supporting initiatives designed to achieve important changes to enhance the quality of adoption and foster care to create more of the successes to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, alluded and to help more people to do some of the extraordinary things which, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, rightly said, adoptive and foster parents do.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, commenced his speech on the issue of legislative reform. It is currently focused on the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Private Member's Bill which went through another place and recently had its First Reading in your Lordships' House. That Bill provides for the first time a sound legal basis for inter-country adoption. It also provides the opportunity for the United Kingdom to give effect to the 1993 Hague Convention on the protection of children and co-operation in respect of inter-country adoption. That convention was signed by the United Kingdom in January 1994. Finally, the Bill introduces measures to prevent trafficking in children. When enacted it will enable the United Kingdom to meet an important national commitment to protect children in inter-country adoption.
But legislation is not essential to achieve important improvements in adoption practice. There are opportunities for adoption agencies to achieve those improvements and we are supporting a range of initiatives to make that happen. Measures to improve the standard and quality of adoption and foster care are making good progress, and many of those measures are being introduced through the Quality Protects programme which was introduced last September. It brings new and challenging dimensions to the overall improvement of children's services and to that end we have made £375 million available to local authorities over three years in the form of a children's services special grant to assist them implement specific projects.
The general aim of the Quality Protects programme is the systematic transformation of the management of social services for children and the outcomes we achieve for those children. The objectives include many areas to which reference has been made tonight as well as trying to tackle some of the problems mentioned. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke of the need to reduce the number of changes of main carers for children being looked after. Several speakers talked of the need to maximise the contribution that adoption can make to providing permanent families for children in appropriate cases, and for reducing the period children remain looked after before being placed for adoption or other suitable long-term care.
The Quality Protects programme aims to maximise the use of adoption and reduce delays while still making the right decisions for individual children. Everyone who spoke tonight recognised that making the
88
judgments of what will be the right decision for an individual child is not a simple issue or necessarily a straightforward one. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, it is a balancing of risks and we have a special responsibility to do that in the most thorough and considered way for children who are living away from their own families. But the performance of local authorities will be measured against performance indicators and targets which will include addressing the issue of delay in placing children with new families. I am sure that is right. Concern was expressed about the variability there has been in performance in the past.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that bringing adoption back into the mainstream of options available for children is a crucial aspect of Quality Protects. Adoption has too often been regarded by some as an option of last resort, to be considered when all others have been examined and found wanting. But we must recognise that adoption is sometimes the only opportunity available to a child of belonging to a family. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to adoptive parents and foster families who come forward to provide care for those vulnerable young members of society and who provide that valuable, natural resource to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred, often in challenging and difficult circumstances.
The Quality Protects programme was a key element in Her Majesty's Government's response to the Children's Safeguards Review and will be the main focus for guiding and monitoring the improvements. Those changes come at a time when the nature of adoption itself is changing. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, babies are no longer the majority of children needing new families. Children over one year of age are now the main focus, many of whom have been victims of abuse and trauma in their young lives. The older the child who comes into the care system and who needs a new family, the more difficult is the task of finding a suitable home for him, and the more apparent the dangers to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred of the problems that can arise from years of waiting in unsatisfactory circumstances.
On that point, perhaps I can say to the noble Earl that the Government have made it clear that it is unacceptable for a child to be denied loving, adoptive parents solely on the grounds that the child and the adopters do not share the same racial and cultural background. Adoption agencies must ensure that the appropriate level of help is made available to prospective adopters who do not share the same race or culture as the child, to enable the child to maintain continuity with the heritage of its birth family in its day-to-day life. But it certainly should not be an obstacle to the proper placement of children.
In relation to post-adoption contact—the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred—adoption is more open and has been so in recent years. Courts are more sympathetic to children retaining some form of contact with their birth parents where that is in the best interests of the child. That is particularly the case where siblings are involved and we have to recognise the specific strains those can put on a child's situation.

89
I turn now to fostering issues. As the House will be aware, services provided to children living away from home in this country have been under considerable scrutiny in the past two years as a result of continuing revelations of abuse, mostly in children's homes but also in other settings such as foster care, over the preceding years. Noble Lords will he aware that in November 1997 we received a report of the Children's Safeguards Review, which was set up to look at the safeguards for children living away from home and to make recommendations about how to make them more effective. That was followed in July 1998 by a report from the House of Commons Health Committee on looked-after children. Its report detailed wide-ranging concerns about how the care system was failing those children and made equally wide-ranging recommendations on the need to improve the standards of care and the outcomes for children looked after, two-thirds of whom—as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, reminded us—are in foster care. That is the background against which the Government have responded positively, establishing a major programme of measures to improve services for looked-after children, including those in foster care. The Quality Protects programme which was launched in September 1988 sets new objectives for children's services. That programme is backed up with £375 million of additional money for local authorities in the form of a children's social services special grant.
One of the six key priority areas for the programme is to improve the supply and choice of placement options for looked-after children. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that this will not only include foster placements but also the provision of sufficient placements in children's homes. As the noble Lord said, there is a very important need for a variety of accessible situations.
We recognise that foster care will not be appropriate for all children and that a variety of options should be available to local authorities so that placements are genuinely suited to the needs of individual children.
Part of the special grant money will be used for this purpose, and indeed local authorities will not receive their share of the grant unless they can show that there is sufficient placement choice for their looked-after children. Far too many children are put in inappropriate placements, resulting in frequent moves and a consequent unstable life, with all the damaging effects that have been described in the debate.
With the extra money, local authorities will be able to recruit and support a greater range of foster carers to meet different children's needs and to ensure that children and young people can exercise some preference.
Local authorities will be monitored by the Department of Health to see how well they implement measurable improvements in this and other areas.
The Government's commitment to improve services for looked-after children was set out last November in their response to the Children Safeguard Review. This covers the Quality Protects programme and other measures designed to improve the quality of care for looked-after children. For example, for the first time we are introducing national standards of foster care which
90
were developed by the United Kingdom joint working party on foster care, comprising representatives from directors of social services, local government associations, foster carers and others from across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There was also very wide consultation with social services departments, carers, children and young people about what those standards should reflect. Again, for the first time we are introducing a code of practice on the recruitment, assessment, approval, training, management and support of foster carers to improve the safety aspects of the fostering service.
Together, these publications, which we hope to launch on 22nd June, will provide a much clearer framework for the fostering service and will help to improve its quality.
In responding to the Children's Safeguard Review, the Government stated that they would support the development of national and local recruitment campaigns for foster parents. I am pleased to say that work is currently under way at the Department of Health in co-operation with the Association of Directors of Social Services and other foster care interests to develop a suitable national campaign. I hope that that will lead to more people considering taking up the unique challenge of caring for children from other families by becoming foster carers.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about payment of allowances to foster carers. We recognise the important role played by foster carers and that they should he appropriately rewarded and supported. However, in the context of overall policy we believe that it is for local authorities to determine the level of allowance they pay to their foster carers.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the implications of the paper being submitted to the ministerial group on the family. It is likely that the Quality Protects programme will be allowed to run its course before a more radical view is taken to deal with some of the weaknesses in the adoption services, but that has yet to be fully considered, and we will have to look at those broader issues in the longer term.
The point has been well made tonight that for most children who are looked after by local authorities we should not rule out the possibility of adoption; far from it, we should make sure that it is a mainstream option. For those who are not able to be adopted, foster care should be a best placement option for many of them. A stable and happy family home will be the best environment in which they can develop. We are confident that the positive action that the Government are taking will help to achieve a healthy and vibrant fostering service.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until a quarter past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.14 to 8.16 p.m.]

