Lords Sitting of 23 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.

Kosovo: Sexual Violence Report
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take following the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) Report on sexual violence in Kosovo.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the report of the United Nations Population Fund recommends a programme of comprehensive support for victims of sexual violence in Kosovo, both in the medium and the long term. The Government recognise the importance of this issue. To that end, the Department for International Development is funding programmes of activities in Macedonian and Albania for Kosovo refugees, implemented in co-ordination with a range of organisations, including the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the United Nations Population Fund, the United Nations Children's Fund, the World Food Programme and NGOs. The programmes aim to provide a comprehensive range of reproductive healthcare services and psychosocial support for Kosovar refugee women. The Government will consider the case for funding further programmes within Kosovo, based on an assessment of need.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Does she agree with me that young women and girls are vulnerable in the very best of circumstances, but that, in the aftermath of a bitter and vicious conflict, they are particularly at risk? Therefore, can she assure me that high priority will be given to safeguarding these young women and girls from further atrocities? Can my noble friend also assure me that adequate medical and counselling services will be available? When I say "medical services", I include such services as emergency contraception and facilities for termination where pregnancy results.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that young girls and women are particularly vulnerable in a post-conflict situation. It is for that reason that the Department for International Development has given a very high priority to ensuring that health services are restored in Kosovo. In the long term, we are looking to ensure that adequate services are provided in all areas of Kosovo, both in the cities and in the rural areas. However, in the short term, I am sure that my noble friend will understand that although we are trying to make sure that structures are put in place, it may not be possible to provide medical and counsel ling services in the range and of the quality that
916
we should like to see. But that is certainly part of our long-term aim. As I said in my original Answer, we have provided specific services in Macedonia and Albania.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the inquiry carried out by Dame Anne Warburton in Bosnia in, I believe, 1993 to 1994 is being drawn upon in this matter? Those conducting the inquiry gained a great deal of experience of the very particular problems of young Moslem women who have been raped and who can never face that fact.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are considering how the experience of Bosnia and some of the reports that emerged from that situation can be applied in the case of Kosovo. Some of the reports that I have read in relation to these issues are extremely distressing, but certainly some of the early comparisons show that, although women in Kosovo were held captive, they were held for shorter periods than was the case for women in Bosnia. However, that does mean that the trauma suffered by those women was in any way less.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether it is correct that the provision of emergency reproductive health supplies currently being supplied by IPPF and UNFPA will dry up in about five months' time? If that is true, can she give the House any details about how funding will be provided in the future and about the distribution of such items?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we are ensuring that adequate health services, including reproductive health services, are put in place. That is a funding priority. The Government recently announced an additional £50 million for Kosovo. We shall keep that amount under continual review. We realise that as refugees return and as we become more aware of ways of supporting refugee women and girls, we shall need to reconsider the projects that we are funding and the support that we are giving to NGOs in this area. As I say, we shall keep the question of supplies under review.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the report is horrific. As the Minister knows, there are several training programmes—one is under the auspices of the Council of Europe—to help to rehabilitate these unfortunate traumatised victims. Have the Government considered consulting the fine expertise of, for example, the Institute of Psychiatry in Denmark Hill, which is probably the finest institution of its kind in the world?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have funded the WHO which has in turn funded a mobile medical team which is considering mental health in this context. It is drawing on expertise from a number of different countries. I am not sure whether it has drawn on the expertise of the Institute of Psychiatry, but I shall be happy to find out about that and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the United Nations and other agencies

917
involved will bear in mind the marked cultural differences and the strength of the Kosovar family and clan system which may be helpful in avoiding unnecessary abortions?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we always try to ensure that we take on board the circumstances of the countries in which we work. The UN organisations have taken that point on board. One of our concerns is that despite strong family ties, women who have been raped have been reluctant to come forward because of the impact that that would have on their families. We need to work with both the families and individual women. Sometimes the culture and the family system make it difficult for such women to return. However, this is something that we are taking on board.

