Lords Sitting of 21 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 Bristol.

Public Transport: Use by the Blind
Lord Addington Lord Addington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are planning to take in the light of the findings of the Royal National Institute for the Blind report that one third of blind and partially sighted people never use public transport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the report highlights many issues that we are already tackling. The regulations that we are introducing under the Disability Discrimination Act, which require new buses, trains and taxis to be designed to be accessible to disabled people, include features to meet the needs of visually impaired people. We shall continue to work closely with blind people and their organisations to ensure that those improvements, together with greater emphasis on driver training and information, enable blind people to travel with confidence.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he agree that the most fundamental problem that faces many blind and partially sighted people in this country is the use of pavements? If such people cannot walk to public transport facilities, those facilities are useless to them. Will the Government inform the House what progress they have made under the proposed national walking strategy for making pavements more accessible to blind and partially sighted people, particularly in relation to issues such as the abuse of pavements by cyclists and parking on pavements?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, of course, both instances referred to by the noble Lord are already road traffic offences and action should be taken on them. The more general question of clutter on pavements needs to be tackled by local authorities. In some cases, areas regarded as pavements are, in fact, private property and therefore there is an inhibition on the powers of local authorities to act in those circumstances.
Lord Rix: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this morning the Minister for disabled people, Margaret Hodge, launched MENCAP's latest report on bullying of people with learning disabilities, Living in Fear? There is a large section in that report devoted to public transport, where apparently bullying by passengers and staff alike takes place. What steps can the Minister take to ensure that public transport companies lay down
644
correct anti-harassment policies for their staff and passengers, including complaints procedures which are readily understood by people with learning disabilities?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in relation to transport operators we have undertaken to try to ensure that better staff training exists for all those who deal with people with all forms of handicap as part of the buses package; for example, under the Disability Discrimination Act, which will amend conduct regulations in order to place duties on drivers to use the equipment provided in the main regulations. Similarly, the rail regulators' code of practice attempts to achieve the same objective among train operators.
As regards general passengers, we are taking steps in relation to buses, trains and London Underground to improve the knowledge of the public complaints procedure. It is true that there are difficulties of access at the moment and we are asking the operators to address such difficulties.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, naturally I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the RNIB's findings, more particularly as they affect blind and partially sighted people seeking work, and I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware of the deep appreciation felt, not least by Ian Bruce and Alyn Thomas for the RNIB, for the positive way in which my noble friend, Lord Boston, as Chairman of Committees, has pursued the suggestions made in the House to help noble Lords with severe visual impairments?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's remarks. I am sure that the Chairman of Committees will also be most appreciative. It is important that the Houses of Parliament show a lead in this area.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, even for an able-bodied person, the silent approach from behind of people on roller-blades can be terrifying? Can the Minister tell me whether roller-blading on pavements is an offence?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I can say that it is an offence. Clearly, to use pavements in a dangerous manner, with the possibility of creating a danger to other pedestrians, is an offence. I do not believe that roller-blading is a specified offence, but I believe that the police have powers in that area.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as a partially sighted person perhaps I may thank the staff of this House. All those who have a disability, whether optical or otherwise, owe a great deal to them and perhaps I may at least convey our gratitude to them.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend's remarks are primarily for the House authorities and the staff, but I associate myself with them.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I have no wish to be rude to anybody.

645
Does the Minister agree that a large number of older people are among whose who have sight disabilities? Therefore, in addition to the other inequalities that they face, they are often imprisoned in their own homes; they cannot drive and cannot use public transport. Can the Minister say whether they are included in the category of blind and disabled? They are often not included and we have to keep making this point.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that there are a large number of partially sighted and blind people with other forms of disability among the older members of the population. It is important that public transport policy is designed to increase access for those who would not otherwise have it, in particular those who cannot themselves drive a car.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister say when he will implement Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act and oblige minicab drivers to accept guide dogs without extra charge and without discrimination?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I can write to the noble Earl in that regard.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, the Minister has obviously read the RNIB report. Did he note that the blind and partially sighted are requesting that, within London Underground, stations should be announced? Those who come to work in London and go home every day by public transport have to sit and count the stops because they do not know where they are, or they have to search around for someone to tell them. Will the Minister look into that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. The issue of audible travel information is very important on the Underground, on train services and even at bus stops. It needs to be done in such a way that it is not intrusive elsewhere, but it is an important part of access to information for the blind.

Denis Nilsen: Poems
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider the ban on the publication of the poems of Denis Nilsen, a prisoner in HM Prison Whitemoor, since Mr Nilsen has stated that he will donate any proceeds to charity
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, under Prison Service standing orders prisoners are allowed to submit works of literary merit for publication but only through charitable
646
organisations approved by the Prison Service. Mr. Nilsen has been advised of the correct procedures for doing that.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but that is a fairly disingenuous reply. Not long ago I applied, on behalf of Mr. Nilsen, whom I have been visiting for five years, for permission to allow his poems to be published. Although the Minister may be excellent in all other ways, on that occasion he refused permission. There is no doubt but that Mr. Nilsen was refused permission. So let us be thankful for small mercies. Do not let us look a gift horse in the mouth. But the end is not yet, and I have to talk to people seriously concerned with prison writing as to the next step forward.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I want to make the situation absolutely plain. I am conscious of the great distress that the prospect of this publication may occasion to relatives and they have every right to have their anxieties attended to. Mr. Nilsen has been given permission for nothing. He has simply been told what are the provisions of Standing Order 4 and that if he wishes to pursue the possibility of publication under that provision, which is a pre-existing scheme, he can submit his request. I stress, because two newspapers at least have got it wrong and I received a most moving solicitor's letter today, that Mr. Nilsen has been given permission for nothing. He has been told that he can apply.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may respond quickly. To be honest, that is the most extraordinary answer ever given. Last week Mr. Nilsen was refused permission to have his poems published. Now it has been granted. So to say he has been given permission for nothing is not worthy of the eminent Lord.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is worthy that I tell the House the true position. What has happened is that Nilsen, who is serving life sentences for many cruel and wicked murders, has been given the relevant information and told that he may submit his request.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the explanation the Minister has given is wholly acceptable, certainly to me.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister is quite right in seeking to ensure that standing orders are complied with thoroughly. It would be wrong for a prisoner to profit from the poetry.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is therefore correct that proceeds from writing should go to charity, as set out in the noble Earl's Question. That is an important point.

647
However, there is also the difficulty of judging literary merit. Who will judge the literary merit here? Will the Minister have to do so? If so, he has my sympathy.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. Judging literary merit, apart from the content of noble Lords' questions, is not one of my functions. This is a very serious matter. We are talking about a balance which it is almost impossible to draw. There are rights given under existing Prison Service standing orders, and there is no one I know in your Lordships' House who will not be affected by the prospect of further grief and distress caused to the loved ones of those whom Nilsen cruelly murdered. It may assist your Lordships, and I hope others, that I can say that the Prison Service intends to review standing orders because there is public concern about the publication of material by prisoners. Moreover, we are also approaching the date of 2nd October of next year for the implementation of the Human Rights Act. Therefore, this is an opportune time to carry out such scrutiny.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's reply and I agree with it. However, does he agree that there are a number of prisoners who are writers in residence and who try to develop the literacy and poetic skills of the inmates in prison, not all of whom are mass murderers? Indeed, some of them are fairly short-term prisoners. Therefore, would it not be better if such standing orders were brought to the attention not only of the prison authorities but also of the inmates, including writers in residence, so that good work could actually be published and appreciated by others?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I repeat my earlier assurance that Mr Nilsen had the relevant standing orders brought to his attention. The noble Lord is quite right. There are many of us in this House who have welcomed the work of the Koestler Awards over the years. In the nature of things, that means the opportunity to produce artwork or literary work for fairly modest prizes. That is why I said earlier—and I do not think I can escape this—that it is a very difficult, if not impossible, balance to draw. One has to bear all these delicate susceptibilities in mind.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I must make it quite plain that it was suggested from the beginning that the money should not go to Nilsen. When I wrote to the Minister previously making it plain that any money received would not go to Nilsen, the application was declined. The decision has now been reversed. So let us get that clear.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I almost said, "I hope for the last time", but even I am not that optimistic. Nilsen has been told that he can apply. I agree with the noble Earl that it is very important where the money goes. However, many relatives say that that is not their main concern; it is the resurrection of memories that they hoped had been calmed. I think they have a legitimate interest that should at least be taken into account.
Lord McNally: My Lords, on that very point, the Minister will recall that when the Mary Bell issue was debated in this House he promised an internal review by the Home Office of the wider issue of convicted criminals—and not just those still in prison—writing their memoirs. Can the noble Lord tell us what stage that review has reached and when we can hope to have the findings?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the review is still continuing. The noble Lord is quite right. It is a different matter because, in Mary Bell's case, she had long since served her sentence. Again, there are exceptionally difficult legal and moral problems to be grappled with; indeed, they are not at all easy, as I have discovered to my cost.

Azerbaijan and Armenia
2.53 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken within the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to settle the Azerbaijan-Armenia dispute in the context of Me three principles agreed at the 1996 Lisbon Summit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Mr Vollebaek, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Chairman-in-Office, and the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group continue their efforts to facilitate a resolution to the dispute in line with the Lisbon Summit principles. Their current focus is on urging the parties to resume direct negotiations. However, I regret that I can report no recent progress. Mr Vollebaek plans to visit the region, and the OSCE to open regional offices in Baku and Yerevan, later this year.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her encouraging reply. However, can she give the House the Government's present assessment of the "common state" proposals? Does she agree that those proposals are inimical both to the interests and the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan? Further, can the Minister say what Her Majesty's Government will do to improve the position of the 1 million dispersed Azeris to enable them to return to their natural homes in Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding occupied territories?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government continue to support the principles laid out at the Lisbon Summit in December 1996. Those principles include the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan and that those should be preserved; that the legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh should be defined in an agreement on self-determination to the highest degree possible; and that the security of Nagorno-Karabakh and its whole population should be guaranteed, including by mutual obligations, to ensure

649
compliance by all parties with the provision of a settlement. I believe that those three principles are quite explicit. They have been supported not only by this Government but also by the previous government when they were in office.
The noble Earl also asked what more can be done. A great deal of aid—some £10 million—has gone to both countries and is being dispersed for displaced people through reputable agencies. Of course, Her Majesty's Government will go on considering what more it is possible to do.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have made very serious efforts to be conciliatory in abandoning their demands for sovereignty and in considering and wishing to discuss the transfer of populations? I hope that that might mean that they will be encouraged further in that way. Does the noble Baroness also agree that if Azerbaijan continues to wish to bring the Turkey factor, if I may call it that, into the equation and to encourage the Turks to play a bigger part, we are likely to have considerable instability in a region where we can ill afford it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness has said. As she may know, there have been some more unfortunate outbreaks of skirmishing within the past week or so, and the OSCE has delivered a further statement encouraging both parties to attend some sort of bilateral discussions. We have been enormously encouraged by recent meetings between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Of course, most recently, those were held in Washington around the NATO Summit in April. We urge them to continue that dialogue and we are looking forward tomorrow to a meeting of all three trans-Caucasian presidents, which is due to take place in the margins of the GAC in Luxembourg. So, as the noble Baroness said, there are some encouraging signs; but, equally, we have to watch the situation on the ground very closely, where, unfortunately, we have seen rather more skirmishing during the past week or 10 days than is altogether comfortable.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the British-Armenian all-party parliamentary group. Can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government fully realise that we are dealing with a situation exactly similar to that in Kosovo? When the Azeri troops first entered and invaded the Karabakh, their president stated that it was his intention they should kill every single Armenian there. That was a first-class statement of ethnic cleansing. The attendant horrors that went with it were exactly the same as those that took place in Kosovo. For all its high-falutin principles, the Lisbon Summit ignored one thing; namely, that you cannot ask people to sign their own death warrant. You cannot expect the Armenians in the Karabakh to submit to any form of suzerainty by Azerbaijan; that is quite out of the question.
Noble Lords: Question!
The Earl of Shannon: Certainly, my Lords; I asked Her Majesty's Government whether they appreciated the situation—
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Shannon: Indeed, I am sure that they do. However, until there is an absolute guarantee for the people of the Karabakh, it will be very difficult to get any form of Lisbon Summit principles adhered to.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I understand the issues the noble Lord raises and indeed we aired them at some length in your Lordships' House on 17th March when we discussed this matter in a debate. I think then there was a good deal of discussion on self-determination on the one hand and sovereignty, including territorial integrity, on the other. We know that these are complex questions. The noble Earl draws the analogy with Kosovo. I think at the time other examples were adduced of not identical conflicts but ones where the roots of the conflicts could be said to have some similarities in different parts of the world.
It is important that we examine a number of different ways of trying to get the parties to come together. One way that we might look at is to encourage the parliamentary groups—not only the one of which the noble Earl is the chair but also the British Azerbaijan parliamentary group—to consider supporting our efforts and indeed entering into more discussion on confidence-building measures. There is a job of work to be done there among the all-parliamentary groups. I hope that is a challenge that the noble Earl will take up.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must declare an interest as vice-chairman of the British Azeri group in this House. It seems to me that, in this vexed question where there is intense competition with regard to what may be the truth—I hear what my noble friend says clearly—some other members of the European Union may not have been playing the peace-making role that Britain has tried to play through the Minsk Group and the OSCE. Will the Minister make sure that we consult behind the scenes with our 14 partners and with other members of the OSCE so that all the issues are on the table and that we do not see some of the difficulties that we have seen recently; otherwise there will not be a valid discussion and a valid outcome?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that everything I have said indicates that Her Majesty's Government are absolutely committed to the whole question of ensuring that people discuss this matter as widely as possible, both within Europe, and, if I may say so, within your Lordships' House, because it has been my experience in dealing with this issue in your Lordships' House that there are strongly held views and on occasion some of those who support either side might have some fruitful discussions with each other. There can be no doubt whatever that there can be no military

651
solution to this conflict and that the only way in which it can be resolved is by people of good will—whichever side in the conflict they support—getting together.

Energy Efficiency
3.2 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to achieve their energy saving objectives by the year 2010.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are developing a climate change programme which will enable us to meet our targets for reducing emissions. Energy efficiency will be one of the main components of the programme. Energy efficiency is already actively promoted through a range of government programmes and initiatives. These include the energy efficiency best practice programme and the Energy Saving Trust's government-funded programme to promote energy efficiency.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, although I accept that the Government are doing a great deal to improve energy efficiency, does not the noble Lord agree that there could be some confusion as a result of the variety of targets that have been set for this purpose? There are no fewer than three targets to which we are committed for reducing emissions: the Kyoto target, the EU target and the Government's own target. There is a target for stimulating the use of renewables and combined heat and power. There is a target for stimulating the efficient use of other sources of energy, including the home energy conservation scheme with which my noble friend Lady Maddock was much involved. Does not the noble Lord agree that the time may well have come when there ought to be a single energy efficiency or saving target set to which all those other targets can relate; for example, the objective to increase energy efficiency by, say, 20 per cent between 2000 and 2010?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is correct to say that a number of targets and objectives form part of the programme, but the overall objective is clear; namely, to fulfil our Kyoto commitment in relation to the 12.5 per cent cut and to go further by meeting our own cut of 20 per cent in CO2. Other targets have to fit in with that. Were we to have a single energy efficiency target, different sectors could reasonably be expected to make different contributions towards that target. But the overall "big print" target is clear.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the large London hospitals, and perhaps others throughout the country, have combined heat and power schemes which not only serve the valuable purpose of destroying dangerous waste on site but also produce power which is then reharnessed and used? That saves a great deal of money and is energy efficient. Is there any liaison between government departments to see that this kind of programme is expanded?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we certainly would encourage consolidation of and building on the
652
combined heat and power process to which the noble Baroness refers. My department, which has responsibility for combined heat and power, works closely with the DTI and with private industry to ensure that there are no barriers in this regard. We shall continue and intensify that work.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many people involved in manufacturing industry are extremely concerned at the prospect of the carbon tax?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am unused to such short questions from my noble friend! I agree that there is some anxiety in relation to the climate change levy. We are discussing this matter with all sectors of industry. Nevertheless, I believe that in terms of our overall tax policy and in relation to the objectives on climate change, the proposed levy represents a significant and positive change in the burden of taxation away from "goods"—that is, labour and investment—and on to "bads"—that is, pollution. That is consistent both with our overall intent on environmental taxation and with our social and other policies. Part of that climate change levy will be redirected to exactly the kind of energy efficiency schemes which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that among the worst areas for energy inefficiency are privately owned properties and the private rented sector. However, the majority of those living in those properties are elderly people, often women who are often on low incomes. Can the Minister indicate the kind of targets for which the Government are aiming in their overall programme of reducing the number of energy-inefficient buildings in this country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are a number of schemes, some of which are related to those in fuel poverty who suffer disproportionately from being in energy-inefficient buildings. As noble Lords will recall., we have changed the basis for our new home energy efficiency scheme to target 4 million households with children and 3.7 million pensioner households which will be eligible for that help. Many of those people live in the kind of property to which the noble Baroness refers. In the longer term, both our additional help to local authorities to improve their building stock and our proposed changes in building regulations as regards both new and refurbished buildings will make a major, if long-term, contribution.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on Kosovo and the G8 Summit. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the City of London demonstrations on Friday 18th June.

University College London Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Imperial College Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.10 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 25 [The general power of the Authority]:
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 69A:
Page 14, line 18, at beginning insert ("Subject to sections 228(4) and 229(3)")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to my Amendments Nos. 298 and 314. My noble friend Lord Whitty is aware of my interest in the Bill from my representations to him for Greater London Action on Disability (GLAD)—of which I am a patron—about its concern to see its provisions, as they affect transport strategy, made more inclusive of the needs and views of the organisations that represent disabled and older people. Later amendments to the Bill tabled by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and to which I am a signatory, also express GLAD's concern, while that of Dial-a-Ride and Taxi-Card Users (DaRT) are reflected in the new clause of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner.
My noble friend is also aware of my interest in the Bill as the author of the orange badge scheme, for which I legislated in my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. He knows, too, from my comments at Second Reading, at col. 442 of the Official Report of 20th May, that it was the nightmare for disabled people of the exclusion of four inner London boroughs from that scheme which prompted my Amendments Nos. 298 and 314 to exempt from road user charging and workplace parking levies disabled people who rely crucially on cars for their independence. In addition to the support of disability organisations, my amendments have the backing of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The primary purpose of both road user charging and workplace parking levies is to reduce congestion by encouraging people to use their cars less and other modes of transport more. In Guidance on Provisional Local Transport Plans, the Government recognised that,
654
"for some disabled people the private car will remain the only viable way of getting around. It is vital therefore that local authorities … address the needs of disabled people as motorists".
The Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People (JCMD), over which Sir Peter Large presides with such distinction, insists that to impose charges and levies on disabled motorists with severe walking difficulties is a cruel and unavoidable tax for being disabled. The JCMD believes, as I do, that all such people should be exempted from road user charging and workplace parking levies. It applauds the Government for consulting on how this might be arranged, but adds:
"If disabled people are to avoid being penalised in one area and not in another, or penalised to a different extent in one area compared with another, it will be essential to agree a single national exemption scheme which must apply in and throughout London".
It would be entirely unacceptable to make access to the attractions and amenities of one part of London more expensive for disabled motorists than other parts. It would be entirely unacceptable also to make it financially impossible for some disabled people to get into any part of London, whether as passenger or driver and whether as employer, employee, customer or visitor. It is thus entirely reasonable, in giving London's mayor powers to introduce road user charges and workplace parking levies, for the Government to impose a duty to ensure that disabled people with severe walking difficulties are fully exempted from these charges and levies and not further disadvantaged by them. That exemption, without which handicap is piled on handicap for disabled people, ought not to be decided by personal whim but by the political will of Parliament. This basically is what these amendments are about.
Glenda Jackson MP, whose concern for the problems and needs of disabled people is transparently clear to everyone who knows her, said in a ministerial reply to representations from DIPTAC:
"I would like to make it clear that any national exemption which may be included in future national charging legislation would be able to apply across London … I might add that I would expect the Mayor to look favourably at an exemption for disabled motorists across Greater London ahead of any future national exemption".
I am sure that other Ministers in the department share her expectation. But disabled people want exemption to be decided now—by this Bill—and believe that no mayor of London worthy of the office would take exception to that exercise of parliamentary sovereignty on an issue of such important principle. For it is ultimately to the Government and Parliament that disabled people dependent on the use of a car look for protection.
At all costs, we must avoid the chaos for disabled people of having four special disabled parking badge schemes in inner London, each with its own idiosyncratic set of rules and concessions which add unnecessarily to the difficulties of London's disabled motorists and make life impossible for disabled visitors to the capital, even if they possess orange badges. These are highly important amendments to which I hope my noble friend will be able to offer a positive and helpful reply. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My name is attached to these amendments. I support very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, said. In no way does either of us wish to clog up the streets of London, but one must remember that those who are disabled very often cannot move around the capital without their own private transport. They need that facility. In addition, the Government are very anxious, as were the previous government, for disabled people to move into gainful employment so that they are no longer a burden on the social security system. For that reason alone the Government should accept the third of the three amendments—that is, free parking in the workplace. The noble Lord has said all that I would wish to say. I strongly support all three amendments.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I, too, support these amendments, so clearly and comprehensively moved and explained by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. I have put my name to Amendments Nos. 298 and 314 but unfortunately I missed putting my name to the paving one.
The noble Lord mentioned GLAD. I should declare that I, too, am a patron, and a member of the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People. As the noble Lord said, it is clear from the White Paper, A New Deal for Transport, that the Government appreciate that for severely disabled people a car may be the only viable way of getting around. It is clear therefore that we should not penalise those people financially for using their cars; to do so would be to tax them for being disabled.
If the amendments are accepted, I agree with the noble Lord that it is very important there should be a national scheme—not only in England but also, I hope, in Scotland and Wales—and that one scheme should apply throughout London. We cannot have the chaos that the orange badge scheme has created.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, made the point well on Second Reading and referred again today to the nightmare situation for orange badge holders. In the four inner London boroughs of the City, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Camden no fewer than five parking badge schemes apply—four individual schemes and orange badge. The latter is supposed to be a national scheme, but its use is restricted in those four boroughs. Each scheme has its own idiosyncratic set of rules.
As the holder of an orange badge for many years and of a Westminster badge, I will dwell on the situation for a moment to inform your Lordships of how appalling it is. The number of orange badges issued under the discretionary criterion as opposed to the as-of-right criterion varies as a percentage of all individual badges issued—from as high as 80 per cent in Westminster to as low as 55 per cent in Camden and 57 per cent for inner London as a whole. There is no logic to that variation, which leads to chaos for disabled motorists. It is difficult for them to know the concessions and penalties that apply in a particular area—and heaven help someone coming to London the first time. One
656
needs the knowledge of a taxi driver backed by a databank of the details that apply. In reality one gets various leaflets.
I am grateful to the boroughs for issuing various leaflets about their schemes but that should not have to be so. The leaflets show, for example, which streets in the City have orange badge places, and they explain whether one can park on a single yellow line, a double yellow line or neither. Camden operates two sets of rules in one borough. The larger part of it fully recognises the orange badge and grants all concessions but in another part, the green badge operates. To complicate matters, one can park on a yellow line in the orange sector if one has an orange badge. In the green sector, one cannot park on a yellow line even if one has a green badge.
The borough also issues a map, which is useful except that one needs a magnifying glass to see it clearly. It is a funny jagged shape, so adjacent streets may fall either side of the line between the orange and green badge areas. If one takes a knight's move sideways, one may be back in the green area and subject to a parking charge. It is a crazy game and it came to me as no surprise to find that Mornington Crescent is in the borough of Camden.
We cannot risk compounding that nightmare with different exemption schemes for disabled people in connection with road use charging and workplace parking levy schemes, which is why I strongly support the amendments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the general principle that road use charging and a workplace parking levy should be on a national basis, but I do not go along with the idea of changing the situation in the four inner London boroughs.
I was chairman of social services at the time of the first national parking scheme and we considered it in great detail. When we studied the statistics, we found that if every orange badge holder in England—every one of them in London would he enough—were permitted to park, the whole of Westminster could he parked out. The special badges issued by the inner London boroughs are granted after a medical examination. That has to be done because of the pressure on parking space.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, mentioned the different schemes in London. When I was chairman of the Royal Free Hospital, we had a home for people suffering from Alzheimer's disease and sought special permission for a small parking space for one or two cars for visitors. Camden told me that Hampstead had parking rules that were different from anywhere else in the whole of Camden. When I asked why, I was told that that was what Hampstead people wanted. The local authority has listened to what the local electors wanted and felt that it was fitting in. Other parts of the borough that could have benefited from parking controls had none.
I am concerned about parking being confused with charges for road usage, congestion or workplace parking. We should not mix them up. I would support the amendment, provided that it allows local parking schemes to be retained. In my GLC constituency, it was

657
found that, provided restricted parking was limited to only two hours a day, it cleared the problem. Commuters had parked their cars at 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. at night. The two-hour limit cleared that problem. Each borough can work out its own answers. A national parking scheme would be impossible but I support exemption in respect of road usage and workplace parking.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I realise that I may have shot myself in the foot by dwelling too long on troubles with the orange badge scheme. Much as I would love that to be uniform, I was saying that we must not fall into the trap of having different rules for different schemes.
Lord Addington: If one gives disabled people the ability to travel, one brings them within society as a whole. The entire thrust of recent legislation has been to make sure that disabled people are integrated and have the same opportunities. The amendments would exempt disabled people from charges levied in the capital. The capital is the place to which people with any normal job have to travel. London still attracts people from all parts of the country and abroad. If one exempts disabled people from charges, one is giving them one more way to interact in the capital. Where someone is totally dependent on a car, surely it is not right to impose extra charges for something they cannot do without. If one charges someone who is dependent on a car for its use, it is like refusing them travel.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Last night, I was telephoned by a lady from Suffolk whose disabled husband cannot use public transport. She feels that he may not even be able to get into a taxi. The husband has an orange badge. They are coming to London for a memorial service at St. Margaret's, Westminster, on Wednesday. That lady asked whether she would be able to park there. Both she and her husband are elderly.
Parking badges should be given only to genuinely disabled people. All sorts of people seem to obtain them. When I go to the supermarket, I see people jumping out of cars after parking in spaces for disabled persons. Their cars have an orange badge but those people are not disabled. That is most frustrating for people who are genuinely severely disabled. I hope that the Government will do something.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Generally speaking, we support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I congratulate the noble Lord on his ingenuity in bringing forward his amendments at this point in the Bill. I was waiting for the transport sections. We have tabled Amendments Nos. 307 and 322, which cover disabled people in respect of congestion charging and a workplace parking levy. We would go further than the noble Lord and exempt other categories, but we will debate that at the appropriate point. We on these Benches oppose congestion charging in general.
The area of London in which I live introduced controlled parking zones about two years ago. It was extraordinary to see the day after their introduction the
658
enormous amount of disability that broke out in the area. Many people suddenly got hold of orange badges. I have seen some of those people and they are no more disabled than I am. I do not know how they get those badges. If there is to be congestion charging and a workplace parking levy—both of which will probably cost a lot of money—the incentive for more and more people to apply for orange badges will be such that almost everybody will have a badge and only a few people will be left without one. Something needs to be done to ensure that only those who really deserve an orange badge have one.
Secondly, how do the Government think that the workplace parking levy will operate? My understanding is that it will probably be an annual charge, presumably on the owner or the occupier of the property and on the number of parking places that the property has. It will therefore presumably be difficult to say how many of those places will be occupied for the whole year by a disabled person. It will be quite a complicated exercise. Perhaps the Minister will comment. Generally speaking, we on these Benches support the amendment; we have tabled a similar one for debate later.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: First, we on these Benches support congestion charging and the levy on workplace parking. So we start from a different perspective from that of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. Secondly, I was regarded as delightfully straightforward when I could not understand the connection between the paving amendment and the major amendment in this group. The noble Lord, being more experienced than I am, immediately leapt to the correct conclusion that we wish to debate them at an early stage.
From our point of view, these are interesting amendments. It is true that other groups are claiming exemption, from congestion charging in particular. However, to take one example, London First supports congestion charging and the levy on workplace parking. So there are big business and local interests which are very much in favour of those two policies. They also, however, support a number of exemptions.
I should like now to hear the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, tell us, if he does not accept the amendments that are before the Committee today, how he intends to incorporate the idea behind them into the Bill. There is an important principle at stake; namely, people who can get to work or go shopping only by car should not be additionally penalised by the charge and levy system, which others can avoid by taking different forms of transport.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: In replying to the points about workplace parking, will the Minister clarify the position in regard to private garages, which could be used by someone coming to work? They could be attached to houses, or they could belong to a resident in the house. How will they fit into the picture of workplace charging?
Lord Whitty: Like the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing this

659
subject "up front". It is important that we register at an early stage our concern for the disabled citizens of London, particularly in relation to transport. However, the substantive issues raised in these amendments and by most of the comments will be addressed later in Committee. I have considerable sympathy with what has been said in terms of the problems facing some disabled citizens. In regard to national consultation on workplace charges and user charges, there is a recognition that these will need to be dealt with in any national legislation.
Although in one sense Amendment No. 69A may be a paving amendment, it is unnecessary—even if the subsequent amendments were to be accepted—because the use of the general power conferred by Clause 25 will in any case be subject to other provisions in the Bill. That includes any provisions enacted by subsequent amendments, some of which are grouped and some of which have been referred to.
In addition, Clause 26(1) specifically rules out the use of the general power to incur expenditure in doing anything that may be done by a functional body. Transport for London will undertake this area of operation. Therefore, we need to deal with the substantive issue when we debate Transport for London.
By way of a preview of the specific amendments that have been tabled, although I have considerable sympathy with the concerns that lie behind them, I am not able to accept them. The Government are firmly of the view that the charging and licensing authorities in London, under road-user charging and workplace parking charges, should be given the maximum flexibility and responsibility for the design, implementation and operation of any new charging schemes. Simply from listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, one can see the complexity of the different aspects and how they relate to existing on-street parking. The noble Baroness also asked about private garages, which in normal circumstances would not be covered by the legislation, although that will in some part be subject to the feedback on the consultation.
The responsibility that we are placing on the London authorities includes taking decisions about exemptions, including any exemption for disabled persons, in so far as those exemptions are ahead of national exemptions which may be included in future national charging legislation. The consultation paper to which I have referred, Breaking the Logjam, specifically invited views on whether national exemptions from charges for disabled persons should be included in that future legislation. We are currently analysing responses to that consultation exercise.
My noble friend referred to the views expressed by my colleague, Glenda Jackson. They give a general indication of the Government's position. I assure the Committee that any national exemptions included in future national charging legislation will be able to apply in Greater London. It would clearly be absurd if that were not the case. In the meantime, it should be for the mayor to grant exemption from charges for disabled motorists in Greater London. We should certainly expect the mayor to look favourably on such an
660
exemption. Given that assurance of the Government's view on these matters, the likely commitment in any national legislation, and the responsibility of the mayor to take into account the concerns expressed, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Manchester: We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I entirely understand the viewpoint so cogently argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and much appreciate the support she expressed for my amendments.
I am indebted, too, to my good friends, the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Masham. They contributed first-hand experience of the daunting problems that severely disabled people now have to face in London in seeking the freedom of movement others have as of right.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred to abuse of the orange badge scheme. When I first proposed the scheme 30 years ago, in 1969, I was told that it would be very widely abused. My reply was that penalties for abuse would be provided in the legislation I was drafting. That is what happened. My Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which brought the scheme into existence, made provision for penalties for abuse. The penalties have been increased since 1970 and if there is a case for increasing them again, I have no doubt that Ministers will look sympathetically at every suggestion to protect against abuse a scheme which has been of profound importance to millions of severely disabled people over the past 30 years.
Over 1 million cars now have the orange badge and some people feel that this in itself must imply widespread abuse. But over eight times as many people now receive the mobility allowance as was envisaged when I introduced that benefit in the 1970s. I was told after legislating for it that I was probably exaggerating the number of disabled people who would qualify. In truth I was under-stating the number.
The fact is that the statistics available to me as the then first Minister for Disabled People were much less reliable than those available to Ministers now. And I must pay this tribute to the last Government: they spent far more on improving the social statistics available to Ministers than previous governments. Their statistics proved that the new benefits for disabled people introduced in 1970 applied to far more people than was first estimated.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, may know, there are procedures for individuals to report alleged cases of abuse of the orange badge scheme. I am sure that my honourable friend Glenda Jackson will be only too glad to provide any noble Lord with full information as to the action that can be taken against abuse.
I turn now to the response of my noble friend Lord Whitty. As I understand it—I know he will tell us if it is not so—the Government have it in mind to legislate for a national scheme of exemption from road charges and levies for disabled people who have to depend on cars to get about. Glenda Jackson's helpful response to DIPTAC, to which I referred in moving my