Greater London Authority Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 2.
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 41 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Failure to attend meetings]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 42.
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("six") and insert ("three")
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 42 and 51 which have an identical purpose.
In Clause 6 an assembly member automatically forfeits his place if he fails to attend a meeting of the assembly for six consecutive months. Under Clause 13 the mayor forfeits his office if he fails to attend six consecutive meetings of the assembly. I imagine that the reason for one being based on a period of time and the latter being based on the number of meetings is that there are provisions for calling extraordinary and special meetings.
The principle of forfeiture of office for persistent absence is unobjectionable. Indeed, it is a common provision which applies to company directors in everyday life. I am sure that it is included in the terms of appointment to many quangos. The amendment will reduce the period from six months to three months in one case and from six meetings to three meetings in the other.
In the light of the importance of accountability of the mayor and the enormous amount of power vested in his hands, he should only be allowed to be absent for two consecutive meetings rather than the five proposed in the Bill. Clause 44 does not permit the substitution of the deputy mayor at the assembly meetings, nor would he be able to do so. If Amendment No. 15 had been accepted, to have an elected deputy mayor, not only could the deputy have acted in the mayor's place but also one or other would have been free to go on extended overseas trips to promote London's interests abroad or for other purposes around this country. In the case of an assembly member, to be absent for half a year is, I suggest, wholly excessive. One group of assemblymen represents 14 giant super-constituencies. Who will look after them if their member is away on such a protracted absence? The other assembly members are elected on a party ticket and with only 11 of them in all, and to preserve the democratic balance in the assembly, their absences should be strictly limited.
It was mentioned earlier today that there are insufficient assembly members and that further consideration should be given to the numbers. But, in any event, if an assembly member can have such protracted absences, it really would not be possible for the work to be done. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The clauses which the noble Baroness is seeking to amend provide for the mayor to be disqualified from office if he fails to attend six consecutive monthly meetings of the
92
assembly and for an assembly member to be so disqualified if he fails to attend any meetings of the assembly during a period of six consecutive months.
Under the provisions of Clause 44(2), the assembly is required to hold monthly meetings which, under the provisions of Clause 37(3), the mayor must attend unless he has a reasonable excuse not to do so. The meetings have been established for the express purpose of allowing the assembly to cross-examine the mayor about his decisions and actions.
The assembly will undoubtedly want to invite the mayor to attend the other meetings it will hold and the mayor will undoubtedly wish to accept such invitations. But the statutory monthly meetings will be the essential core of the mayor's formal relationship with the assembly. Therefore, we believe that any procedures which would result in the disqualification of the mayor for failure to attend meetings of the assembly should be linked to those statutory monthly meetings.
In our view, it is unlikely that the mayor would consciously seek to avoid those meetings. They will be an important opportunity for the mayor to explain his policies, decisions and intended actions.
But the Mayor of London will have other significant duties, the timing of some of which will be determined by others; for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, travel abroad to promote the economic interests of London and visits to London by people of importance to the future welfare of the capital. In such circumstances, the mayor must be able to absent himself from an assembly meeting. The deputy mayor will stand in for the mayor on those occasions.
However, we recognise that the mayor cannot be allowed to treat the assembly in a wholly cavalier manner. That would be completely unacceptable, not only to us but also to the people of London who will have elected the assembly to ensure that the mayor can be held to account. Therefore, we have provided for the mayor to be disqualified from office if he fails to attend six consecutive monthly meetings.
The noble Baroness has proposed that we should allow for fewer meetings to be missed—only three—before the mayor is disqualified. But that is neither acceptable nor workable. I am sure we can all conceive of circumstances—ill health, a serious accident or a combination of one of those with other circumstances—in which it may be necessary for three or more consecutive meetings of the assembly to be missed. But other than in exceptional circumstances, a mayor who failed to attend six consecutive meetings of the assembly would be pushing his luck, both with the assembly, on which the mayor relies for the delivery of the authority's budget, and with the electorate.
In the circumstances, I hope that the Committee will agree that we have pitched this about right in linking the procedure for disqualification to the statutory monthly meetings and in setting a maximum number of six consecutive meetings which can be missed.
I turn now to Amendment No. 42 which refers to disqualification of assembly members through failure to attend any meetings during a period of six consecutive

93
months. The noble Baroness proposes that that should he reduced to any meetings during a period of three consecutive months.
An assembly member is likely to be busy with the statutory monthly meetings and any committee or sub-committees on which he is required to serve. Clause 6(3) provides that a member will be deemed to have attended a meeting of the assembly if he attended as a member of meetings of committees, sub-committees or as a representative of the assembly or authority at a meeting or a body of any other persons.
Those requirements are in line with those relating to local authority members provided in Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972. In that Act, as in the provisions of this Bill, a member of a local authority can be disqualified if he fails, throughout a period of six consecutive months., to attend any meeting of that authority.
While we are creating a new style of London governance, there appears to be no special reason which makes it necessary for assembly members to be treated differently from members of a local authority in relation to matters of failures to attend meetings. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope: I listened to both speeches with great interest. On this occasion, I genuinely approached the matter with an open mind and wanted to be convinced one way or the other by the argument. It is an interesting issue. Like the noble Baroness who has just replied, I hope and believe that it is unlikely that any wise mayor will ignore the assembly for six months or even for three months. But then we legislate for what is unlikely to happen. When we have failed to do so, we have found ourselves in trouble. Therefore, while we hope and believe that it will not happen, we need to cover the eventuality that it may do so.
Therefore, I am persuaded that to reduce it to three consecutive meetings is sensible, given the frequency of the meetings and the work of the mayor and assembly, with the proviso outlined by the Minister that where a reasonable explanation is given for the mayor's absence that will be accepted.
I turn to the provision of absence without reasonable excuse, with which we are all familiar in local government; that is, six months. But as the Government have told us so often, the Greater London assembly is not local government; it is something which is unique and different. We cannot have it all ways. We should not look at this matter in the circumstances of general local government provision but in the particular circumstances about which we are speaking; in other words, the Greater London assembly.
As an assembly, it will meet frequently and, critically, it will be a much smaller body than most district councils and certainly than most major councils. The absence of an assembly member for as long as six months—I would say for as long as three
94
months—will be even more serious than in the case of a larger authority. That member may well have, and indeed should have, important duties. It is quite serious to be absent for such a long period. While I hope and believe it will not happen in the case of the mayor, I am sure that sooner or later it will happen in the case of an assembly member. To allow it to go on for six months for no reason other than it is the norm in local government is not good enough. We need to look at the consequences of such an absence and provide for a shorter period— and three months is proposed here. However, just as in local government, where there is good reason the proviso exists that the member is excused. Where there is not good reason, we should pay attention to it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord said that in his opinion the comparison with local government is not valid. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that local government provides experience of circumstances in which people may fail to attend. The noble Baroness's amendment proposes that disqualification will occur at the end of the period, as it does in local government. Therefore it is not a matter of judgment. My understanding is that the noble Lord was referring to something not encompassed by the amendment, which provides for the breakpoint—which in the case of local government is automatic disqualification.
Lord Tope: The noble Baroness is one of the people in Committee with whom I would not clash over local government matters, but I am moderately confident that in local government, where prior reason has been given and the council has voted to accept that good reason, an absence may continue. That should, of course, be the case with the Greater London Authority, whatever the period of absence. I do not know whether the amendment provides for that but if not, no doubt that point will be dealt with.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I owe the noble Lord an apology—I was in error. I withdraw my comments.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was most grateful for the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in clarifying my remarks. The noble Lord said that it would be reasonable to extend the time. We will reconsider the amendment because it might be that we would wish to say that for both the mayor and the assemblyman an absence should be allowed provided the assembly agrees. So disqualification would not be automatic but a person would be unable to extend absences from meetings without anything happening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Declaration of vacancy in certain cases.]:
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 9, at end insert ("or
(d) if he has been elected as a London member, resigns from or is expelled from his party or the group on whose behalf he was elected, or transfers his allegiance to another party (or none) or group (or none),")
The noble Baroness said: With this, I will speak also to Amendment No. 44. There is a theory or myth that in first-past-the-post elections, one is voting not for the party but the candidate as an individual. I suppose that a lot has to do with the party to which the individual belongs. Under the system to be used in Greater London, almost half the members of the assembly will owe their places to the fact that they were selected by the party that the voter supported. Such members will be in the assembly because of their position on the list, through whatever machinery the party used for that purpose. No elector will have the choice of voting for or against any individual candidate.
As the assemblyman is there purely as a representative of his party, not in a personal capacity, if he crosses the floor of the assembly he will be depriving his party of one representative chosen by its supporters at the ballot box. In the deviousness of politics, a person could rebel and vote against the party whip without officially resigning from his party—but it is for the party machinery and discipline to deal with such behaviour. That is why the amendment includes a provision for a party member to be expelled.
The proposal would not act to the advantage of any particular political party. Over the years, elected members of every party have crossed the floor, especially in local government. I know cases where that has resulted in control of a council passing from one party to another. With an assembly, where a substantial part of its membership has been selected solely because of their party affiliations, such action will deprive electors of the choice of party that they made at the ballot box, which was the sole criterion for their vote.
What if an independent member of the assembly decided to join a particular party as distinct from supporting it in assembly votes? Electors, having chosen a person to exercise personal discretion should not complain if he or she does so. In truth, I do not believe that independent members will be elected that often.
It is unnecessary to introduce a complicated provision to deal with the remote possibility of an independent being elected, then suddenly seeing the light and joining a party. The proposed provision is simple, as can be seen from the brevity of the amendment's wording. It would not be helpful to introduce an extra refinement to deal with a remote pair of possibilities. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: Amendment No. 44 raises the same important issue as the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but with a slight difference. I shall listen with interest to how the Government have addressed this important issue. As the noble Baroness said, we could maintain what is probably a fiction—that candidates are elected as individuals. We could argue
96
about the importance of the party label. Here, we are talking about the 11 London members who will be chosen by a party and elected from a party list. In other words, the electorate will be voting not for the individual but a party. Voters will have the right to believe that the people elected represent that party. That is essentially different from the situation in parliamentary and local authority voting, where candidates are elected as individuals, albeit with a party label. In this case, the party will be elected.
Again, we are talking about a small assembly of 25 persons in total, where one change could make a significant difference. I do not mean a difference to the balance of control because the assembly will not be a local authority in that sense, so control will matter less. Most important of all, the member concerned would be exercising a deceit on the electorate, who voted for a party as distinct from a person. We debated earlier the unlikely event of a mayor ignoring the assembly. A change of representation is a much more likely event. Rightly or wrongly, people do change their party allegiance. If a person who has been elected as a Conservative sees the light and decides that he is really a Liberal Democrat—and such things are not unknown—that would be a deceit and different from Parliament and local authorities.
Our amendment differs in an important respect from that of the noble Baroness, but we may be able to debate that later. Amendment No. 43 applies also to someone being expelled from their party. That worries me a little because it would give a party the ability to get rid of a troublesome member chosen by the electorate. The temptation to do that might be too much for some party managers to resist. Our amendment deliberately does not refer to expulsion but to the decision of the assembly member to belong to a particular party or to no party. It will be his or her choice, under whatever duress. I invite the Official Opposition to reflect on that difference, as we will. But both amendments address an important situation that, sooner or later, will arise.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before I heard the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I was going to say that our amendment and Amendment No. 44 were very similar but ours was better because it allowed for more eventualities—such as expulsion. Having listened to the noble Lord, it may be that his amendment is better. I need time to reflect. The Minister should understand that both the noble Lord and I feel that it would be dreadful if someone were elected on a party list, not as an individual, then decided to become a member of another party—although I will not use strong words such as "a deceit on the electorate".
It is different when Members of Parliament cross the Floor. Independent MPs are elected as individuals, and presumably electors allow them to use their judgment. I understand that their judgment now is that the Conservative party is better than the Liberal Democrats. I could not help making that observation after the way that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, explained the change-over of crossing the Floor. I thought that we would even out the argument on that point. However, it