UNHCR: Former Yugoslavia
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is receiving adequate support and recognition for its humanitarian work in the former Yugoslavia.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) is the internationally designated lead agency responsible for co-ordinating the humanitarian response in the current crisis. We have worked since the beginning to try to support and improve its efforts. This support includes airlifts, truck convoys and provision of key personnel. The Government recognise that UNHCR will need more resources to carry out the tasks required of it. We are exploring with UNHCR what further help we can provide.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that encouraging statement of confidence in UNHCR which, apart from its work in Kosovo, has to support 22 million people around the world. Can the noble Baroness explain why British contributions to UNHCR seem to have fallen rather drastically from 1996 to 1998, from 53 million down to 28 million? Why do Her Majesty's Government prefer to make contributions in Kosovo in kind rather than in cash? Is this because they agree with the rather harsh verdict of the Select Committee on International Development that UNHCR failed to provide effective co-ordination or to prepare adequately for the present crisis in Kosovo?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I listened carefully to the figures which the noble Earl mentioned. The figures that I have show a fall from about 36 million to 25 million. I shall check those figures with the noble Earl. We have allocated £5.37 million to UNHCR in the form of in-kind contributions to deal with the immediate Kosovo crisis. There have been criticisms of UNHCR, particularly by the Select Committee but also by Oxfam.
918
UNHCR recognises that it did not perform well, particularly in the early stages of the crisis. The UK Government's position has always been clear; namely, that UNHCR is the lead agency in charge and we have offered it whatever support we can to ensure that it works effectively in the region. We want to work with UNHCR to improve and increase its effectiveness. That is one of the matters we have considered in the context of our strategy to examine UN institutions overall. In the longer term, clearly we shall be able to learn from the way in which UNHCR has managed the current crisis, but it is our view that with support it can take this matter forward. We intend to give it every support.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can the noble Baroness advise the House to what extent the UNHCR is responsible for medical aid and medical services in Kosovo? I declare an interest in that my wife's daughter, my stepdaughter, is a qualified British GP, presently serving as a volunteer with an organisation called MERLIN, Medical Emergency Relief International, in Albania. She has just been either "hijacked" or seconded to the UNHCR, which is desperately short of qualified doctors. Can the Minister comment on the general situation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, a range of organisations, NGOs included, are working with the UNHCR in trying to deal with the variety of issues which have arisen in Kosovo. One of the ways in which we in international development have assisted the UNHCR is by flying in key personnel. It is no surprise that there is a shortage of qualified doctors and so on, given the scale of the humanitarian crisis within the region. The UNHCR is the organisation taking lead responsibility for co-ordinating the refugee effort. In addition, a number of NGOs and other international organisations are operating in the region.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the Minister any idea of the amount of aid that will be required to relieve distress in this case? Has any progress been made with the allies who fought in the war with regard to their responsibility for the necessary reconstruction? Is there any agreement between the European Union, the United States and the other countries involved in the war with regard to their contributions to the relief of the suffering in that country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are ongoing discussions about the scale of the reconstruction effort that will be required in the region. It is far too early to tell how much will be required or how that effort is to be allocated among the different countries and financial institutions which will participate in the reconstruction.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, bearing in mind the severe criticisms by the Select Committee in another place of the UNHCR in the lead-up to these operations in Kosovo, is there any specific action that we can take;

919
for example, seconding management expertise to the UNHCR to remedy the deficiencies which have been identified?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not want to take up the time of the House by going into some of the specific proposals we have made. I mentioned earlier that we have published an institutional strategy paper which will be the framework for our work with UN organisations, including the UNHCR. I shall be happy to send the noble Lord a copy of that report. We have been giving the UNHCR as much support as possible, not only in terms of airlifts and convoys, but also in terms of access to the expertise and knowledge that exists within DfID, which has had to manage some of these crises in the past. It has been a relationship that has worked well in terms of ensuring that the efforts put into trying to resolve some of the difficulties are taken on board by the UNHCR.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, in this conflict we have gone to enormous trouble and colossal expense to protect a Moslem minority from a so-called "Christian" majority. As far as I am aware, the voice of Islam has been completely silent; we have heard nothing from Moslem countries. Would it not be reasonable to expect countries such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to make a major contribution to the refugee problem?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, such discussions have been ongoing. The UAE has been contributing. My noble friend's concerns are not justified.

Administrative Bodies: Powers
3.54 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is appropriate to confer upon administrative bodies powers which have the effect of depriving individuals of their property or their means of securing a livelihood without recourse to an appeal at law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, administrative bodies exercising power over the individual may do so only under a specific statute. In most cases that statute also sets out the arrangements for accountability to Parliament, the roles and responsibilities of the body itself and of Ministers, and the requirement for the body to report on its actions. There is provision under administrative law to seek judicial review of such decisions.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that an increasing amount of legislation, particularly for the self-financing regulatory agencies, is allowing inspectors and other individuals to take away people's livelihoods? For example, Section 13 of the Food Safety Act 1990 allows for a person's goods to be taken away. In the case I have
920
in mind, that particularly applies to the noble Baroness's department. In a case concerning cheese, no fault was found with the cheese but the person concerned was not allowed to provide a defence. This applies also to the Environment Agency, which can withdraw authorisations under pollution control regulations; it applies to the Meat Hygiene Service and the Dairy Inspectorate. Under the cattle identification scheme, if an animal is found without an ear-tag and proof of identity is not provided within 48 hours, the animal can be killed without compensation. Does the noble Baroness think it is right and just under British law that these regulations—many of which come from European legislation—should be incorporated into our law and deprive people of their livings and of any defence at court? I should remind the noble Baroness that judicial review does not allow a defence to he presented; it is only on a question of law that someone can seek a judicial review.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in each of the cases to which the noble Countess referred, the bodies concerned operate within a statutory framework set by Parliament. The relevant statute also sets out the body's powers in relation to individual citizens and, in some cases, specific legal remedies are available, not simply the general one of judicial review. While one can sympathise with the individual in such cases, one also has to recognise the responsibilities of the Government, particularly in areas of protecting public health. A decision to make an emergency control order under Section 13 of the Food Safety Act may be needed to protect public health as soon as possible. That procedure is used only after an appropriate risk assessment and where there are no other effective means of protecting public health from serious threat. In those circumstances, if the Government did not use those powers, they would be rightly criticised.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, has the Minister's department carried out an audit of the legislation for which it is responsible under the Human Rights Act? If so, will the results of that audit be published?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that the Human Rights Act was passed in order to make it easier for individuals to enforce the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols. Those include the right to property and the right to a fair hearing. The Government cannot confer powers on administrative bodies that detract from those rights. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on the specific issue of the audit.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister agree that judicial review is the exercise by the court of its supervisory jurisdiction in order to ensure that the body that made the decision had the power to make that decision? It is not a process of appeal; it is not concerned with the merits of the decision; therefore the protection which it gives is very limited.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I absolutely recognise that. I feel that I am perhaps operating above my pay