661
amendment, also makes clear that a national scheme will apply throughout London, whatever the view, presumably, of the mayor.
So what issue of principle divides us? The only difference, if these amendments are approved, is one of timing: London will lead and not follow the rest of the country. I am sure that no conceivable candidate for the mayoralty would object to this and that most Londoners would welcome the role of leadership that my amendments offer. Why should London not be the first to meet the test of humane leadership that these amendments involve?
I hope that the amendments will not be seen as being far more prescriptive than is intended. As my noble friend said, there are later amendments to be discussed that would help disabled people. The two substantive amendments that I have addressed this afternoon will return to the House later and this is not the moment to consider pressing them. I ask my noble friend to reflect carefully, as I am sure he will, on what has been said from both sides of the Committee in this debate. More especially, I hope he will reflect that there is no great issue of principle between us. The letter of his ministerial colleague, Glenda Jackson, to DIPTAC itself made that crystal clear. I hope that at a later stage of the Bill my noble friend will be able to offer some encouragement to disabled people who do not wish to run any risk with their independence. They strongly support the amendments, as does the Minister's Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 14, line 18, leave out from ("have") to end of line 19 and insert ("the powers conferred by this Act")
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 71, 72, 73, 75, 76 and 78. This group of seven amendments relates to Clause 25 which the rubric describes as being concerned with,
"The general power of the Authority".
Members of the Committee on adjacent Benches have put down a further 10 amendments to Clause 25, including Amendment No. 74, in which they are joined by my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, from the Labour Benches. Of course, I cannot comment at this stage on the reasons for the amendments proposed to the clause other than my own. However, my own reasons are that I believe that in some respects the general tenor of the clause is too vague and unspecific. In some instances it is too wide and in other parts it is too woolly.
Amendment No. 70 relates to Clause 25(1) which proposes:
"The Authority shall have power to do anything which it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes".
As if the licence to do anything is not wide enough, the authority is not even required to show that what it is doing will further the objects. It has not even to show that what it is doing will have the strong possibility of furthering those objects, just a vague suggestion that it considers its actions will further one of those objects. The clause does not even require the authority to have reasonable grounds for its opinion.
Among the many blank cheques for which the Government ask in the Bill, this is probably the blankest of them all. It is bad enough that in many cases the Secretary of State is treating the Bill as an enabling Bill with the real provisions to be revealed in regulations which will be published later. In this clause we are being asked to give the assembly limitless power to do anything it considers will further the principal purposes, however unreasonable and irrational that belief may be.
We were promised by the Government that the new Greater London Authority would not turn out to be the Greater London Council Mark Two. We were promised that it would not be able to run amok on frolics of its own and involve itself in all kinds of matters which had nothing to do with the governance of London, like its predecessor, which was the cause of its summary execution by the regime led by my noble friend Lady Thatcher.
Incidentally, if I may digress for a moment, last week, on 14th June, when we dealt with the first batch of amendments to the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty said, in response to one of my amendments, while disclaiming any intention of making "cheap political points"—his words, not mine:
"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".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 122.]
I agree with him about the massive opposition which consisted of the spending of an estimated £20 million of ratepayers' money by the GLC, under the leadership of the Member for Brent East, in order to preserve Labour's fiefdom and in time to coincide with the 1984 elections for the European Parliament.
However, as I told the Committee then, we did not need a referendum because it was in our 1983 manifesto which said:
"The metropolitan Councils and the Greater London Council have been shown to be a wasteful and unnecessary tier of government. We shall abolish them".
When I mentioned in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that we won the 1983 election with a substantial majority, the noble Lord, Lord Tope interjected with a comment denying that. I am pleased to see him here. I remind the noble Lord that the majority then was 144, which is substantial by any standard.
I digress from the main point because we on this side of the Chamber are concerned to ensure that there is absolutely no possibility of history repeating itself. We do not want any fine print or ambiguities that will allow the GLA to do anything it likes—those are the words of the Bill—so long as it considers in its discretion, which the Bill makes no pretence of trying to fetter, that it will

663
further one or more of its objects. The authority is not answerable to Parliament; it is answerable to the electors, but only once every four years.
After the rejection of the very reasonable amendments moved by myself and the Liberal Democrats about the removal of the mayor, the Government say that the mayor is not answerable to anyone at all because whatever he does, however wrong, there is nothing anyone can do about it except within the very limited powers under Clauses 49 and 50.
Amendment No. 70 would make subsection (1) read:
"The Authority shall have the powers conferred by this Act".
It is as simple as that. First, the powers are set out in black and white in the Act itself. Secondly, the powers given to it in specific terms by the Secretary of State under his powers to create secondary legislation are subject to the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. In that way someone will be answerable to Parliament if the assembly or mayor should go off the rails.
Judging by reports in the press and bearing in mind that Millbank Tower is the headquarters of ABK (the Anyone But Ken movement), that body views the possible emergence of the honourable Member from exile in his own island of Elba, known as Brent East, with even more concern than we do. We, in our party, will do our best to prevent a Labour candidate becoming mayor and/or the assembly being Labour-controlled. However, in case either catastrophe occurs, this amendment will enable the government of the day or the courts to give an appropriate and decisive tug on the reins if the mayor or assembly, or both, start to indulge in empire-building or to interfere in matters that are none of the business of what is, after all, a local, or perhaps regional, council. I hope that in this instance the Government will be duly grateful for the suggestion that, in a Bill where we have complained that the Secretary of State seeks too much power to intervene, we look to him to protect the public by strictly limiting and defining the powers of the GLA.
Amendment No. 71 requires the council to act in co-operation with local councils and the Common Council. The Government have, by a deliberate piece of policy with which we profoundly disagree, made sure that there is no direct connection between members of the assembly and individual boroughs. This has been done by creating 14 super constituencies. Whatever the Boundary Commission reports, it is clear that these 14 constituencies will have diverse interests within them because of the different nature of adjacent London boroughs. What must not happen is that the assembly rides roughshod over the views and wishes of the boroughs whose residents have put it into power. This applies even more so when half of the members of the assembly represent no constituency and are answerable to no one except the party machines that have given them a favoured place on the party list and on whose continued patronage they will depend if they want to be elected for a later term.
Clause 25(2) sets out the general purposes of the authority as promoting economic and social development and the improvement of the environment in Greater London. Clause 27 requires the authority to
664
consult with others in deciding how to promote its purposes. But consultation does not necessarily mean co-operation. Our amendment requires the authority to act in co-operation with the London boroughs and the City of London. This reflects the political reality that for the mayor and assembly to achieve what they want they have to work with other local government in London. Many of the mayor's strategies will work properly only if carried out in conjunction with the boroughs.
The efforts of the mayor alone on biodiversity, municipal waste, air quality and ambient noise will add up to little unless he acts alongside the boroughs. The spatial development strategy is a recipe for dissent and disharmony unless it is worked out with, and through, the boroughs. The authority will have other strategies beyond those written on to the face of the Bill. To work they need the boroughs. This amendment requires the authority to act in co-operation with the boroughs and the City of London. I believe that that is practical, sensible politics and sets out the necessary relationship for the future government of London.
In anticipation of the Minister's response, if he does not accept the amendment the only implication can be that it is the intention of the Government that the assembly does not have to act in co-operation with the boroughs. I hope very much that this will not prove to be the case.
Amendment No. 72 proposes to remove Clause 25(2)(b). This paragraph describes the second principal purpose of the authority as,
"promoting social development in Greater London".
So much importance do the Government place on this purpose that they list it even before,
"promoting the improvement of the environment in Greater London".
That shows an interesting sense of priorities. What does "promoting social development" mean? The Explanatory Notes to the Bill do not provide one word of enlightenment on the subject. We propose to delete this item because it is totally meaningless gobbledegook. It could even be described as misleading as the Bill does not contain much in the way of powers to promote social development. Its meaninglessness and vagueness are an illustration of the danger of subsection (1) which allows the authority to do anything that furthers one of its objects; in other words, there is an unlimited power under the subsection to further a meaningless object.
When I introduced this group of amendments I said that the Government were asking for the mother of all blank cheques. I believe that the Government must show greater respect to Parliament than they usually do and tell us exactly what they are getting at. I suggest that the Government accept the amendments and bring back the provision at the next stage, re-written with a little more care and attention, and certainly with a much fuller explanation.
Amendment No. 73 seeks to include in the principal objects, alongside the environmental objective, improvement in the quality of life. Perhaps that should be in a separate paragraph, but in view of the terseness with which the Government have defined the principal

665
objectives we have tacked it on to the environmental objective. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. For example, one person's improvement of the environment, perhaps in the form of a total ban on private cars, could be another person's damaged quality of life. However, we want the authority to consider matters more broadly than in purely economic terms. We believe that to add the quality of life is a good alternative to the promotion of social development, which we have already asked to be deleted. It is also more in keeping with the powers of the authority in the Bill, for example, its emphasis on culture. Although that objective is not in itself exact, quality of life indices are available and, therefore, the authority's success in promoting it should be amenable to measurement.
Amendment No. 75 calls for the omission of subsection (3). The authority has three principal purposes. In doing an act it can decide to promote one or more of those purposes. Subsection (3) adds legal complexity and mental gymnastics where there is no practical necessity. The final paragraph requires the authority to,
"secure, over a period of time, a reasonable balance between furthering each of its principal purposes".
What is a reasonable balance is a matter of political judgment, if not personal prejudice. Politicians inside and outside London will disagree; Londoners will all have different views on the balance. If the subsection remains, the authority will be accused by someone of not striking that balance and breaking the law. But no court will decide what a reasonable balance is. It will say to politicians that it is up to them. The present wording imposes legal duties which are legally unenforceable. That is not sensible law-making.
One further point of concern, and a theme to which I fear we shall return many times on this Bill, is the right of the authority to act without diktat from the Secretary of State. We are worried that the Secretary of State will give guidance on what is a reasonable balance or use his powers of intervention to secure it. Subsection (3) gives to the Secretary of State an even greater temptation to meddle in the authority's decisions.
Amendment No. 76 requires the authority to have regard to national policy for the time being in force. What we cannot have is a local authority, especially one as powerful and influential as the GLA, declaring UDI, if the Committee will excuse that alphabet soup all in one sentence. We cannot have the GLA deciding that it objects to a policy of financial constraint and exceeding spending limits. We cannot have the GLA deciding to ignore decisions or legal responsibilities about local taxes.
We have seen examples in the past of councils refusing to set a rate. Some noble Lords may remember the self-inflicted martyrdom of the councillors of Clay Cross who rebelled against the implementation of the Housing Finance Act 1972 and as a result were surcharged by the district auditor and barred from public office. The new Labour Government who came to power in 1994 declined to earn them a remission despite the fact that the councillors included the brother and cousins of the honourable Member for Bolsover.
Finally, Amendment No. 78 seeks to delete subsection (5). That subsection is objectionable for two reasons. In paragraph (a), the authority is to have regard to improving the health of persons in Greater London. When the former Prime Minister secured an opt-out from the social chapter at Maastrict, including the 48-hour week, the socialist-dominated Commission in Brussels introduced it by the back door under the guise that it was a health and safety matter. Clause 25(4)(a) is another blank cheque because it is so intangible that it authorises the banning of almost anything. It could result in no smoking, no drinking and no eating on the highway; no radios—in fact, in the gold plating of food regulations. Some noble Lords may agree with some of those examples. The point I seek to make is that the list is as endless as the fertile imagination of a bureaucrat could make it.
Clause 25(4)(b) is a direct invitation to the assembly to interfere, or to encourage the mayor to interfere, in national affairs—for example, to refuse to allow further factory building in London, as was done in the 1960s or 1970s. The authority's brief is to look at the interests of London, first and foremost, and always and alone. In any event, Clause 25(4) is clear enough and wide enough: to promote health and sustainable development in the authority's decisions. The final three lines state that the authority should not exercise its powers under the subsection if it is not reasonably practicable. I think that that is a good point: the authority is not to attempt to do something that is not practicable. If only that novel concept permeated through the remainder of the Bill. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendments Nos. 77 and 79 in this group are tabled in my name. They are probing amendments in connection with the promotion of the achievement of sustainable development. Subsections (4) and (5) refer to,
"the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom".
Having discussed the issue at some length on the Regional Development Agencies Bill, I concede to the Government the need to refer to the whole of the United Kingdom. However, I seek to insert in each of those provisions a reference to "Greater London" as well as the rest of the country. I want to ask the Minister about the balance of responsibilities for the GLA when considering sustainability in the authority's immediate backyard and the United Kingdom. I can envisage tensions from time to time, and different demands depending on how the GLA considers the area of responsibility.
Amendment No. 79 is possibly more important. It deals with the exercise of powers and how they should be calculated to contribute to sustainable development in London.
Perhaps I may comment on the other amendments in the group. My noble friends may also want to comment on some of them. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Tope intends to do so. He would like it to be made clear on the record that although he acknowledges that he was in error with regard to the Conservatives'

667
manifesto for the 1983 election, he knows who won it! There seems to be some suggestion that he did not. The two of us were a little confused about the apparent reference to a general election in 1994 although we shall read Hansard to see whether we misheard.
Amendment No. 70 provides that the authority will have only the powers specifically conferred by the legislation, and not powers to further the purposes set out. I disagree with that approach. Although I understand the noble Baroness's concerns, one of the difficulties of our constitution is that only what is spelt out is allowed when we speak of any level other than Her Majesty's Government. I believe that there are considerable limitations and constraints on the exercise of the powers contained in Clause 26 and elsewhere in the Bill. It is important that the authority is not fettered by the omission of this general provision which does not extend its powers but merely enables it to exercise them.
On Amendment No. 71, we have made clear that we share the concern that the GLA will not constrain or interfere with the boroughs. We believe that the GLA is unlikely to succeed without joint working with the boroughs. However, the wording of the amendment suggests an overlap of functions in using the Act. I believe that the co-operation will best be seen when the 'strategies"—in the Bill that word seems to be used for "policies"—are created. The level of consultation with, and the involvement of, the boroughs at that point is important.
If the omission of a provision for the promotion of social development is a matter of semantics, that is one thing. In another place the noble Baroness's honourable friends referred to the term as "Left-wing" and "loaded". But social well-being is a pillar of sustainability and part of the proposed new duty for local government; and I think correctly so. We believe that it is correctly a pillar in the matters which the GLA must consider. Deletion would lead to an imbalance—an assumption that wealth creation would be sufficient on its own. We should be left with the provision,
"promoting economic development and wealth creation … [and] promoting the improvement of the environment".
Tackling poverty and social exclusion would be a key aim of the GLA. We believe that there is such a thing as society.
On the other hand, we are sympathetic to Amendment No. 73, which seeks to add "and quality of life". I should prefer that issue to be kept separate from the environmental purposes. I believe that the noble Baroness has already taken that point. As she says, one should not suggest, for instance, a ban on the use of cars. For individuals a car may add to the quality of life, whatever the environmental effects. There are balances to be struck on these issues.
Amendment No. 75 seeks to delete subsection (3). We believe that the provision is somewhat prescriptive. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Baroness's point that the Bill should not set out any legal duties which are not enforceable. I agree with the general thought underlying it, but the whole approach of the GLA, the culture that individuals manage to create, will be important.
668
We shall debate Amendment No. 76 when we consider Clause 33, which concerns the place of national and international policies and obligations in the preparation and revision of strategies. The wording will make the exercise of the powers subject to national policy from time to time. We should not, however, limit the general purposes of the authority, which will be a constant framework, by something which may be variable.
In relation to disregarding the promotion of health and sustainability if it is not reasonably practicable, can the Minster confirm that Clause 25(5) does not override the principal purposes of subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this clause?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I should not like to let this occasion pass without drawing the attention of the Committee to the significance of Clause 25. This situation is unprecedented in the law of this country. We are ruled by law, and even the Government cannot act outwith the law. If the Government want to do something that is not permissible within existing law, they must pass a law to provide the relevant authority.
That is the distinction that we are making in the Bill by giving the Greater London Authority a general power. A general power is not limited, and that is why Amendment No. 70 is on the Marshalled List. It would require additional amendments to the Bill. We have not yet been able to work our way through that.
The previous government, dare one say, on occasions found themselves susceptible to the limits of the law. They did not have a general power. I support the idea of a general power, but I am concerned that this power is so open and so limitless that it might create problems for the future. I should not like the Committee to pass by these few simple words without being aware of the full implications.
Lord Whitty: There has been a wide-ranging attack on this provision. I think that noble Lords opposite are exaggerating the import of this matter and that they are revealing a degree of schizophrenia in their approach by saying that they do not want to give the authority wide-ranging powers, and yet they are objecting to the constraints that the Secretary of State's guidance or intervention powers might place on it.
I believe that the powers are right. A general power is not an open-ended Trojan horse, if that is not a contradiction in terms, but it is subject to the rest of the Bill and to other legislation.
As I explained in the debate on Clause 1, the GLA is a statutory corporation which has only those functions that are conferred on it by statute. Clause 1(3) clearly states:
"The Authority shall have the functions which are transferred to, or conferred or imposed on, the Authority by or under this Act or any other Act".
It does not mean that it has powers to do what it likes. Where it is stated that it is considered desirable to pursue certain purposes, that relates to the principal purposes laid down in the Act. The authority must be able to substantiate the reasons for pursuing a principal purpose.

669
Clause 25 confers a general power on the GLA, but limits it to particular purposes which, to differentiate them from other purposes for which the authority may exercise functions for example, functions for the purposes of the four functional bodies are defined as its "principal purposes". The use of the word "principal" does not imply that, as the noble Baroness appears to suspect, the authority has or can have purposes other than those which are set out in the Bill.
The provisions of Clause 26 explicitly prevent the mayor intruding into areas which are the statutory responsibility of other authorities and bodies. The GLA cannot incur expenditure in directly providing housing, education, health or social services. The guidance that the Secretary of State will provide about the use of the general power, under the provisions of Clause 25(7), will make it absolutely clear that the GLA should not use the general power to provide services where these are provided by other authorities or public bodies. Should it seek to do so, the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers in Clause 26(7) to add to the list of services in relation to which the GLA is prohibited from incurring expenditure. The Opposition object to those powers of the Secretary of State to curtail any abuse.
I do not think it sensible, therefore, to delete this general power. Indeed, it goes to the heart of the Bill and what the GLA can do. We want it to be able to exert the powers contained in the Bill and to co-operate with authorities in co-ordinating or facilitating the provision of services at a strategic level, which would conform to its general purpose.
Amendment No.71 would place too great a restriction on the mayor's freedom to act, although I accept the intent behind it, which is to ensure that the mayor acts in co-operation with the London boroughs and the City of London as far as possible in pursuit of the authority's purposes. Their interests should he common, and the successful achievement of the GLA's purposes will often rely on co-operation with the boroughs. Even in a situation where he or she chooses to do so, the mayor cannot ignore the boroughs or the Common Council of the City.
Before the mayor can exert the general power of the authorities, he or she must consult the boroughs or Common Council where their interests are affected. In preparing or revising any strategy, the mayor must consult. There will therefore be every opportunity for the boroughs to make their views known, and the mayor must act reasonably in the knowledge of those views. That does not give the London boroughs or the City a veto. The mayor's actions cannot be proscribed by being made subject to the agreement and co-operation of the boroughs. There may be occasions when the mayor wants to do something which he or she thinks will further one of the principal purposes of the authority, but is unable to secure the co-operation of one or some of the boroughs whose interests are affected. In those circumstances, the mayor must be free to act. This matter is therefore subject to very substantial consultation. There are substantial areas of co-operation laid down in the Bill, but there is no veto by the
670
boroughs except in relation to provision of their own services. Therefore, Amendment No.71 would not be appropriate.
An interesting aspect of the opening speech by the noble Baroness was the statement that she wishes to delete from the Bill the provision on social development. It was almost as interesting as her attempt to interfere in the internal workings of the Labour Party at one time. In the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Archer, I shall not attempt to reciprocate!
It is essential that the authority engages in strategies which further the social development of London. Those strategies would include elimination of poverty and tackling the problems of social exclusion and discrimination against the disabled. We shall address those issues more widely in the subsequent debate. The idea that the Conservative Party wishes to delete any reference to "social development" within the powers of the Greater London Authority seems to me very revealing. It is not an idea I intend to follow. To substitute "quality of life" as an option is fairly wide-ranging. "Social development" needs to be part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 appear to be mutually contradictory. One seeks to delete subsection (3). The other amends it unnecessarily. The purpose of subsection (3) is to ensure that when the mayor exercises his general power in pursuit of one of the principal purposes he does not lose sight of the need to consider all its purposes and the need to ensure a reasonable balance between the pursuit of each of them over a period of time. As I understand it, the implication of Amendment No. 75 is that it would delete that very requirement which, on balance, other Members of the Committee were seeking.
Amendment No. 76 would require the mayor to have regard to any national policy for the time being in force. That is unnecessary and probably undesirable because the GLA must act within the law and therefore must have regard to extant legislation. Clause 33 requires the authority to ensure that each of its strategies is consistent with national policies and international obligations. Therefore, that provision would be unnecessary.
Amendment No. 78 seeks to delete subsection (5). It requires the authority, in exercising its general power, to do so in a way it considers best calculated to promote improvement of people's health in London and contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked for an assurance that that does not override the principal purpose. I give that assurance. The Bill aims to set down the "how" of what the authority does in pursuit of its purposes. The deletion of subsection (5) would delete all reference to those objectives. Members of the Committee generally would be opposed to that deletion and it would certainly limit the role of the authority.
The two amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats would add a specific reference to the need to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in Greater London as well contributing towards it in the UK. The amendments are unnecessary and may cause a problem. It

671
is not possible to draw a boundary around the achievement of sustainable development. Most of the targets and objectives in that field will either be national or international objectives or targets. Greater London, in line with the rest of the UK, will need to make a contribution towards the achievement of those targets and statutory obligations. Therefore, it is not feasible that Greater London should do something which goes against those objectives or targets. Anything that it did to further those objectives and targets would be in line with those national strategies and international obligations. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendments are necessary and I hope that they will not be pursued.
I return to the central thrust of the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller; namely, to delete the whole of the general powers within the Bill and thereby deprive the Greater London Authority and the mayor of the power to do things in pursuit of principal purposes which are not specifically set out in the Bill. Every general power is subject to the statutory provisions, whether internally in the Bill or elsewhere. I refute the suggestion that these are open-ended powers given to a potentially irresponsible GLA. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I wish to speak in particular to Amendment No. 73 which has been neglected this afternoon as it was when it was dealt with in Standing Committee in another place.
The Conservative Party has argued that to leave out paragraph (b) and to substitute "quality of life" are two factors which completely hang together. I suggest that the right course for the Committee to undertake is to reject Amendment No. 72 but to accept Amendment No. 73, regarding them not as alternatives but as additions.
In another place a Conservative Member said that in his view social development was a loaded, left-wing term and also a meaningless expression. I am not sure whether those two statements are compatible. Perhaps they are. However, when it came to the Government's response neither the Minister in another place nor the Minister here replied to the whole point about adding in "quality of life". I do not believe that those two amendments necessarily hang together; that if one is accepted, the other must be accepted or vice versa. I suggest that we reject Amendment No. 72 and accept Amendment No. 73 or, if not that, that the Minister should apply himself to answering the point that adding "quality of life" is very important.
We all know what quality of life is. We all want to get away from a complete reliance on quantitative management towards quality of management. It is not necessarily true that the desire for the improvement of the environment and quality of life are incompatible. The point was made from the Conservative Front Bench that if you improve the environment by getting rid of cars, for example, you necessarily lower people's quality of life. I argue strongly against that. Although some people may be given a disadvantage in quantitative matters, nevertheless, everybody's quality of life would be improved if the number of cars in the capital was reduced. The question about quality of life has not been answered. I hope that the Minister will do so before we conclude this debate.
Lord Whitty: I apologise to the Committee in the sense that I thought that there was some sequential logic in the Conservative amendments. Indeed, it is intended that we should delete "social development" and substitute "quality of life" in the subsequent clause. It is my view that if the words "quality of life" are added to "the environment", that rather reduces the scope for quality of life. Quality of life arises in terms of economic, social development and environmental objectives. Therefore, it runs through them all. However, it is covered also by the combination of them.
My objection to the cumulative logic of the noble Baroness's amendments was that replacing "social development" would take out an enormous part of that general contribution towards improving quality of life. Simply attaching it to the "environment" is not an appropriate use of the term.
Baroness Hamwee: I agree with my noble friend that there is a point to be made in relation to this issue. As regards the quality of life, have the Government carried out an audit of the purposes as set out in the Bill against the Secretary of State's quality of life indicators published fairly recently? I do not suggest—and I do not suppose that the Minister suggests—that they are exclusive of other indicators of quality and are immutable for all time; but that is an interesting approach to the subject. Is the Minister confident that without the words, the Bill would meet those objectives?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith tried to clarify our intention in Amendment No. 70. The Bill confers a wide power:
"shall have power to do anything which it considers"—
I emphasise the word "considers"—
"will further any … of its principal purposes".
I believe that the power of the authority should be spelt out in the Bill. Bills are not usually left open so that bodies can do whatever they consider to be appropriate for their purposes. Had the provision been spelt out we would not have had to go through the paraphernalia in Clause 26(7), (8) and (9) where suddenly the Secretary of State deals with the limitations of power. I believe that this peculiar system is unnecessary.
Furthermore, it would have been easier to deal with the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 72 proposes the deletion of the promotion of social development in Greater London. I did not use heavily loaded, Left-wing words which may have been used elsewhere; I was merely trying to make the point that I do not know what the Bill means. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate what is meant other than the phrase that:
"The authority shall have the power to do anything which it considers will further any one or more of the principal purposes".
That is the problem because we do not know what they will be.
When talking to Amendment No. 73, I stated that quality of life should have been provided for in a separate part of the Bill, but I was in a difficulty of

673
trying to find a hook on which to hang it. That seemed an appropriate place to insert such a provision. There are indices relating to the quality of life which one can measure. As regards measuring social development, we do not know what it means, so we do not know whether it can ever be said to be achieved.
Clause 25(1) is inappropriate because it is too wide and does not apply to other Bills. The Minister said that I should not be suspicious, but the note in the margin refers to the general power of the authority. I believe that in such a huge Bill we are entitled to have further explanation, and I believe that the powers referred to in our amendment will be considered carefully as the Bill goes through this House in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. I believe that there is a great deal of merit in our amendment, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 73 not moved.]
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
House resumed.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before we move to the Statements on Kosovo and the G8 Summit and the City of London demonstration, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Kosovo and the G8 Summit
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement on Kosovo and the G8 Summit in Cologne. Copies of the documents issued at the summit are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
"Ninety days after our military action began I can now tell the House that all Serb forces have withdrawn from Kosovo. This is a huge achievement. Many observers in this country and this House were sceptical it would ever be achieved. NATO's unity, the determination to prevail and the professionalism of our forces under General Sir Mike Jackson have proved them wrong. Milosevic's forces are out. Our forces are in and soon the refugees will go home. Some are already returning, despite the risks. I met the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in the margins of the summit. The organised return of the refugees will begin on 1st July.
674
"Kosovo was discussed extensively at the G8 Summit and two important advances were tied down during the weekend. First, agreement was reached on Russian participation in KFOR. Russia will supply up to 3,600 troops for a force which is planned to reach some 50,000. They will have areas of operation in three different sectors rather than being concentrated in one area. Russia will provide a deputy to the commander in each sector where they are at present and Russian troops will be integrated into the unified force with command and control arrangements very similar to those for Russian troops in the NATO-led forces in Bosnia.
"Secondly, late last night the Kosovo Liberation Army signed an undertaking with the KFOR Commander General Mike Jackson to hand in their weapons and to demilitarise their organisation. I want to pay tribute to John Reith, the British NATO general in charge of the NATO force in Albania, who conducted these difficult and complex negotiations so well. The KLA has agreed that within seven days its forces will gather in assembly areas. Within 30 days, all prohibited weapons, with the exception of automatic small arms, will be handed in. Automatic small arms will be handed in in phases over 90 days, after which time the assembly areas will come under the full control of the KFOR commander and all KLA members have to cease wearing their uniforms and insignia. The KLA will then be demilitarised.
"The progress made in the few days since Milosevic finally caved in has been extraordinary: on the withdrawal of Serb forces; on the deployment of ours; on the role of the Russians; and now the agreement to demilitarise the KLA. This is a remarkable story. Britain and British forces can be very proud of their role in it.
"But another far worse story is unfolding as the true horrors that Kosovo has lived through come to light. I warned the House that we would be shocked by what we found when we finally entered Kosovo. So it has proved: torture chambers, organised rape, the butchering of children. Massacre, after massacre, after massacre. If ever justification was needed for the military campaign, the whole world has seen it now. The war crimes investigators have a massive task before them. But let no one think that Serbia can regain a place among civilised nations while it is led by an indicted war criminal.
"And I say this to the Serb people: the world cannot help you to rebuild your country while Milosevic is at its head. And nor will the world understand, as the full extent of these atrocities is revealed, if you just turn a blind eye to the truth and pretend that it is nothing to do with you. This is your country. The evil was carried out by your soldiers and by your leaders.
"But to the rest of the region it is clear from the G8 Summit that the international community will stand by the promises we made to them. The countries of the region stood with us, without compromise, during this conflict. We owe them a debt. We made a pledge to help rebuild the regions, and we will stand by that pledge. We want to rebuild the Balkans,

675
integrate the countries one with another and with the rest of Europe. We cannot afford another conflict like this one. We must invest now for peace in Kosovo arid in the Balkans as a whole. At the G8 we agreed that there should be a Balkans summit in the next few months at which we and the leaders of the democratic countries of south-east Europe would plan the way ahead for the region and mobilise the necessary support.
"I met President Yeltsin and the new Russian Prime Minister, Mr Stephashin, at the summit. President Yeltsin and I agreed to put our recent difficulties behind us and, in his words, make our relations stronger together. Russia played a vital part in the successful resolution of this conflict and I am sure that this House will join me in thanking Russia's leaders for the part they played.
"Events in Kosovo inevitably dominated the media coverage. But the summit at Cologne covered a range of other issues which are of huge political and economic significance for all of our countries, including the environment, non-proliferation and the killer diseases of AIDS and malaria.
"But for me most important of all was the progress we were able to announce on third world debt. Britain has long been in the forefront of the international effort to release the poorest countries of the world from the chains of massive debt. At Birmingham last year we pledged to support the speedy extension of debt relief to more countries. My right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development have worked hard with Church leaders, Jubilee 2000, Oxfam, Comic Relief and others to secure the most generous package possible.
"The measures leaders adopted in Cologne mark a significant step forward. They will reduce the debt of the world's poorest countries by an extra 70 billion dollars, on top of further traditional debt relief of 30 billion dollars; and help more countries to qualify for highly indebted poor countries' debt relief, by making the debt sustainability criteria more generous.
"We also took steps to ensure that the new HIPC scheme will deliver debt relief more quickly. We will ensure that countries feel the full benefits of debt relief after a maximum of just three years, rather than six as now. We have agreed that the World Bank and the IMF should take steps to ensure that at least three-quarters of eligible countries get the benefits of debt relief by the end of next year: and in principle we agreed a new public-private partnership in the fight against poverty in the developing world by inviting the private sector to contribute voluntarily to a new millennium fund.
"I would like to see us go further still on debt. It is an issue whose time has come. I will personally do whatever I can to make it happen, But the impact of the agreements we reached this weekend should not be underestimated. Over two-thirds of the official debt owed by the world's poorest countries will now be completely written off.
676
"Most countries at the summit were able to report improved economic prospects for the year ahead, particularly Japan. But the lessons of last year's financial crisis must be properly learnt. We were able to announce at the summit a six-point plan for strengthening the international financial system, including measures to increase the effectiveness of the IMF and the other international financial institutions; proposals to promote transparency and best practice, with the IMF monitoring compliance with new codes and standards; and a new framework for involving the private sector in crisis prevention and management.
"Many of these proposals reflect ideas that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have put forward over the last year. Once fully implemented, they will transform the rules of the game in the global financial markets. Taken together, I have no doubt that they will greatly strengthen the efficiency and robustness of the international financial system.
"These reforms will need to be accompanied by a continuing world-wide effort to reduce barriers to trade. The millennium trade round to be launched at this year's WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle represents a key opportunity. We agreed at Cologne that the new round should be broad-based and ambitious. It must also deliver substantial benefits for the developing world.
"We also committed ourselves to a science-based, rules-based approach in dealing with the impact of biotechnology. As part of a joint initiative including the UK, the G8 agreed to ask OECD experts to study the issues raised by recent developments in biotechnology and other aspects of food safety. We need to look at whether the current regulatory and institutional framework can be strengthened. Next year's summit will return to this.
"Finally, I was pleased that we were able to spend some time at the summit on the key domestic policy challenge of our time—how to equip all of our citizens to survive and prosper in the knowledge-based economy of the future. Education and lifelong learning are the passport to success in today's global economy. They are also the foundations of a prosperous and just society, so I was delighted that other G8 leaders agreed to support the idea of a G8 charter on aims and ambitions for lifelong learning to underline our strong personal commitment to raising educational standards, not just in our own countries but across the globe.
"The summit in Cologne was attended by eight heads of government, but its significance was of much wider international importance. It was a meeting at which we were able to declare at last that the barbaric regime in Kosovo was at an end and that international peacekeepers were in place. It sent a message to the world that the forces of democracy and freedom have the will to face down tyranny. It was a meeting in which important opportunities were taken to reaffirm, in the aftermath of Kosovo, our close relationship with Russia; and it was also a