97
is a very serious matter if we are to be so involved in a small assembly with just 11 elected members who will be able to criss-cross the Floor in this way.
Lord Whitty: I cannot understand why anyone would leave the Liberal Democrats for the Conservatives or, indeed, vice versa. I am a little torn on this one. After all, I am an old apparatchik and I tend to think that if people leave a party there should be some sanctions. However, on reflection, I think that these proposals are pushing it a bit. There are certain practicalities involved, especially as regards the Liberal Democrats' amendment. In reality, if anyone realises that he will lose his job as an assembly member in such circumstances, he will not resign the party whip; indeed, he will just ignore it. Therefore, it will become a matter of party discipline and it is an issue upon which the party will almost automatically take a view. As I know, partly to my cost, you then get into all sorts of court cases, litigation and in this case presumably employment rights to some extent because we are talking about a paid job.
Therefore. there are real problems involved. But quite apart from the practical problems, there is also an issue of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is right to say that we are creating a unique body, although it is a relatively small one. Nevertheless, we have had a long-standing convention at all levels that, if people change their allegiance once elected by electorates, they do not automatically have to resign. Of course, there have been one or two honourable exceptions to that in the past 100 years, but not very many, relating to Parliament, local government or indeed the European Parliament. I also believe that that is the case in most other countries. I asked for advice as to whether there was any situation in any country where this applied by law. The general view was no, although someone did indicate that it might apply in North Korea under rather greater sanctions.
It is not long ago that the ballot paper did not give any party affiliation. However, in the past few decades we have put the candidates' affiliation on it. Is that, in essence, any different from saying, "These are the top three Labour candidates", or "These are the top three Conservative candidates", who get on as a result of selection? I do not believe it is that different in principle from us being able to say that a convention which has run for many years in local government, in Westminster and more recently in the European Assembly should apply here.
Once you have elected someone, he will serve his term. He will have been elected under a party label, whether it was by first-past-the-post, by an alternative vote., STV or indeed a list system. In all such cases, simply because someone decides that he is unable to continue to share a party label—and it may well be that the party has changed rather than the person; that does happen—there is no reason why the person should lose the position for which he was voted by the electorate. In any case—and I return to a practical point—the reality is that in those circumstances no one would actually resign the whip. We would be straight into party discipline, and that is a point which the Liberal Democrat Benches
98
were trying to avoid. That, of itself, creates many more complex problems than are addressed by this amendment. Therefore, with those words, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Tope: I bow to the Minister's much greater experience than mine as an old apparatchik. I recognise the difficulties about which he is talking. However, there is an important difference here. The noble Lord made a reference to the fact that someone is elected. The people under discussion are not elected in a personal sense; they are there from a party list to give proportionality between the parties. When they transfer to another party, they automatically upset the proportionality, which has been determined by the number of votes that the party, not the individual, has received. In other words, the Government's intention in this Bill, which we certainly support, of creating proportionality on the assembly would be immediately upset. Because we are talking about such a small number—only 11—it would be upset to a relatively great extent. That is the point we are trying to make. It is not the same as the issue of a Member crossing the Floor in, say, the House of Commons or in a council chamber. Is it not actually altering the intention the Act, as it will be, as regards the election?
I understand only too well that there are practical difficulties and, old or apparatchik or not, we can recognise that fact. However, I ask the Minister to recognise that there is a real issue here and to think about how it can be addressed. Some of us do understand issues of party discipline. I shall be very happy to have discussions on the matter. It is not for me to speak for the other Front Bench, but I suspect that that will also be case for them. In that way we will be able to see how we can address the situation which, I say again, will arise sooner or later. It is a very serious situation. particularly in a small assembly.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I could not agree more with what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has just said; indeed, there is a great difference between the example given by the Minister and the position that we are discussing whereby people cross the Floor of the House. I should have thought that the Government would be delighted to accept this amendment. I can only speak for my own party, but our list is made up of one member, one vote in London, voting for the list and the order of the list. That is one point. I believe that it was somewhat different in the Minister's party. The list was somehow designated but not by one member, one vote. I am not quite sure how they came to it, but I do not think there was the same democratic choice of the list. Therefore, given that fact, they would be even more upset if one of their list actually moved across the Floor to either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives.
The Minister made much of a point that he really did not understand why the Conservatives went to the Liberal Democrats or vice versa. He made the point that sometimes parties change out of all recognition. It may well be that his party is one which has really done so.

99
Indeed, it might have offended some of the voters because they ended up all of a sudden with something completely different from what they believed the party to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, suggested that we would be happy to sit round a table and discuss the matter. We would most certainly be happy to do so. I shall withdraw my amendment at this stage, but I think that the Minister should take note of the fact that we consider this to be a very important matter. If people are elected on a list and then decide to cross the Floor, we believe that the voters should have an opportunity to say something about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Election of member as Mayor]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Date of casual vacancies]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 6, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("give public notice of any casual vacancy among the Assembly members, and shall also convey such notice in writing to the Greater London returning officer")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 10(2) provides for only the Greater London returning officer to receive official notice of a casual vacancy among the London members. It is true that the succession to an assemblyman will be the next person on the party list, so the notification is a formality. However, I venture to suggest that very few electors will actually scour the obituaries if that should be the unfortunate cause of the vacancy. It is also a regrettable fact that with no constituency element among the London assemblymen, very few of the electors will know who has been replaced or why.
In my long experience as a canvasser in innumerable elections, I can tell the Committee that an amazingly high proportion of electors cannot tell you the name of their MP, let alone the councillor for their own ward. Of course, the public has to be given notice of a vacancy among the constituency members because there is likely to be a by-election. But why is it that when a vacancy occurs among the London members, the Government say that as the replacement is already in place, it is none of anyone's business? Is this not the opposite of open government?
It is not as if we are suggesting that the proper officer of the authority is being told to visit each voter personally and impart the news. All that he needs to do is to place an advertisement in the local press and put up a few posters. Is that not exactly what happens every day already when public notice is to be given on any subject? I do not understand why the Government, have produced such a convoluted dual process in the two paragraphs of this subsection. In just four words less
100
than the Government our amendment makes a simplified all purpose procedure which I recommend to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness said, her Amendment No. 46 would extend the provisions in Clause 9 of the Bill to include a requirement to give public notice of the occurrence of London member vacancies in addition to constituency member vacancies. Of course it is right that if a vacancy arises in a constituency seat, the proper officer of the authority must give public notice of that vacancy, as required by Clause 9(2)(b). This is because a by-election will fill that vacancy and the public therefore need to be told.
But vacancies in London member seats will not be filled by an election. Where the vacancy is in the seat of a member elected from a party list, the returning officer will be told that a vacancy has occurred and will fill it from the list submitted by the party at the previous ordinary election. No election will be held and therefore public notice is not necessary. However, I accept that it will be important that the public are made aware of who has filled an assembly list vacancy. Given the size of the assembly, this should be achieved simply by virtue of their taking their seat. But formal public notice of those individuals who might fill a future vacancy will in effect have been given at the preceding ordinary election when parties submitted their lists of candidates to the electorate. I hope that in the light of this reassurance the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I listened with interest when the Minister said that she did not feel the amendment was necessary. On the other hand, I can see no reason why it should be unnecessary. It seems extraordinary that no matter how small or how large our amendments may be, or what Bill they seek to amend, or what we are talking about, the answer from the Government is always no. In all my time at this Dispatch Box on the one occasion that I achieved success it was overturned in the other place. One would think that at some stage the Government would want to encourage us and would give just a little in the hope that we might not divide on a measure that they would consider far more substantive.
Baroness Hamwee: I did not want to interrupt the noble Baroness in full flow. I merely wished to ask the Minister a question before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, if that is what she intends to do.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall certainly not withdraw it until the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has had an opportunity to ask her question. We may wish to return to this matter. If the notice comprises a public notice and not an advertisement, we may wish to suggest that it is put on the Internet, for example. However, at this stage I shall sit down and listen quietly to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has to say.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not think my comments merit that introduction! I am afraid that I cannot

