HL Deb 21 June 1999 vol 602 cc653-73

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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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' 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.

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.

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 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 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 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.