677
meeting at which the richest countries of the world focused their attention and offered solutions to debt problems in the poorest countries of the world. In these crucial respects, it was both a successful and a significant summit".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made earlier by the Prime Minister. There is much in the Statement that we welcome, such as the commitment to enhancing world trade, and the promotion of non-proliferation and arms control. We on this side of the House would also like to join in the congratulations to the United Kingdom Armed Forces on the skill and steadfastness they have shown since this conflict began in Kosovo. I fear that they will need to draw deeply on those qualities in the weeks and months ahead. Can the noble Baroness undertake to the House that her noble friend Lord Gilbert will keep the House informed at all times of serious incidents involving British troops and, equally, that he will inform the House of any major changes in deployment or alterations to the rules of engagement? If the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, is not available, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, can deal with these matters.
We also welcome the news of the demilitarisation of the KLA. Surely that is an essential feature of the re-establishment of the rule of law in any territory in which paramilitary armed forces have been operating.
Can the noble Baroness give the House an assurance that the handing over of heavy and light weapons will be enforced uniformly on the ground? Will she also accept that we join her in outright condemnation of the atrocities committed by Serb elements in Kosovo? If the Kosovar Albanians are to have confidence in the restoration of the rule of law, they must see that those responsible for these horrific crimes are swiftly brought to justice.
What information is there on the current position and numbers of Serbian refugees from Kosovo? To what extent can NATO offer those refugees a security guarantee; not least because of the strong line taken by the Serbian Orthodox Church against Mr Milosevic? Will the noble Baroness assure the House that the Orthodox holy places and ancient monasteries in Kosovo which are, I gather, world heritage sites, are under protection and will continue to be protected from any attacks?
Turning to the wider issues discussed at G8, is the noble Baroness aware that we welcome the rescheduling of Russia's debt repayments? Can she tell the House what is being done to assist reconstruction in those Russian provinces which are leading in implementing market reforms? As regards international debt, the Government are themselves indebted—at least they should be—to the leadership given by my right honourable friend Mr Major who secured the Trinidad terms during his government.
678
Is the noble Baroness also aware that we welcome responsible progress in that area? Can the Government ensure that those who benefit from the latest agreement are the people who live in the countries affected and not the many politicians in the political establishment, who run those countries and who caused many of the problems in the first place?
The summit set up two studies on GM foods. Why did the Prime Minister have to be bounced into these studies by other G8 countries? Has the noble Baroness drawn the Prime Minister's attention to the important recent debates which have taken place in this House on GM foods? Furthermore, is it not surprising that the Government have agreed to international studies, but have said that they cannot agree to the very simple Bill introduced by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon, which would strengthen our own parliamentary scrutiny over the planting and commercial release of GM seeds and crops, and which urges a moratorium until current research is complete? Given that the Government have agreed to these international studies, it would have been wise to accept my noble friend's modest Bill to reassure people here at home and to give it the support that I believe it deserves not only in this House but also in another place.
I turn to the confused position of the Government on the question of the euro. In the past the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both said that they want, in principle, to abolish the pound. Is that still the case, or is this Labour Prime Minister belatedly discovering that the British people value the pound in their pockets? Did not the Prime Minister cause confusion at the Cologne Summit when he said that it would be daft to join the euro now and daft to set a time limit on entry? In other words, the Prime Minister is definite about being indefinite and undecided about whether to decide.
I also wonder whether the Prime Minister's Statement is a declaration of a policy of "dither and drift" on one of the most important questions before the nation. The noble Baroness will know that I do not always agree with the Prime Minister—in fact, I do not often agree with him at all. However, I believe that the spin around this summit shows that Mr Ashdown, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, was right to say that the Prime Minister had abandoned any pretence at leadership on this issue.
Will the Government do anything to persuade the British people to join the euro over the next two years and, if so, what? If the Government will not be persuaders for the euro, will the noble Baroness confirm that spending on a national hand-over plan, which the British people do not want, will be shelved in favour of the British people's priorities?
Finally, what do the Government mean by their new condition on entry to the euro, that there must be reform in Europe, and to what reform do they refer? Perhaps the noble Baroness could write to me setting out this new condition in detail and place a copy in the Library of the House for the benefit of all noble Lords. Which regulations must be dropped? Which taxes should be lowered? Will that include, as I believe it should, the total rejection of a withholding tax? I wonder whether

679
the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, heard about that new condition when last Friday he resisted the excellent Bill of my noble friend Lord Waddington. If the Prime Minister now says that he has spent the past two years fighting to steer Europe away from over-regulation, why did he sign the Social Chapter, why did he agree to the mass of regulation hitting British business? Is not the reality that his bid for leadership in Europe has utterly failed.
Will the noble Baroness agree that, if he had spoken to small businessmen and businesswomen recently, the Government would not be trying to take refuge in empty and increasingly incredible words about flexibility which are totally at odds with the daily reality of small business life in this country? I welcome the noble Baroness's replies to these questions.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I too welcome the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place and repeated here by the Leader of the House.
In May 1998, just over a year ago, I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the then Leader of the House, described the Birmingham Summit as moderately successful and useful, which I thought was a fair summary of a rather stalemate occasion. Judged by that description, I believe it is reasonable to call the Cologne Summit encouraging and better than most and, at a pinch—although time will show—I go along with the Prime Minister's own description of it as being successful and significant.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, also said that the G8 Summit,
"is not an executive body taking decisions".—[Official Report, 20/5/98; col. 1687.]
Whether he was right or wrong about that, it appears that the summit of 1999 has been a little more positive. Looking back at the weekend's events, we must all admit that they turned out rather well, owing in part to the appearance of President Yeltsin on Sunday morning in what one can best call a genial mood.
I welcome, as I believe the whole House does, the agreement on Russian participation in KFOR. However, I have one question. Will the areas of operation in three different sectors, to which the Prime Minister's Statement refers, be separate or contiguous? It is an obvious point to which I assume the answer must be separate, but they could be in three different sectors and yet contiguous. I believe that that would create the situation that we have been trying to avoid.
I also welcome, as do we all on these Benches, the understanding signed with the KLA. Can the noble Baroness say who will run the assembly areas for 90 days? Will those areas be free of Serbs and, if not, what protection, if any, can be expected from NATO? I believe that the noble Baroness will agree that it is very important to avoid further ambiguities in arrangements of this kind, there having been several in the past.
680
I agree almost entirely with the Prime Minister's assessment of NATO's achievement, an achievement accomplished not only by our own forces, but by all the forces of NATO. We must pay due tribute to what they are all doing at the moment in what are difficult circumstances. That achievement has been as remarkable since Milosevic's agreement as it was in the preceding period. We note what the Prime Minister calls the "true horrors" of Kosovo that are revealed every clay. In our view, they entirely justify NATO's military campaign, painful though that was, involving the loss of innocent lives, as wars inevitably do.
As I understand it, the distinction was made by the Prime Minister—although he did not use such words—between humanitarian aid and aid for reconstruction. I believe that the Prime Minister was ambiguous or vague in his Statement on this matter. Will the noble Baroness make it quite clear, as we have been led to believe, that Serbia cannot expect any aid for reconstruction as long as Milosevic remains in power? If that is the case, how will the distinction he drawn between humanitarian aid and aid for reconstruction, to avoid arguments and the ambiguity to which I have already referred more than once?
The other main issue was that of world debt. I believe that last year there was a great deal of rhetoric. There appears to be some reality about the decisions that have been made this year. Perhaps I can ask the noble Baroness to explain what practical steps will now be taken to implement the decisions of the weekend and where precisely those costs will fall, as neither matter was mentioned in the Statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, ventured into the margins of the summit and remarks made by the Prime Minister on other matters. If they were properly reported, we on these Benches are much less happy about them than we are about the Statement as a whole. I await with interest the noble Baroness's reply to the question of whether the remarks mean a change of direction. I hope that the noble Baroness will say that they do not and that the Prime Minister remains committed to a referendum on the euro—sooner rather than later—and will play his full part now, as he should have done before, in trying to make clear to the country as a whole that there are strong arguments for joining the euro which have not been put in the past two years. That is one of the reasons why I believe that the elections 10 days ago were disastrous for the Government in an important respect.
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their broad welcome of the Statement. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for his generosity in some of the comments that he made about the leadership of the past few weeks, notably by my right honourable friend. I join, once again, both noble Lords in congratulating and expressing our gratitude to the British forces on conducting themselves so well during the previous period. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, they may well be entering the period of maximum danger and

681
potential concern to us all with regard to their safety, as they take part in the serious peacekeeping operations within Kosovo.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked me to maintain information to the House on the basis of the organisation of those peacekeeping forces, particularly our own forces within the NATO command. He will know that it is not usual practice for details of the rules of engagement to be discussed in an open forum, but I hope that he will accept that over the past few weeks my noble friends Lord Gilbert and Lady Symons have been assiduous in keeping the House informed as events progressed. I am sure that we shall be able to continue to do that, although the detailed arrangements will naturally be made through the usual channels.
Both noble Lords asked about the specific position relating to the Serbs in Kosovo. The latest estimate is that there are around 200,000 Serbs in Kosovo, although the number who have left in the past few days is extremely fluid. It would be stupid of me to hazard a guess as to the numbers in that regard because, as both noble Lords pointed out, there is a flow backwards and forwards across the border between Kosovo and Serbia. As they both said—again, rightly—there has been important encouragement, notably from the Church in Serbia, to encourage those Serbs who have left, or feel that they are under pressure to leave, to stay put in their homes.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the KFOR protection already in place has enabled Serbian people to go back to where they originally lived. That force understands that it has a responsibility to protect the Serbian population and to try as far as possible to maintain an ethnically multi-cultural Kosovo rather than to play into the hands of the original policy of the Serbs; that is, to establish a single ethnic body there. Those involved are doing all that they can, within the bounds of the peacekeeping operation, to maintain civil order and, indirectly, to try to rebuild a civil society in that extremely sad and unhappy place.
Both noble Lords asked about the situation with regard to the KLA. As the Statement said, there is a precise and detailed timetable for disarming the KLA. It is down to a number of days and weeks and perhaps I can briefly repeat it:
"Within 30 days, all prohibited weapons with the exception of automatic small arms will be handed in. Automatic small arms will he handed in in phases over 90 days, after which time the assembly areas [into which the KLA forces will have gathered] will come under the full control of the KFOR commander".
Again, it would be foolish to make exact prophecies about the precise way in which that will be achieved, but noble Lords will no doubt agree that this is a practical and well-formulated plan which takes us through the various stages of the demilitarisation of the KLA leading to the complete demilitarisation within an exact timetable.
Noble Lords asked about the situation in relation to the Russian troops. I can say that there has been an undertaking that they will not spring any more surprises like the one at Pristina airport, and that they will fulfil the roles I set out in repeating the Statement within the
682
three separate command areas. As I understand it, this is still somewhat fluid in terms of the exact geography of the presentation of those troops, but there is no suggestion that they should create an enclave of Russian activity by simply operating on the borders of three contiguous separate command areas and therefore forming a solid group of people in the middle of other national command territory.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about the way in which the Russian participation and the more general concerns discussed at the summit related to economic reform in Russia. It was explicitly agreed that there needed to be more economic and political developments within Russia and that a great deal of the debt rescheduling in relation to Russia should be an urgent topic for the Paris Group in looking again at the way in which that could possibly be rescheduled in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned the specific circumstances of those regions within Russia which have already demonstrated considerable initiative in some of the economic reform areas. One of the specific undertakings of the summit was that economic reform was one of the subjects which would be looked at in terms of specific working parties which would themselves have a focused agenda relating to individual regions within Russia. So there was already an understanding that there were identifiable differences between different parts of the country and that those should be acknowledged in specific geographic working parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked what specific plans had been made in the general area of debt reconstruction and the overall position vis-à-vis the highly indebted poor countries and the way in which their position could be improved. The number of countries which are now deemed unsustainable within the terms of the debt repayment and possibly qualifying in the context of the highly indebted poor countries has now been increased by an extra seven countries from 29 to 36. That brings more of them within the umbrella of the more favourable terms for debt cancellation.
The other practical plans which have been made on the basis of suggestions put forward at G7 and G8 is to give a substantial reduction in debt service repayments. The G7 report makes it clear that the international financial institutions will front-load some of the debt reduction so that debt service repayment can be reduced substantially in early years, allowing extra resources to be focused on anti-poverty spending and, we hope, overcoming some of the problems about structural adjustment which have clouded the picture of international debt in the past few years.
International financial institutions are also involved in strengthening the link between debt relief and poverty reduction where the IMF and the World Bank will be asked to listen to the poor countries and work with them to protect their investments in social policy areas, such as health and education, so that those links are strengthened between the bank fund programmes and the international development target to halve world poverty by 2015.

683
We moved then from the broader subjects of the Statement to points being made rather specifically, and perhaps a little narrowly, in the context of our domestic politics about biotechnology and the EMU. I do not believe that EMU was mentioned in the Statement; none the less noble Lords thought it was important to raise it.
The Prime Minister was certainly not "bounced" into making a decision about study groups on biotechnology. In fact, another G8 member proposed the setting up of what would have been a regulatory international scientific council which would have imposed strict guidelines on international countries. We considered the proposal and suggested that rather than proceeding to a council with those sorts of strict rules which had not even been investigated in terms of the scientific research, it would be much more sensible at least to have the research in front of us before we proceeded to set up any regulatory bodies which would have influence or direction over our own scientific research. In this matter we are proceeding as we have done consistently; that is, on the basis that we would achieve a science-based approach to regulation. That has lain behind all our proposals, our position on biotechnology in general and on the GM foods situation in particular.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, remarked on the opposition of the Government in this House to his noble friend's Bill on this matter. That would cut across this much broader approach which we have consistently attempted to achieve, which is to depend on science and on evidence and then to develop regulations as it seems appropriate. I point out also that the Food Standards Bill, which will cover the area of concern around the GM foods issue in particular, is having its Second Reading in another place this afternoon. That must advance our understanding and ability to regulate some of the areas about which noble Lords expressed concern.
I did not hear the Prime Minister say what noble Lords quoted him as saying, but his position remains unchanged. He was saying that it was daft to adopt a position where one went into the European monetary system in the way noble Lords are trying to prevent us doing by their extreme statements; that it: was daft to go into this immediately; and that it was daft to say we would never go in. Indeed, he stood by his original position, which was that we need to achieve the relevant economic criteria before that decision is made.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned the "new" conditions. If he refers to the Statement that was made and repeated in this House about the changeover plan, he will see that there were specific references to economic reform in Europe in the context of adopting that changeover plan before we adopt the euro.
Perhaps I may summarise those points. There is no real change to the Government's position. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. The quote that was made about it being "daft" was about going in either immediately or sealing off the possibility of going in ever; neither of which position the Government adopt. I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, devoted an enormous amount of time to the euro, despite the fact that the Statement did not refer to it. In the context of these very broad, global policies, which
684
the summit successfully agreed, I really do not think Mat it is all that significant once again to indicate that his party has become a single-issue party.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister indicate whether there was any discussion at the summit on measures to try to deter the United States from taking any more premature action on a variety of issues at the WTO, especially those affecting GMOs and other matters? In that context, my noble friend referred to the involvement of the private sector as being desirable. Can she enlarge a little on that? For example, in what respect do the Government contemplate that moves can be made to enlist the support of the private sector, and are any developments planned in this regard for the near future?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. As I understand it, there was no specific discussion at the summit of the issue lie mentioned in relation to the USA. I believe that many of these issues were deferred for the WTO ministerial meeting in December in Seattle, to which the Statement referred. My noble friend also mentioned the involvement of the private sector. I think that he may have assumed that this related to the trade issues when, in fact, it was more concerned with trying to involve the private sector in the international financial stability forum, in which attempts are being made to enable the global markets to resist some of the tidal waves of instability which affected them last year; in which, naturally, the private sector was very important and where simply the decisions of individual governments on public sector finance would not be sufficient to contain the problems that were seen last year and which people are trying to prevent for the future.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness could clarify one or two points for me about the very interesting Statement that she has just repeated, which we all welcome. My first question is about the KLA. The noble Baroness used the word "demilitarisation" at one stage and later referred to "disarming". In so far as the KLA is able to keep its side arms, or small arms, that is, from its point of view, an important step toward becoming the shadow administration. Are we quite certain that that will be avoided, with no pre-empting of the future?
Secondly, are we to understand that the international aid for the reconstruction of Yugoslavia, where the infrastructure has been enormously damaged by NATO, will now be held up unless or until there is a change of government in Belgrade? Is it not the case that there is no simple means within Yugoslavia for changing the government, let alone getting rid of Milosevic? Are we to take it that so long as Milosevic is there, there will be no help toward reconstructing all the bridges and railways that have been damaged, or rebuilding the precious bridges across the Danube that have been destroyed, affecting east European trade in a big way? Must we wait until there is some new upsurge within Serbia that throws Milosevic out, of which there has

685
been no sign as yet? Indeed, rather the reverse. Finally, perhaps I may join other speakers in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, not least its encouraging reference to third world debt.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am especially grateful to the noble Earl for the points he made about third world debt. I know of his concern in that area. However, on the question of the KLA, the distinction as I understand between "disarm" and "demilitarise" is that the latter is a broader word which includes the matters to which I referred when repeating the Statement; for example, not wearing uniforms and insignia, and dispersing from the assembly areas in which those soldiers will be gathered for the next few weeks.
As regards the KLA's small arms, it is true that the Statement simply refers to automatic small arms. I am sure that there will be attempts to ensure that the military activity, even if it involves simply side arms, is greatly reduced under the terms of the agreement. The noble Earl will recall that the KLA did sign, and was prepared to agree to, the Rambouillet agreement on additional autonomy for Kosovo in the earlier months of this year. Therefore, the military situation having been resolved to some extent, we have to hope that the KLA will return to those principles, although the noble Earl is right to point out that the situation there is extremely delicate and could become unstable.
On the question of reconstruction aid for Serbia, I can say that, yes, it is true that the G8 leaders were agreed that while Milosevic was in power they did not intend to contribute to reconstruction of the type mentioned by the noble Earl, such as bridges and similar infrastructure. However, there is no denial of humanitarian aid to the Serbian people. Clearly, there will have to be international involvement in that respect to ensure that that humanitarian aid was being appropriately handled and was going to the people most in need. The noble Earl said that there is no sign of any kind of upsurge of anti-Milosevic feeling within Serbia. However, as he pointed out in our previous debates on the subject, that has been because many people, especially in Belgrade, have simply not had the information about what has been happening in Kosovo—
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, there is no machinery. There is plenty of feeling there, but no constitutional machinery for a change of government.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, three or four years ago I believe that there was almost a sense, if I may so describe it, of a revolution of popular opinion and certainly a great deal of anger against the regime. There must be a system for getting rid of Milosevic in the way that the Statement suggests is appropriate before any kind of reconstruction aid will be delivered to the Serbian people.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I revert to the question of the bridges over the Danube. One of the problems with
686
the destruction in that area has been the impact on other countries in the Balkans and the effect on trade and transport along the Danube. In using this leverage against Milosevic, can we be sure that we are not damaging other friendly nations in that area?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that a delicate balance has to be struck by the international agencies, and, indeed, by the international and financial institutions in this area, in organising a genuine reconstruction plan with the use of the Balkan stability pact to provide an umbrella to achieve such reconstruction and economic renewal in that area. I repeat: it is not the case that the G8 agreed to contribute any reconstruction aid to Serbia. However, we recognise the problem of the interdependence of economies within that region. That is something that I know the international financial institutions and the broader alliance will be taking forward.
Lord Kennet: My Lord, can we go a little further into the question of the KLA? Can my noble friend the Minister say what the KLA is supposed to do within the next few months? At the end of that time the KLA will emerge as a force armed with machine guns—presumably, every single man—in what is still one province of the sovereign state of Yugoslavia, where there will also be an allied occupation army. What are the relationships to be between those three powers; namely, the KLA, NATO and the Yugoslav Government? Is it not time for broad, strategic political planning on these relationships?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have to say to my noble friend that it might have been more appropriate to congratulate General John Reith who has negotiated this extremely difficult and sensitive arrangement for demilitarising the KLA over the next few weeks, and to be grateful for such a arrangement which will at least enable some stability to be achieved in the locality. As I said in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, we recognise that the KLA was a partner to the Rambouillet agreement, which took forward a political settlement that could at least have produced a solution over a three-year period to achieve greater autonomy for Kosovo. We have to hope that the political responsibility which led them to that positive position at the negotiating table at Rambouillet will continue.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, I join those Tories who have congratulated the noble Baroness and the Government on the skill and the success with which the whole enterprise against Serb aggression has been conducted. I take up a point that was made earlier about the proposed embargo of trade and assistance to Serbia as long as Milosevic is leader. Does the noble Baroness agree that in those circumstances there will be continuing hardship, and perhaps severe hardship. in Serbia, making it into something of a sink economy in a part of Europe which needs reconciliation and revival? What are the circumstances which lead her to think that there can be an early demise of Milosevic, because that cannot be other than just an act of faith if he stays on for

687
a week or a month—who knows?—while the country, including the many who have no sympathy with him, is trapped by the military power that he still has which enables him to have authority?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the kind comments he made about the skill of the Government. I shall certainly pass those comments to my right honourable friends in another place and to other colleagues. On the question of the balance between the need for humanitarian aid—which, as I hope I made clear in earlier responses, is understood by the international community—and the reconstruction aid, as I said in my earlier reply, it is a difficult balance to achieve but it is one which the international community feels is appropriate. Although it could not, of course, countenance a situation in which there was great humanitarian suffering in Serbia, and would provide humanitarian relief in that situation along the lines which I discussed in response to the noble Earl, it does not feel it is appropriate to put international financial resources into the infrastructure and general economic reconstruction of Serbia while Mr Milosevic is in power. That is why my right honourable friend included in the Statement the words which he addressed directly to the Serbian people when he asked them to consider the international community's view of them as members of a civilised community in the light of the extent of the atrocities which have now been revealed. I repeat his words. Addressing the Serbian people he said that they could not,
"just turn a blind eye to the truth, and pretend it is nothing to do with you. This is your country".
That, I think, is the answer to this issue. I take the point which was raised about the structures for democratic change within Serbia and the difficulties associated with that but I re-emphasise the point I made earlier; namely, that three or four years ago we saw an uprising of popular feeling against President Milosevic. We have to hope that we see that again and that it produces a political change.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, we are all delighted that an agreement has been reached on reducing the debt of impoverished countries, but I think that there should be some safeguards here. I have a nasty feeling that after a decent interval—or, more likely, an indecent interval—those countries which have had their debts reduced will rush off to their bankers and say, "Have we not been very good and very clever? We have reduced our indebtedness by about 80 per cent. Will you now start lending us some more money?". I think there should be some safeguards against that happening because otherwise in a few years' time we shall face the Oliver Twist situation of these countries asking for more aid.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I think that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has become well known for his important remarks—not only in this context but also in the domestic context—namely, that the giving of money must be accompanied by reform. that is the simple message behind the complicated package of measures which has been drawn
688
up. It is an attempt to balance the tight purse strings and conditions which have been imposed in the past by the IMF and the World Bank—which have led to some of the unfortunate side effects of structural adjustment in some of these countries—against appropriate financial regulation, and it is particularly an attempt to achieve a lack of corruption in those countries. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, one of the concerns which many people have both as regards bilateral arid multinational aid programmes is that they are directed to the right places but never reach the right people. What is intended to be achieved by this complex series of developments—which has the important effect of reducing the debt of the highly impoverished poor countries which makes them unable to develop at all—is a general civic renewal and a general approach to political as well as economic reform which we hope will produce better results. But of course all of these things. have to be seen to work in practice as well as being agreed in theory.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, after my twice expressed concern about the matter last week, is the noble Baroness aware that I warmly welcome the fact that a solution has been found to the problem of the Russian occupation of Pristina airport? It has removed what could have been an obstacle to the successful performance by KFOR of its role, which it is performing extremely well, and could also have brought back an era of colder relations with Russia which would have been to no one's advantage.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point last week with some concern, as he said. I am glad that he now feels able to accept what has been negotiated with the Russians. As I understand the position, they will contribute about 750 troops to Pristina airfield for the logistic support of operations there. All KFOR participants will now have appropriate access to the airfield. That will be established under the general command of KFOR. I repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers; namely, that the Russian troops will contribute one or two battalions to the US and German sectors and one to the French sector. The total Russian strength of these battalions is expected to be about 3,000 troops.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness assure us that scenes such as we saw last night on our television screens of British and other KFOR troops standing by while Albanians looted Serb houses—I know how badly they feel as their own houses were looted and burnt—will not be repeated?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord raises the sensitive and difficult issues which arise in this area where feelings run extremely high. As I said earlier, I think that the troops there certainly understand that they need to be involved in peacekeeping and in some aspects of maintaining civil control of a difficult situation which might be outside their normal rules of engagement and their normal responsibilities as armed forces. On the whole, things have worked well. I did not

689
see the news bulletin the noble Lord mentioned, but I am sure he will understand that in the circumstances which prevail in Kosovo there are bound to be isolated incidents where perhaps things do not go smoothly; but on the whole arrangements have worked well. It is important to note that General Sir Mike Jackson has assured the Serbian people who seek to leave Kosovo that NATO troops will protect them.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say a little more about the proposed Balkan summit mentioned in the Statement? Will this be EU led, as we understand that the EU countries are expected to pay most of the costs of reconstruction of the region? Will this be closely linked in with the promises which the British Prime Minister and the German presidency have made in the past two or three months of a long-term prospect of EU membership for all of the countries of the region? If so, is that part of an overall EU strategy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, over the weekend the G8 Summit agreed only in principle to hold this summit on reconstruction. The EU would be responsible for organising that summit and indeed for organising reconstruction in Kosovo with support from the World Bank and other international financial institutions. I think it is too early to make an assessment of the precise organisation of that broader reconstruction plan. That is why the Balkan summit has been called in the form that it has. However, as I say, it is agreed only in principle but I am sure that everyone will hope that it works out effectively in practice.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for her Statement. Perhaps she will convey to her right honourable friend the Prime Minister and to all our forces in Yugoslavia our congratulations on their tenacity and sensitivity in dealing with everything and that our thoughts and prayers are still with them.
Perhaps I may ask a short, quite separate, question about debt relief. Last week, I was a member of the welcoming committee for representatives from Mozambique; can the Minister say whether Mozambique is to be included in the debt initiative? Although trade, elections and economy were on the agenda, the only thing they could talk about was debt relief.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, for her remarks. I will of course pass them on. As I said earlier, we need to continue our support to the Armed Forces operating in this very difficult situation. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Gilbert has said on previous occasions, they may now be entering a particularly dangerous phase of operations in Kosovo at this time.
As to the point about Mozambique, as I understand it, the extra countries which will be included in the impoverished poor countries initiative are Benin, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Honduras, Laos, Senegal and Togo. They can benefit from HIPC for the
690
first time. I will ask a specific question about Mozambique, but it is not included in the list of countries mentioned in the statement issued from the G8 Summit.

City of London Demonstrations, 18th June
5.32 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission I wish to make a statement on the deplorable outbreak of public disorder which occurred in the City of London last Friday which the whole House will want to condemn. I have today spoken with the Lord Mayor, Lord Levene, and the Commissioner of the City of London Police about the course of events. The Commissioner has told me that eight police officers had to be taken to hospital from injuries sustained.
"The occasion for the disorder was a so-called 'Day of Action' which had been planned by a number of disparate groups to coincide with the G8 Summit in Cologne. The City of London Police had been aware for some months that such a protest had been planned and information relating to the event had been widely available on the Internet.
"Organisers of demonstrations normally co-operate early and fully with the police to ensure that arrangements for a peaceful occasion are satisfactory to all concerned. In this instance, no co-operation was forthcoming: attempts by the police to discuss the arrangements were rebuffed by the organisers.
"The City Police none the less provided as much information as they could to those who live and work in the City about what was planned; how the police proposed to respond; and what precautions residents and business could usefully take.
"During the morning of last Friday. the demonstrations were generally peaceful. Around midday, however, a much larger group, soon numbering several thousand, began to assemble in Liverpool Street. After a couple of hours this crowd split into four separate groups and moved off.
"One of the groups then suddenly attacked the police in London Wall. At this point two members of the crowd were injured. The most serious injury was to a woman, who sustained a broken leg.
"The groups then converged on the LIFFE building in Canon Street. At this point a concerted effort was made to storm the LIFFE building, with demonstrators using scaffold poles and paving stones without regard to human safety. As a result of police action, the demonstrators then moved away from the area, but disorder continued over a wide area of the City and then in the Trafalgar Square area in the Metropolitan Police District.