101
immediately recall what notice is to be given after elections. I hope that the Minister can remind us of that. The noble Baroness proposes that the public should be made aware of who are the London members and who is a new London member. If there is any inconsistency as regards notifying the public in the event of the next person on the list filling a casual vacancy, and with regard to what happens after the ordinary elections, one should be able to consider that matter without it being regarded as any great drama or loss of face on the part of the Government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am unable to recollect that point. In the light of my previous error with the noble Lord. Lord Tope, I prefer to write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Filling a vacancy in an Assembly constituency]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Filling a vacancy among the London members]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 7, line 20, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 48 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 50. Amendment No. 48 is a paving amendment to remove subsection (2) of Clause 11. Amendment No. 50 seeks to add a new subsection at the end of Clause 11. We accept what we believe to be the object of Clause 11, but as drafted it leaves an undesirable gap which needs to be tidied up. The clause as stated in the preamble to subsection (1) applies when a vacancy occurs among the so-called London members. If the vacancy occurs among those whose places derive from one of the party lists, his place is filled by his colleague who is next on the list.
On reflection, I see that there may be a possible theoretical flaw left by the wholesale removal of the entire subsection (2) which would occur if all of the reserves—if I may call them that—from the party lists are used up by the wholesale decimation of the elected members. That is something that we could tidy up at the next stage. The gap that I have just mentioned arises if the assemblyman who causes the gap is one elected not as a member on a party list but as an individual. I accept that in the real world the probability of an individual candidate getting enough votes to secure a place is pretty remote. But on the other hand some celebrity, famous TV journalist, or resurrected Elvis Presley might throw his hat in the ring and get elected. If his place fell vacant, the Bill as drafted provides for it to remain vacant until the next election. This situation could theoretically last for nearly four years. Why is that?
I realise that political parties resent independent candidates getting in and stealing the seat that they believe ought to be rightly theirs. Members on both sides of this Chamber have experienced that indignity over the years. I also realise that by-elections are somewhat inconvenient to organise and are comparatively expensive to run. But no one suggests that if a vacancy occurs in Parliament or in a local council there should not be a by-election. With PR we are, I agree, living in a different world. However, with only 11 London members, the loss of one of them through death or resignation represents a substantial gap, loss of representation and an increased burden of work on his colleagues. If only one independent place falls vacant, our amendment follows the Government's preferred choice and leaves the place empty until the next ordinary election. If somehow two places became vacant—remote though all these possibilities undoubtedly are—the proposed measure provides for the holding of a by-election.
I revert to the problems of expense and inconvenience. We have said that there would be no poll if the event occurred within six months of the ordinary election date. We are not here proposing something that would come into effect often. It may never come into effect. But if there were to be two vacancies among independent assemblymen, it would not be tolerable for there to be a possibility of a long-term 20 per cent vacancy among the London members. This amendment removes that possibility. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness clearly points to a somewhat improbable set of circumstances. They are, nevertheless, circumstances which the legislation would allow to arise. She suggests that where two independents have been elected and two independents resign. die or, for one reason or another, disappear from the assembly, there should be a by-election. Her proposals are different from those we provided for Scotland and Wales, where exactly the same situation could apply.
Improbable though such circumstances may be, one has to assess the cost of running a London-wide election. The assembly can function with vacancies and whereas it is clear who the replacement candidate would be from the party lists, in such circumstances it is not at all clear that a by-election would produce another independent candidate. In practice, the most likely effect of a by-election would be for a member of one of the established parties to win. That would not reflect the original views of the electorate.
There are difficulties in this area. Whatever answer one comes up with creates an anomaly. I am not convinced by the noble Baroness's solution. One can afford an anomaly once but not twice. Were there a large number of independent candidates, one would have to find a mechanism, but I am not sure why it is obvious that because one moves from one vacancy to two, one has to provide for a new election which almost certainly would not result in additional independent members. Therefore the objective of the amendment would not necessarily be achieved.

103
I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, in this form at least. I concede that there is a problem and I am happy to have another look at it. I am not sure that I will come up with a solution that is capable of meeting all the various problems that this distinctly improbable situation would cause. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister sits down, when one is drafting legislation improbabilities as well as probabilities have to be taken into account. In this instance, improbable though it might be that two independent members would be elected under a PR system, it is not inconceivable that notable people might be attractive. We are creating something new and different and Londoners may decide that independent members are attractive. One can conceive of circumstances under which assembly members were undertaking an investigation and two independent members were travelling in the same car. They could be involved in the same accident, with fatal consequences.
Does the Minister think that two casual vacancies of two independent members for, let us say, three and half years, is preferable to a by-election? A by-election may produce a different result and not return independent members but at least it would not leave the assembly deprived of virtually 10 per cent of its membership. Given the fact that in legislation one has to consider the improbable as well as the probable, this is a potentially significant matter.
Baroness Hamwee: I agree that one must cater for the "what ifs". My noble friend Lord Tope commented that one of the "what ifs" is not likely to be a resurrected Elvis Presley because he does not have the residence qualification. It would be inconsistent if we did not support the amendment or something rather like it, given our concerns about the size of the assembly and the possible loss of two out of the 11 London members. The balance here points to a by-election even if, as the Minister said, it means that the vacancies are filled by members of a political party rather than by individuals. Given the functions of the assembly, it is more important to have people to carry out the scrutiny role than to try to preserve whatever political balance there may have been at the time of the original election.
Of course the scenario is not very likely. We considered putting down an amendment to deal with the loss of one London member in such circumstances. We decided that that was perhaps being a bit over anxious. However, we feel that there should be some mechanism for filling two vacancies.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My noble friend and the noble Baroness have made the point that the Bill, as well as dealing with probable circumstances, should deal also with what the Minister described as improbable circumstances. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that even were Elvis Presley resurrected he would not qualify under the residence provisions of the Act is quite possible.
104
I have mentioned TV journalists. A situation could arise where perhaps two Martin Bells, or someone of that ilk, were elected as independent members. Or perhaps a well-known member of the Labour Party, who did not obtain his party's endorsement to run, would be elected both as mayor and as an assemblyman. It is an unpleasant scenario but perhaps a situation may arise where two independent members, feeling somewhat threatened by the fact that the rest of the members of the assembly belonged to one party or another. became rather friendly and one day became involved in a car crash. Suddenly there would be no independent members of the assembly. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made the point that in a very small assembly it would be a disaster if that happened and nothing could be done.
The Minister said that that was improbable and unlikely to happen. In that case, there is no reason why the Government should not give way and incorporate the amendment into the Bill. As it will not be called upon, it will not cost anything. The Government could actually agree to the amendment because they are certain that such an occasion would never arise. However, if the Government think it might arise, then all the more reason why they should agree to the amendment. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Failure to attend meetings]:
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Declaration of vacancy in certain cases]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 8, line 15, at end insert ("or
(c) is subject to a unanimous vote of no confidence by the Assembly.")
The noble Baroness said: This long and extremely complicated Bill has gone through the detailed scrutiny of the other place. In the course of its passage so far it has been virtually returned to the drawing board by the Government, and it has, like Topsy, "just growed", by no fewer than 85 pages. It is therefore curious that one essential provision is missing.
One assumes that the mayor is deemed to hold office during good behaviour. The Bill does not provide for his dismissal or his removal from office for "grave crimes and misdemeanours". If the Prime Minister were to fall out of favour or indeed the leader of a council, then his party, possibly with the assistance of the other side, could get rid of him by voting him out of office. Of course, the electorate can get rid of the whole party at an election, but that is not what we are talking about here.
The mayor of Greater London is unlike any other mayor of any city in the United Kingdom. Those mayors have largely ceremonial duties, including presiding over