691
"A high level police presence was maintained on the streets of the City and the West End immediately following the disorder.
"As a result of the day's disorder 16 people were arrested. The offences involved included criminal damage with intent, aggravated burglary, assaults on the police and on members of the public. Investigations are continuing. As is normal in such situations, the commissioner will be making a full report on the events to his police authority.
"I should like to place on record my appreciation for the way in which the City of London Police, supported by the Metropolitan Police and the British Transport Police, dealt with this wholly deplorable outbreak of violence, which was plainly premeditated. I would like to extend our sympathy and good wishes to the eight officers who were injured and taken to hospital. The refusal of the organisers to discuss with the police how the event was to be handled was wholly irresponsible. There can be no excuse for this kind of violence.
"At the moment, I have no firm information to suggest that a recurrence of these demonstrations is likely in the foreseeable future. None the less, I intend to hold further consultations with the Commissioner and the police service, to ensure that everything possible is done to protect the safety of the public and the businesses in the City and elsewhere in London.
"Madam Speaker, this country has a fine tradition of peaceful protest which is an essential part of any well-functioning democracy. The London Police—the Metropolitan Police Service and the City Police—have a fine record of co-operating fully with peaceful demonstrations. But the refusal of those organising this demonstration showed that they viewed with contempt peaceful protest and democracy in equal measure. They and they alone are responsible for what ensued. The whole House will join me in supporting the efforts of the police to ensure that those responsible for the violence are brought to justice".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary. I am sure that your Lordships will also support, as I do, the Home Secretary's condemnation of these disgraceful events; his expression of sympathy to those who were hurt, particularly the police officers; and his thanks to the police and, in some cases, to the civilians who were actively involved in resisting the rioters. It is clear that the blame for these events lies entirely with the rioters. As has been said, there is a tradition of properly organised, peaceful demonstration in this country which is well understood.
Your Lordships' will also wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Levene, the Lord Mayor, who went out on Friday incognito to see the situation for himself. It is good to see him in his place today. I am sure that
692
it is a long time since a Lord Mayor of London has been so closely involved in such a hands-on way with a matter of this kind.
The Minister said that the commissioner of the City Police is to prepare a report on the events. Will that report be published? If so, can he say when that, is likely to be? Will the report include a review of the warnings given by the authorities beforehand? I saw—as, no doubt, did many of your Lordships—the warning on the parliamentary data and video network which appeared a day or two before the disturbances. I have also heard of some institutions which, as a result of the warnings they were given, told some staff to stay at home on the day. But, at the same time, it seems that the premises of LIFFE, for example, were dangerously exposed, although a wholesale invasion of the premises was successfully resisted.
The key problem to emerge from the Statement concerns the lack of co-operation between the organisers of the demonstration and riots and the police. The Minister listed several offences for which people have been arrested and charged. Has anyone been charged with holding the demonstration without obtaining the necessary police permission? It may be a little early, but I hope that some people will be charged with that offence.
Some noble Lords, including myself, have read in the newspapers that precedents for this disgraceful demonstration may lie with some of the road protestors and tree people and so on. Are those links clear and, if so, does that make it more likely that protests will be organised in future by those same people?
I am sure that the Minister agrees that the City's business was in part able to continue to make its massive contribution, as it does every day, to the economy of our country.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am sure that we all agree with the Home Secretary's Statement that this was a deplorable episode of calculated and well-orchestrated violence against the police and private property. Subsequently, we heard yet again—I heard this on the "Today" programme on Saturday morning—the truly absurd suggestion that provocative behaviour by the police had led to the disturbances. That allegation. is made on virtually every occasion that a peaceful demonstration gets out of hand. It is patently absurd in the circumstances of this case.
The most disturbing element of the whole episode was the organisers' refusal to discuss their plans with the police. We assume that there will be a careful examination of the incident and the law relating to public demonstrations—in particular, the need for organisers to consult the police. None of us wants to limit the right of any members of the public to demonstrate. I normally hesitate before making demands to amend the law in the immediate aftermath of an episode, however deplorable. The general public, however, have a right to adequate protection from the conduct of rioters. I hope that the Minister can reassure

693
us that the Government share that view, as I am sure they do, and will take resolute action to avoid a repetition of that outrageous episode.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful, not for the first time, for the steadfast support of the noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Harris of Greenwich, which will be much welcomed by those with responsibility for the maintenance of law and order last Friday. I am grateful also for the sympathy that has been expressed for the injured police officers. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned the notable part played by the noble Lord, Lord Levene of Portsoken. I noticed that noble Lord was in his place and the House will wait with keen anticipation, to see whether or not he is able to intervene and assist us.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the report of the Commissioner of the City of London Police. As the statement said, that report would be from the commissioner to his own authority. In the usual way, any decision to publish that report in full or part ought to lie with the commissioner and the authority. Parts of such a report may better be left unpublished, for obvious reasons. I am sure that the noble Lord's point is well taken—that where possible, such reports should be published, other things being equal.
I anticipate that the Commissioner of the City of London Police will be applying his mind, as will the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others, to the lessons to be learnt. It cannot be disputed that there was a co-ordinated attack on the LIFFE building, which eventually failed.
Permission is not needed for assemblies in a public place, as opposed to marches or processions. Conditions can be imposed on public assemblies but they are difficult to enforce if the organisers are not known. I suspect that the non-co-operation experienced was very much with that in mind. Your Lordships might agree. I know of no charge of holding a march or procession without a licence but again, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is well taken.
I do not know whether or not there was a connection with those persons who indulged in demonstrations against road widening schemes. One needs to be cautious about saying anything at this stage. The last thing I want is someone to say that a trial had been prejudiced, thereby bringing about an acquittal, by my answering specific questions.
The City's business did continue and the markets were open. They bring enormous benefit to the whole economic wellbeing of this country. In many ways the best answer given to the protestors is that business did continue. That seems an important rebuff.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, indicated that these were well-organised scenes of provocative behaviour. I have no doubt that is so. I live in Clerkenwell, which is only a few minutes' walk from Smithfield, where the demonstrations seem to have begun. I travelled down Fleet Street, trying to return to the Home Office. There is no excuse for what was done. None at all. Speaking
694
for my part, always having held the police in a high personal regard, my regard for them rose by the minute as I saw the patience with which they were dealing with people who are really just thugs.
There was a plain refusal to co-operate. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is right—the intention was to override the right of everyone else to go about their business in peace, order and security. There are lessons to be learnt, not least that one should remain steadfast and carry on with one's daily life and business so far as that is possible.
If there is any further intelligence from reports made to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I will be more than happy to return to your Lordships with that information, either by letter or in the Chamber. If that is done by letter to any of the respective spokesmen, I will of course place a copy in the Library in the usual way.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Levene of Portsoken: My Lords. I declare an interest as the Lord Mayor of the City of London, and the City is my constituency.
Is the Minister aware that, despite the best endeavours of the demonstrators, firms in the City of London continued working normally throughout Friday and business was not disrupted? I spent three hours walking among the demonstrators, to see for myself exactly what was happening. I was appalled. This was not a demonstration turned sour by policing that was too heavy. Nor was it a demonstration that was hijacked by a violent element. The organisers always intended the demonstration to be violent. It was designed to create as much damage and disruption as possible. I saw the way in which its focus shifted and the deliberate way in which demonstrators went about their business. There can be little doubt that much energy had been spent trying to bring the City of London to a complete halt, but they failed.
Would the Minister and the whole House care to join me in congratulating all those in the City—those who work there together with our police force—who ran the gauntlet of the protestors to get on with their jobs? I saw ripped jackets, City workers being spat at, despatch riders and taxi drivers being assaulted, and endless demonstrators urinating in the street.
The majority of the 300,000 people who work in the City took those events in their stride. They continued with their work, which benefits this country and its economy so much. That needs recognition. People who work in the City are the first to give their money and time to others. They are the first to help others in need. They are the first to recognise the right to free speech. That which they had to suffer on Friday was beyond the bounds of what was acceptable.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am more than happy to endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Levene—which were prefigured by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Harris of Greenwich. By

695
and large, people did work normally, having the benefit of some of the warnings and advice to which I referred earlier. On the noble Lord's second point, I was particularly struck by what a good natured, good humoured and determined people we are. I did not see loss of temper in the streets, except on the part of the demonstrators. People appeared willing to make their way home in very difficult, disagreeable circumstances, and were full of fortitude. I think that we all echo the noble Lord's comment that the best response was not to he put off our right to carry on our daily work and our lives in the way we choose.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that in recent times Ministers have been very free in giving their opinions on the political affiliations of those responsible for violent crimes in London, even when those responsible have not been identified or apprehended? Would the Minister like to follow that practice today and give us his own view on the likely political affiliations of those responsible for this outbreak of violence?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I think the noble Lord will agree, I am normally careful about not making assertions without proof. I try to follow that rule, not least because it is a particular irritation and mischief if trials are abandoned or aborted because it is suggested that there has been prejudicial publicity. All I can is say is what your Lordships know. Claims were made that these were anarchists and that the demonstration had something to do with ethical investment. I repudiate any claim of that sort. It does not seem to me that anyone holding a political view in a free country is entitled to behave in the disgraceful way in which many of those people behaved. It may be that more positive answers to the noble Lord's questions will be forthcoming when the trials are held—I simply do not know—but there is no justification at all, for political or apolitical motives, for behaving in a way that disrupts the lives of ordinary, decent people trying to go to work.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to bring forward legislation to ban the use of masks in such demonstrations? My noble friend Lord Cope said—I know that the Minister agrees—that this country has a long history of peaceful demonstrations, but given what we have heard from the Minister, as well as from the other Front Bench spokesmen, this was certainly not a peaceful demonstration; certainly the police and others had already acknowledged that it would be a very unpeaceful demonstration.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to say that we have already delivered on that particular aspect. The House will remember that the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, raised the question of face coverings a short while ago. I promised to think about it carefully. We did think about it, and we therefore introduced an amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill, as it then was, to ban in some circumstances—I am putting it crudely and paraphrasing the effect of the legislation—
696
the use of masks and face coverings. As many noble Lords recognise, they have at least two vices: one is intimidation, plain and simple; the second is difficulty of identification. I remember mentioning in this House the particular menace sometimes of people who wear motorcycle helmets to intimidate and avoid identification. So, to that extent, I have already satisfied in advance the point raised by the noble Baroness.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to take some care in rushing to the immediate judgment that the demonstration was all of one kind. I have nothing but contempt, which I am sure is shared by the whole House, for those who acted violently and clearly set out to act in a disreputable way in the course of the demonstration. However, I was on a No. 8 bus after walking from Liverpool Street in the early part of that morning, at a time when there were large numbers of people on bicycles with many decorations, disporting themselves in a peaceful, although, it must be said, temporarily obstructive manner. The atmosphere was extremely good. A policeman was cheered for the way in which he was directing traffic in order that the people on cycles could progress satisfactorily. I therefore have no doubt that there were different phases to the demonstration. I ask the Minister to recognise that although there were clearly some extremely malicious, dangerous elements who acted criminally and ought to be brought to justice, that may not be the case with regard to others who were involved.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I entirely agree that one has to look at the individual in a particular way, but I do not think that anyone can justify the attack on the LIFFE building for instance, or the attempted terrorisation of people who were just going about their lawful daily occasions.
In response to the particular point raised by the noble Lord, when I read out paragraph 5 of the Home Secretary's Statement, that point was made. I repeat:
"During the morning of last Friday, the demonstrations were generally peaceful".
That accords with the noble Lord's experience as he described it. The Statement continues:
"Around midday, however, a much larger group, soon numbering several thousand, began to assemble in Liverpool Street … [and thereafter] split into four groups".
So, I do not think that the noble Lord and I are in disagreement.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the events of last Friday were in stark contrast to the very peaceful demonstration which took place on Sunday against the proposal to reclassify food supplements as medicines, which was in the best tradition of British political protest?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes, I think that any peaceful demonstration, whether or not one agrees with its purpose, demonstrates what I sought to indicate earlier; namely, that we live in a peaceful society, in which views of all kinds are able to be

697
propagated. That is the whole point of a democracy: that other people can peacefully demonstrate, so long as they recognise my right to go peacefully about my own business.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I believe that this is the first occasion in our history on which a riot has been organised through the Internet. The Internet allowed various small groups of fanatics, anarchists and extremists to advertise what was happening in a very beguiling and misleading way and therefore broadened the appeal to a much larger audience of people, who were invited virtually to come to a carnival. It is not possible to stop this kind of activity on the Internet. However, I hope that one of the lessons will be that the police and the other forces concerned with public order in our society will be able to increase their surveillance and vigilance on the Internet. I am sure that this will not be the only time that the Internet will be used to summon such people together. I hope that some lessons will be learnt.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they are extremely important lessons. The difficulty in terms of law enforcement is that we are often lagging behind a technology which the noble Lord, in a previous incarnation, did much to develop in the commercial life of this country. Without going into detail, I know that the police had that well in mind in the briefing documents. However, in regard to the Internet, it is rather like trying to grab an octopus that is many-headed. It is extremely difficult to deal with this in terms of law and legal jurisdiction. I entirely agree that that lesson must be learnt.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, having been in London on the day of the so-called "poll tax riots" in 1990 and having witnessed those riots at first hand, I was immediately struck by the similarity—as have been certain newspaper reporters—between those riots and the events that took place on Friday. As the Minister said, it was clear that the riots were premeditated and that one of their characteristics was the strength of the organisation behind them. In view of that fact, will the Minister assure the House that the connections between the organisation of these particular riots and similar outbreaks of violence are looked into thoroughly? If there is a connection on the organisational side between the riots on Friday and those on previous occasions, we may not have seen the end of this kind of outbreak and there may well be a repetition at some future date.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as a purely personal response, I am bound to say that the same memory returned to my mind when I was travelling along Fleet Street, trying to get back to the Home Office. At the moment I do not know. It seems to me that any investigation by the relevant police authorities and any determination as to finalised charges by the Crown Prosecution Service would be obliged to take into account the observations made by the noble Lord,
698
Lord Roberts of Conwy. At the moment I do not know, although the situation chimed in my mind, as it did in his.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether there will be sufficient resources in terms of surveillance cameras and people able to study them? Then they would be able to make the best possible use of that way of identifying the ringleaders. Is there a problem of resources?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think not. When we came into office the resource in terms of CCTV generally was about 1 million cameras. As your Lordships remember, we have now increased that to 150 million. From my experience of going to control rooms and watching, it is a helpful tool, not only in the prevention of crime but also in the identification of criminals. Often there is the useful consequence that when the video is shown to the defendant and his lawyers, pleas of guilty tend to follow rather more often than when CCTV is not available. It is an important tool. That is why ever since the election the Home Secretary has stressed its usefulness and has been pumping resources into the schemes.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, last night there was considerable trouble at Stonehenge. Although it was not on the scale of last Friday's, I understand that the police are warning that there may be a good deal worse trouble tonight. Can the Minister assure us that the fullest steps are being taken and that sufficient police will be in attendance to prevent any trouble tonight?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am being as careful as I can in saying that I have no doubt at all that the Chief Constable of Wiltshire has those matters very much in mind. These are operational decisions which we rightly leave to individual chief constables. There had been problems earlier. If the problems recur this evening, one must trust the professional judgment of the chief constable and the professional expertise of her officers.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I wish to pick up the point about technological developments and difficulties we have in introducing legislation to stay ahead of the game. CCTV has made remarkable steps forward in certain areas, but there is an element missing. The missing element is the requirement for the introduction of identity cards with photographs.
All governments hitherto have been loath to move in that direction. But in the light of a whole range of changes taking place, I wonder whether this is the time when the Government, reviewing the lessons of what happened last week, should start moving slowly to explore more positively the prospects of going in that direction.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not for the first time my noble friend makes an important point. From memory I believe the cost of the introduction of such a scheme is significant. It is of the order of

699
£450 million. I repeat what I said earlier, as an accurate reflection of the views of some chief constables: not all chief constables feel that that is the best use of such a significant resource. There are civil liberties questions which must be balanced in the scales which my noble friend describes. It is one of those questions which one needs to keep carefully under review: is the investment justified? Are the outcomes those which we wish?
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, does the Minister join me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Levene, on getting matters up and running so fast after the event? When the NatWest building was bombed, I was talking to one of his predecessors. I remember saying that in a perverse way how lucky it was that this happened in the City of London because no other local authority in the land would have responded so fast and effectively to the incident.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to make a positive response to the noble Lord's point. The noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Harris, and I paid ready tribute to the response not only of the City of London police and those who live and work there but of the noble Lord, Lord Levene. If a mark of leadership is to lead from the front, he led rather well.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I have heard that there will be another riot in a month's time. I do not know whether it is a rumour or whether there is positive evidence.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in paragraph 11 of the Statement the Home Secretary said:
"At the moment, I have no firm information to suggest that a recurrence …is likely in the foreseeable future".
However, it is an important point in the context of the noble Lord's question that the Home Secretary then said:
"I intend to hold further consultations with the Commissioner and the police service, to ensure that everything possible is done to protect the safety of the public and the businesses in the City …[in] London".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, is there evidence that there is a potent folk memory in certain political circles of the success of an extremist group in taking over a demonstration and assaulting and bringing down the Winter Palace? It launched a most momentous revolution with terrible consequences. Should we not bear that in mind when there is discussion about the responsibility for the metropolitan police in London?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I would not have as gloomy a view of 20th century history as that identified by the noble and learned Lord. The attack on the Winter Palace is wholly distinct: it was in the middle of a 'war, the whole of Russian society was collapsing and some aspects of daily life might have been objectionable. None of those obtains here. There is no reason for any violent protest in the City of London or any part of London. Those who indulged in violence were simply indulging in mindless, thuggish behaviour,
700
to try to interrupt the decent conduct of decent people's lives. Though I normally agree with the noble and learned Lord, I do not believe I can on this occasion.

Greater London Authority Bill
6.7 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 25.
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 14, line 25, at end insert ("; and
(d) promoting the elimination of unjustifiable discrimination with regard to gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, age and religion in Greater London")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 74. Perhaps may say at the outset how grateful I am to those among my noble friends who have indicated their support for the proposal contained in the amendment: the noble Lords. Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare and Lord Dholakia and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for adding their names in support.
This galaxy of support is an example of the cross-party consensus-building that I believe must be at the heart of London's new politics once we have the mayor and the new authority in place.
I am also grateful to those external organisations, including the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Stonewall Trust, Operation Black Vote, Rights Now, Greater London Action on Disability and the National Black Alliance who have also indicated their support for the amendment.
The election next year of a mayor and assembly for London provides a unique opportunity to address some of the institutional inequalities identified by the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The GLA is a new type of city government and I want to make sure that from the start Londoners—all Londoners—have confidence in the new authority.
I therefore believe that London's mayor, supported by the assembly, must give a lead in eradicating discrimination from the outset. The work of the authority must be centred on the objective of developing a genuinely inclusive society and of offering opportunities to all the people of London, black and white, women and men, old and young, whatever their religion, whether or not they have disabilities arid whatever their sexual orientation.
The mayor must see it as central to his or her work that we restore pride in our city, bring people together and celebrate the richness and diversity of modern London. To do this effectively we must make sure that no Londoner faces unjustifiable discrimination. as that would undermine confidence in himself or herself and the city. The GLA should be a model not only of modern local government but in outlawing unjustifiable discrimination.
Perhaps I should also point out—I appreciate that this may not particularly excite those noble Lords who are not members of the Labour Party—that the phrase in the amendment,
"elimination of unjustifiable discrimination",
is a direct quote from the manifesto on which the Labour Party fought the last general election. The promise was to,
"seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".
For those noble Lords who want to check it, that can be found on page 35.
Clause 310 of the Bill explicitly brings the GLA, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority within the scope of the local government provisions of the Race Relations Act. I am also aware that in another place my honourable friend Nick Raynsford, Minister for London, said that the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act would apply to the GLA. That is the minimum that should be done. It would be rather surprising if we were asked to create an authority to which this trio of legislation did not apply. Simply to apply the existing legislation is hardly sufficient to ensure that the Minister's aspiration of an authority that will be,
"exemplary in the pursuit of equal opportunities",
is achieved.
In any event, two of these Acts date back more than 20 years and are widely seen as needing reform, or at the very least updating. These Acts are designed to address discrimination after it has happened but do nothing to prevent it happening. Moreover, the Race Relations Act is silent on the question of discrimination on the grounds of religion and no existing legislation tackles unjustifiable discrimination against lesbians and gay men or on the ground of age.
There are recent precedents for addressing these questions in the establishment of new government structures. The Government of Wales Act places a duty on the Welsh Assembly to,
"make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people".
That is an extremely helpful requirement, and it is reinforced by a requirement that each year the Assembly must publish a report on what it has done to meet the requirement and assess how effective that has been in promoting equal opportunities. The Northern Ireland Act places a statutory duty on all public authorities in Northern Ireland to,
"have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity … between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age. marital status or sexual orientation … between men and women generally … between persons with a disability and persons without; and … between persons with dependants and persons without".
What is more, the same Act places a duty on public authorities in Northern Ireland to promote good relations,
"between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group".
702
If it is good enough for Northern Ireland and Wales it must be good enough for London.
I have heard the argument put that these Acts relate to national assemblies and that here we are talking about a mere local authority. But this is London and it is a unique authority, as we are constantly told. How can we not have a provision such as this in a Bill about London's government? By the year 2001, 36 per cent of Londoners are expected to be from an ethnic minority community. We know that many of those minorities suffer discrimination and, disproportionately, unemployment and they have low incomes and poor health. We also know that London is a melting pot and brings together an extraordinary number of cultural strands. We all want London to work, and it is in everybody's interests that there are good and harmonious community relations and we celebrate that diversity. To do so is good for Londoners and for London's businesses and visitors; and that must be good for the rest of the country.
The Prime Minister has said:
"There is no harm in reminding ourselves how much negative discrimination there is in British society. [Britain] cannot be a beacon to the world unless the talents of all our people shine through".
With this Bill we have the opportunity to make sure that the new mayor meets the needs and aspirations of all Londoners. We also have the opportunity to make sure that the mayor and the assembly give a clear lead in celebrating diversity, tackling unjustifiable discrimination and providing an example—"a beacon" in the words of the Prime Minister—to the rest of public administration in this country. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: I have added my name to this amendment. We on this side warmly welcome the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. Not only does this amendment have our support, including that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, but the support of the noble Lord, Lord Archer.
At Second Reading I said that the minority population was fairly unevenly divided, but that is not so for London. Effectively, nearly half the population of London comes from ethnic minority communities. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to the Minister that if we wish to build a strong and effective partnership with the local community we must ensure that ethnic minorities are part of that process. More importantly, there should not be any obstacles put in the way of progress, particularly discrimination on the ground of race.
Therefore, it is important as a first step to ensure that one of the principal purposes of the authority should be to work towards the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, age, sexual orientation and religion. This amendment has the backing of the Commission for Racial Equality, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. That body was set up by government to eliminate racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good relations. It has a particular interest in ensuring that the

703
arrangements for the governance of London meet the needs and aspirations of all Londoners, including ethnic minority communities. Because it is a body set up by government I hope that the Government will take careful note of the commission's concern in this matter.
The primary aim of the amendment is to focus on equality issues and to ensure that the mayor and assembly have regard to such matters in everything that they do. Is that not what the clause is all about? The assembly has power to do anything in carrying out its principal purposes: the promotion of economic development and wealth creation; social development; and improvement of the environment. But where is the provision that deals with the elimination of discrimination? Surely, a legal obligation written into the statute will give an unequivocal message that we are against discrimination of any kind and will take steps to eliminate it.
It is expected that the population of the city comprising ethnic minority groups will grow from slightly more than 23 per cent in 1996 to just under 27 per cent by 2006. However, bearing in mind the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, if one includes white minority groups, for example the Irish, those from ethnic minority communities make up almost one third of the population of London.
The clause as drafted sounds hollow. All that it seeks to deliver misses out one major component: the elimination of unjustifiable discrimination. Perhaps I may go back to the Government's words at the time of the Green Paper. They recognised that London's ethnic diversity was one of its strengths that contributed to the capital's vitality and prosperity. The Green Paper also acknowledged that people from different ethnic minorities were evident among the most socially excluded in the capital, with unemployment rates double those for white Londoners and with a higher level of exclusions, overcrowding and illness. The Bill is an opportunity to demonstrate the Government's commitment by laying down in legislation the appropriate framework within which the authority will be required to develop and implement all its policies regarding the objective set out in the amendment.
When I worked at the Commission for Racial Equality, it was evident that some local authorities in London discriminated against minorities in the provisions of their services. There are a good many examples, but I shall resist the temptation to cite them. It was only after formal investigations identified such practices and the threat of a legally enforceable notice not to discriminate that many local authorities followed the provisions of the existing Race Relations Act.
I welcome the statement in another place during debate on the Bill when the Minister said that he wanted the authority to be exemplary in the pursuit of equal opportunities. Unfortunately, we do not have that provision in the Bill before us.
Under Clause 310 of the Bill, the authority, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority should be treated as local authorities for the purpose of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. However, as I pointed out
704
earlier, that section imposes a general statutory duty on local authorities to secure that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination. If one examines what has happened so far, it is clear that that duty has been ineffective because there are no enforcement powers relating to that part of the provisions.
It is no good saying the Bill provides that the MPA, GLA, and so on, will come within the jurisdiction of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. It is hardly the way to ensure that the GLA is exemplary in pursuit of equal opportunities. Nor is it in line with what was described as a radical model of government set out throughout the Bill. We cannot agree with the Minister's assertion that amendments in this area are unnecessary.
I wish to make one further point—it has been ably explained by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—as regards the provision in relation to the Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland. If such a provision is good for those assemblies, why is it not good for London? We must have a strong commitment to equality of opportunity. The Greater London Authority Bill gives us the opportunity to provide that now. I plead with the Minister to ensure that such a provision is incorporated. I hope also that the Opposition Front Bench will support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am not in favour of the amendment. I wish to give my reasons. The amendment implies that it wants to provide all these good things, but the phrase "promoting the elimination of" worries me. I feel that it may be an attempt to reverse Section 28 of the Local Government Act by the back-door. We should need to debate that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, remarked that the Government want the authority to be exemplary. I should like the authority to be exemplary, but it does not need the passage in the amendment incorporated into the Bill in order for it to be so. Adequate laws already cover these issues. When I was a member of the Greater London Council, we made special traffic arrangements and measures so that people could have easy access to a mosque on a Friday in the same way as we ensured access to a church for Christians on a Sunday. There was no discrimination. But the amendment might produce a similar situation to one which developed in the Greater London Council. In terms of gender, we were encouraged to wear badges. Almost half the individuals walked around wearing a badge saying "I'm gay" or "I'm a lesbian". What did that have to do with governing London? It was unnecessary for that to be part of the scene, yet it became a fairly predominant attitude. I thought that it was damaging to local government.
I apologise that I was not in my seat for the introduction of the amendment. However, I heard the debate from the monitor. Although the amendment reads well and involves a principle with which we all agree, I do not believe that its inclusion would improve the Bill. I therefore oppose the amendment.
Lord Renton: I am fully in favour of the spirit underlying the amendment, as I expect are all noble

705
Lords. But we should bear in mind that three-quarters of what the amendment proposes is covered by existing legislation. We have the race relations legislation. We have the recent legislation which prevents discrimination against disabled people. We have, as between men and women, the sex discrimination legislation, and so on. I have always understood that we do not try in any statute to repeat what is already part of the statute law. Therefore I should have thought that it would be an excess of zeal on our part if we were to pass the amendment.
However, being somewhat of an age myself, I do not remember any legislation which places people above the age of 90 in the same position as those who are still assumed to have the vigour of life at the age of 60—although they do not always.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I was pleased to join with the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Dholakia, on this amendment. It is an issue on which I feel strongly. I have tremendous admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and the immense knowledge she has in local government. However, we wish to have something positive on the face of the Bill. As I am sure the Minister remembers, there was firm reference to the issue in the White Paper. It is somewhat of a puzzle that that was not continued into the Bill.
There are those who say, as my noble friend Lord Renton hinted, that there is sufficient legislation and we should not continue to highlight the issue. I cannot agree. It is no bad thing for us to be thoroughly aware that the provision is in the Bill and that the mayor should have to consider it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, 36 per cent of Londoners will be ethnic by the year 2001. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I had the privilege of serving on the Greater London Council. We are only too aware of that 36 per cent. If one lives in the centre of the City and moves in only a small area, one might not be aware of it. They are the people for whom the mayor will be responsible. They are the people whom the mayor will be expected to help. And let us remember that they are minorities.
Many of these minorities can well take care of themselves, and are impressive at doing so. As a young man, I travelled to Romford as a Greater London councillor. The whole of the East End was Jewish. One could not miss it from the moment one came out of the City. The Jews ran the whole area, and very competently. If one travels there now, the Bangladeshis, Indians and Asians are running the area equally competently. Each generation which comes into this City, from the Huguenots onwards, makes it the great city that it is.
I totally support the noble Lord, Lord Harris, because I want to see such a provision in the Bill. When we tabled it, we realised that the amendment would not go into the Bill. But we hoped that the Minister would state from the Dispatch Box today that what we seek to achieve will be in the Bill in one form or another, because it is worth saying.
706
I should like to add a simple message on the point of discrimination. If one is totally silent and just expects history to take care of itself, it will take considerably longer. If people have the courage to stand up and say that we have to help people who are black, Asian, or gay, perhaps people will discuss those matters and the advance will be a little quicker. If that was a reason in itself, I suggest to the Minister that it would be worth including such a provision in the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has no need to worry about age discrimination. With the exception of my mother, he is the youngest 90 year-old I have ever come across, and more capable and able than many 60, 50 and 40 year-olds.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I should like to point out that I played tennis against the noble Lord, Lord Renton, quite recently, and I lost 6:4, 6:4. I mention it now because the noble Lord was very kind not to mention it himself, and I have a horrible feeling that the noble Baroness is about to mention it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was not going to mention that, but although the noble Lord lost to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, at tennis, I can say without any doubt that he would beat my mother at tennis, but he would certainly lose to her at bridge!
We on these Benches are fully behind the spirit of the Bill. We note what my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Baroness. Lady Gardner, said about the fact that there is much existing legislation on this subject. However, we believe that we should support the amendment and we do so fully.
Baroness Ludford: I also support the amendment and thank the noble Lord who moved it.
London's ethnic and social diversity is one of its strengths. That is one of the reasons why many of us have chosen to live in London. It is a place that is so mixed that you can find people of all kinds and it does not have what is sometimes an oppressive homogeneity of population. Personally, I like the diversity that one finds in London. The amendment would strengthen London and its society, which is already resilient. If such a duty were to be imposed on the authority, it would underpin the benefit to London society of this kind of diversity.
There is also an economic benefit to London's diverse society. Many firms are attracted to locate in London because they can find staff with the language skills and international understanding which is good for their businesses. We attract tourists from all over the world because they feel comfortable in London, which could be due to the diversity of our population.
London is perhaps the most appropriate place to introduce such legislation. I, too, would think it somewhat odd that duties are imposed on the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies and yet not on the London authority. Of all places. London could profit

707
from such legislation and set an example to other authorities and public bodies in this country—and not only in this country: Article 13 of the European Treaty, following implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam, enables the European Union to legislate to outlaw discrimination on grounds similar to those in this clause. I am sure that the United Kingdom will play a major part in the debate on how that article can be implemented within the European Union. I should declare an interest in that I am hoping to participate in a debate in the European Parliament. If London is to play a major part in that debate, it would be desirable to have the duties in place for the Greater London Authority.
I agree with noble Lords who say that although the Race Relations Act, the laws on sex equality and the laws against disability discrimination will apply, they impose only a minimum requirement and do not impose the kind of duty that the amendment proposes.
It will be a good thing not just for people who fall into one of the categories enumerated in the amendment, but also for Londoners of all descriptions if we can underpin London's social and ethnic diversity by appropriate legislation which I am sure will be used widely and sensibly. In the past, gesture politics may have been used in excess, but I am sure that these provisions would mean a substantive underpinning of equality, which would benefit Londoners of all descriptions.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I omitted to make one point. I took very careful note of what my noble friend Lord Renton said, but although we support the amendment, we advise the Committee that antidiscrimination laws, if taken to excess, can sometimes become discriminatory in themselves.
Baroness Hamwee: I was pleased to be able to add my name to the amendment which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It is not necessary to repeat the many valid points that have already been made in the debate, but I should like to make one point, possibly anticipating what the Minister may say.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, spoke of the opportunity for the new authority. I would go further than that and say that it has a responsibility to promote the elimination of unjustifiable discrimination and to do so without being patronising. That is not necessarily an easy task.
I have talked a good deal about the style of the new authority and the way it should go about its business. We have already indicated that 25 will be an insufficient number of members for the assembly because, among other reasons, it will not reflect the diversity of London. Nevertheless, it will be the responsibility of those 25 members and the mayor to take forward this entire issue.
One might have hoped that the authority's powers and responsibilities to promote social development would cover the elimination of discrimination. That responsibility should cover it, but not everybody will make that connection without a fairly clear pointer. That is why the amendment is important.
708
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, stated that the authority would do the right things anyway. In that case, let us give it the mechanism to do so. She said that these issues are covered by existing legislation. However, that legislation does not cover all the ground of the amendment and some of it is now quite out of date and inadequate. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's answer on to how this may or may not fit in with the promotion of social development.
The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, mentioned the East End. A few years ago I was very struck by some research which showed the wealth of the City and the poverty of people living in the Spitalfields area, no more than a mile away. In particular, it illustrated the problems suffered there by the Bangladeshi community. There was a high level of unemployment cheek by jowl with the almost obscene wealth of the City. That was a vivid example and one I hope I never lose from my mind.
Lord Whitty: My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey promised us a galaxy of talent from outside and within this House, and we have certainly seen a range of support for the amendment from the two Front Benches, from London government, from the noble Lord, Lord Archer, and from one of our representatives for London in yet another place, in Strasbourg. I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Indeed, the Government and I have considerable sympathy with the proposal. The Government's commitment to this issue was clearly indicated in the White Paper. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it is clear that we are pursuing social development in a population which has the most diverse ethnic and religious base of any city in Europe. London probably has the largest gay community in Britain and a large number of elderly and disabled people. Furthermore, a majority of women are still subject to a fair degree of discrimination in the capital, as elsewhere. Unless "social development" included a serious degree of commitment to the promotion of equal opportunities between all those groups, the term would be meaningless. It is also true that the way in which we pursue the other principal objectives on the environment and the economy must be non-discriminatory and promote measures which avoid discrimination.
In electoral and organisational structure and in its purposes, the Government intend the Greater London Authority to tackle discrimination and to take steps to avoid discriminatory action within the capital. We cannot escape that responsibility under the Bill as drafted, even if any mayor or assembly wished to do so. It is also true that the authority as described within the Bill is subject not only to the existing Race Relations Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act, but would be equally subject to any revised form of them.
Much of the Government's commitment to the social development purpose of the Bill includes the promotion of equal opportunities. However, there is a wide range of views in the Committee, and outside, which we need to take into account. I say at this stage that we need to

709
consider whether our intentions in that regard could be more explicit or better expressed at an appropriate point in the Bill, either here or elsewhere. I undertake to do that. Therefore, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment so that we may return to the issue at a later stage. I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this important dimension of the debate.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, replies—and I make a serious point—will the Minister explain how he would eliminate unjustifiable discrimination with regard to age? In many situations, it is assumed that age gives rise to certain rights—pensions and so forth—and there is no legislation which grants people of any age, however doddery they may be, the same rights as those who are in the prime of life. Will the Minister explain how that should be dealt with or whether it should be omitted?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: As we envisaged the purpose in the general drafting of the Bill, the social development dimension would involve tackling abuses against sections of the population, whatever their age. Therefore, if elderly elements of the population were being discriminated against in a certain way—for example, with regard to access to services—it would be the job of the authority to take action, or to facilitate action, to tackle that.
That is one of the reasons why one needs to look at the drafting of the new clause. Clearly, in custom and practice, there are a number of discriminations by age which, by and large, the population regard as justifiable. The terminology used by my noble friend Lord Harris is "unjustifiable discrimination" and that would require a degree of definition. Perhaps, therefore, it is for my noble friend to reply to the noble Lord's point at this stage. Nevertheless, there is an issue of age discrimination in the capital which we would expect the authority to address in the context of social development.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may add a couple of points to the debate because I have a particular interest in gender equality, as Members of the Committee are aware.
There are three points. First, existing legislation is already being questioned by the various equality organisations which deal with the mechanisms and the form of the law. Therefore, this is not the right place to rely on existing legislation. I am sure that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would make a contribution on this issue, were she present, because she is the lead Member of the Government on gender equality.
Secondly, the advantage of such a clause is that it will encourage a wider application of equal opportunity. It suggests, for example, that the main lines of policy which the new authority will undertake should be tested for their equality aspects before they are put into action. That is a most valuable provision. The Minister is probably familiar with the word "mainstream", which is
710
the idea of getting equality issues not on the edge of policy-making but right in the centre. That is what the clause does, placed as it is in the most vital part of the Bill dealing with the powers of the new authority.
Thirdly, we have discussed how to put equal access to transport into the Bill. A clause such as this right at the beginning of the most important part of the Bill would eliminate the need to say, "And this, and that" as every clause trickles through. The provision would be written into the duties of the Greater London Authority before we begin describing them in detail. I was delighted to hear the Minister's response to the noble Lord, Lord Harris—a well deserved response—and I hope that he will also bear those points in mind.
Lord Tope: I follow my noble friend in giving a slightly more qualified welcome to the Minister's response, partly because, with respect, I have heard it before from his honourable friend in another place, although I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity with which it was said.
The Minister recognised that support for the intentions behind the amendment has come from all sides of the Committee, from both Front Benches, and I am sure—and I mean that—that he recognises the seriousness of that.
However, I am aware that the Government have been considering the matter for some time. They are aware that it is serious and is likely to become one of the major issues during the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I have said privately to the Minister, Mr Raynsford, and I repeat it here, that I should be surprised were the Bill not to leave this Chamber with some provision to cover the intentions behind the amendment. Therefore, I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to bringing back their own amendment on Report or perhaps, if they feel it appropriate, at a later part of the Committee stage.
It seems that the Minister is not able to give us a rather firmer commitment that the Government will do that. Therefore, I ask that they do not wait until Report stage, which is likely to be in the autumn, before signalling their intention to do so. By then, I believe that people will be very much more concerned that, while recognising the anxieties and listening to what is being said, the Government are not hearing what is being said and, more important, are not acting on what is said.
I hope that at an early stage the Government will give a firm commitment which will ensure that the Bill meets the intentions of the amendment, which has received such widespread support this evening.
In conclusion, I did not join in the earlier debate because all the points were made very well by other noble Lords in support of the amendment. I wish to respond briefly to one comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who said that she suspected or feared that that may be intended as a way of either getting rid of or getting round Section 28 of the Local Government Act which relates to the so-called promotion of homosexuality. I hope that the Minister will confirm to the Committee that not only is that not

711
the intention but it is unnecessary because by the time the GLA comes into being the Government will have met their manifesto commitment to repeat Section 28.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The noble Lord has raised that matter and that causes us to think about the wider issues. I mentioned it in passing when I said that I hoped that that was not to be the case, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has raised it as a major issue which would be of interest to the majority of the Members of this Chamber.
As an immigrant, I served on a local racial equality board for seven or eight years. No one is more in favour of opportunities for everyone in this country than I am. This country has been very good to me. However, if the Government bring forward an amendment, it is important that the wording should be considered carefully. What has been said here this evening should be taken on board and reflected in the Government's thinking. I object to the word "promoting" because I believe that it indicates positive discrimination and pushes those matters to an unfair degree.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has said that no one is satisfied in those, let us call them, "industries" in relation to sex discrimination and that they are all unhappy about it. If that is so and our present laws on racial and sex discrimination are not adequate, the Government should be looking at them and perhaps revising them. However, I believe that it would be artificial to use this Bill as a back-door means of dealing with those issues. Therefore, I hope that the principle of the amendment will be incorporated in a diplomatic way which will be acceptable and allow sufficient flexibility for us all to be able to accept it.
Lord Swinfen: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask him one, I hope, simple question. What do the Government understand by the word "age" in the amendment? Does it refer only to those of what I may describe as mature years or does it apply also to those of rather more tender years?
Lord Whitty: As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, this is not my amendment. Clearly, there are problems of unjustifiable discrimination against both those of mature years, to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred as "doddery"—which is quite unjustifiable in his case but may apply to some of us as we approach those years—and against young people. We shall have to consider whether we can frame an appropriate provision, as we shall have to consider all the other aspects which have been raised in relation to how it will be appropriate to word an amendment, should we consider it sensible to do so, at a later stage in the light of this debate. We shall take all of that into account.
I am not in a position to make any commitment which is firmer than that which I have already made; namely, that we shall take everything into consideration and let Members of the Committee know our intentions in that regard as soon as possible. But we are keeping an open mind as to what the appropriate course of action should now be.
712
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned Section 28. It is indeed the Government's intention to change that. Progress on that will depend on parliamentary proceedings, including those in this House. With that caveat, I endorse what he said.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have contributed to this debate. It has been extremely useful and I hope that it has sharpened the feelings of the Minister and his colleagues in terms of what needs to be brought forward at a later stage.
I listened with particular care to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I do not accept the argument that much of that is already covered by adequate legislation. Certainly, the analyses carried out by the Commission for Racial Equality and the parallel analyses carried out in relation to other legislation recognise that there are significant shortcomings; that people who cannot take legal proceedings are subjected to unjust discrimination; that nothing is done to make the institutions affected by the legislation proactive in ending or combating discrimination; and that nothing is done to promote or implement good progress. The provision made for positive action is at best confusing and in many cases limited.
Therefore, there is a whole series of areas in which it is widely accepted that there are problems with the existing legislation. It seems silly to perpetuate that within this Bill rather than looking forward and trying to make progress on the various matters.
Those two contributions were extremely interesting. In the context of what is being proposed here I found it difficult to understand the image conjured up by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, of "badgism" rampant again across the streets of London as a consequence of this change. The debate has moved on substantially in the past 15 years. People recognise that the wearing of a badge does not indicate that action will follow from it. We are concerned to make sure that clear leadership is given by the mayor and assembly as regards those issues.
I am extremely grateful for the comments made by my noble friend Lord Whitty. I am pleased to hear that there is considerable sympathy for the sentiments expressed by your Lordships in relation to the amendment. It is quite clearly the Government's intention that the Greater London Authority should tackle discrimination and should be proactive rather than reactive in that field.
My noble friend has undertaken that the Government will take into account the views which have been expressed so widely in this House. They will need to consider whether and how it is possible to make their expectation more explicit in the Bill, either in this clause or elsewhere within the Bill. I believe that my noble friend's statement is extremely helpful.
In tabling this amendment, I was clear that perhaps it needed further definition and precision. My references to age were not just to 90 year-old tennis champions, but also to younger people who are also discriminated

713
against in certain circumstances. We shall have to look at precisely what is the definition of unjustifiable discrimination or whether that is the right approach.
Quite clearly there is a lot of support within the Committee for the idea that we should write onto the face of the Bill a clear responsibility on the mayor and the assembly to promote good relations, good equal opportunities and to tackle unjustifiable discrimination. In the light of the Minster's assurances and the statements about listening to the views which have been expressed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 75, I have to inform the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 76.
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 79 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 15, line 4, leave out subsections (7) to (9)
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 81, 82, 83, 85, 86 and 87. Although there are seven amendments in this group, I am sure that we can deal with them much more quickly than the last single and important amendment.
Amendment No. 80 seeks to leave out of Clause 25 subsections (7), (8) and (9). In subsection (7) the Secretary of State can give guidance to the authority concerning the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1). Under subsection (8) the authority must have regard to that guidance. Under subsection (9) the guidance given by the Secretary of State will be published. Leaving that out is consequential on previous omissions.
The Bill is very detailed as regards the power conferred on the new authority. It is also detailed as to the exercise of that power. We shall come to the functional bodies later on. As my noble friend Lady Thomas said a few minutes ago, this clause concerning the general power of the authority is probably the most important clause in the Bill. It will be no surprise to the Government to hear that we are concerned that the Secretary of State is retaining such control. It seems to us that the detail in the early part of Clause 25 is entirely adequate when read with the limits on the general powers, to which we shall come in a few moments, the consultation provisions and the general principles applying to the authority in the exercise of its functions.
In an earlier debate I may not have been entirely clear about the way we go about creating new constitutional bodies and the requirement that we have in this country that they cannot do anything that they are not specifically allowed to do by legislation. If it is not spelt out, it is not permitted. Therefore, that supports my view about the adequacy of the rest of the Bill.
We do not believe that the authority should be fettered and constrained in a way that is made possible by the retention of the subsections. The Secretary of
714
State will have the opportunity to be extremely prescriptive in the guidance that is issued. The authority is specifically required to have regard to the guidance. The Bill does not provide that the authority must follow the guidance, but comes very close to it.
However, if there is to be guidance to the authority, then it should be for the assembly and the body of 25 members to make sure that the mayor exercises the powers that he or she has in the best way for London. Therefore, guidance to the mayor as to the exercise of his or her powers should come from that body. That is Amendment No. 82. It means giving guidance to the mayor about the exercise of the mayor's powers.
In Amendment No. 85 we propose to leave out subsection (8) of the clause as regards guidance. It gives considerable authority to the Secretary of State's guidance. In Amendment No. 86, if regard is to be had for the guidance, it should be the mayor and not the assembly which will have that regard. That follows on from an earlier amendment which seeks to re-order responsibilities in this area. Amendment No. 87 is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 80 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 81 to 87.
Lord Whitty: I believe that I can deal with these amendments reasonably quickly. They reflect a degree of misunderstanding between us as regards the new constitution of the authority. Amendment No. 80 deletes subsections (7) to (9), which effectively remove entirely the powers of the Secretary of State to give guidance to the authority about the use of its general powers.
We have just been reminded that the other amendments will in a sense be incompatible with that. Presumably they are a second chance to remove the conditions on those powers.
We indicated earlier that we need a degree of balance. The authority has been given wide powers. The general power in particular is there to ensure that the authority can act in ways it sees fit in pursuit of its purposes and in co-operation with London authorities and organisations.
We believe that the GLA has to have that flexibility and range of powers. We also need to ensure that there is no abuse of those powers or that flexibility. In particular, we have to make sure that the new authority does not intrude in a detrimental way in areas which are the statutory responsibility of other authorities or organisations other than where there is agreement to do so: where they wish to co-operate in the provision or co-ordination of services or where there is specific provision within this or other legislation.
In Clause 26. therefore, we impose certain limits on the use of the general power. I understood at an earlier stage that Members of the Committee opposite were anxious for us to do that in areas where the provision of fundamental and key services provided by the health service and London boroughs arise. I do not see that that kind of guidance could be given by the assembly which, after all, is part of the authority.

715
The assembly is not an executive part of the authority. Its function is to scrutinise and test what the executive, in the form of the mayor, proposes to do or has done. Its function is not to decree from the beginning what the limits to that action are, but to judge, comment, advise and reflect the views of the population on how the mayor is carrying out those functions. It must be the job of Parliament and the Secretary of State to lay down the limits of those functions and, therefore, in this case, the guidance on exercising those functions in relation to the statutory and related functions of other authorities operating within the Greater London area.
I am slightly puzzled as to the logic of these amendments. I understand that there may be an argument for reducing the powers of intervention of the Secretary of State. In this area I would argue strongly that it is important to make it clear that the remit of the London boroughs and the health service is preserved and that the Secretary of State should do that. However, I cannot understand the idea of handing those powers over to the assembly, which itself is part of the authority that we are trying to limit. Therefore, I believe that this group of amendments is not particularly logical, and that this amendment is detrimental to the ability of the Secretary of State and, therefore, the ability of some other authorities to be protected by the Secretary of State. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says what she intends to do about the amendment, perhaps I may say that we would not support Amendment No. 80, which leaves out subsections (7) to (9). I believe that the Minister and the noble Baroness know full well that we have some objection to the control that the Secretary of State would have regarding the authority. We believe that it is appropriate that he should be able to issue guidance about which, at the end of the day, the authority does not have to do too much if it does not want to. I believe that that provision is needed.
As regards issuing guidance to the authority, we would oppose substituting the assembly for the Secretary of State. On the first day in Committee we debated the role of the deputy mayor, and we said that we believe that it is important that the executive and the legislature should be separate. To my mind, these amendments would mix it up yet again. We oppose these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister asked about the logic. He had it spot on when he realised that the first amendment is our preference and that the others are substitutes. We thought we might have to move to them as we were not optimistic about the success of the first amendment.
In answer to that, and indeed in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, we do not see handing over power to issue guidance to the assembly as illogical. The mayor has the executive powers; the assembly does
716
not. The assembly has scrutiny powers and, therefore, guidance, to quote the words of the Bill,
"concerning the exercise by the Authority of the power conferred by subsection (I)"
seems to be entirely properly reflected in the division proposed in the later amendments in the group.
The Minister talked about the need for balance and ensuring that the authority does not abuse its powers, and does not, for instance, intrude on the responsibilities of other bodies. That gives me concern, as it appears that the Bill is fairly explicit and detailed about limiting the authority's powers. If it is proposed that the Secretary of State should, through guidance, further limit the mayor's exercise of the powers that he is given which, in other words, is limiting the functions. I believe that that should be in primary legislation, and I thought that it already was to be in primary legislation.
I am not surprised by the response because it is clear that that is the kind of division and the kind of control that the Government see as applying throughout the Bill. I am disappointed, but for the moment beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 15, line 5, at end insert—
("() In determining whether to issue guidance under subsection (7) above the Secretary of State shall have regard to the views of—

(a) the Mayor,

(b) the Assembly,

(c) the London borough councils,

(d) the Common Council, and

(e) bodies of each of the descriptions specified in section 27(3).")

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 84 deals with the issue of guidance. There is no guideline or guidance to the Secretary of State as to how his guidance is to be prepared and as to how it is to be issued and whether the Secretary of State should issue guidance.
This contrasts considerably with the detailed obligations to consult, which are laid on the authority by other provisions in the Bill. I ask myself whom the Secretary of State will consult in deciding whether guidance is required and, if it is required, what it should say. We propose that the Secretary of State should have regard to the views of the mayor because we believe that mainly the mayor will be affected by such guidance. He should also have regard to the views of the assembly because of its scrutiny role and, above all, we believe that the assembly is likely to have views as to how—I stress how—the power is to be exercised; that is the thrust of subsection 25(7). Regard should also be taken of the boroughs and the common council because of the relationship with those bodies, and of the entities listed in Clause 27(3). If those entities are to be consulted about the exercise of the power, as is provided there, it is illogical that they should not be consulted on the guidance on the exercise of the power.
Perhaps the question that underlies this amendment—I accept it may be a rhetorical question—is what happens if the views of these individuals and bodies conflict with the views of the Secretary of State. Whose views are to override whose? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I cannot discern a pattern in the amendments from the Liberal Democrat Benches which, effectively, are to put a further hurdle in the way of the Secretary of State being able to issue guidance to the mayor about the exercise of the authority's general power. I feel that, although in certain cases consultation will be desirable, it is for the Secretary of State to determine what guidance he or she issues. The requirement that those listed in the amendment plus everybody in Clause 27(3) should be consulted before any guidance is issued on any item by the Secretary of State seems to be a curiously onerous one. Consultation of the assembly and the London boroughs raises exactly the kind of constitutional issues, to which the noble Baroness referred, as to who should prevail in those circumstances. It is not normal, where the Secretary of State is issuing guidance, for that to be laid down in this way and certainly not where the scrutiny part of the authority to which the guidance is being issued is involved.
The power to issue guidance is a safeguard against the misuse by the authority of the general power that the Bill provides. The guidance will ensure that the interests of all the various elements listed will be recognised and protected. However, to go through the formal business of consultation on every piece of guidance under the general power places an unnecessary burden on the Secretary of State exercising his appropriate powers in relation to this new authority. I do not support the amendment, therefore, and ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: Yes, this is a hurdle, because it seems that, quite literally, there is to be one law for the Secretary of State and another for everybody else. That is one of our objections.
I thought that the Minister was going to say that it is not normal for the Secretary of State's wishes to be overruled, whatever other people's views. He did not actually say that, but that might have been an implication. Again, I make the point that we are not happy with the balance here; we do not agree with the Government that it is the appropriate balance. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 85 to 87 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Limits of the general power]:
[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 16, line 6, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 90 stands in my name, those of my noble friends, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. The amendment seeks to leave out paragraph (b) of Clause 26(7).
This amendment seeks to prevent the authority doing anything that the Secretary of State orders it not to do, subject to the affirmative procedure under Clause 325 of the Bill. We are aware that it is intended that it will be a reserve power for the Secretary of State so that, as the DETR's memo to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee said,
"if [the authority is] encroaching on [the activities of other] public bodies, the Secretary of State could restrict or remove its power to do so".
That seems to assume that every encroachment would be entirely unjustifiable. We believe that the Secretary of State is given far too much freedom by this provision. The DETR's memo also used the example of the present framework being too restrictive to exercise the general power effectively.
Perhaps the Minister can explain whether anything on the face of the Bill will limit the Secretary of State's power to prevent the authority doing things. This is a hugely wide discretion and, whatever the intention, to keep such a wide discretion on the face of the Bill is "inappropriate", to use a polite word. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My name too is attached to this amendment. Clause 26(7) permits the Secretary of State to prohibit the GLA doing anything that can be done by a London borough, the common council or a public body. That is an excellent concept—no poaching, no empire building and so forth. We would prefer the clause to say that the Secretary of State should prevent the authority from doing any of those things and interfering with things that the London boroughs or the common council could do. However, the second part of the clause, which this amendment addresses, adds the words,
"which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order".
In other words, the Secretary of State can cherry-pick which acts of poaching and empire building he will permit.
Why does the Secretary of State want powers to permit, or at least not to ban, encroachment on the activities of the boroughs of the city and public bodies by an ambitious mayor or assembly? If they do such a thing, what is to stop the councils continuing their lawful activities, thus producing a case of too many cooks?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, gave the reasons for the Liberal Democrat Party wanting to table this amendment, which it tabled just ahead of us, and we were glad that there was space for us to add our name to it. It is sufficient to say that we fully support this amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: When we debated Clause 25, the Minister was taking slight advantage when he accused us of "schizophrenia" in our attitude to that clause. But

719
the truth of the matter is that this Bill is itself schizophrenic. To the extent that this Bill is the Government's Bill, the Minister will forgive me if I tar him with the same brush. I am more inclined to think of pots and kettles than I am of schizophrenia.
If one reads Clause 26(7) and what we say should be removed when we have considered the full import of it, it will be seen that we are dealing with an extremely serious matter. Clause 26(7) says,
"The Secretary of State may by order amending this section make further provision for preventing the Authority from doing by virtue of section 25(1) above anything …
(b) which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order".
In other words, Clause 25(1) says,
"The Authority shall have power to do anything which it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes",
subject to the Secretary of State's opinion under Clause 26(7)(b). That is a completely open restriction. It is a complete power to negate Clause 25(1). It may be that it is a reserve power. But others with experience of local government will understand why some of us have a natural hesitancy about reserve powers.
In any event, if we consider other similar powers in this Bill, this one—to use the words the Minister used on the Local Government Bill—is the "nuclear option". Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 71(5) give the Secretary of State power over the budget because he can alter the constituent parts of any budget calculation and he can alter the rules for making any calculation. Under Clause 80, he can specify a minimum budget for the police. Under transport, he can specify what action shall be taken to deal with anything that he considers might be inconsistent with national policies or that might affect outside areas. He can control transport for London under Schedule 18. He has virtual power to control road user charging under paragraph 16(2) of that schedule.
Under Schedule 19 the Secretary of State has similar powers over the workplace parking levy. In further clauses, he has powers over the future London Development Agency. Under Clause 267(5) and (6) he can deal with any planning matters that he considers inconsistent or affecting outside interests. Under Clause 283(4)(b), he can have a strong influence on what happens with regard to waste. Clause 284 is similar.
Therefore, as one goes though the Bill, it is clear, clause by clause, that the Secretary of State actually has huge power over the detail of what the GLA may do, to say nothing of a little later clause, with which we have not dealt, which says that he can in fact virtually set its budget. I have always held the view in local government, in government—or, indeed, in Europe, for those who are rash enough to get into it—that, if you control the money, you actually control everything.
I submit very seriously indeed that, if this paragraph were to be removed from the Bill, it probably would not affect the Secretary of State's power to control the GLA at all. However, having read out all that detail, if Members of the Committee were to consider that, perhaps they might also consider that to accuse us of being schizophrenic is passing strange
720
I have to repeat that I think this paragraph could well be removed from the Bill without, shall we say, damaging the Secretary of State's ambitions in the slightest. Indeed, if we were to remove it, we might even do something to further the putative mayor's ambitions. Certainly, any mayor would be glad to see this removed.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I note that both Front Benches opposite support the amendment, although it seemed to me at times that they were doing so for diametrically opposite reasons. I believe that the. noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is trying to ensure that there is some degree of flexibility for the Secretary of State which might, in certain circumstances, involve encroachment, whereas the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, seemed to suggest that there should be no such encroachment and that by deleting the paragraph there would be provision for limiting the encroachment yet further. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, further confused me, which was probably the intention of his intervention, in that I believe he missed the word "and" in Clause 26(7) between the two paragraphs (a) and (b). He also referred to Clause 26(1), which really relates to the relationship between the GLA and its functional bodies and not between the GLA and the London boroughs, which is dealt with in Clause 26(7)—
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I do not think that l referred to Clause 26(1); I believe I referred to Clause 25(1).
Lord Whitty: In that case, I apologise to the noble Lord.
I return to Clause 26(7)(b), which provides for the Secretary of State to intervene to specify specific functions of the boroughs, the City or other public bodies which the GLA cannot provide. That is to ensure that the GLA cannot, if it seeks to do so, duplicate the statutory functions of those bodies. Clause 26(11 to (3) specifies the functions on which the GLA cannot incur expenditure.
The list is not exhaustive; nor is it intended to be. We want to give the authority the widest possible scope to co-operate with other authorities and to ensure that London gets the best quality services. Some of that will be achieved by co-operation, with the GLA delivering some of those services. We also believe that it is necessary to give some of those other authorities the reassurance that, where the GLA did seek to intrude into matters which were their responsibility without their agreement, the Secretary of State would have the power to add further functions, and the functions of further bodies, to the list set out explicitly in subsections (1) to (3).
If subsection (7)(b) were removed, it could—somewhat perversely from the point of the Liberal Democrat approach to the matter—remove the Secretary of State's discretion to specify functions which were so affected. It would leave him with the power only to make a blanket order which would prevent the GLA from doing anything which might be done by the boroughs or other bodies. That seems to me to change

721
what was a relatively subtle provision that would take account of the circumstances into something approaching the noble Lord's "nuclear option". It will be specific functions where arguments arise. Therefore, the Secretary of State does need the powers to intervene to specify those specific functions where there is some conflict between, for example, the GLA and the London boroughs. Deletion of paragraph (b) would remove the ability to specify those functions. I do not consider that to be appropriate.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am a trifle puzzled. Therefore, before the Minister finally leaves this amendment, perhaps he could clarify a few points for me. Clause 26(7) specifically refers to the Secretary of State's power to make an order to prevent the,
"Authority from doing by virtue of section 25(1) … anything",
and so on. It does not refer to Clause 26, which deals with the various functions that the authority may not undertake because they may be undertaken elsewhere; nor, indeed, Clause 26(7)(a), which deals properly with the matters which might be carried out by the borough, the Common Council or a public body.
I have no difficulty with any of that. My problem with Clause 26(7)(b) is that I read it specifically in relation to Clause 25(1). If one reads paragraph (b) in relation to Clause 25(1), it is clear that it is, in effect, an absolute power to negate that if the Secretary of State should choose so to do. To say the least, that is passing peculiar.
Lord Swinfen: Clause 25(1) appears to give with one hand, but exactly the same seems to be removed, with the other hand, by Clause 26(7)(b). It is illogical; indeed, it does not make sense.
Lord Whitty: That is one way of describing it, but it is not illogical because powers given in legislation are often limited by subsequent clauses. That is precisely what is happening here. Clause 25(1) gives the general power and Clause 26 sets out limits to it. Indeed, Clause 26(1) to (3) specify the general power and Clause 26(7) states that the Secretary of State may specify a particular function of those authorities.
Some limitations are set out in the first few subsections of Clause 26, which limit Clause 25(1). This then gives a further power to the Secretary of State to specify a specific function of an authority where there is clearly conflict as to whether or not the GLA should undertake that function. If we were to remove the ability to specify a function, all the Secretary of State could do would be to issue a blanket limitation rather than specify the issue which was at stake.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry to keep harping on this subject and I trust that Members of the Committee will forgive me for doing so. However, if one reads Clause 25(1) in conjunction with Clause 26(7)(b), and bears in mind what the Minister said, it seems to me that we are in fact being invited to legislate completely blind because we simply do not know what this means. These two clauses of the Bill are potentially mutually
722
opposed; in other words, they are mutually opposed dependent on the views of the Secretary of State. I think that that is an invidious position for this Chamber to be in in a matter of this significance. I have the greatest difficulty with this situation.
Lord Whitty: I refer to the point I made earlier; namely, that the noble Lord has missed the word "and". Clause 26(7) refers to preventing the authority from doing anything which may be done by a London borough council etc. and,
"which is specified … in the order".
In other words, the Bill refers to a specific function which would otherwise be carried out by a London borough or other public authority. Clause 26(7) clearly limits the general power, as I have indicated. It limits it in the specific area of an activity which is being carried out by,
"a London borough council, the Common Council or a public body".
It does not therefore take away the general power; it limits it in those particular circumstances. Clause 26 (7)(a) and (b) have to be read together.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I return once more to the fray. If the Minister is giving me an absolute assurance that Clause 26 (7)(b) is relevant only to Clause 26 (7)(a) I shall be happy, but my fear has been that that is not the case.
Lord Whitty: In my reading of the Bill the word "and" makes the position clear. If there is any further complication, I shall let the noble Lord know.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sure there is plenty for us to read there. Given that the Chamber has filled up with people who I suspect are more concerned to discuss the police service than the Greater London authority, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Police Service
7.41 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure the continuance of a professional, impartial and accountable police service, with high morale.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a couple of years ago I was at an FBI conference in Norway when during a presentation a Dutch police officer said,
"In Heaven the cooks are French, the lovers are Italian, the police are British, and the Germans organise everything".
He continued,
"In Hell the cooks are German, the lovers are British, the police arc French, and the Italians organise everything".
I have to say that I remembered that and it made me feel proud to be British, at least as regards my policing background. I also think that although we should not stereotype or generalise there is more than a grain of truth in the quotation.
Noble Lords will note that the Question I pose assumes that we have a police service that is professional, impartial and accountable, with high morale. I believe that to be the case. We need a police service which is professional. The work society asks it to do is becoming more and more demanding. I am sure that there is common agreement on that.
Professionalism of course requires high standards of training. I believe that we can be proud of the training in the police service in this country, but that is not to be complacent! I remember talking to a friend of mine who had taken over as chief of police in a medium-size town in New Mexico in the USA. I had advised him to get out and about with his staff in the first instance to get the feel of the department. He went out in a patrol car with an officer who had two years' service. A shotgun was strapped to the passenger side of the dashboard. My friend Jim tried once or twice to release the firearm to examine it but he was unable to do so. He then asked his driver, who was embarrassed at having to confess that he could not help my friend as no one had ever shown him how to release the firearm. That is commonplace in the United States. There are some good, well trained police forces and there are some badly trained departments. Unfortunately, unlike Britain, there are no national standards.
In the last few years of my service as a police officer I was a governor of the police staff college at Bramshill. I well remember attending meetings of the Police Training Council. I came to the conclusion that it is all well and good having national standards together with standard training packages, but with autonomous chief constables it is sometimes difficult to persuade some forces to accept those nationally agreed training packages. I therefore ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that there is sufficient power to impose national training standards where necessary? I also believe that the public of this country wish to retain the single high standard of policing that they are used to, and are not prepared to accept substitute, second tier public or private patrols, which certain chief constables are flirting with. In the long term, experience abroad shows us that differing levels of policing lead to lower standards, rivalry and in some cases corruption. If your Lordships doubt this, they should look at what happened recently in Belgium.
An impartial police service is an essential ingredient of any liberal democracy. By impartial I mean answerable under the law and free of any political control. Again I believe that the record in this country is good. Unlike the United States, we do not have, nor in my submission do we want, elected police officials, or indeed judges for that matter. We saw -in the Pinochet extradition case the consequences of allegations of partiality against those involved in the judicial process.
724
I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that with all the constitutional changes taking place with this reforming Government there is no intention of politicising our police or our judges.
Impartiality also requires that particular favours are not given to particular groups. A couple of years ago I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in another place on the question of Freemasonry in the police service. I have seen only one case of abuse which comprised a man indicted for murder who managed to influence a fellow masonic member on the jury to get the verdict reduced from murder to manslaughter. He got six years. When he came out after three he quite naturally bought the juror a drink, saying, "Flow you got that verdict reduced I'll never know". "It was damn difficult", said the juror, "They wanted to acquit you!" Justice will always out. To be serious though, will the Minister confirm that any policy developments which would create a compulsory register of masonic membership would apply equally to all other components of the criminal justice system such as Crown prosecutors, magistrates and, most importantly, judges?
The Question also refers to an accountable police service. In a sense the police are accountable in three ways. First and foremost they are accountable to the law. In this democracy no one is above the law because we do not live in a police state, and Icing may that endure. Thankfully we rarely read of police officers transgressing the law and being dealt with, regardless of rank, by the courts. Secondly, the police are accountable to their elected and appointed police authorities, although sometimes I wish that police authorities exercised their responsibilities far more firmly on occasions. Finally, they are accountable through Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary to the Home Secretary, who in turn is accountable to Parliament. In the case of the Metropolitan Police, for the moment the Home Secretary is the police authority.
I suppose that for the average citizen the most obvious method of calling the police to account is through the police complaints system. I have to say that in my experience, in spite of the widespread scepticism, the system is thorough, fair and impartial, if not a little long-winded on occasions. It seems to me that it is the Police Complaints Authority itself which is not accountable in many respects. I think of an inquiry in Humberside recently which lasted six years and cost £4 million but at the end of it not one officer had been charged or disciplined. A murder inquiry would have been focused, subject to financial constraints and reviewed independently on a regular basis.
With PCA supervised inquiries, the on-going costs are not borne by the Police Complaints Authority but by the police force being investigated. Bearing in mind the blight on police careers and health which such long-running inquiries cause, will the Minister consider reviewing the procedures in Police Complaints Authority controlled and supervised complaints with a view to speeding up such inquiries and thereby reducing both costs and anguish to police officers and complainants alike? A mechanism for an independent review of investigations would also be helpful. It can be

725
in nobody's interests for police officers to be suspended and investigated for six years with no subsequent proceedings.
Sir William Macpherson's report into the Lawrence murder recommended that disciplinary action be available for at least five years after retirement. Where an officer is in prison for a serious offence, the Home Secretary already has power to reduce his or her pension. Can my noble friend say how many times this power has been used over the past 10 years? I believe that it would be wrong to attack an officer's pension in discipline matters; it would simply encourage the police to opt for private pension schemes and therefore be discriminatory. Police officers contribute 11 per cent of their salary to pension provision. Such a measure would be devastating for morale.
Perhaps I may suggest another way of satisfying the clear public disquiet about officers escaping discipline by retirement. Recently I read of a military case where the officer concerned was recalled to service and dealt with as a serving officer. That perhaps is a solution in this case.
Earlier this month the Inspectorate of Constabulary published a report into integrity and corruption in the police service. Among other things, it recommended that police chiefs practise what they preach. That is good advice for all of us. I remember well a few years ago a deputy chief constable in Durham who used to enforce rigid discipline for minor matters against junior officers while accepting lavish gifts and perks himself. Justice was eventually done and he had to resign.
I have pointed to the disquiet—not least by chief constables—about officers retiring and thereby avoiding discipline. Yet we saw recently a chief constable under suspension doing the very same thing and retiring with his pension. Similarly, we saw the former Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland, Robert Turnbull, retire under a cloud two years into a five-year contract, mislead his police authority and then take a lucrative post as Deputy Commissioner in the Turks and Cacos Islands. When questioned by the local media in the north-east, he told the people of Cleveland—who, incidentally, are paying his pension—that it was none of their business. We will never achieve integrity in any organisation if we apply dual standards. Are not these examples of exactly what Her Majesty's Inspector is talking about? They should indeed practise what they preach.
I have touched on police professionalism, accountability and morale. We all have a responsibility to see that the model of excellence we have in this country endures.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Imbert: My Lords, it is particularly opportune that the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, should ask this Question today, although even he could not have had any idea of the extra demands that were to be placed on police officers on Friday last in the City of London Police area. We have also today woken up to the news of the disturbances which took place in the early hours at Stonehenge, where many people planning peacefully
726
to celebrate the summer solstice were prevented from doing so by many hundreds of unruly and aggressive individuals. Such is the description of some of those who took part that I wonder whether we had common practice in both of those demonstrations.
The Question asks what steps the Government are taking,
"to ensure the continuance of a professional. impartial and accountable police service, with high morale".
I believe that one of the immediate actions that could be taken on the first of these points is a promise that a close look will be taken at the Riot Damages Act 1886. It may not be generally realised but the cost of the wide-scale damage caused by that mob on Friday afternoon is likely, under the provisions of that Act, to fall upon the City Police. That, added to the cost of having every available City police officer on duty on Friday, together with the cost of several hundred Metropolitan police officers, will ensure that, without the grant of extra finance, police coverage of the City area must subsequently suffer in manpower terms.
It is the duty of chief officers, in consultation with their police authorities, to decide how to distribute their budget between manpower, equipment and other requirements. The budget settlement is particularly tough on all chief officers. We are aware that, of necessity, because of the budget restriction, police numbers in both the Metropolitan and City areas—and indeed in other areas of the country—have fallen over the past two years. Unless something is done, police cannot, in such cases in particular—and, indeed, generally— continue to give more for less on an annually recurring basis.
As to the matter of an impartial and accountable police service, I can do no better in the few minutes available than touch again on the problems of Friday afternoon. The police strategy was to facilitate a peaceful demonstration; where but in a democracy such as ours could you find that being done so impartially and fairly? Sadly, all police attempts to negotiate a route or site for the demonstration were rejected; and the use of the Internet to advertise the demonstrators' intention to reclaim the streets, brought people from across the country—and, indeed, Europe—to take part in the disruption. I was in the City late on Friday afternoon and I was surprised by the number of foreign languages coming from many of the demonstrators.
There will of course be an investigation into the whole affair and police, accountable as they are, and the Police Complaints Authority will ensure that all complaints made will be properly investigated, and do so with thoroughness and integrity.
One of the difficulties of getting to grips with police morale issues—indeed, with any morale issues—is perhaps the difficulty of defining what we mean by it. Often it is simply the feeling that no one cares; that everyone criticises; and that however much you try, no one seems to appreciate you; the awful feeling that no one is on your side. Morale to me is like integrity; it is difficult to define exactly but you know when someone has not got it. My dictionary defines morale as,
"the degree of mental or moral confidence of a person or group".