105
the council meetings, with his only real power being a casting vote in the case of an equality of voting. Despite the fact that the Secretary of State is reserving considerable powers to direct the mayor on how he should perform his duties, we are about to invest the mayor of London with enormous executive powers. He will have a budget equivalent to or in excess of that of the entire national budget of some third world countries. He will have substantial powers of patronage. I have no doubt that the person who is elected mayor will conduct himself in a perfectly proper manner. But perhaps he will not, either over a period of time or on a particular occasion. Perhaps he may he guilty of inappropriate conduct—I do not mean in his personal life—but in performance of the heavy duties imposed on him under the Bill.
High Court judges can be removed only by a joint Address to Her Majesty by both Houses of Parliament, but Her Majesty will not be appointing the mayor. The mayor will be elected. It would be grossly improper to have the dismissal effected by the Secretary of State at the request of the assembly. The Secretary of State already has more than enough reserve powers under the Bill, a Bill which seeks to give London an independent mayor, but leaves him subject to the directions of the Secretary of State in many vital areas.
Judging by Amendment No. 53, I believe that the Liberal Democrats agree with us in principle that there should be a power to remove the mayor and that the decision to remove the mayor should be in the hands of the assembly and the assembly alone. Therefore, the difference between us revolves around how many members of the assembly should decide on this drastic step. I accept what will no doubt be a criticism of my amendment that achieving a unanimous vote of no confidence will be extremely difficult. But I believe that the process ought to be difficult because unseating the mayor, elected by a popular vote, would be a very serious matter and should not take place unless it is clear that it is the right and proper step. I know it is possible that some obstinate person could in effect exercise a veto, or that a close friend of the mayor might be reluctant in what could be a secret vote to reveal that he too had voted for dismissal. In either of those cases it would be for them to explain that although the mayor had, for example, shot the leader of the opposition in front of the whole assembly and was locked up in prison awaiting trial, or had cost the taxpayers millions because of some gross act of negligence, they nevertheless voted for him to stay in office. No, I believe that they would act properly, and in a case where it is claimed that the removal of the mayor is both just and necessary, a unanimous vote is essential. I think there are difficulties with a lower percentage but the problem is that this is a very small assembly.
The reality is that it is not difficult to imagine an election in which, under the categories of constituency and party list members combined, one party could acquire an automatic majority sufficient to throw out the mayor. If the mayor happened to be of a different party, their own candidate having failed, then it would be a fairly simple matter to reverse the election results for absolutely no reason but that they did not like the
106
winning candidate. Also, with only a small majority being required, there would be the temptation to launch a series of ill-founded motions, or even just one, which although unlikely to succeed, would undoubtedly fatally undermine the credibility of the mayor and his authority, and would distract him from the performance of his duties. One has only to look at recent events in the United States to see what I mean.
It is essential that in a democracy no office should be a freehold. Equally, if it is a leasehold it should be possible for the representatives of the electors to end the term of an elected official early where there is an exceptionally good reason. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: We share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness about the need to find some mechanism to deal with what would be very extreme circumstances. The experience of the conduct of mayors in the United States, for example, is not wholly happy. I do not mean to imply that every mayor in the United States has been corrupt, but there have been a number of notable and very worrying examples.
However, as the noble Baroness said, we are concerned about the need for unanimity. She mentioned the possibility of a chum of the mayor who is a member of the assembly blocking a vote of no confidence. The example which came to my mind was of a deputy mayor appointed by the mayor and therefore having a rather different personal interest from the rest of the members of the assembly.
We have proposed a two-thirds majority to allow for the odd obsequious and unquestioning supporter. Two-thirds may be a bit too low, but we wanted to examine tonight the possibility of steps being taken to get rid of a mayor who had lost the confidence of the assembly. For the purpose of this debate, I am happy to put it in the terms of the noble Baroness's amendment. It is not actually easy to get a two-thirds majority, I would have thought; certainly not if it were on a straight party line. The mayor would have to have done something pretty outrageous for this circumstance to come about. We have proposed two-thirds because it is a fairly common proportion which is required for constitutional change, but perhaps it is a little on the low side.
The mechanism we have proposed differs in another important respect from that proposed by the Conservatives. In any event, the assembly members would no doubt think pretty hard before passing such a resolution, but we are asking for a sanction on them to make them think that much harder—not only should they not be frivolous but that if they were frivolous it would rebound upon themselves—because our election provides for an outright election. In other words, if the assembly members want to get rid of the mayor they have to be prepared to face the electorate themselves. We believe that a mayor with very considerable powers needs to be subject to careful controls. In many

107
situations I would argue that this is a matter for the electorate but, given the particular powers of the mayor, this is something that deserves particular consideration.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness started with the subject of corruption in American mayors and perhaps I should put on record here that the normal disqualification provisions covering the conduct of all local authority members would also apply to the mayor. In other words, the mayor will have to stand down if he has committed an offence that would carry a sentence of three months or more. If they are bankrupt, or disqualified under the Representation of the People Act or disqualified under Section 17 or 18 of the Audit Commission Act, or they are not prepared to attend meetings, the question of a corrupt mayor does not arise. It is really a policy issue that we are referring to now.
The noble Baroness also referred to the United States. I think that the recent history of impeachment processes there is not a very good model for us to follow here. It is conceivable that a vindictive assembly might take action against a mayor, even attempting to get a two-thirds majority—possibly not a unanimous majority, I concede, but nevertheless a two-thirds majority. Even in the improbable circumstances that we have been asked to consider in relation to the Bill, it is not improbable that a totally non-party candidate could win as mayor. That is a conceivable circumstance. The party establishments collectively might well have a view on that. Yet he or she would have had the endorsement of Londoners and a direct election. The flaw in these amendments is that the assembly's mandate is assumed to be superior to that of the mayor. Yet, if anything, the mayor's personal mandate will be more direct and substantial.
Under the Liberal Democrat amendment, if there were a vote we should also have to engage in an election for the assembly. It is a "nuclear deterrent" type of power. But again—as we are asked to consider improbable scenarios—if it happened, it would possibly happen almost immediately after one election where the programme of the incoming non-party mayor might be rejected by the assembly. Would the assembly be justified in removing the mayor? In what circumstances exactly would the assembly be justified in doing so, given that corruption, criminal offences and offences covered by local government legislation are already provided for? It seems to me that the noble Baroness's normal instinct applies here. This is a matter for the people, not for the assembly, whose members are elected on a parallel ticket for a different job from that of the mayor. I do not think that it could be justifiable if on every occasion—taking the two-thirds majority target, as the assembly must have a two-thirds majority—the assembly was able to ask London to vote again for a mayor.
I have a fundamental objection to this proposal. It is a matter for the people, not for the assembly. It is a misreading of the relative role of the assembly and the mayor. I do not think there is any precedent of one group of elected officials being able to vote out another, different elected official. Admittedly, we are in new and
108
uncharted waters. But this proposal muddies the waters of the division of functions. It provides the possibility of dangerous and damaging conflict within the new Greater London Authority and we should reject it. I feel strongly about this matter. I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We are of course in the business of considering improbabilities. I accept that perhaps we should not take too much notice of the experience in America where there have been one or two extraordinary mayors. I am also aware that there was an extraordinary mayor in a part of France which I still visit with great regularity because it is an area that I love. He finally had to make a hasty retreat—I believe it was to Mexico, but it might have been Argentina. When finally he returned, he received a considerable gaol sentence.
I accept that in the case of corrupt practice the law should normally take its course. One believes and hopes that the principle of a man being considered innocent until he is proved guilty is appropriate. But let us suppose, because we are considering improbabilities, that the case was flagrant. The course of justice grinds exceedingly fine and smoothly, but it grinds exceedingly slowly. With clever lawyers, it could take a considerable time to bring a case to court, and even longer to obtain a conviction in a case where matters were well known.
It may be said that it is unlikely that all these probabilities would come together. But the truth is that, unlikely though they may be, they may happen and we need to consider them in the course of the passage of this Bill. I believe that my noble friend's amendment has validity and merits serious consideration by the Government.
Lord Tope: Can the Minister tell the Committee of any other political leader in any sphere of government anywhere in the United Kingdom who cannot be removed from office by one means or another? That is what we are talking about in the case of this mayor. I cannot think of any other example. I hope that this is an unlikely situation, but if it arises it is probable that Parliament will have to legislate again with all the difficulties that that entails. We all hope that that course of action will never arise or that it will be embarked upon only in the most extreme circumstances, but that is the kind of eventuality to which we must give consideration.
I very much share the point of principle enunciated by the Minister. The mayor is elected by the electors of London and ideally should, if necessary, be removed by them. There are clear and obvious practical difficulties in achieving that with an electorate of 5 million. What would be a significant number on a petition? How would it be organised, and so on? The practical difficulties would, frankly, make that an impossible event. We need to devise a system that gets as near as possible to that principle, which is the purpose of the amendment. We do not simply say that the mayor should be voted out of office by two-thirds or four-fifths of the assembly, or whatever figure we choose, but that the assembly in taking that very serious decision must also put itself to the test of the London electorate.

109
If the assembly does not believe that it has a very good case to argue it will in effect be voting itself out of office. We believe that in practical terms that is the nearest we can get to putting the removal of the mayor to the test of the London electorate. It is highly probable that the ensuing election for the mayor and assembly would be fought on those very issues. That would satisfy the principle, which I accept, enunciated by the Minister. The matter would then be put to the test of the people who elected the mayor in the first place. They would either confirm the decision of the assembly, and presumably elect a different mayor, or do the reverse. If there is a better way of doing it we are, happy to hear it and discuss it.
Our amendment seeks to meet the important principle that the Minister enunciated but also recognises that, improbable though it may be, this situation can arise, and if and when it does it will be an extremely difficult one for London and the Government. This is the stage at which we should address it. We should determine now how to deal with it while the matter is still theoretical and before it becomes a really difficult practical problem. We shall probably not get very much further with this matter tonight, but I strongly urge the Government to consider how it should be dealt with and to give serious consideration to the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may add one word. He suggested the possibility of an independent mayor who was disliked by the members of the assembly who combined to oust him or her. I believe that that was the thrust of his comment. Our amendment is designed to make assembly members think extremely hard about doing anything so frivolous or silly. That notional independent mayor no doubt would have been elected on the basis of a manifesto. Clearly, nothing like the Salisbury convention would apply within the Greater London Authority, but the effect of having to put the respective manifestos to the electorate again more or less meets the point. The Minister said that that would be the nuclear option. It is absolutely intended to be the nuclear option.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am concerned about what occurs when the unexpected happens. Someone will have to take a decision as to how to handle the difficulty. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, if a mayor has committed a heinous offence such matters take a long time to go through the courts. The finger would be pointed at the Secretary of State to do something about it. At that point the Secretary of State becomes embroiled in an extremely uncomfortable political decision. I should have thought that one of the lessons we have learned in the recent past is how uncomfortable the position of a Secretary of State can be when he or she is faced with combining a judicial and political role.
Lord Whitty: The political situation would be extremely uncomfortable for everyone, improbable or not. If we are discussing improbabilities, it is
110
conceivable that it might be in the political interests of two thirds of the majority. They could easily enhance their vote and get rid of the mayor they did not like. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches should consider the deeply destabilising effect this power would have on the positive and constructive operation of the assembly and the authority.
I am even more alarmed by what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggested. In effect he says that the assembly should have the power to pre-judge t he courts. I was concerned about the blurring of the division of powers between the assembly and the mayor. The noble Lord takes us into far more dangerous territory where the elected assembly in London takes over the powers of the judiciary. Noble Lords must hesitate over that. I believe that the American experience, not only in recent cases but more generally over the past 150 years of American history, demonstrates that the power will be used for political rather than objective purposes.
In the circumstances of the noble Lord's experience in France, it would be absolutely clear that the mayor had failed to attend six consecutive monthly meetings in his time in Mexico and would be disqualified by an entirely different provision.
Before we return to the issue—it is clear that Members of the Committee wish to return to it—noble Lords should consider the implications of their proposal.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister said how dreadful it would be if the assembly became caught up in criticising or trying to dismiss the judiciary. I remind the noble Lord that in the Scotland Bill the Government have precisely that provision. The Scottish Parliament could dismiss Scottish judges. As a result of arguments in this House, the Government placed the tribunal as a buffer between the Scottish Parliament and the Government. On behalf of the Government, the Minister is arguing from the other direction than that which he argued on the Scotland Bill, as he will see if he reads Hansard on that issue.
I understand the point he makes. I am concerned about both amendments. I can envisage extremely tricky circumstances. Perhaps the Minister will consider in what circumstances Clause 14 allows the appropriate officer of the authority to declare the office to be vacant, and discuss with his officials and lawyers whether the list under Clause 14(a) and (b) needs expanding to include some other circumstance so that the matter can be dealt with in that way. The circumstances envisaged by both Front Benches could easily arise and must be dealt with somehow. That is just a suggestion—I know that Members on the other side of the Committee are not meant to make suggestions which help the Government—but I am tempted to believe that there may be another way. The Minister should consider what the Government did about the Scotland Bill.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank my noble friend for mentioning that the Government are arguing differently from a similar provision in the Scotland Bill. I take issue with my noble friend in her statement that the Opposition are not supposed to be helpful to the Government. I believe that all of our amendments would

111
be helpful to them if they were accepted. But of course I am well aware that the Government do not like to accept them because of the "It was not invented here" syndrome. Undoubtedly, if they had thought of it it would have been in the Bill.
The Minister will have gleaned that the Opposition believe that there must be a way of dealing with a mayor who is totally out of order. I notice that he was concerned because my noble friend said that perhaps the assembly should deal with the situation before the courts do. I accept that the concept is difficult to take on board, but when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke to her amendment the response was, "We have all the regulations in place and if he is disqualified this will happen. and if that happens this can happen, and so on, and we can deal with it. There really is not such a problem". There is a problem and the issue is how to find a solution.
The two Opposition Front Benches have suggested that the assembly should be able to get rid of the mayor, but they differ in the percentage. I take the Minister's point, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that if the mayor is voted into office by the citizens of London there should be no other way of removing him from office. I am sure that the Minister will be aware that in the other place we introduced a recall petition. We suggested that 1 million signatures should be presented to the Secretary of State stating that those people were no longer happy with the position for the following reasons. Before we put forward the present suggestion, we had the idea that the mayor could be removed for gross misbehaviour or whatever by the decision of the two Houses of Parliament. We have put forward many ideas, but clearly we have not yet come up with the answer.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope; the Minister said that we need to think about the matter and we are doing so because we want to find a mechanism. However, I believe that the Minister should accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, because it is down to the Government to think about the matter, too, because they have produced the idea. As there is a flaw in it, it is down to the officials and the Minister together to put forward a solution. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Cost of holding the first ordinary elections]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 9, line 41, leave out ("determined by the Secretary of State") and insert ("authorised by the Representation of the People Act 1983")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 54, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 55. The expenses of the first ordinary Greater London election
112
for the mayor and the assembly will be borne by the Consolidated Fund because, as the assembly will not until afterwards exist, it will not have any money of its own.
In future the funding of ordinary and by-elections will follow the normal procedure for local elections. Clause 18, as drawn, is objectionable on two grounds. First, it leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide what may be spent. That is another example of the control that the Secretary of State is trying to exercise over the Greater London Authority which the Government claimed would be a truly independent organisation and a model of decentralisation.
"Local government should be less constrained by central government"
they proclaimed in their manifesto.
We have a simple, tried and tested, universally accepted method for working out what election expenses are permissible both for candidates and officials. Why change it? Why give this additional power to the Secretary of State? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
There is another element of uncertainty. Clause 18(2) states that the returning officer may not recover more than the maximum amount authorised by the Secretary of State and even then only for the purposes determined by him under Clause 18(1)(b). How will the returning officer know what these two undetermined items will be unless the Secretary of State announces them in advance of the commencement of the election process before the very first day?
The Bill imposes no obligation on the Secretary of State to do that. Once again, use of the established statutory procedure and guidelines would resolve that problem. I believe that in this case we should simply let the Act say that the existing laws of England apply to the election. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am afraid I am still rather unclear as to the intended purpose of the amendments. On the face of it, they seek to remove from the Secretary of State the ability to determine the categories of expenditure which returning officers may seek to recover in respect of the first ordinary elections, and instead to specify that recoverable expenditure should be only that expressly authorised by the Representation of the People Act 1983.
Returning officers' recoverable expenses are specified either in respect of parliamentary elections, in an order made by the Secretary of State under Section 29(3) of the 1983 Act, or at local elections by the responsible council by virtue of Section 36 of that Act.
The amendments could not apply the provisions described in the orders made under Section 29(3) to the authority because the order-making power relates only to parliamentary elections. However, the clause as presently drafted confers similar power on the Secretary of State in respect of the first ordinary elections as that described at Section 29(3).
The power at Section 36 of the 1983 Act provides that a returning officer at a local election is entitled to recover all his expenses which are properly incurred, subject only to any scale which the relevant council may

113
have set. As the scales are not specified in the 1983 Act, these amendments would, as they stand, have nothing on which to bite.
I stress that Clause 18 relates only to expenditure in respect of the first ordinary elections which will be organised centrally and paid for out of the Consolidated Fund. Since authority elections will be treated as local government elections for the purposes of the RPA, in future years the cost of those elections will be met from the authority's budget and the provisions of Section 36 RPA will apply. I therefore feel that it is reasonable to ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am not certain how reasonable or otherwise it is to ask me to withdraw the amendment. However, I shall certainly read carefully what the Minister said. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 19 [Qualification to be the Mayor or an Assembly member.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 56.
Page 10, line 29, leave out ("21") and insert ("18")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. For several years now there has been support cross-party for reducing the age at which people can stand for election from 21 to 18. At one time or another, each party seems to have supported the idea and yet successive governments have totally failed at every opportunity to introduce it. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Local Government Bill, going through this House at present, does not seem to be addressing the matter either.
As was said earlier, this Bill seeks a different type of assembly and gives us an opportunity to offer young people the chance to become candidates at the age of 18. It is extraordinary that we leave young people in such limbo. To a large extent, at 16 they become adults. Lots of the benefits of being a child are removed from them and lots of the responsibilities of being young adults are placed upon them. However, many of us probably feel that 18 is a reasonable age to accept that they reach majority. But, having reached that majority when they are expected to support themselves, to go out and get a job, when they can marry and be responsible for raising children, for deciding where to send those children to school and so forth, they are still not allowed to represent their own peer group.
The assembly is expected to a take a long-term view, otherwise there would not be much point in it. The London boroughs can do most of the short-term work, though they take a long-term view in some things. But the assembly is expected to take a much longer-term view; it will prepare strategies for the long term. We
114
only need to look at some of the subjects it will be addressing to see that the long-term effect is what will count; for instance, health, biodiversity, transport and so forth. And those who need a voice on that assembly, among others, are those who in 10 years' time can be expected to have children; those who in 20 years' time will have the families using the cycle routes, the transport and the sports and cultural facilities; and those who expect to have grandchildren in 30 or 40 years' time. That is a long-term view.
It might be said that three years does not make a big difference. But it does, in two ways. First, the candidate's birthday would need to fall in the right place. It may be that he or she would be 24 before being able to stand for the assembly because the elections took place just before their 21st birthday. Secondly, it sends out the regrettable message that we are not interested in hearing the voice of young people and it is a sop to say that we are only interested in hearing them in a consultative capacity.
If we believe young people are adult at 18—and in law they are—we should be willing to accept them as candidates at 18. It is no surprise to learn that the turnout of young people at every election is so poor. They cannot vote for one of their peers; they do not hear their voice in any council chamber in the land. It would be of enormous regret if once again in this assembly their voice is not heard as of right. London is a Mecca for young people; it offers them a huge amount. It also presents enormous problems for them. There are likely to be only one or two people in an assembly of this size who will truly be regarded as young. Given the tone that they could bring to the assembly, their long-;term view and the fact that they understand what it is to be young in a way that hose of us who are 30, 40 or 50 cannot, it is extremely important that the Government take this opportunity to reduce the age of candidates to 18. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We do not support the amendment. The minimum age for a Member of Parliament is 21, and we think that it should be left at that. We are not talking about someone being a local councillor. The Minister and the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats said that the reason they did not wish to accept our amendment proposing a member from each borough making up the assembly was because people should not decide matters from a parochial point of view but from a strategic point of view. The constituencies, whether of London members or constituency members, are extremely large, and there is a responsibility to represent a large number of people and to take a strategic view. We feel that the age of I8 is too young for that important role.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The issue of lowering the age at which one can stand for a position raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, was debated in another place. On that occasion the Minister for Transport in London made clear that the Government have an open mind on this issue. The Minister re-stated the Government's position that there is a difference in terms of capacity and suitability