727
I think the key word is "confidence".
Recent events, particularly the findings of the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, have marked a watershed for the UK police service. We have witnessed criticism on an unprecedented scale. Not only were junior officers battered and bruised by the inquiry but also, arguably for the first time, were our most senior officers. Your Lordships have already debated the report on the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry and I will not go into its recommendations. But is it any wonder that such a report and its conclusions about the murder inquiry and institutional racism—within the Met in particular, in the police service as a whole, and in society generally, when we might previously, and honestly, have believed that we did not have even a smidgen of racism in our bodies—were an enormous blow to self-esteem, to morale and to confidence?
Yes, things are sometimes depressing; yes, the police service has been taking a battering; yes. it does seem on the face of it that people do not understand what an enormously difficult and not infrequently dangerous job policing is. But, dare I say it, the police service has been subjected to such criticism before. Now we must go on the offensive. The police service must continue to earn and deservedly take the high moral ground. This is not the time to hide lights under bushels. I hope that the Government's pledge to strengthen police ability to tackle our crime and disorder problems will be translated into action and will not be mere rhetoric.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, my theme in this short speech is that the Government should take as few steps as possible in relation to the police service. Over the past 20 years, government interference with the police service has undermined police professionalism, morale and self-confidence. In the early 1980s, the disgraceful use by the then government of the police service for political ends—to deal with the miners' strike—was disastrous for the image and the self-image of the police service, both as an impartial enforcer of the law and in terms of providing support for the weak against the strong and for victims against oppressors.
In succeeding years the treatment of the police service as a business entity and the failure to comprehend the public service ethos meant that we were subjected to a succession of trials by business consultants, culminating in the disaster of the Sheehy report, which is largely responsible now for the poor pay and conditions of young constables and the inevitable difficulties of recruitment. As a result of constant nagging by the then Government, requiring the police service to behave like a business, management consultancy firms advised us, at enormous profit to themselves, on our corporate image and culture. Endless hours were spent concocting mission statements and codes of conduct and further endless hours promulgating them to the force.
In the wake of the Lawrence inquiry, the police are hiring management consultants to examine the culture and ethos of the Metropolitan Police. However, the defects in police culture and the current state of demoralisation are all too plain to see. There is no doubt
728
about the professional standards required. They can best be met by leadership and example from within the police service by all ranks—from constable to commissioner.
A perfectly adequate mission statement for the Metropolitan Police was written in 1829 and remains relevant today. Robert Peel said that the police constable,
"will be civil and obliging to all people of every rank and class".
These days we would of course add the words "race" and "gender". Robert Peel added:
"Particular care is to be taken that the constables of the police do not form false notions of their duties and powers".
That is also something we would echo.
The Government's role should be to encourage and support the police force as it struggles to re-establish its morale and self-confidence. It is only through recognition by the police service of where it has strayed from its proudest traditions and the principles laid down by Robert Peel that change and resolution of current problems will be achieved.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, on the opportunity to debate this issue. We have much to he proud of in our police service. The operational independence of the police is an important bulwark of our democracy but the police are also a public service that is publicly accountable. Many thousands of dedicated and brave police officers uphold the rule of law and provide public protection, but that does not mean that we have to suspend all our critical faculties in relation to the police service.
We are living through one of the few periods this century when crime is falling. Recorded crime has fallen in each of the past five years and by 8 per cent in the past year. This is a good time to tackle some systemic issues affecting the police.
Although everyone gets a warm glow from suggesting more bobbies on the beat, that does not necessarily reduce crime. The Audit Commission demonstrated that unfocused patrolling is a waste of public money. It has been shown also that there is not a great deal of correlation between police expenditure and police effectiveness, which is why police leaders and the Government are right to move towards more intelligence-based and targeted policing. Concentrating on prolific criminals and crime hot spots is a major way to drive down crime. I personally welcome the £50 million anti-burglary initiative announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in April. which will target police efforts in areas that suffer the highest levels of burglary and benefit more than 2 million households.
The police cannot be expected to fight crime on their own. The Government are right to pursue local crime partnerships. The provision for them in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has been greatly welcomed by the police. Those partnerships have made major contributions to more than 400 local anti- crime strategies and plans, which will help the police to work with their local communities.

729
There are, however, some darker corners that have to be tackled. Police officers at all levels recognise that and the Government are to be congratulated on their willingness to face up to some of the corruption, racism and shortcomings in police disciplinary arrangements that have been identified. The small number of corrupt police officers do enormous damage to the public standing of the police. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Paul Condon, deserves great credit for his uncompromising approach to rooting out corrupt officers. The new police disciplinary procedures, which came into force in April, make it more difficult for corrupt or incompetent officers to shelter behind antiquated procedures.
The report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry set the police service and the rest of society a great challenge. There are currently only about 2,000 black and Asian officers at constable level, out of nearly 100,000 officers. There are only six black or Asian superintendents out of more than 1,200 nationwide. That has to change. In April, the Home Secretary set challenging new targets to recruit and retain more black and Asian officers. I am sure that he was right to do so and we should all support the Government and the police in achieving those targets. They are crucial to convincing members of the ethnic minorities that we want a tolerant and fair multicultural society.
We have to recognise that we are living through a period of change for the police. Many officers are responding positively to the need for change. They require our encouragement and support. This Government have got the essential balance right—a strong supporter of the police but at the same time a constructive friend who can help the police to adapt to today's world. I hope that my noble friend agrees.
8.5 p.m.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, I put my name down to speak on this timely Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, to make only one point—one that is already familiar to Home Office officials and Ministers and to senior police officers, and which has been made by implication by the noble Lord, Lord Warner.
There is an enormous range across the country between different police forces and different regions, not only in the nature of the problems they face but precisely in professionalism, integrity and morale. In a good force, it is difficult for malpractice to take hold. When it does take hold in a force or in what is sometimes known as a firm within a force, it can be extraordinarily difficult to eradicate.
It is difficult to praise the police too highly for that which they do for us all as members of the public, when they do it well. It is equally difficult to be too critical when they let us down. It would be naive to pretend that there are not individual serving officers in whom or parts of certain forces where malpractice and corruption are to some degree entrenched.
A figure that was submitted to the Royal Commission that sat between 1991 and 1993, which I imagine has not changed, showed that more than 70 per cent of
730
arrests depend on information from members of the public. That figure stuck in my mind because it is an effective reminder of the extent to which the police, if they are to carry out their duties, depend on the confidence they command among the public in the localities they serve. Could the Government do more in public relations terms—I am sure that no members of the House would be backward in estimating the quality of public relations that the present Government are able to deploy when they choose—to combat the stereotyping of the police to which the media and public are all too prone?
It is far too easy, when individual and sometimes senior police officers fall far below the standards that we expect, for the whole police service, the whole Met or a particular regional force to be tarred by that brush.
When I hear criticism of the police from individuals or acquaintances, or when I read it in the media, sometimes it reminds me all too well of things that I learnt when the Royal Commission was sitting, about what can happen when things go wrong within the police. Much more often, I wish that those critics could have my experience of spending between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. in a city police custody suite on a Sunday morning. Anyone who does that would be a little less ready to generalise from the misbehaviour of some police officers to the police force as a whole.
The overwhelming majority of serving police officers go out day and night, seven days and nights a week, to do an extremely difficult and demanding job. I can well remember how cross I got with Sir Patrick Sheehy, when he and I had informal discussions in 1992, about his extraordinary view that police officers were merely engaged in a slightly special kind of civilian employment. It is nonsense, and the point has been effectively made.
Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government are doing, and will do, everything that they can to prevent the stereotyping of the police force across the board simply because of some episodes which we all deplore and which we all hope to see stamped out?
8.10 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I have spoken with a large number of police officers. The overwhelming message that I received was: "We could do better, but increasingly we are being used as a political football by one or other minority group, and the highest level of the service is caving in and not responding in a robust way". In every case the viewpoint was that the law-abiding citizen was losing out. Increasingly, crime and particularly crimes that individuals fear most—burglary, street robbery and mugging, theft of and from motor vehicles, vandalism and unsociable behaviour—will occur, because police officers are disengaging. If that is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, I am worried.
Recently, the Metropolitan Police issued every officer with a glossy brochure entitled, Leading Principles. That is all well and good. But for various reasons, many copies of it went straight into the waste paper basket. There were those who tried to establish why so much

731
money had been wasted on that and other unnecessary internal publicity. The service would rather see action by example than receive politically correct leaflets.
Inexperience of day-to-day policing by some who serve in senior positions has clearly badly affected decision-making at the highest level, with an adverse affect on morale. Advisers to those officers are said to bring the necessary information, experience and wisdom to enable informed debate. But very often, the advisers are themselves inexperienced high-flyers, who might, in order to bolster their personal ambition, suppress that which they know their principal will not favour.
Morale has not only been affected by operational matters and political correctness being applied; it has been further eroded by the service-wide policy in respect of sickness and injury. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a theoretical example. A police horse rider is considered to be exactly the same as a civilian horse rider. If the horse throws the rider due to a lorry passing too close and the rider is injured, that is not—I repeat not—an injury on duty. If the injury has not healed after six months, the officer is at risk of being placed on half pay. That leads to officers not having the incentive to apply for some of the riskier areas of their job—why volunteer when there might be a potential financial penalty? Interestingly, as a complete non-sequitur, there is a belief that ethnic minorities will not join the present service.
It is a shame that time forbids my even touching on other aspects, let alone being able to expand upon the few that I have mentioned. I shall conclude by mentioning some remarks attributed to Sir Joseph Simpson, when he was Commissioner of the Metropolis. He is said to have remarked that the Met was lucky in comparison with other forces, in that it has no local paper to take it to task and to be taken into account when determining day-to-day policy and activity. After all, national newspaper headlines are largely forgotten the next day. That has all changed in the intervening years. and the media or media driven pressure groups have a great deal to answer for. They concentrate on bad policing and conveniently forget that bad policing occurs very rarely.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, on introducing this debate. It is not unnatural that the police force runs the risk of developing an inferiority complex. That is not because it is inferior—indeed all the evidence indicates that our police force equals the best in the world. But when, day after day, television programmes imply that there are deficiencies in the police force, when, every day, newspapers exaggerate slight matters to draw attention in a sensational way to the police force, it is not surprising that emotions run high.
But that is where leadership comes in. It is for those who lead the police force to be conscious of that all the time and to be doing something about it. It is for the police to be proud of their great successes. to make those successes widely known and to concentrate on them. For
732
instance, there were the recent arrests as a result of the painstaking detective work at Omagh. What a fine tribute that is to the police. Although we talk of what happened in London and at Stonehenge in a way that seems slightly critical of the police, I do not think that in either case that is justified.
However, I am slightly worried about whether we are doing enough to protect the police, whether sometimes we are putting the police in invidious positions. If we knew, as we did, that the situation in London on Friday evening would be difficult, did we do enough to protect the police? I ask noble Lords to cast their minds to die city of Brussels. Over and over again, because of its general European responsibilities, Brussels suffers almost continual violence and riots over one matter or another. The city seems better prepared for them. Water cannon are used extensively to disperse violent and angry crowds. Whether we have sufficient resources to do that kind of thing in parts of this country at present, one cannot be certain. But if, as we heard forecast earlier today, there is likely to be an increase in this kind of activity, it is essential that the police are given the proper resources to respond to it.
I want to turn briefly to police morale in a different sense. Members of the police force retire at a relatively young age. It must go through the minds of policemen, "What am I going to do when I reach retiring age? Am I just going to take my pension? Am I just going to grow roses? Or am I going to get a further post? Am I going to be able to get a skilled and rewarding post—not just financially but also intellectually?". One of the difficulties for policemen who retire is that, lo put it colloquially, they do not have a piece of paper. They would do better if they had some qualification that they could provide to employers to give them confidence that these were skilled policemen who had taken further education seriously. In the area where I live in Oxfordshire I am a governor at the local Oxford Brookes University, and mindful of that, I have held discussions with the Thames Valley Police about what might be done to "provide a bit of paper" for policemen who work within that force. It seems to be going well. I commend that possibility to other forces throughout the country and hope that that kind of activity will have Home Office support.
8.17 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, earlier this afternoon, two juxtaposed Statements reminded us of the two kinds of police forces that are possible in a society. We had a Statement on Kosovo, where the police force has undoubtedly become an instrument of state repression; and we had a Statement on the disturbances in the City of London, where yet again our police force demonstrated its capacity to be the guardian of public safety and of law and order.
In this debate, those who have spoken about the police have demonstrated an understandable, defensiveness. I still think that in Britain the sight of a policeman coming round the corner is reassuring for citizens; and that should be reassuring for the police

733
themselves. I do not believe that there is the crisis of public confidence in our police forces that some speakers seem to imply.
However, there are issues that should be addressed by both police and politicians. There is a need to root out the so-called "canteen culture" which tolerates both racism and sexism. Neither can be tolerated. Such bigotry destroys morale within a force and destroys the trust between the police and the public they wish to serve.
I was interested in the statements by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, on freemasonry. I tend to agree with him that the police service should not be singled out, but I do not believe that freemasonry has a role in our police force.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about ethnic minority recruitment. It is 17 years since in another place I questioned the appalling level of recruitment. Nor can high morale or public respect be retained if there is corruption. Corruption must be rooted out at all levels: any policy of zero tolerance should start there.
I turn to the heart of the debate, whether there is a crisis of confidence and whether it is justified. If it is, then poor management and under-resourcing are almost always at the root of low morale. That is why we have supported drives both to improve efficiency and for a bold approach to funding. We believe that the Government must face the fact that, according to research by the House of Commons Library, the total amount spent on police funding from central government during this parliament will not increase. As the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, indicated, that has resulted in cuts in the number of policemen. Nearly 800 have gone since the general election.
A debate on the future of police patrolling and ideas for increasing the use of private security fly in the face of public opinion. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, if the Government believe either will appeal to the public, I suspect we will see how sadly mistaken they are if they pursue either of those routes. The public want their police force well trained, well paid and using the latest technology. A point which came out in a number of speeches is that they want the police to communicate. Whether or not they call it "public relations" is a matter of taste, but the public want a transparent partnership with the communities which the police serve. That is not political correctness; it is common sense.
Crime and fear of crime continue to be high on the agenda of public concerns. The public rightly expect the Home Secretary of the day to take responsibility. The buck stops there. The present Home Secretary, whom I have known for over 30 years, has always had something of a Robespierre about him. Sea green incorruptibility is not a bad virtue in a Home Secretary. But it must go hand in hand with vision and leadership if we are to achieve those desirable dual objectives of a police force with high morale in which the public have confidence. As for the police, they must communicate. They still have a great deal of public confidence. The
734
noble Lord, Lord Warner, was right to say that we should not be afraid of a debate about how we preserve the best and root out the worst in a police service in which we can all take pride.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, for asking the Question this evening. He rightly started by saying that police work is becoming more and more difficult, as we all recognise. The police are, of course, vital to our society in the fight not only against criminals and crime but also against anti-democratic forces such as have been apparent in the events of the past few days in the City of London and at Stonehenge which we discussed earlier this afternoon.
Given its importance to our society, we should be concerned by current trends. Cuts in police numbers were referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Imbert and Lord McNally, and the related problems of resources. The problem of resources is bedevilled by the problem of paying for pensions. That needs to be sorted out as soon as the Government can do so.
The Question refers also to impartiality, which is an extremely important element in the British police force and indeed in any acceptable police force. That is particularly so now that the concentration is on racial matters. We have debated that at some length and I have spoken on the Lawrence Report and other matters and I do not wish to pursue it this evening.
The Question also refers to accountability. It is true that the police are first accountable to the law, but they are also accountable to the police authorities which control the individual forces. They are accountable to the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and hence, through the Home Secretary, to Parliament. But there is also the police complaints system. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, about the problems of delay. There is also the Audit Commission, which was criticised, by implication, by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, in some of the points that she made about the management consultancy approach. Nevertheless, the commission has brought out valuable reports on the police service.
Further, the police are responsible, as is every other employer, to the range of bodies which lean on employers these days, including health and safety and all the other regulations which apply to any employer. On top of that official accountability to numerous bodies, there is the huge pressure of the media. It is difficult, and quite rightly it worried several speakers this evening. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the arrival of a policeman on the scene is reassuring to the vast majority of citizens of this country. It should be a reassurance to the citizen. It is not something which people in other countries can take for granted. On the contrary, in many other countries we hear far more complaints about the police and far more dissatisfaction with police forces. We have a police force, a police service of which we can be proud in this country, although I do not wish to be complacent about it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, spoke of stereotyping of the police. Much of that comes from television drama series about the police which have

735
succeeded each other over the years, all the way back to "Dixon of Dock Green". They form most people's ideas of what the police do and are about. I do not suggest that any of the bodies to whom the police are accountable should be stood down. But I suggest we should recognise that the police are highly accountable to a large number of bodies.
I conclude with a sentence or two on one force about which I feel strongly. I am concerned about their morale at the moment. The Royal Ulster Constabulary is an important element in our police force for whom I came to have the highest respect in the two years when I was security Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. I saw a great deal of their work and visited all their divisions. I believe that their morale deserves to be given every encouragement and assistance. They have done a fantastic job over past decades in the interests of democracy and of decisions being made in a proper democratic way and not taken in response to the bullet and the bomb. My point tonight is simple: government and parliamentary democracy in Northern Ireland need the RUC and they need them to have good morale. There may come a stage when the threat has been reduced and changes can be brought about in the RUC. But we have not reached that time yet. Meanwhile, the RUC deserve every support from all of us.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am delighted that the Unstarred Question of my noble friend Lord Mackenzie refers to:
"the continuance of a professional, impartial and accountable police service, with high morale".
I have no hesitation in agreeing with him that we are lucky enough to have such a police service in this country. The overwhelming majority of police officers perform their duties in a professional and dedicated way. I know that my noble friend supports our efforts to put the right procedures in place to deal with the tiny minority of officers who fall below those high standards.
As my noble friend will be aware, the Home Affairs Committee in another place is currently considering police training and recruitment. We want to await its report before we decide what changes to make to police training structures. However, it is right that all those who have given evidence to the committee support the need for better defined national standards. My noble friend mentioned his concerns about the possibility of two-tier policing and private patrols. There are some jobs that only the police can do, but we believe that the community patrols and neighbourhood warden schemes can be good examples of how partnerships can work.
Many people have understandable concerns about the schemes, but we genuinely do not see them as a threat to the police. They can be of benefit to the community, and the work of neighbourhood warden teams is evidence of this. The schemes must be properly run and the wardens themselves appropriately trained and supervised. There is a demand for these schemes which are springing up around the country as we speak. We should recognise that fact and have a constructive debate about how we can make them work.
736
I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that the Government have no intention of politicising the police or the judiciary. A point was raised relating to freemasonry. Our concern is that members of the public who are worried that freemasonry may influence the outcome of cases in which they are involved should he able to find out whether those handling the cases are freemasons. That policy applies to the Police Service, the judiciary and the Crown Prosecution Service. Other parts of the public sector, such as the Probation and Prison Services, intend to apply the same policy in due course.
My noble friend is right that very long inquiries in complaints cases are damaging and counter-productive. The Home Affairs Committee made a number of recommendations in its report on complaints and discipline. We are implementing most of those recommendations, although some require legislation. But, however good our procedures, some of these cases will be complex and often have an intractable mix of criminal and disciplinary matters. My noble friend asked in how many cases in the past 10 years police pensions had been forfeited following criminal conviction. The answer is 18, and there are four cases currently under consideration.
We all share the horror of the noble Lord. Lord Imbert, at the events of Friday afternoon. As he said, we need to await the outcome of the investigation into those events before we comment further. I shall ensure that his concerns about the implications for the budget of the City Police are passed on to the Home Secretary.
My noble friend Lady Hilton referred to constables' pay. I agree that constables must be rewarded for the difficult job that they do, but we are not satisfied that their pay has fallen unreasonably behind other sectors. We are aware that sometimes local authorities have difficulty in recruitment, but currently there is no evidence of a shortage of applicants or a fall in the quality of recruits.
I am grateful for the comments of my noble friend Lord Warner about the need to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to targets for ethnic minority recruitment, retention and progression in the Police Service. These targets have been widely welcomed by senior police managers who are as anxious as we are to tackle this issue. I am also grateful for the comment of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, on the negative stereotyping of the police. I agree with his comments and the initiatives proposed by senior police officers, supported by the Home Secretary, to improve at national level the image of the police and, in particular, with regard to ethnic minority communities.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said that the police, in common with all organisations, had limits on the payment of sick pay. The ability of a chief constable to reduce pay after six months' absence is an essential management tool, but it is not mandatory. Chief constables can, and do, decide not to reduce pay if the circumstances dictate that this is appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to police funding. We are providing an extra £1.24 billion over the next three years. This will provide extra resources for frontline

737
policing, especially when taken together with the 2 per cent efficiency targets. After four years' cuts in capital funding, there are no planned cuts over the next three years. We intend to publish soon specific proposals on the future of police pensions. We recognise that that is a major part of police spending. Many police forces are already managing their human resources efficiently, linking that with better sickness management.
I hope that I have been able to cover most of the points that have been raised by noble Lords. I shall read Hansard thoroughly and, wherever possible, try to deal with some of the other more important points raised by noble Lords during the course of the debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mackenzie for giving us an opportunity to debate this important issue. As he said, the Inspectorate of Constabulary published its thematic report on integrity on 10th June. That report shows that, while there are areas of concern, there is also much good practice. An important theme running through that report is the need for effective leadership at all levels in the Police Service. That is why the Home Secretary has established a working party to examine selection, training and development of future police leaders.
I end by putting British policing in an international context, as did my noble friend. Our police officers have made a vital contribution to internal policing in Bosnia in the past two years. It is telling that our professional policing skills have already been called on for Kosovo. We can justly be proud of being world leaders in policing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.39 to 8.40 p.m.]

Greater London Authority Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 26.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 16, line 7, leave out subsection (8)
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 92.
Clause 26(8) is one of the shortest but most centralising restrictive clauses in this or any Bill. Amendment No. 91 seeks to delete subsection (8) which allows the Secretary of State to limit the authority's expenditure. The power goes beyond those over local government. It is untrammelled. No consultation or representation procedure is provided for. The restrictions can be imposed at any time, whatever the state of the authority's budget. The only safeguard is the requirement of parliamentary approval for those restrictions, but that is inadequate protection. The Government have brought forward yet another Henry VIII clause.
Clause 26(9) allows the Secretary of State to amend the clause by order to remove or restrict prohibitions or limitations on the authority's power. At present the clause restricts the authority from exercising housing, education, social or health services. Those limitations are an important part of the constitutional settlement of London government that the Bill proposes. They are important demarcations between the authority and the London boroughs and other agencies. The relationship between these bodies is set by it.
The restrictions also reduce the ability of the Secretary of State to play off the authority and the London boroughs against each other by threatening to transfer responsibilities to deliver services.
Subsection (9) undermines that. While any order would be subject to affirmative resolution, that does not encompass the significance of the issues and provide appropriate opportunity for parliamentary and outside scrutiny. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: On an earlier amendment, the noble Baroness stated that she was glad to add her name to our amendment. The roles are reversed in respect of Amendment No. 91. I am not sure that my name should have been added to Amendment No. 92. I think that there was some over-enthusiasm somewhere. However, we support Amendment No. 91 for the reasons I have given on earlier occasions. No doubt we shall return to them on further amendments.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: We are back to the fundamental difference. We believe that the Secretary of State needs to retain some powers to prevent the misuse of the authority's general power. The two amendments would deny future Secretaries of State the flexibility to lift or ease prohibitions that they considered no longer necessary. At the same time, they would remove the provision giving a reserve power to impose limits on expenditure.
Ever since we proposed the creation of the GLA, we have made it clear that the new authority would be small and streamlined in terms of staff and costs. We are clear that Londoners want a GLA which spends its money on services rather than on bureaucracy or functions which can best be provided by the other public authorities.
We need some reserve powers in this area. The Government will not be in the business of deciding how precisely the mayor will spend the budget. But if an irresponsible mayor funded a significant expansion of the GLA, or activities to undermine the position of other public authorities, or essential services were starved of funds as a result of those decisions, some reserve powers are needed. There are similar reserve powers in the remainder of local government. It would be wrong for London to be outside the regime for controlling local authority finances.
The amendment would remove any such reserve powers. I do not believe that that is what we had intended and what Londoners have indicated that they want. Clearly they are reserve powers and they would

739
be used sparingly. Nevertheless, I think that we need those powers. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister's answer is interesting. It is somewhat paradoxical. The Government are removing the capping elsewhere. It seems strange that that power remains. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Consultation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 16, line 14, leave out from ("Authority") to end of line 15 and insert ("considers appropriate having regard to the impact of the exercise by the Authority of its functions on all applicable interests")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 27(1) provides that the general power,
"is exercisable only after consultation with such bodies or persons as the Authority may consider appropriate in the particular case".
The amendment leaves out that generalised wording and substitutes consultation with those it considers,
"appropriate having regard to the impact of the exercise by the Authority of its functions on all applicable interests".
I wish to make two main points on the amendment. First, as drafted, the Bill refers to the exercise of the general power. The amendment deals with the exercise of functions. It may be a more appropriate point at which to consult. In one or two places in the Bill I have difficulty—I am sure that it is my failure and not that of the draftsman—in understanding the dividing line between powers and functions. The authority should consider in detail how its actions will impact on the various interests, and it should consult accordingly. The distinction between the amendment and the wording in the Bill is that the amendment does not leave consultation as an option.
I tabled the amendment in part because of the concern expressed by the CBI and the London Chamber of Commerce that the references to consultation with business in Clauses 27 and 34 are not sufficiently water-tight. On these Benches we take the view that the opinions of the business community are of great importance, but we do not consider that they should override the views of other communities. They are not to be overlooked or sidelined, but neither should they be paramount. I think that the Government take a similar view. We think that there should be less prescription, but we should ensure that, to the extent that the Bill prescribes how the GLA is to conduct itself, the matter is dealt with adequately.
The Committee will probably agree that the health of the city depends to a very significant extent on its business community. It is not just a matter of wealth creation; there are a number of other issues: for example, the environment will be affected. The use by business of transport for its own functions and for its employees could affect air quality, depending on the mode of transport used. The business community will have strong views on how well the transport system functions.
In the area of social development, the employees of any given business may well cover a range of salary and wage levels, and there will be implications arising from that. The management of any good business will understand the strains on its staff and their aspirations.
Business has a lot to contribute to the work of the bodies that will administer transport matters. I refer also to the police and the planning authorities.
The amendment is not confined to business interests. The authority should decide whether or not to consult the different interests that will be affected. That is central to the clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment attempts to exchange one form of words for a longer form of words without changing their meaning or. more importantly, their effect.
The mayor must consult those people whose interests are affected by the exercise of the general power. The provisions impose a duty on the authority to consult such people or bodies as it considers appropriate. The most obvious appropriate consultees are those whose interests are affected. The impact that the exercise of the power would have on those interests is necessarily one of the matters which the authority would have to consider.
The noble Baroness, in moving the amendment, referred to different interest groups that could be affected in different exercises of the general power. It is therefore integral to the consultation process that they are consulted. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: The amendment does seek to substitute one form of words for another. There are conventions in parliamentary drafting, but the words do not say that the authority "must consult". Therefore, reassured by the Minister's reply, although it is something we shall consider carefully, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 16, line 24, at end insert—
("() statutory bodies some or all of whose responsibilities are concerned with the whole or part of Greater London;")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment: No. 93, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 96, and to Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 which are grouped with it.
Amendment No. 93 seeks to provide that statutory bodies with responsibilities for London are also to be consulted with regard to the exercise of functions and, through the reference in Clause 34, the preparation of the strategies.
There are a number of such bodies which would normally be consulted by central Government. We believe that the authority should not have the way in which it approaches its work circumscribed or prescribed, but, if it is prescribed, we should ensure that the prescription is as effective as possible.
Clause 25 imposes duties on the authority to exercise its powers in various ways, including the way in which it achieves sustainable development in the UK. One of the consultees that I have in mind is the Environment Agency, which has contributed towards sustainable development as one of its principal aims. Guidance will require the use of an integrated approach by the agency towards achieving that aim.
We believe that the expertise that has been built up by the agency in this area makes it essential that it is consulted by the mayor in preparing the strategies. There is no other existing statutory body which covers the London area which has a duty with regard to sustainable development, and there is no other organisation that covers the breadth of the environmental issues encompassed by the Environment Agency's statutory functions. The agency is very clear that it should be consulted over the preparation of all strategies.
The Minister may say that, of course, the Environment Agency and other statutory bodies will be consulted, but given that the Bill is so long and so detailed, we are troubled about why statutory bodies are not included. The drafting fails to give guidance on consulting such agencies, and we think that they should be included in the list.
Amendment No. 96 is about the distinction between exercise of the power and preparation of the strategy. We propose that in determining the consultation under Clause 27(1) the authority shall have regard to the consultation undertaken in the preparation or revision of the applicable strategy.
We tabled the amendment because, although the power must exist before the mayor can prepare a strategy, before the power is exercised the strategy should logically be in place. There are provisions in regard to consulting on strategies and in regard to their preparation and revision; and the authority should not forget what it has been told in that exercise in any consultation under this provision. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My amendment No. 94 is grouped with this amendment and it is supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Thomas of Walliswood. Among the mayor's various duties is to consult on transport proposals. I am concerned particularly about the interests of disabled people, many of whom cannot get around on their own two feet. Therefore it is vital for them that there is a proper transport strategy throughout the Greater London authority area.
The local boroughs are required to consult organisations of disabled people and the mayor and the GLA are required to consult the local boroughs. But the boroughs may well have their own agenda and their advice to the mayor may therefore be skewed. They may be looking at their own small area rather than over London as a whole. The authority should have the duty
742
to consult with organisations of and for disabled people so that it learns what is required from those who need public transport more than anyone else.
Lord Quirk: This group includes an amendment in my name, No. 95, concerning the place in London of educational and training institutions. I must obviously justify my perception of the need to add yet another interest to those the authority will be obliged to consult before exercising the power conferred by Clause 25(1). And, since the educational and training bodies of my amendment include colleges and universities in which I continue to have an interested involvement. I should preface my words by declaring a professional interest; professional in that it is an interest directed solely at the advancement of education.
In the GLA Bill, both here in Part II and again in Part V, where the terms for setting up the London Development Agency are presented, it is insisted that various bodies and interests be consulted. Very properly so. It would be absurd if decisions could be made out of the blue that adversely affected, for example, the interests of the finance sector in the Square Mile, or which ignored the wealth-producing industries and businesses, large and small, which are located throughout the length and breadth of Greater London.
My amendment adds a sector of comparable importance. The field of adult education and training in London is vast; its assets are vast; its wealth-production is vast, its value-added component is vast. And vast too is the range of institution making up the totality; a range that embraces Imperial College (large, public and world-class) as it embraces RADA (small, private and world-class).
All this has a long and quite logical history for a capital city. Apprentice doctors were already learning their trade at Bart's Hospital a thousand years ago. The Inns of Court are not very much younger. attracting to London, as capital city, Oxford's and Cambridge's ambitious young men and turning them into ambitious middle-aged men. The city's mediaeval guilds ensured that physicians and lawyers were joined by apprentices in all manner of other crafts no one would dream of relating to the adjective "crafty".
And as the population increased in this centre of power and affluence, more facilities such as hospitals were needed and with them (staying just with the medical illustration) came the need for more medical schools to train more doctors. But such simple linear historical logic must then give way to other factors: critical mass, for instance, the phenomenon of momentum, and the urge of craftsfolk of excellence to co-locate with other craftsfolk of excellence. Still staying with the medical paradigm, London at the present time has a quantity and quality of medical expertise that cannot be explained in terms of population or wealth or political power. In this very year, 1999, of all the new dental surgeons due to qualify in the whole of England, one-third (32.4 per cent to be precise) will qualify at a London dental school. And of all the new doctors qualifying in the whole of England this year, well over one-third (37 per cent) will qualify at one or other of London's medical schools.