115
between what is required to be a voter and what is required to be a representative, and that the case for a reduction of the age at which a person can stand for election has not been fully made.
The Home Office working party on electoral procedures chaired by George Howarth, the Minister responsible for such matters, is reviewing a wide range of electoral practices. This issue properly falls to that working party. It would be inappropriate to legislate in the Bill on the age at which a person may stand for election. Electoral law should be consistent across the board.
The Committee will note that the working party was adjourned until the local Scottish, Welsh and European elections were completed, and it is unlikely to have the opportunity to meet for more than one or two sessions before the Summer Recess. It is doubtful, therefore, that the working party will be in a position to take up this issue in the current Session. However, as I have stressed, the Government do not have a closed mind on this point, and I am sure that my Home Office colleague will listen carefully to any representations which the noble Baroness may wish to make to that working party. In those circumstances. I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for her reply, which holds out a little hope. However, I am aware that the working party has been looking at this matter for some time. On the last occasion that the matter was considered all those who spoke supported the reduction of the age of candidates to 18, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who made a small point about financial responsibility. All the other contributors were agreed that there was huge merit in consistency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, made the point that it is important for the minimum age to be consistent with that for MPs. The argument is that if we believe people are adult at 18, we should be consistent and give them all of the rights that go with being an adult at 18. I do not believe that people acquire a huge amount of wisdom that enables them to turn from a voter to a candidate in three years. One will either have the energy, enthusiasm and intelligence to be a good candidate at the age of 18, when one is an adult, or one may never have it. A great deal of experience is gained with age, but not necessarily outlook, intelligence and an ability to represent people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 10, line 34, after ("occupied") insert ("and continues to occupy")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 58 and 59. They all relate to Clause 19(4), which deals with the personal connection of the mayor and assembly members with Greater London. Any person who wishes to be
116
candidate for either office and, if elected, to continue to be either the mayor or an assembly member must meet any one of the four criteria in Clause 19(4).
Clauses 7(a) and 14(a) declare the offices of assemblyman and mayor respectively vacant if the person ceases to be qualified. Paragraph (a) of Clause 19(4) states that
"on the relevant day he is, and from that day continues to he, a local government elector for Greater London".
I repeat those important words:
"and from that day, continues to be";
that is, continues throughout his term of office. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) respectively require him during the whole of the preceding 12 months to have occupied as owner or tenant land or premises in Greater London or to have had his principal or only place of work in Greater London or to have resided in Greater London. The requirement to have occupied land, or worked, or to have resided in Greater London is entirely appropriate and necessary. But it is a strange anomaly that a person has to continue to be a local government elector for the whole of his term of office but need not continue to have one of the other three relevant qualifications for one minute after the declaration of the poll.
I simply do not understand the reason for this discrepancy. It seems to be nothing but an invitation to carpetbaggers to parachute in, or to be parachuted in by his party hierarchy; acquire one of the three qualifications for 12 months; get himself elected; and then take off again—and yet retain the office that he has acquired. Our amendment ensures that all four of the alternative qualifications follow the identical standards and have the same value. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, has said, these amendments would appear to be unnecessary. The subsections of Clause 19 which she described require a candidate to satisfy at least one of the four conditions to which she referred. These conditions are consistent with the conditions imposed in other local elections, including London borough elections.
I remain unconvinced by the arguments that I have heard so far that the elections to the Greater London Authority should be considered differently. The personal circumstances of candidates may change during their periods of office in such a way as to make it impossible for them to reside within the boundaries of Greater London. For example, there may be family responsibilities which would cause somebody to live just over the boundaries in one of the adjacent county areas, perhaps because of responsibility for elderly parents or other family commitments. That would mean that they could not register to vote, but it does not mean that they could not continue to carry out their responsibilities and duties either as mayor or as an assembly member.
The candidate elected as mayor will certainly be expected to be doing a full-time job, and this will also be so for assembly members. They will all be paid salaries. Even if it is expected that their GLA duties are

117
their only or principal work, they will continue to be qualified by the provisions of Clause 19(4)(c). From the example I have given, I hope the noble Baroness will understand that the amendment she proposes may have effects that I am quite sure she did not intend. I am sure that in those circumstances she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: There is not much validity in the argument that the Minister just made. If it is all right for the person to move a little outside the Greater London area provided that he resides or works there during the time that the proceedings are started, I do not understand why the candidate must, as it states in Clause 19(2)(a),
"on the relevant day … and from that day, continues to be, a local government elector for Greater London".
It seems extraordinary that somebody who wishes to be a mayor or assemblyman can be there one day but not the next day after the election.
I shall read carefully the Minister's comments and withdraw the amendment. I suggest, however, that the noble Lord the Minister also reflects. We will read the debate carefully. It would be helpful if Ministers read it carefully and sometimes were prepared to meet us half way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend always does.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am sure that the noble Baroness and the Minister do so but somewhere along the line, it would be rather nice if we could understand the reasoning. It does not make all that much sense to me. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Disqualification from being the Mayor or an Assembly member]:
[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Miller of Hendon Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 11, line 35, at end insert ("; or
(f) he holds a politically restricted post (as defined in Part I of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) under any local authority (as similarly defined) whose area, or part of it, lies within Greater London.")
The noble Baroness said: Part I of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 disqualifies a person from becoming, whether by election or otherwise, or remaining a member of a local authority if he holds a politically restricted post with that or any other local authority in Great Britain. That provision was enacted as a result of the recommendations of the Widdecombe inquiry into the conduct of local authority business.
Clause 2 of the 1989 Act defines a politically restrictive post under eight headings. I am sure that the Minister and other Members of the Committee do not
118
require me to read them. The purpose of that provision is to safeguard against twin-tracking—that is, persons working for one council and holding elected office with another. As Section 1(2) of the 1989 Act excludes a person holding a restricted post even from becoming a Member of Parliament, there is every reason for it applying to the mayor and members of the assembly. Consistency should be the key. There is no reason for the mayor and members of the assembly being an elite group to whom the law of the land does not apply equally with members of other local authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In the context of this new authority, I wonder whether there is some merit in allowing persons holding politically sensitive offices to stand—albeit that if they were elected, they would have to resign those offices. Has the noble Baroness considered that possibility or does she believe that such persons should neither stand nor be elected and serve while holding a politically sensitive office?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that I certainly listen most carefully to everything said and consider it. If I do not understand fully the points raised, I assure the noble Baroness that I discuss them carefully with my noble friend the Minister and officials.
Amendment No. 62 would prevent holders of politically restricted posts in any of the London boroughs from being elected to or remaining as mayor or an assembly member. Clause 57(1) already specifies that the GLA will be treated as a local authority for the purposes of Sections 1 to 3 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which are the provisions covering politically restricted posts in local authorities.
Section 1(1) of the 1989 Act states:
"A person shall be disqualified from becoming (whether by election or otherwise) or remaining a member of a local authority if he holds a politically restrictive post under that local authority or any other local authority in Great Britain".
Subsequently, any person holding a politically restricted post in a London borough would already be prohibited from being elected or serving as mayor or an assembly member. Indeed, the prohibition actually extends to holders of politically restricted posts in local authorities outside Greater London. That is the normal local government regime. In those circumstances, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister is absolutely right. I shall be delighted to withdraw my amendment. I should like to assure the noble Baroness that I certainly was not trying to impugn that she, or any other Minister for that matter, did not read everything carefully and did not consider it. It is simply that we are

119
always being asked to look at such matters again. I just thought it was my turn to put another little spoke in the wheel. I beg leave to withdraw—
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, perhaps she could answer my noble friend's question.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I actually nodded my head in assent to the noble Baroness when she made her second suggestion to indicate that that was exactly what I did mean. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Declaration of acceptance of offer]:
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 13, line 1, leave out ("two months") and insert ("forty two days")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the period of acceptance of office by the mayor and assembly members from two months to 42 days. If the election is held on 4th May in the year 2000, it makes the difference between 17th June and 4th July: that is about 19 days. Personally—and I emphasise that—I do not understand why anyone should need to sign an acceptance of offer of office after an election when he has signed a nomination form and has fought an election campaign which obviously indicates that he wants that position. However, it seems to have been ever thus. Until the system is changed, we will have to carry on with written acceptances and time limits.
The period of two months for both the mayor and assembly members to accept office is far too long. We propose that the period should be reduced to a maximum of 42 days. That is what applies elsewhere in local government where the period is the same—42 days. That is calculated from the 35 days for lodging a declaration of election expenses, plus the seven days. Incidentally, the same 35- day period for filing election expenses also applies in the case of Westminster and European parliamentary election expenses, although in those cases no acceptance of office is required.
In the interests of consistency, which I am having to urge elsewhere in our debates on the Bill, I believe that the Government should find it easy to accept this amendment. I can remember when I received a letter asking me whether I would be prepared to accept a life peerage and come to your Lordships' House. My reply, saying in effect, "Not 'arf", was virtually on the way to a letter box before the postman who delivered the letter had left the street. I believe that the honour of being elected mayor is such that he will have his acceptance letter in his pocket ready for the declaration. Therefore, 19 days fewer than the proposed two months will not
120
inconvenience the new mayor or assemblymen. I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept this very small amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Baroness described most clearly how this clause requires both the mayor and assembly members to make a declaration of acceptance of office before they proceed to act in their respective positions. As she said, this declaration must be made within two months from the day of the election. I am slightly puzzled as to why this particular period of reduction from two months to 42 days is being proposed. As the noble Baroness is aware, the period of two months is strictly in line with Section 83 of the Local Government Act 1972 and therefore in those circumstances could be argued to be logical and appropriate.
However, what we propose for London is, of course, a new style of local governance, but I think it is only fair that it be subject to the same rules of election that apply to local government, where that is possible. There appears to be no special imperative unique to London which makes it necessary for the mayor and assembly members to be subject to different rules which require an earlier formal declaration than is necessary elsewhere. Like the noble Baroness, I am confident that successful candidates will be only too willing to make prompt declarations of acceptance. However, I shall undertake to read carefully and to consider the points raised by the noble Baroness. In the light of that response I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am most grateful to the Minister for smiling at me when she said that she would read carefully what I have said. I hope that the Government will take some notice of my comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
REFERENDUM
(" .—(1) At the end of the eleventh year after the first Assembly is elected the Mayor shall arrange for a referendum to he held to take place at any time within the ensuing six months.
(2) The persons entitled to vote in such referendum shall be the persons entitled to vote in any local election in Greater London at that date.
(3) The questions to be asked at such referendum shall be—

(a) Are you satisfied with the present structure of the Greater London Authority consisting of a Mayor and an elected Assembly of twenty five members, none of whom represent an actual single borough? YES/NO

(b) Would you prefer the Assembly to consist of thirty three members, each one representing a single one of the thirty two London boroughs together with the Common Council of the City of London? YES/NO

(4) The Mayor shall transmit the result of the referendum to the Secretary of State and to both Houses of Parliament.
(5) Each Parliament being sovereign and one Parliament being unable to bind a later one, the Secretary of State shall not be bound by the result of the referendum.
(6) The Secretary of State may by order authorise (hut not require) the Mayor to include further questions in the referendum if so requested by the Mayor.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is, by its novel nature, a probing amendment. It is similar to what is called a sunset clause, but unlike a true sunset clause it does not automatically make an enactment expire after a given date. Although it is an historic fact that the Conservative Party was opposed to the restoration of a modified Greater London Council in the guise of the greater London authority, we have of course accepted the democratic decision of the London electorate who voted for it in a referendum. All we seek to do is to be constructive with regard to this Bill. We shall be equally constructive with regard to the running of the authority and of the assembly once they come into operation. I emphasise that point because I do not want it to be said that this probing amendment of mine could in any way be considered a wrecking amendment, which it certainly is not.
However, when the referendum was held, we objected to the loaded double question which did not allow the voter to choose a mayor with executive powers without an assembly, or to choose an assembly without the mayor. We also objected to the constitution of the assembly which we have attempted to alter both here and in the other place. However, I am sure that this is not the occasion and certainly not the hour to refight old battles. If the Government feel able to accept this amendment—or any on similar lines—there will be a clear two-and-three-quarter terms (that is, 11 years) for the voters to make up their mind whether they like the form of the assembly. It will also allow for the 10 years of the hypothecation of the taxes, as the Secretary of State said in the other place.
The point about the proposed new clause is that neither Parliament nor the Secretary of State would be bound by the result of the referendum. It would be "for information only", as it were. To anticipate a possible riposte from the Minister, of course I expect there to be another Conservative government long before the 11-year period mentioned in the proposed new clause. However, I cannot speak as to their future policy and programme. As a small cog in the wheel I can deal only with the situation as it is today.
In a speech to the London Chambers of Commerce on 3rd June the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said,
"I think the idea of regulations with an expiry date is an attractive one. There may be a case for sunset clauses in new regulation".
I refer to the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility—unlike my own pronouncements, presumably this is government policy. I remember when I was appointed to the Front Bench opposite I was warned to he careful of what I said. I could always correct a minor factual error but a serious slip of the tongue could in effect be an announcement of new government policy. I was always petrified when I had to answer questions in case I made such a slip of the tongue.
If regulations need to be considered for a possible use by date, the same can possibly be said for some Acts of Parliament, especially when they are based on a piece of public opinion which is notoriously fickle and can change in the course of 11 years. As I said before, the two questions I mentioned were joined together and therefore one did not have a choice in the referendum to say which part of the measure one liked. Only afterwards could we say from these Benches that we liked the mayor; and from the Liberal Democrat Benches that they liked the assembly. Such is democracy that we ended up with both.
I and my noble friends will be extremely interested to hear what the Government have to say about how confident they are that the form of assembly they propose to impose on London—a point not covered in the referendum—will stand the test of time I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: Like my noble friend Lady Farrington I always consider deeply and give great reverence to points made in your Lordships' House before we reach the next stage. On this amendment, I cannot offer any hope of reconsideration of the clause.
The Committee will know that I rarely make cheap political points. However, I am tempted to do so. I shall just remind the Committee that 13 or 14 years ago the previous government, in the face of massive Opposition in London and without any talk of a referendum, completely demolished the structure of local government. That is why we are here today attempting to reconstruct a new system of local government that will take us into the 21st century. The Opposition now have the cheek to say to us that the nevi structure is on probation and that after 11 years we will have to reconsider it, come what may.
As a second order point, the noble Baroness should look at the wording of her amendment, particularly if she objects to the "loaded double question" as she referred to the terms of the referendum that was carried out. Setting a double question for London rather demonstrated the wisdom of the Government. What will happen under the noble Baroness's referendum if the electors of London answer "no" and "no" to the two questions? Where would that leave us? The assembly would be abolished and nothing would be left in its place.
I do not see why we should not have subsequent questions about an assembly of 40 members, PR in various forms, as we have discussed earlier, arid so on. Of course we recognise that future governments—I do not entirely exclude the possibility of a future Conservative government, even within this period; I am probably off message for saying so—may consider that this system of government for London has not worked and it will certainly be within the wisdom of that future government to put that proposition to a referendum. We are trying to establish a whole new system of government for London; to create a strategic authority

123
for the 21st century which will address the problems that have failed to be addressed over the past 14 years. For the Opposition to then say "You are only there for 11 years; many of the problems will take 20 years to sort out" is stretching a sunset clause into a direct imposition of an immediate move to midnight.
It is not sensible to incorporate the amendment into an Act of Parliament. It constrains future Parliaments and future governments to a degree to which we normally object in this House. The noble Baroness should reconsider and withdraw the amendment. Should she come back with it, I am afraid she will receive little sympathy from these Benches.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Lord will not be surprised that I am not too worried that there is little sympathy for my amendment. That is nothing very strange. It is possible that we may reconsider the wording and, if it is not practicable, we may consider another way of doing it.
I cannot remember the Minister's exact words but I think the implication was that it was a slight cheek on my part to move the amendment, given that we got rid of the GLC without a referendum. We did not have a
124
referendum because it was very clearly stated in our election manifesto and we won the election with a substantial majority.
Lord Tope: No, you did not.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Yes, we did. We won anyway. At this time of night it would appear that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I are no longer in agreement.
However, as I said, this is a probing amendment. I shall look carefully at what the Minister said. I am heartened by the fact that the Minister does not want to accept the amendment, because if the assembly proves to be as wonderful as the Government believe it will be I should have thought that they would be delighted for it to have a new view from the public on one of their successes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.