743
There are several other measures of how London's education and training clearly punch above London's size and population weight. And this figure of one third of the national total keeps recurring. The London institutions attract about one third of all the overseas students who come to the UK. These London institutions comprise likewise about one third of the whole country's blue skies research capacity. And London institutions provide far, far more than one third of what one might call "specialist expertise"—whether one is thinking of ophthalmology, human fertility or tropical diseases; or whether one is thinking of the advanced study of Slavonic, oriental or other exotic languages. Our concert halls help to explain the presence of our world-class music academies; our theatres, the peerless drama schools. A wit once asked where else could the LSE have conceivably been located than snuggling behind the roads connecting the Law Courts, Fleet Street and the Stock Exchange. Well, where else, one might similarly ask, should Beerbohm Tree and Bernard Shaw have located the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, now approaching its centenary under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough?
But it is not only for the great specialised professions that London acts as an irresistible education and training magnet. Leaving regretfully aside (purely through pressure from the clock at this time of the evening) the scores and scores of further education colleges which supply the needs of students in their hundreds of thousands, and which include the Camberwell College of Arts and the London College of Fashion.
Let me end with a few words about private-sector adult education in London. This is voluminous; it is especially attractive to overseas students; and it is of immense economic value to London and Londoners. One interesting example is Richmond College, a small private-sector university providing both a basic liberal arts education and also some more specialised degrees such as an MBA. Virtually the entire student body comes from abroad, and of course as well as being attracted by what Richmond teaches, and how, students are crucially attracted by where Richmond teaches it. This college is located in London because of our galleries, our theatres, our finance industry, our libraries. Our whole array of cultural opportunity is focused on London.
Here, then, is a thumbnail sketch of the educational and training sector glimpsed professionally, educationally, culturally and socially. Let me just add a word about the sector economically. The sector is a major landowner, with a major stake in property development and urban planning. It is a major employer, providing around 60,000 jobs directly, not counting the many jobs indirectly provided, for example, by firms servicing the sector. It serves around 800,000 student clients. many of them not Londoners but drawn to London by the sector's existence and excellence. The sector has a gross annual income of around £3 billion which, irrespective of its source, is virtually all spent in London. In consequence, the gross benefit to the London economy is huge. Indeed, it has been calculated that the university part alone of this whole education and
744
training sector contributes £4 billion per year to the London economy. That is no less than 4 per cent of London's GDP.
No mayor of London in her right mind is going to ignore a segment of London's economic life of such staggering dimensions. No member elected to a Greater London Authority, no member joining a London Development Agency can fail to be aware of its significance. So is this amendment perhaps unnecessary? That is not so because precisely the same could be said of the other vital interests which are already listed on the face of the Bill as requiring to be consulted. My amendment just puts the education and training sector on precisely the same footing.
And the Government may be assured that the mechanisms by which this sector can conveniently and efficiently be consulted are already in place. There are well structured representative bodies comprising the London Higher and Further Education Partnership. with data at their fingertips and relevant ties to the London First Centre, which of course enjoys DTI support. So I look forward to the Minister's response to these arguments which I have ventured to put.
Lord Renton: I wish to support Amendment No. 94, which has already been moved, briefly but convincingly, by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. Before I go any further, I should declare that I am a patron of the Greater London Association for the Disabled, of which my late wife, until she died in 1986, was the president. That is a body which has done very great work for disabled people in London. As London is the largest city in the United Kingdom, there are inevitably a large number of disabled people there.
It should be one of the concerns—indeed, a major concern—of the new authority for Greater London that the disabled should be a specific responsibility. Indeed, when the words,
"organisation of disabled and older people",
are used, one could very well insert the words,
"the Greater London Association for the Disabled, shortly known as GLAD".
Be that as it may, I believe that within the responsibilities of the new authority there should be a responsibility for the disabled. Therefore, I warmly support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may add a few words of support to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to which my name has been added. We are considering those who should be consulted by the authority in the exercise of its general powers. Unfortunately, a list of those people appears on the face of the Bill, as currently written. I say "unfortunately" because we all know what happens to such lists; people wish to continue adding to them. That is precisely what the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Quirk, quite justifiably want to do because we have the curious situation where representatives of different racial, ethnic and national groups should be consulted; representatives of different religious groups should also be consulted; bodies which represent

745
business interests should be consulted, but not bodies which represent organisations of disabled or older people.
It is not enough to say that such bodies could be included under voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of Greater London. The same could be said of all the other bodies which have been separately listed. Are the Government saying that elderly and disabled people, who, taken together, are more numerous than any of the groups given separate mention, are less important, or is their non-appearance in the list simply a manifestation of their lack of clout in the political process?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: Perhaps I may again speak briefly in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. One of the difficulties is that once one begins to list specific groups or categories of people who should be consulted, inevitably the list becomes endless and with very good justification one could add more and more groups. I am aware of that.
The Government started on that process in listing various groups and categories in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, has made the case extremely well as to why education and training interests should be listed among those which are required to be consulted. Only for reasons of time he passed very briefly over his reference to colleges of education. Later this evening I shall be moving an amendment which tries to give effect to the view that I expressed at Second Reading and that is shared by my colleagues, that the GLA should have strategic responsibility for further education. That fits very properly within the role of the GLA and more particularly the LDA, as regards all matters of further education and training.
Therefore, if we are to list bodies which are to be consulted, the interests which are very important not only to London but particularly to the GLA itself and its functions should also be included. For those reasons I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We support Amendment No. 93 moved very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We too on these Benches have been lobbied by the Environment Agency. There is no point at all in my going over the same points that the noble Baroness raised.
The only other point I make is that during Committee stage in the other place there were several amendments to Clause 27 which increased the range of organisations which the authority will have to consult. As other Members of the Committee have said, the list can continue to grow like Topsy. The fact is that, if there is a range of voluntary and other bodies which have to be consulted, as there is no corresponding provision for statutory bodies, this matter needs to be considered.
746
As regards Amendment No. 94, we also agree that it is very necessary, particularly because the various changes that are to take place concerning transport will have a bearing on disabled and older people. It is right that consultation should take place.
We have difficulty with Amendment No. 95, as drafted, simply because it refers to bodies which represent educational and training interests. We very much believe that, as those are matters normally dealt with by the boroughs, we do not want to come into conflict immediately.
When the noble Lord began moving his amendment in such an excellent manner he discussed at length adult education and further and higher education. We agree with that, but those organisations do not appear in the amendment as drafted, but simply,
"bodies that represent education and training interests".
The amendment might be just a little too wide. That is the only problem that we have with this amendment. If it were brought back in a different form we would most certainly support it.
Lord Whitty: Several Members of the Committee have pointed to the problem with this amendment. Once one begins listing matters, there is no end to the list. The reality is that Clause 27 provides for consultation with all appropriate persons and bodies in the particular case. The list subsumes quite a number of the other bodies which have been referred to. It is not exclusive because there is a general requirement.
It is our view that the interpretation means that it is inevitable that, as a result of this clause and Clause 34(2), where a general power is exercised in the preparation or revision of any strategy, the authority must—and I emphasise that word—consult those people whose interests are affected or bodies who represent those interests or a mixture of the two. In other words, these provisions impose a duty on the authority to consult such people as it considers appropriate.
The most appropriate consultees are the people whose interests are affected and those representing them. Therefore, in all those contexts, the authority must—I emphasise "must"—consult, among others, organisations representing the disabled, the elderly, education, training services, the Environment Agency and other statutory bodies in those situations where their interests are affected by the use of the general power or by the use of any strategies which are developed.
If we were to add to Clause 27(3) a whole range of bodies, that list would never end. It is best to define those bodies whose interests are affected by the strategy or by the particular power being exercised. Undoubtedly, representatives of the disabled and the elderly are subsumed in the title "voluntary bodies". That list is not intended to be exhaustive. Therefore, I do not believe that it is necessary to add to the list.
In relation to educational establishments, I concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, said. He made a strong case on the importance of the whole structure of the contribution of London's economy and employment. However, in certain aspects, their activities are not relevant to the activities of the GLA but, for example, they

747
are relevant to the London boroughs. We do not want to confuse the issue, as the noble Baroness has just said. There will be aspects on which the general importance will relate to only some of the particular strategies or the particular powers which the GLA shall be exerting.
The other problem in adding to the list is not simply the length of the list—although that would be a problem in itself—but that the longer the list, the more likely the presumption that all other bodies are thereby excluded. Therefore, what is intended by these amendments to be a move towards inclusiveness could be exclusive of other interests which have yet to be the subject of any amendment at this stage.
The amendments are unnecessary and, in certain circumstances, could be counterproductive. In all cases, the local authority must consult appropriate bodies and persons. Under that heading, all those that have been referred to in this discussion would be included.
In relation to the disabled and transport, there is particular provision in the transport provisions of the Bill for ensuring accessibility to transport systems within London. I believe that the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will be met later in the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. He spoke on a subject in which I take a great interest and about which I believe I know a certain amount. I also listened with care to the Minister's reply.
The Minister gave a classic reply—I have heard it many times before—that we must keep the list short, that it should be all-embracing and that those not included in the list will wish that they were and that they had asked to be included. One understands that that causes trouble.
However, it is not just that the authority may, in its decisions, affect the interests of the educational institutions. I would suggest that the authority will not be able to promote economic development and wealth creation, or to promote social development and the improvement of the environment without drawing on the resources of the educational institutions; in London. It is not a matter of simply not treading on their toes. If the authority does not consult such people, it will not use the resources of the area where the responsibility lies. I believe that the Minister's reply was not appropriate in the case of the educational institutions.
I have not been lobbied on this matter. I have a flat in London and live here for two or three days a week. I do riot know in detail how the institutions work in relation to local authorities. But I feel that this over-arching authority will have to draw a great deal upon the educational resources of Greater London. If it does not consult, it will not get on too well.
The Government should therefore reflect on this matter. It is an area where the authorities have to consult; they have to pick the brains of those who have the resources at their disposal. If they do not do that, they will not do a very good job. The Government should think hard about this amendment before the next stage because,
748
when Ministers read what the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, said, they will quickly see his point. It is an important matter.
Lord Renton: The Minister's reply seems to rely upon paragraph (a) of Clause 27(3), which reads,
"Those descriptions are— (a) voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of Greater London".
One has to read that in the light of what is set out in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). Paragraph (b) relates to bodies representing racial, ethnic or national groups; paragraph (c) relates to religious groups and (d) relates to business in Greater London.
If those three matters deserve to be specifically mentioned, surely the disabled need to be specifically mentioned. Can we be certain that the work of the Greater London Association for the Disabled would necessarily be covered by paragraph (a). It is a voluntary body and some or all of its activities have an effect, but the expression,
"the whole or part of Greater London",
does not necessarily relate to people, unless one has to imply that it means the people of Greater London. Let us leave no room for doubt in this matter. The work of the Greater London Association for the Disabled is so important that attention needs to be drawn to it, just as attention needs to be drawn to the interests of racial and religious groups.
It would clarify the situation and be a great advantage to have something along the lines of Amendment No. 90. It could do no harm and might be necessary.
Lord Swinfen: I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that 10.7 per cent or approximately three-quarters of million Londoners are disabled. There are probably at least twice that number who are elderly. It is a high proportion and there should be a specific provision on the face of the Bill that they and their organisations should be properly consulted.
The Minister was arguing against the Bill as drafted when he said that by producing a list we exclude those who are not on the list. But the Bill already contains a list. It is either a question of taking this clause and redrafting it completely or producing a proper list that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and myself—all of whom spoke to different amendments—and those who supported us from all around the Committee, except from behind the Minister. When we started he had no supporters behind him. He had been sent naked out into the world by his party without any support. So I am glad that he has someone to support him now.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Quirk: Perhaps I may return briefly to what the Minister said in his response to Amendment No. 95 I take the points that he has made and I shall study them very carefully. But I am afraid that there is no match between local authorities and the higher and further education sector. The latter—that is, the educational and training sector—cuts across all the London boroughs.

749
I should like to give the Committee just two examples. The University of Westminster is huge. It has major campuses in several boroughs. The London Institute, which is in Davies Street, is organised as a federation, including the Camberwell College of Art that I mentioned, and four others. Again, they are scattered across the London boroughs. It is precisely because the GLA is our opportunity to have an overarching body that I fear that the relegation of my proposal to local authority aegis simply will not work.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I hope that the Minister will consider most carefully what is being said. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, has made an absolutely solid case for the inclusion of educational interests, through to further, higher and adult educational interests, in a list. My noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have all made very solid cases in respect of the disabled and the elderly.
The Minister will recall the debate in Grand Committee in the Moses Room on the Local Government Bill, when I argued that the longer a list the more exclusive it becomes, rather than becoming more inclusive. I must admit that I find that this particular part of the Bill would have been perfectly satisfactory if subsection (2) had read something along the lines of the following:
"In determining what consultation (if any) is appropriate under subsection (1) above, the Authority shall bear in mind the service that it is considering and those who would be affected by it".
If that was where the list stopped, then of course every interest mentioned in all the amendments in this group would be included. We would not need to add this sector, that sector or, indeed, the other sector. The only reason that we need to add those sectors is because we already have so many sectors mentioned in the Bill. As I said, the longer the list, the more exclusive it becomes rather than becoming more inclusive.
Although I accept that Clause 27(1) gives the general authorisation, once that list is there in subsections (2), (3) and (4) it begins to make subsection (1) appear less and less significant. Indeed, one tends to lose sight of it. Therefore, there is a case for looking at the drafting of Clause 27 to see whether it would not be more inclusive if it had rather greater brevity.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord may be correct in certain hypothetical circumstances. However, those are not the amendments that we have before us; indeed, the amendments before us actually move in entirely the opposite direction. He is right to say that, in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I am relying not so much on Clause 27(3)(a) for saying that the elderly and the disabled are covered—although I believe that they will be covered for the most part by the inclusion of "voluntary bodies" in terms of their representative organisations—but really on Clause 27(1), which states that the Secretary of State may consider other persons or bodies if they are,
"appropriate in the particular case",
as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith just said.
750
Therefore I believe that both in terms of interests being affected and—to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy—in respect of the contribution, expertise and resources that they can bring to the development of London, the assessment concerns whether they are,
"appropriate in the particular case".
Certainly educational institutions, representatives of the disabled, representatives of the elderly and a long list of other bodies will qualify as being,
"appropriate in the particular case".
Any list may be susceptible to lobbying for additions. The bodies mentioned in Clause 27(3) are included as the result of a degree of lobbying. However, it is clear from Clause 27(1) that it is not intended to be an exhaustive list. At best it is an illustrative list. I believe that the inclusion of several additional items—as this group of amendments would provide—would add to the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, reminds me we have touched on before in a different context; namely, that a greater apparent inclusiveness actually causes exclusiveness. I believe that we should draw a line here knowing that a vast majority of other organisations ought to be consulted because they are appropriate in particular circumstances.
If we were to include everything that everyone has suggested tonight, at the next stage of the Bill we would have another half dozen organisations or areas of representation which need to be included. I hope that with the reassurances I have given as regards what Clause 27(1) means, the Committee will not pursue the amendment further in attempting to add to Clause 27(3). I hope that I have said enough to convince the Committee that at least at this stage we should not take the matter further tonight.
Baroness Hamwee: In the Minister's first response he said that—I think that I have written this down correctly but I shall check—the authority must consult all relevant interests. That is close to my Amendment No. 92A which we discussed in the previous group when the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made a similar point. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked an interesting question about whether the whole or part of Greater London is a geographic or a social description.
The general point that the longer the list the greater the presumption that other bodies are excluded is a matter with which I find some difficulty. It seems to me that if one starts on a list at all there is a presumption that other bodies are excluded. I suspect that this is a matter to which we may want to return at a later stage, not least because we all want to check precisely what the Government said in the first response on the obligations of secondary consultees, if I may put it that way. The Minister talked about local authorities having an obligation to consult those who are included in this group of amendments. I find it difficult to concede that local authorities would have a duty or even any role in consulting statutory bodies which advise central

751
government. I refer to further education and training in this regard. Much as we would like the boroughs to have that kind of link—
Lord Whitty: I do not think that I said that the local authorities—if by that the noble Baroness means the London boroughs—should have that role. We did not want to confuse the educational responsibilities of the London boroughs when we were talking about educational institutions because the GLA is clearly not an education authority.
Baroness Hamwee: I am obliged to the Minister for that explanation. I am sorry if I misunderstood him. Nevertheless, there is a lot of meat in these amendments. At the end of this fairly long debate I doubt that many Lords are satisfied with the outcome. However, for tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 94A:
Page 16, line 28, at end insert—
("() a London Civic Forum;")
The noble Baroness said: The Committee did not have to wail long for another proposed addition to the list. Amendment No. 94A seeks to add to the list a London civic forum. The authority is required to consider consulting bodies, as we have just discussed, and the amendment proposes that "a" civic forum—I stress "a"—is included in the list; I do not necessarily give the term "civic forum" an upper case "c" and: "f". It would not necessarily be the forum proposed by the development team working on this matter, although I applaud its work and acknowledge its assistance in preparing the amendment.
I do not suggest by the amendment that those involved should not be supported in what they are doing. However, I think that they, among others, would happily acknowledge that the objective of a civic forum is important and that their model may not be the only one, although clearly a lot of work has gone into it. I believe that the Government are ready to acknowledge that and, therefore, in part, my amendment seeks to encourage the Government to go rather further than they have so far in statements as to the role of a civic forum for London.
I am aware of the time. However, I believe that it is an important amendment. I shall try not to be too long-winded; on the other hand, it would not be appropriate to attempt to cut down what I have to say to only a very few words.
The genesis of the idea was the Scottish civic forum which has now been born, as it were—it was launched in March this year. I understand that consultation with the Scottish civic forum will be a part of the standing orders of the Scottish Parliament. The Green Paper which preceded the proposals for the GLA raised the prospect, quite rightly, of a new and inclusive culture for the governance of London. It was this that led to the first discussions about a civic forum for London. The
752
London Voluntary Services Council published a paper proposing a civic forum which was supported in many responses to the Government's Green Paper. The White Paper took the idea a little further, indicating that the Government were attracted to the notion and hoped that the mayor would work with them.
Those who have been involved with the proposal are concerned that the mechanisms in the Bill will not deliver the new and inclusive politics promised by the Green Paper; the novelty of one directly elected political personality dominating the Government. The Committee will readily recognise that that point resonates with us.
In another place there were discussions about the possibility of a permissive amendment with regard to consultation with a civic forum. We are proposing that amendment in Clause 37. The discussions dealt with, among other matters, the decline in trust in all forms of government and almost all politicians. Although the devolution agenda, in creating new institutions, goes a long way to addressing the issue, it cannot do so alone. A basic infrastructure is needed to allow and encourage political participation. A voice and presence is needed, particularly for marginalised groups. The earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, addressed that issue to a considerable extent. I regard those proposals as belated. We also need to allow for serious debate in a way that organised political parties do not always encourage as well as we might.
The question is asked: would not a civil forum comprise the usual bunch? It would be odd if the LVSC, the London Chamber of Commerce and the London Churches Group were not involved, but the proposed structure would be much more fluid and inclusive—very much cross-sector, cross-community. Although it may be a talking shop, sometimes one needs a talking shop.
The proposal would maximise the contribution of organisations of civil society to the governance of London and build on the lessons of partnership between sectors. Those lessons are not new. The London Pride Partnership has been going some time. I was a member of the LPP for a short while and a member of London First in its original form. There is a huge amount to be learnt by people in different sectors coming together and beginning to understand one another's constraints, difficulties, ambitions and so on.
The particular problem of London's minority ethnic communities has already been discussed today. I hate to generalise. The difficulty with trying to summarise such issues is that it can sound as though one begins to understand them. We have failed to include all members of our society, particularly in black and minority ethnic communities. The Black Londoners Forum works closely with those responsible for the current proposal.
We are proposing the amendment to address the need for consultation. It would not tie the hands of the mayor. I noted what was said about the mayor being obliged to consult. The proposal would also send a significant message about the importance of involving all parts of civil society in the good governance of London not just to mayoral candidates but to the whole community.
If the Minister is not attracted by the amendment at this point, I hope that we shall hear how the Government believe such a dialogue should take place, if not through legislation. We are not seeking to establish the forum through legislation, but let us hear how the Government can assist in dealing with what is widely regarded as a serious issue. I beg to move.
Lord Bowness: I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when she has moved an amendment that is so obviously motivated by good intentions, but it would be an enormous mistake to include this amendment on the face of the Bill. It is a consultation too far. If the mayor and the assembly cannot be trusted to work out how to carry out the inclusive consultation that is imposed on them at virtually every stage in regard to almost every function, in extraordinary detail, then the mayor and assembly will not be very useful.
Also, it is wrong to make an assumption that a civic forum for Greater London as a whole would serve the purposes outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. That makes an assumption about the nature of Greater London and the places that comprise it which I do not believe to be true. It may be that much more localised means of consultation with the communities and interests referred to by the noble Baroness would be far more appropriate.
We have to leave something for the mayor and assembly to decide. My worry is that the White Paper envisaged the assembly and the authority as a new type of political organisation setting out to achieve many of the points referred to by the noble Baroness. What are the assembly members, and the constituency assembly members—to say nothing of all the other organisations, voluntary bodies and borough councils around Greater London—for unless they are to go out and try to achieve some of those, albeit very worthy aims? I resist the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As my honourable friend the Minister for London explained in another place, our primary objective in establishing the GLA's structure and its procedures is that it should be accessible to the people of London and able to respond to and reflect their interests, needs and priorities. An essential means of securing that objective is to ensure that effective consultation takes place.
Londoners must be confident that their views about what the authority does, or plans to do, are taken into account. That is why we have included comprehensive requirements for consultation throughout the Bill, including the significant changes to the consultation procedures in Clauses 27 and 34 which were introduced during the Commons Report stage.
While considering those changes, we also considered the comments of the committee and others about whether or not we should require the authority to establish a civic forum or impose that duty upon it. We concluded that we should not. In our view, it would be wrong to place that requirement on the authority and so hamper the authority's discretion. The arrangements that the
754
authority makes to fulfil its consultation duties—and I stress the word "duties"—should be a matter for the authority to decide, not Parliament.
I cannot but agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. In fact, during the course of this short debate I occasionally wondered whether we had strayed into the first meeting of the assembly as opposed to determining the framework and the duties that would be imposed upon it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the provision in Clause 27(4), the specific power to make appropriate arrangements for undertaking consultations. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the authority could establish a civic forum if it thought that was the best way forward. The noble Baroness drew a parallel with the Scottish Civic Forum. At the time I was working as a Whip on the Bill. My recollection is that this was not imposed from the centre but sprang from the necessarily different work on, and background to, the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.
Therefore, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. It may well be that in the end the authority decides that this is the appropriate way forward, but we believe that ultimately the decision lies with the authority.
Baroness Hamwee: We talked earlier today about schizophrenia, although like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I believe the analogy of pots and kettles is rather better. It does not raise the kind of issues that I would not wish to raise in referring to a mental illness.
In suggesting that we may have strayed into something like a meeting of the assembly, the Minister put her finger on our concern. It is that the assembly is insufficiently strong vis-à-vis the mayor. That is one of our concerns that runs right through the Bill.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. I meant merely that the assembly is plural, that is what made me use the term "assembly" as opposed to the authority as a whole.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Baroness also said that the Government do not believe that the obligation should be imposed on the authority. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, although he may not have recognised it from the amendment, we believe that a great deal should be left to the mayor and assembly to decide. But if this is the model we have, which prescribes huge swathes of duties for the mayor and assembly, we need to respond to the model.
We take entirely the point that the authority should have a great degree of autonomy. We do not feel that logically it leads to us accepting what is put in front of us on the face of the Bill and not seeking other rules for it.
We believe that the Bill imposes a number of duties with which we disagree and that it fails to impose duties which we believe it should. It is an important issue and I am disappointed by the response. However, given this stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 95:
Page 16, line 30, at end insert—
("(e) bodies which represent educational and training interests")
The noble Lord said: As I said earlier, I should like time to reflect on the interesting points made during the debate this evening. Therefore, for the present, I prefer not to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Subsidiary powers of the Authority]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 17, line 1, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to delete Clause 28(2). The clause prohibits the authority from raising or lending money, except in accordance with the enactments relating to those matters.
We believe that the authority should have far greater financial autonomy than this model proposes. With the amendment, I seek to understand from the Minister why it is necessary, since there are other enactments, to make the provision in that form. Is it thought necessary that the precise provision is confined to the lending institutions so that we do not get into anything like the interest-swap cases of the 1980s? In other words, is it thought necessary to make it quite clear that such lending or borrowing, which is more of an issue, would clearly be ultra vires?
At a number of points we have made quite clear our concern about the autonomy of the authority vis-à-vis central Government. My noble friends and I discussed this matter during the dinner adjournment. I believe that it boils down to trust. My noble friend Lord Tope and I were members of the Select Committee which considered central and local government relations under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, some two or three years ago. I am not sure whether other Members of the Committee were also members of that Select Committee. It was no accident that the title of the committee's report was Rebuilding Trust.
Trust between different levels of government is, in our view, necessary in order that the lower tier of government—I do not use that term because I believe it to be any less important but because noble Lords will know what I mean—is given the necessary freedom for it to do its job with some imagination and a feeling that it is valued, with the opportunity to make the odd mistake but, while doing so, to flourish and develop. I shall not continue to make the same point given the time, but I want that point to be recorded in Hansard since it goes right to the heart of very many of our amendments. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Bowness: I read this subsection and the proposed amendment rather more narrowly. I assumed that it related to Clause 28(1) which itself poses certain questions that need to be answered before a view can be
756
taken about the amendment. The Explanatory Notes say that Clause 28 provides for the authority to be able to do anything which is incidental to the exercise of its functions, including its general power under Clause 25. The sidenotes, which I appreciate are not part of the law, describe them as subsidiary powers. However, Clause 28(1) is quite different and provides that,
"The Authority … may do anything (including the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of any functions of the Authority exercisable by the Mayor",
and so forth. The provision is not limited to incidental matters.
Bearing in mind that Clause 27 places limitations on the power given in Clause 25(1), one wonders what are the qualifications and restrictions related to this particular clause. To give but one example, the restrictions on Clause 25(1) were imposed but now appear to be removed. Is it being said that to facilitate any function of the authority, be it exercised by the mayor, assembly, or both jointly, anything can be done? If so, I find that hard to believe. However, that is what the clause says.
Lord Whitty: It may assist both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord if I relate Clause 28 to Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, with which they may be more familiar. That section provides that an authority,
"shall have power to do any thing … which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions".
This wording more or less reflects the terminology in the Local Government Act 1972. A subsection of that section of the Local Government Act makes it clear that that power is not a way round the local government financial regime; in other words, while the local authority—in this case the GLA—can do things which are not expressly within its power as long as they are conducive or incidental to its main purpose, that does not include measures which get round the financial regime.
We have said all along—we have heard arguments against it—that the GLA will be subject to the local government financial regime. Although by the deletion of that clause the amendment will not explicitly give wider revenue-raising powers to the GLA, by implication it casts doubt on or undermines the GLA's duty to comply with the local government finance regime. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that that is not our intention.
That is the genesis and intention of the clause. Were the second subsection to be deleted, we believe that that would undermine and cast doubt on whether the GLA was bound by similar restrictions to other local authorities. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bowness: If that is the safeguard that the Government seek to achieve, why is it not stated that that section of the Local Government Act applies to the authority?

757
My concern does not relate so much to subsection (2), but to what the authority can do. The limitations which flow from Section 111 are not necessarily to be read into this clause as it stands.
Lord Whitty: The powers in subsection (1) make it explicit that the authority, as with other local authorities, under the Local Government Act can undertake certain functions as long as they have a demonstrable relationship to its express functions. They cannot undertake anything outside that. There is some degree of flexibility, but still limitation. As regards the GLA, that includes the general power. I do not know whether that clarifies the position.
Lord Bowness: The explanation has made the position worse. Clause 25(1) enables the authority to do almost anything. Clause 25(2) is fairly wide. By implication, it suggests that the authority will be able to do almost anything anywhere to achieve those aims and objectives. I fail to see what limit there is. Indeed, the specific limits which we discussed under Clause 26 do not seem to apply to this. We have to rely on the Government's assurance that this is meant to be a reiteration of Section 111 and interpreted accordingly. With respect, it does not seem to say that.
Lord Whitty: As with other subsections between Clause 25(1) and this subsection, this provision modifies, clarifies or puts limits on Clause 25(1). This subsection makes it clear that we are treating the powers and finances of the GLA in the same way as with other local authorities, reflecting more or less the wording of other local authority legislation. It is no more sinister than that.
Baroness Hamwee: We shall read carefully what the Minister said. Perhaps I am the only Member of the Committee who, although familiar with Section 111, does not read it every night before going to bed. I shall read it with this clause. I am not sure that the Minister has answered my point. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Authority functions to be exercisable by Mayor, Assembly or both]:
[Amendment No. 98 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 98A:
Page 17, line 9, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c)
The noble Baroness said: Clause 29(1) gives power for any of the functions of the authority to be exercisable by the mayor alone acting on behalf of the authority, the assembly alone, or the mayor and assembly jointly. The amendment is very simply explained. We want the authority's powers to be exercisable by the mayor alone. Deletion of paragraphs (b) and (c) would mean that the mayor, acting on behalf of the assembly, would be
758
required to work together with the assembly. It would impose upon them a requirement of co-operation and would effectively prevent the assembly from taking any action which is counter to that proposed by the mayor, who will have been directly elected by popular vote on his own mandate.
The intention in creating the office was that the mayor should be an all-powerful executive and that the assembly should provide the necessary checks, balances and scrutiny. We cannot have the authority interfering with the mayor's functions or the strategies that he formulates. By leaving in "only by the mayor acting on behalf of the authority", as we propose, this emphasises our belief in the co-operation between the two and the division between the executive and the legislature. I spoke about this matter when we discussed whether the deputy mayor should come from the assembly or be elected. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I shall be equally brief because the amendment reflects the long-held difference of view between ourselves and the other Opposition Party. We still believe that the mayor should come from the assembly and be more accountable to the assembly. It follows from that that we therefore strongly oppose the amendment. We share the view of the noble Baroness that the mayor and the assembly should work co-operatively, and I believe that that will mostly be the case. However, I am astonished that the Conservative Party wishes to remove any powers at all from the assembly, given that there will be a mayor and assembly, and there is just a possibility that there will be some Conservative members on the assembly. I am surprised, even given its position, that it should wish to reinforce it in this way: it is diametrically opposite to our view and we cannot therefore support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: We are all agreed that the mayor and the assembly should operate co-operatively, but some differentiation in function is necessary. The Bill provides for the majority of the authority's functions to be executive functions to be exercised by the mayor, and that is entirely in accord with our vision of how the authority would work and the democratic mandate of the mayor. The assembly also has a democratic mandate, and it is right that the assembly rather than the mayor should exercise certain functions on behalf of the authority. For example, the assembly, after consulting the mayor, is responsible for the appointment of permanent staff to the authority. It is important to distinguish that staff from the personal appointments of the mayor.
Other functions flow directly from the assembly's scrutiny role. It would be a nonsense if, for example, the assembly's power to summon, which is specifically intended to enable the assembly to hold the mayor to account, were to be exercisable by the mayor alone. That is not a sensible outcome. There are other instances where perhaps the mayor and the assembly could jointly have responsibility, for example the holding of people's question time, because they are both accountable to the people of London. However, in general there needs to

759
be some differentiation in function. We do not therefore think that the mayor should take over all the functions of the authority, as implied in the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am sure that the Minister would not expect me to accept his explanation, although I understand why he gave it in the terms that he did. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Delegation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 18, line 11, at end insert—
("() the Assembly:")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 100, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 101 and 102. Clause 31 provides that the mayor can delegate to named individuals and bodies, or to a mixture, including any member of the authority. Amendment No. 100 seeks to allow the mayor also to delegate to the assembly. In tabling the amendment, I am again emphasising the assembly's lack of executive power. I have tabled the amendment to suggest that there may be certain tasks which the assembly could appropriately carry out, even with the divisions of responsibilities as the Bill provides. For instance, some of the consultation exercises could well be undertaken by the assembly.
If the Committee is puzzled as to why Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 appear on the Marshalled List, I am puzzled too. I queried whether I should be using the singular or plural in this context. I am aware that the Government are syntactically plural, but a singular body. I apologise for the confusion, because only one amendment should have been tabled. I do not mind which.
The point of the amendment is to probe whether delegation can be imposed by the mayor without the agreement of the bodies referred to. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, these amendments relate to the arrangements for the delegation of the mayor's functions. Amendment No. 100 would enable the mayor to delegate functions to the assembly. That would undermine the clear separation of powers we have proposed between the mayor—the executive arm of the authority—and the assembly, which will have a scrutiny and investigative role.
As the Bill makes clear, the assembly will question the mayor on the exercise of his or her functions, and will be able to summon people and papers to ensure that the authority's decision-taking procedures are open and accountable. But how would the assembly be able to scrutinise the exercise of the functions delegated to it by the mayor? It is unlikely that, on the one hand, the
760
assembly could exercise certain executive functions and, on the other hand, hold itself to account for the exercise of those functions. The amendment would inevitably make the authority's decision-taking procedures less transparent and less accountable.
Furthermore, the delegation of functions from mayor to assembly would undermine the assembly's autonomy. It would become answerable to the mayor for the exercise of those delegated functions. That would not be healthy for an accountable administration—the scrutineer would in effect answer to the executive, blurring the clear delineation of responsibilities which we have set out in the Bill. For that reason, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 100.
Amendment No. 101 would specify that the mayor could only delegate functions to a local authority with its agreement. That is certainly our intention. We do not want the mayor to be able to force local authorities to take on GLA functions where they do not wish to do so. I would therefore be grateful if the noble Baroness could withdraw Amendment No. 101 on the understanding that I shall give further consideration to the wording of Clause 31(1)(e). I shall of course bring forward an amendment at a later stage if that is needed to give full effect to our intentions.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that response in connection with delegation to local authorities. I thought it unlikely that the Government proposed anything other than that which the noble Baroness described, but I am concerned to make sure that in a very detailed Bill, some important detail is not overlooked.
With regard to the possible confusion between delegation and scrutiny, sometimes those are within the same body. In Amendment No. 100, I was not proposing that every function could be delegated. It would he for the mayor to choose and, as I say, there may be some functions which could appropriately be handed over to be exercised. However, I note what the noble Baroness said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 18, line 27, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly small amendment which deals with Clause 31 yet again and, indeed, the power of the mayor to delegate the exercise of his functions. Subsection (4) states:
"Each of the following bodies, namely—

(a) Transport for London,

(b) the London Development Agency,

shall have power to exercise functions on behalf of the Authority in accordance with this section, whether or not they have the power to do so apart from this subsection and irrespective of the nature of the function".
This is a probing amendment to find out exactly what is meant or intended by that particular wording. It seems to me to be rather obscure because it seems to hold out the possibility that either Transport for London or the London Development Agency may have delegated to them by the mayor functions which are inappropriate

761
and nothing to do with that which they are normally expected to do. It was in the hope of gaining some explanation of what those words mean that I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for his explanation of the amendment. It may be helpful if I set out what we intend this provision to achieve.
Under Clause 31(4), Transport for London and the London Development Agency will be able to exercise functions on behalf of the authority, irrespective of the nature of the function. But they will only be able to exercise those functions which the mayor chooses to delegate to them and, of course, the mayor will be free to revoke any such delegation.
The purpose of this provision is to give the mayor some flexibility in running his administration; for example, the mayor might want the London Development Agency and Transport for London to work together on joint projects. A flexible power such as this is necessary to ensure that the mayor can deliver on his or her strategic priorities.
Of course, it is unlikely that the mayor would delegate functions to those bodies where there was no practical reason for doing so, or where they had little expertise about the function in question. If the mayor did make delegations which were questionable in some way, the assembly would hold the mayor to account and challenge the effectiveness of the arrangements that the mayor was seeking to put in place.
With that assurance as regards how the provision will work, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the explanation of what is intended. The noble Baroness has great faith in the ability of the assembly to find out all the funny little things which may go on under delegation arrangements and then to monitor them properly. I am infinitely sceptical. I shall study what she said and if we need to return to the subject, we shall undoubtedly do so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 18, line 40, at end insert (", subject to any contractual notice required")
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 105 run together. Amendment No. 104 adds to Clause 31(7),
"An authorisation under this section may be varied or revoked at any time by the Mayor",
subject to any contractual obligation. Delegation is always difficult. One can envisage a situation in which the mayor may delegate something to a borough such as a maintenance problem. The borough would then make a contract with a contractor to fulfil the specific function. At that point the authorisation under this subsection may be revoked at any time by the mayor.
762
This amendment is simply to make explicit that if contractual obligations are involved they must be permitted to expire.
Amendment No. 105 states that subsection (8) should be excluded. There is a very good reason for that. The subsection states that,
"any authorisation under this section shall continue in effect until the beginning of the next term of office of any person as Mayor".
The mayor is the mayor until his successor is elected. When the successor takes over he is the mayor. At that point the new mayor automatically has all the powers of the mayor. He has the power to vary or revoke automatically any agreement made by his predecessor. In that case subsection (8) is unnecessary. Therefore, it would be preferable for it to be withdrawn. That is the reason for that amendment. I look forward with interest to the response of the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am unable to give a positive response to Amendment No. 104, the purpose of which still seems unclear. It would require the mayor, in varying or revoking any delegation authorisation, to do so subject to any contractual notice required. Any contract entered into by the delegate of the mayor always remains the mayor's contract. Revoking a delegation will not affect the status of any contract already entered into.
The amendment is unnecessary. Clause 31 provides for delegation of the mayor's function subject to any conditions imposed that the mayor may decide. Any of the persons or bodies listed in Clause 31, including the deputy mayor, any member of the staff of the authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency and any local authority will therefore be well aware of the terms on which the mayor had decided to delegate functions to them.
It would be odd to place additional constraints on the mayor. As regards arrangements for delegating his or her functions, it will be for the mayor to decide how best to organise the authority's decision-taking structures.
As regards Amendment No. 105 the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will no doubt be pleased to hear that I agree that subsection (8) is unnecessary and could lead to practical problems if all delegations were automatically to cease on a new mayor taking office. I am therefore happy to accept his amendment. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 104, but, as I have said, I am happy to accept Amendment No. 105.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I feel a celebration is in order for Amendment 105. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her response on that amendment. It is quite something to "score one" so to speak.
On Amendment 104, I shall study what the noble Baroness has said. I entirely accept the right of the mayor to vary or revoke any of his delegation arrangements. However, I am concerned that, after he has made perfectly valid delegation arrangements, someone to whom a function is delegated may find that he enters into a commercial arrangement which involves

763
periods of notice and such matters. In fact, if that were the case, it would be entirely appropriate that some period of notice should be placed in that particular secondary contract. I shall study what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment 105:
Page 18, line 41, leave out subsection (8)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [General duties of the Mayor in relation to his strategies]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 19, line 26. leave out ("spatial") and insert ("London")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 106 appears to have attracted a long list in its grouping, but all the amendments are identical. About five minutes after I had thought that the point was worth debating, I began to regret it. We had to go through the Bill and discover in how many places "spatial development strategy" was mentioned. If one makes this amendment, it is necessary to amend the Bill.
The problem is the meaning of "spatial". The Collins dictionary refers to it as relating to space. Of course, we are talking about London's development strategy, but the Bill simply says "spatial development strategy". Development implies buildings rather than space and it also implies enclosure. I have some difficulty with that.
I then turned to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary where spatial is defined as,
"consisting of or characterized by space"—
that takes me no further forward than the Collins dictionary—"having extension in space" or consisting of space. Again, that chimes in nicely with the Collins dictionary. In the Shorter Oxford Dictionary I found the following:
"ideas which have been formed from a vast quantity of temporal and spatial experience".
It seemed to me that that was getting near to what is a spatial development strategy.
The real problem with spatial development strategy is that there is no conception or mention of spatial development in any of the planning laws. Everybody is familiar with the idea of a structure plan that could be a spatial development plan, a unitary development plan for a borough, or a local development plan. If one had a London development plan everyone would know what that was. However, a spatial development plan seems to be a difficult concept.
Therefore, I want to suggest to the Minister, quite seriously, that everyone may consider themselves back on terra firma, instead of slightly out in orbit, were we to change the word "spatial" to "London". With that in mind, I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I was looking forward to the noble Lord reading that long list of amendments; we would all have cheered at the end!
764
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in his amendment. The title of a strategy should reflect its content and to me "London development strategy" sounds like something the new London Development Agency should produce.
The term "spatial" may not trip off the tongue in this context, though it is increasingly used in planning circles, more perhaps by those involved in planning in the European context than locally, which is our experience. I hope that that of itself does not persuade the noble Lord it is a bad expression.
"Spatial" involves space or place and that is what the spatial development strategy will be about. I am sorry not to be able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
Lord Whitty: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, objects to the term "spatial". On his first tack his references to being in orbit suggested a Star Trek connotation. This has nothing to do with that. It is very much down to earth in relation to the use of space and place.
We make no apology for introducing a new term into planning law, which is precisely what we are doing. In this instance it could well be that insisting on the familiar could limit the intention of this part of the Bill. We are bringing in a new type of planning instrument for a new type of authority. The word was chosen advisedly and has some significance. It is the first time it has been used in English law, but it is important that we move in that direction.
The term is intended to embrace more than just the conventional development and use of land concepts, and should include the spatial—that is to say, the geographical—elements of transport, economic development and other strategies, bringing them together in one single comprehensive framework for London's future development.
As the noble Baroness said, this is not an unfamiliar term to planners, particularly those who have operated beyond this country. It is a term that is well understood in countries such as the Netherlands and Germany where "spatial planning" or similar terms signify an integrated approach to public policy. The results in many German and Dutch cities are there to be seen.
The term is now being used in our own draft guidance which my department recently issued on regional planning guidance—PPG 11. So we are moving in the direction of using this term more widely. The main purpose of the spatial development strategy would be to provide longer-term strategic guidance on the broad location of housing, industry, transport provision and other infrastructure. But it will also affect matters that are strictly related to the use and development of land, matters which may be taken forward outside the statutory planning system; for example, transport investment priorities and integration, road user charging policies or economic regeneration projects as a whole.

765
It is a new concept. My belief is that the noble Lord's amendment will narrow that concept and I urge the Committee to stick with the new, wider and I suggest more visionary view of how this should develop under the new authority.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which I shall study with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 19, line 36, at end insert (", and
() the health strategy prepared and published under section (The Health Strategy Group for London).")
The noble Lord said: The relevant provisions regarding the health of persons in Greater London are now included in Clauses 33(7)(a) and 25(4)(a) of the Bill. The former places a duty on the authority to carry out a health impact assessment in the exercise of its powers; the latter provides a duty on the mayor to promote improvements in health when considering the various strategies adopted by the GLA. However, the fact is that those clauses do not go far enough in the view of these Benches. Health, particularly public health, is an essential aspect of any strategy, whether it is for transport, planning or urban regeneration. Above all, it is highly relevant to tackling inequalities in the capital.
Currently, the Bill provides for a very wide variety of strategies. I do not need to adumbrate all of these; but clearly they include strategies for transport, for the London Development Agency and for London air quality. Why, in this context, should health be the poor relation and not have provision for its own strategy? What makes it so very different? Almost all of the strategies concerned require a variety of different agencies to fulfil them and health is no different.
Now that London has its own single London NHS region, it is surely highly desirable that there should be a strategy for health that can tie in with all the other strategies. Some 13 of the 20 most deprived boroughs in England are in London, with all that that implies for the health of the people in those areas. Detentions under the Mental Health Act in London are nearly twice as high as the national average; indeed, 42 per cent of all HIV positive adults in the UK live in inner-London and 40 per cent of Londoners live in wards that are among the most deprived in the country. Those are just some of the figures that are unique to London as a city. They show some of the unique health problems that London has.
The approach of the Healthy Cities project, co-ordinated by the World Health Organisation, has been to develop partnerships and joint local strategies between all local and other authorities that contribute to health. Without a strategy determined for London as a whole in this way, the task of achieving a healthier London will be made immeasurably more difficult. A health strategy is in fact already being drawn up by various partners in London. Why should the mayor and
766
the assembly not take a leading role in this effort? Without an amendment such as the one I propose, the GLA will be marginalised in the consideration of London's health.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has written to me today. Unfortunately, he is unable to be present this evening but has asked for his support to be put on the record. As we know, the noble Lord has a long record in public health in London. If government in London is genuinely to be joined-up at London level, as much as it is becoming at national level, then this amendment is very much needed. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments would provide for a health strategy group for London with the function of drafting a health strategy and advising the mayor on its contents. We have listened to a number of representations, both in the other place and from outside organisations, about how the role of the GLA in respect of health should best be expressed in the Bill. We brought forward a number of amendments on Report to sharpen the mayor's role.
The effect of those amendments is that health considerations will be a top priority for the mayor in discharging his or her two most important functions—the preparation of strategies and the exercise of the general power. For example, in deciding whether or not to exercise the authority's general power, the mayor must have regard to the effect that the proposed exercise of the power would have on the health of Londoners. If the mayor then proceeds to exercise the general power, he must do so in a way best calculated to promote improvements in the health of persons in London.
Similarly, in relation to strategies, the mayor must have regard to the effect which a proposed strategy, or revision, would have on the health of persons in Greater London. In addition, where the mayor prepares or revises any strategy, he or she shall include such available policies and proposals relating to the subject matter of the strategy as he or she considers best calculated to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London.
This framework will ensure that the mayor acts in such a way as to further improvements in the health of Londoners. In addition, because the mayor will have to have regard to the need to ensure that all strategies are consistent with each other—a provision, incidentally, which the noble Lord's Amendment No. 117 seeks to remove—there will be an integrated approach to health issues across the board.
I do not therefore accept the case for a separate health strategy. As we have explained, the promotion of health improvements will be taken into account in the exercise of mayoral functions. But as the mayor will have no executive responsibilities in respect of health services and major health service providers in London will be outside the remit of the authority, it would be misleading to require a separate health strategy to be produced. Similarly we see no need for a health strategy group to assist in the carrying out of that function.
However, of course the mayor would be free to publish a document and call it a health strategy if she or he wished to do so, although it would not be covered

767
by the provisions set out in Clauses 33 to 36. She or he could also convene an advisory group of health experts if this was thought to be appropriate, for example in the case that the noble Lord referred to; namely, involvement in the Healthy Cities project. But these are properly matters for the mayor to decide. We have sought to ensure that health concerns permeate throughout the strategy-making process. Therefore I feel able to ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for some of the olive branches and the interesting ideas for voluntary action by the mayor that were mentioned at the end of her response. Some of those matters are worth building on. Unfortunately, the problem with purely voluntary action is that it does not have that legitimacy which it would have if it were built into the primary legislation. I do not deny that a multi-agency strategy would be needed. Of course I note that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, in the context of fluoridation argued for a multi-agency strategy that works with regard to the key issues that affect every Londoner. I say "Amen" to that. I believe that it is very much the way forward.
We on these Benches do not think it is absolutely necessary that the authority should have responsibility for London's health in an executive capacity. We shall table an amendment later in the Bill which has that effect, but it is not an absolutely sine qua non of the Bill in order for the mayor and the authority to have the responsibility for making a strategy. We shall consider carefully in Hansard the noble Baroness's words and may well return to this matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 19, line 36, at end insert (", and
() the strategy for the River Thames prepared and published under section (River Thames Strategy) below.")
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider also Amendment No. 451 which sets out in detail the nature of the strategy that I suggest. These amendments express a wide strategy for utilising London's crowning glory, the River Thames, far more purposefully than has ever been the case before. The measure extends right across the whole spectrum of policies to provide that additional strategy for the River Thames. It includes in that transport, spatial development—if I dare say that after the previous debate—biodiversity, municipal waste, air quality, ambient noise, and indeed cultural activities too. In other words, it is all about the provision of a strategy for this wonderful waterway that we have the privilege of having in our great city, and indeed beyond.
In my submission, the River Thames could be much more effectively used as an activity of the metropolis. As far as I can see, there is no corresponding or complementary provision in the Bill and this is why I think it ought to be included. As some have suggested,
768
it is not intended that these provisions should have the effect of arrogating to the GLA areas of authority over which it is not entitled to adjudicate.
Nevertheless, the authority has a direct interest in seeking, with others, to draw together those diverse strands to give effect to the provision of a coherent approach. My amendment demonstrates the inter-relationship of policies relevant to those considerations. I believe that it contributes to the need overall to bring back, effectively, a public transport service to the river and to address issues affecting transport, freight and water.
I understand that the Government will argue—unless they have changed their minds since the matter was before another place—that there is no necessity for a document separate from the provisions contained in the Bill. I am aware that, inter alia, in Clause 264 and in the provisions of Clause 33, the mayor's duties include the promotion and encouragement of the use of the Thames; and that he will be obliged to address as part of his strategies issues of waste, transport, biodiversity and public access. It follows that if my noble friend can establish satisfactorily that those issues are comprehensively dealt with in the Bill, he will demonstrate equally that my amendment is otiose—but it is important to get that very clear assurance from the Minister this evening.
My concern, which has been expressed by the London Rivers Association—notwithstanding the reply that was given to a similar debate in the other place—is that the reply given by the Minister is not wholly accurate: that it leaves too much by way of discretionary powers. In my judgment, there is a clear necessity to provide a holistic strategy for the River Thames. Clause 33 provides for "the desirability" to promote the river, emphasising above all its transport role. Of course, that is of critical importance, but the river is also important in terms of enhancing civic and cultural qualities and as a resource for public amenity in the widest possible sense.
The difference therefore between the Minister in another place—and, presumably, my noble friend—and those who have suggested the amendment, is the need to reflect these powers as a statutory duty on the mayor to pursue a spatial development strategy. I remain unconvinced by the argument adduced by the Minister in another place that there is no need to translate this duty into the Bill. Apparently, the Government take the view that there is a need to avoid the risk of what is called "compartmentalisation" or "marginalisation" of Thames policies and that a separate strategy is not desirable. With respect, that represents an unco-ordinated approach, or at least the risk of providing an unco-ordinated approach, and the consequence could ensue that significant elements of policies affecting the river are overlooked altogether.
The amendment seeks to import into the Bill a specific Thames strategy and the strengthening of the LRA's consultative status. These are matters worthy of further consideration. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I tend to support the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. I will not

769
make a long speech because, if we continue to go at this speed, we shall be here for another 15 hours—and I do not think that is acceptable.
I add bridges for both foot and vehicular traffic to the features that the noble Lord said were so important to the River Thames. They will be much affected by the mayor's other strategies. It is tempting to have a special strategy for the river that combines its leisure, open air recreational, transport and other uses. I look forward to the Minister's arguments against the proposal, for I am sure that the Government are against it, so that we can decide whether to take this issue further. For the present, I think that we are all rather sympathetic to the noble Lord's ideas.
Lord Luke: Speaking entirely on my own behalf, I too support the noble Lord's ideas. About 18 months ago, I undertook a lot of research into the use of the River Thames—or its non-use, as I regret is very much the case these days. At least half the problem is lack of co-ordination between the various bodies concerned—the Port of London Authority, local authorities and so on. If the mayor has some strategy or authority—or both, he may get things done a great deal better. We will have the opportunity to return to this issue but I support the amendment in principle.
Lord Whitty: Like the noble Lord, Lord Luke, I recognise the importance of the river and the concerns that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis outlined. The Thames guidance, which is an annex to the Secretary of State's strategic guidance for London planning authorities, provides the current strategic framework for planning policies on the Thames. The mayor's spatial development strategy will in due course replace the regional planning guidance, and we make specific provision in Clause 264 for the SDS to cover particular parts of London, such as the Thames, in more detail—in at least the same way that the Thames guidance does. The mayor will be able to include in SDS policies a strategy for addressing the wide-ranging topics of the river's built and natural environment, its use in transportation and recreation, and the development of the river front.
Our intention is that the Secretary of State's strategic guidance will remain until it is replaced by the spatial development policy—at which point it will be open to the mayor to reproduce or improve on current policies relating to the Thames. That will be a matter for the mayor and is not something that should be or needs to be in the Bill.
In addition to the coverage that will be given to the Thames in the SDS, Clause 33 provides for the mayor to have regard to the desirability of promoting and encouraging transportation use of the Thames and other applications such as recreation and public access. Other aspects of the mayor's strategy include waste disposal, the biodiversity plan, and cultural and recreational use.
The Thames will be covered in a number of ways in the Bill as it stands and be considered in a number of dimensions in the mayor's strategy—particularly in relation to spatial development. There are distinct
770
advantages in that approach, which embeds policies for the river within other strategies rather than drawing them out into a separate strategy.
There is one particular reason for our avoiding compartmentalisation in this respect. By keeping the strategic guidance for the Thames within the ambit of the spatial development strategy, it will enjoy the benefit of the requirement that the boroughs' unitary development plans must be in general conformity with the mayor's planning strategy. A separate strategy for the Thames would not enjoy the same teeth when it came to securing the implementation in practice at borough level in relation to those boroughs with a Thames frontage. So the effect of this amendment could be that the Thames would in reality have less, not more, protection than it does now.
I hope that the noble Lord does not infer from my words that we do not regard the development of the Thames as a central feature for the responsibilities of the mayor. We do. But we do not believe that specifying a Thames strategy in advance in that way would be appropriate. I hope that he can, at least at this stage, withdraw his amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank my noble friend for his reply, although I am not entirely convinced. I feel that he is thrusting aside a gem of wisdom. But that is for him to decide. I am not convinced that this amendment would diminish the protection afforded to the Thames. However, I shall look carefully at what my noble friend has said and may well return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 19, line 39, at end insert—
("() Each of the said strategies shall include specific performance indicators and targets by reference to which it is proposed that the success of each strategy may be measured.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 143. Amendment No. 110 relates to Clause 33 which sets out the duties of the mayor in relation to his various strategies. The duties under the clause relate to review and appraisal and revising the strategies where necessary.
There is one important feature missing from this review and appraisal; namely, that the mayor, when formulating his strategies, should also publicly state what the performance indicators are under which the success or failure of the various strategies can be judged by the public. The objects of the strategies cannot be kept confidential. The targets of the strategies—the performance indicators—must be made public in advance. There is nothing very complicated, nothing very difficult for the mayor to comply with.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, tabled a similar amendment, with one variation, referring to Clause 25(1), which we do not like, as we indicated in

771
the recent debate. We believe that our amendment is correctly positioned. Otherwise, we should certainly have supported the noble Lord's amendment. Although the noble Lord is not in his place, I hope that he supports our amendment in spirit.
Amendment No. 143 jumps ahead to Clause 38. In subsection (2)(a) as drafted the mayor is required to include in his annual report an assessment of the mayor's progress in implementing his strategies. That is in line with the regime affecting regional development agencies, which are required to have measurable targets, which is presumably why Section 7A(2) of the 1998 Act is mentioned in the subsection.
So far, so good. The provision is entirely commendable—commendable, that is, as far as it goes. But it does not go quite far enough. Apart from his initial strategies as published by him, under Clause 33(2) the mayor is to keep those strategies under review—constant review, one hopes—and to revise them as necessary. The amendment merely makes it clear that it is the amended strategies that are the ones to he included in the annual report.
It may be suggested that that is obvious and that an amendment is not necessary in order for it to be done. However, what gives us concern is that, in reviewing his activities for the year for the purpose of publishing his annual report, the mayor's attention may be drawn to the need to amend a strategy. What we do not want to happen is for the mayor to be able to claim that the revision of his strategy came too late to be covered by the annual report.
The amendment does not cast an extra burden on the mayor, especially if he would be likely to meet its provision anyway. If the amendment is stating the obvious, then it clearly would not adversely affect the Bill and might simply be regarded as belt and braces. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: I wish to speak to this amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, which was not moved. I give an example of a similar situation on the railways with Railtrack. I should declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Railtrack is required to produce a network management statement every year which is similar to a strategy for the railways. One problem which many of us have found is to check in succeeding years whether the company has achieved what last year it said that it would achieve. One tends to find that the structure of the report has changed; the targets and the information may have changed. It is important to have a consistent measure of what has been achieved this year against what the company said last year that it would do. That could apply to many strategies shown in the document.
I have no comment on which of the two amendments is right, but I should be grateful if my noble friend could bear the matter in mind.
Baroness Hamwee: We have no quarrel—indeed, the opposite—with the notion that the authority should be careful in monitoring its progress. However, we are not enthusiastic about the Bill prescribing how it should do
772
so. It is a matter for the authority to decide how and what indicators and targets it sets to find its own mechanisms. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said earlier that there must be something left for the authority to do.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I wish to comment on the powerfulness of the issue of targets and indicators for the new authority. There is quite a lot of evidence from other spheres of activity, particularly in the environmental area, of the power of setting objectives and developing targets in order to assess performance over a period of time.
Alas, the politics of mayoraldom are such that we could see a wide variety of personal imprints being placed on the office of mayor over time. The issue that underlies the setting of objectives, targets and indicators, is that they can be tracked over a number of years and provide continuity of policy. That does not mean that we are "strait-jacketing" the political decisions that lie behind policy. It means that, in terms of the outcomes we seek to achieve by the implementation of policy, we can judge over time exactly how well we are doing.
The Minister should bear in mind that this is a mechanism that has been used successfully in a variety of places across government in the past few years. The biodiversity action plan, which is a unique institution in public life shared by the statutory and voluntary sector, is a prime example. It is also an example of how we can make government more businesslike. It is a technique that has been generally used by businesses in an effective way over a number of years. Perhaps we could press the Minister to think more clearly about how we might direct the authority and the mayor more clearly through requiring them, not necessarily to set objectives and targets, but to adopt a system of objectives and targets for the regulation of their business.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am grateful for the support from Members of the Committee on the other side. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, misunderstood. In general terms, I believe that she agreed with targets and so on, but Clause 33(2) provides that the mayor should keep under review each of the strategies mentioned and revise the strategies as he considers necessary. All we are saying is that each of the strategies should contain the specific performance targets. I hope that the noble Baroness may feel that she can support the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry if I used the wrong terminology. I believe that "authority" is defined somewhere as meaning "mayor and assembly" or "mayor or assembly". My point remains the same. I very much support the suggestion that any body which, as the noble Baroness mentioned, needs to look at its outcomes over a period, should have mechanisms for doing so. Those are likely to be performance indicators and targets; the terminology may be interchangeable. I simply use the term "mechanisms for monitoring and

773
testing itself". I believe that to be absolutely right. Throughout the Bill we have resisted the prescription applied by the Government, and we would be inconsistent if we did not make the same point in connection with Opposition amendments. That is the extent of my concern about the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments would require mayoral strategies to include specific performance indicators and targets against which the success of each strategy might be measured. Details of progress would be included in the mayor's annual report. We agree with the intention underpinning these amendments. Our White Paper said that,
"the Mayor would set a small number of clear benchmarks as part of each strategy, against which progress could be measured".
As my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London made clear in another place, we would anyway expect the mayor to set out a series of targets against which his or her performance might be measured, as is now common practice in local authorities and many other organisations. But, as the noble Baroness has already indicated, there may be scope for an additional requirement to establish targets to be included in the Bill. In that context we shall consider most carefully the points raised and the experience referred to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. As my honourable friend made clear, we need to consider exactly what such a requirement would mean in practical terms for each strategy, and what would be the most appropriate mechanism for reporting on progress. That consideration is now taking place.
I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Viewed from this side of the Chamber, we have been presented with a moving target. Noble Lords have referred to those matters that should be left to the authority, in some cases the Civic Forum, and those matters where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the authority determines whether targets should be required, as in this case.
We agree with what these amendments seek to achieve and hope to be able to return to the matter at Report stage with appropriate amendments. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am very glad to hear the Minister's response, and I shall certainly seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 19, line 39, at end insert—
("(2B) As soon as practicable after being elected or re-elected as Mayor. the Mayor shall prepare and publish a document to be known as "the Mayor's general statement" for the purpose of indicating how the consistency required in subsection (5)(b) below is to be achieved.
(2C) The Mayor's general statement prepared under subsection (2B) above shall contain a broad indication of the Mayor's proposals and policies for each of the strategies mentioned in subsection (1) above.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment can be described very briefly. It simply adds to the requirements for transparency and open government in Greater London. The effect is that after each election the new mayor must publish what we have called a general statement indicating two objectives of his period in office. First, he must indicate how he hopes to achieve the consistency between his various strategies that Clause 33(5) requires of him. Secondly, the indication just referred to must also show what the mayor's policies are for each of the strategies mentioned in Clause 33 which he has a statutory obligation to formulate and perform.
It will be noted that these indications are not the formal strategies themselves which the mayor is required to devise and publish. This requirement is to give general advance notice of those strategies. It is a kind of trailer, such as one gets at the cinema of forthcoming attractions. The advance notice will serve two purposes. First, on the commencement of the new mayoral term he shall (to use a tried and tested cliché) hit the ground running. Secondly, the mayor will have to acquire or retain office on the basis of policies which he will have thought out in advance and, presumably, will have included in his personal manifesto. There will be none of those comments beloved of politicians as an excuse for lack of clarity in their campaign promises, for example that they cannot give any details of what is to be done until they have had a chance to examine the books. The mayor will campaign on the basis of the manifesto. He will have no problem in producing a general statement of his proposals and intended strategies without delay after his election.
If the mayor's strategies and performance indicators are designed to make the mayor's successes and failures clear to the electors, the general statement will be an indication of how close his strategies are when he is in office to those promised while seeking election. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: As the noble Baroness describes, the document would be so close to the mayor's manifesto as to be pretty much the same. As regards the assembly's scrutiny role, or members of the public in their relationship with the mayor—we shall come later in Committee to the proposals for question time, annual reports, and so on—there is nothing to stop questioning of the mayor about the consistency of his action in office compared with the manifesto. Given the noble Baroness's ability to produce extracts from her party's manifesto speedily and authoritatively, I am sure that she will set a good example to her colleagues in the assembly.
Amendment No. 117 stands in my name and that of my noble friends, not because we object to the underlying notion in Clause 33(5)(b), which refers to,
"the need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with each other strategy",
but simply because we regard it as unnecessarily and over-prescriptive. Given all the other provisions in the Bill, I do not believe that the mayor could sensibly produce strategies which were inconsistent one with

775
another. If the mayor produces inconsistent strategies, and may be making a mess of the job, it is a matter for the assembly to scrutinise and criticise, and in the final event for the electorate.
The provision seems an example of the Government not trusting the ability of the mayor—whoever he or she may be—to carry out the job with a modicum of common sense and prospect of success.
Lord Whitty: I am puzzled by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with some of which I may agree. The amendment seeks to delete a provision designed to ensure that the strategies are consistent one with another. I am not sure whether that is a question of the balance of powers between the mayor and the assembly or between the mayor and electorate.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not being clear. I do not argue that the strategies should be inconsistent. I do not think that it is necessary to say so. If they look as though they will be inconsistent, what is the position of the assembly in scrutinising what the mayor proposes? The Government regard the need to act as a nanny as more necessary and desirable than we do.
Lord Whitty: Nothing in this provision dilutes the role of the assembly if it considers that the strategies are inconsistent. Surely it is better to put that obligation on the mayor in the first place. That is what the subsection intends. It means, for example, that environmental considerations have to be taken into account across the board in all the strategies. I should have thought that the noble: Baroness would welcome that. If, having been obliged so to do and having attempted so to do but not having succeeded in the eyes of the assembly, clearly it is up to the assembly to tell him so. I would have thought that the obligation of the mayor should be written in. The consistency of cross-strategies should be included. I could not, therefore, accept Amendment No. 117.
In regard to Amendment No. 110A, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that it is important that the mayor should communicate his or her policies and
776
intentions effectively. However, I do not believe that in this context we should be excessively prescriptive about the matter. The mayor will already have had to prepare and publish a range of strategies, a regular monthly report and an annual report. Those documents will provide the sources and scope for the mayor to set out the policies and explain how they fit together.
If the mayor wishes to do anything in addition, it should be a matter for him or her to decide. The communications policy of the authority will therefore be in the hands of the mayor. subject to the provision of the specific documents to which I have referred. In any event, the broad outlines of the policies will be clear to Londoners after the election of the mayor, because he or she will presumably have fought the election campaign on the basis of a manifesto which included clear policy strategies, at least in broad terms. Londoners will have made their choice at the polls on that basis.
It is not for us to dictate the communications strategy of the mayor because we would hope that it would be effective and coherent, and I am sure that all candidates will have that very much in mind. I think the amendment is over prescriptive, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am not sure that it is over prescriptive, but at twenty past eleven at night we have had a good debate on this issue and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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-two minutes past eleven o'clock.