921
grade in regard to these legal issues! My own legal education ended in 1969. The noble and learned Lord makes an important point. These are not appeal proceedings. Where administrative bodies take action some circumstances allow for appeal proceedings—for example, under other sections of the Food Safety Act. But where those are not considered appropriate, there is the backstop of a review by the courts, under judicial review.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that, after having examined the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Comitology that was debated in this House last Friday—the day on which Ascot was proceeding on its orderly course—she will take action regarding the activities of the various committees set up without this nation's authority by the European Commission? I refer to the various regulatory, advisory and management committees, and to the fact that they issue regulations which in many cases are not subject to the scrutiny of this Parliament and which go directly into British law for enforcement under British law. Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that that practice will cease? Will she ensure that all legislation, before it is enacted, receives proper scrutiny by Parliament?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I fear that my comitology is even worse than my legal expertise. The Government always take seriously the reports of Select Committees of this House and examine with equal seriousness the debates and comments on them. I am sure that that will apply in this case.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that one of the complaints of the noble Countess is that, apparently, in some cases bodies that are allowed by statutory instrument to charge fees for their services have also been making supplementary requests? Is that legal?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords, I am aware that that has been the concern. I do not believe that it applies in administrative bodies relating to the Department of Health. I shall certainly make inquiries as to the legal basis of that practice if it takes place within administrative bodies that are answerable to other departments and Ministers, and thereby to Parliament.

India and Pakistan
3.2 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to assist future relations between India and Pakistan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, as a longstanding friend of both countries, we are deeply
922
concerned by the fighting in the Kargil area of Jammu and Kashmir following armed infiltration across the Line of Control. We have urged both Pakistan and India to respect the Line of Control and to work to end the fighting. Our role, and that of others who wish them well, is to encourage both countries to resolve, through dialogue, the issues between them.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware that in the past five to six weeks scores of Kashmiri civilians have been killed and injured, and over 30,000 people in the Kargil area and 50,000 in Azad Kashmir have been made refugees due to Indian air strikes, shelling and artillery fire? Does she agree that bilateral talks between India and Pakistan in accordance with the Simla Agreement or the Lahore Declaration have failed, and that to resolve the issue of Kashmir we need a UN-sponsored peace plan which would bring peace and prosperity in the region? Finally, would her Majesty's Government encourage the UN Secretary-General to send a special envoy to broker peace between India and Pakistan and to find a permanent solution to the issue of Kashmir which is acceptable to all the people of Kashmir—Hindu, Moslem, Buddhist and Christian?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that both sides are conducting artillery fire across the Line of Control. I am also aware that a number of allegations have been made by the Kashmiri side and the Pakistanis about Indian activity, which has been denied by the Indian Government; and that, similarly, allegations have been made which Pakistan has denied. The picture is indeed very confusing.
The noble Lord makes a specific suggestion about UN intervention. He makes his case very eloquently. Indeed, some may find it highly persuasive. However, I am sure that my noble friend will realise that if there is to be the involvement of any third party that is to contribute positively to the resolution of this matter it must be acceptable to both sides. That is not the case as regards my noble friend's suggestion. An approach that is acceptable to only one side is not a way forward. Her Majesty's Government believe that the sensible course of action is to pursue the discussions that were begun as part of the Lahore process and which continued last month with the Indian and Pakistani Foreign Ministers meeting in New Delhi on 12th June. We hope that those talks will be resumed.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is it worth pursuing the possibility of setting up a plebiscite or referendum so that the people of Kashmir themselves, whether they are in that area or in refugee camps in Pakistan or elsewhere, would have an opportunity to express their view about how they wish their country to be governed in the future? This dispute has been going on since 1947. Is it not high time that it was settled?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, the noble Baroness is right. This has been a long-running dispute; it has continued for over 50 years. Her Majesty's Government believe that any solution, if

923
it is to be permanent and acceptable, must reflect the views of the population of Kashmir. However, I would point out to the noble Baroness that Kashmir is not a country as such. The suggestion that the noble Baroness makes has been made previously. I am afraid that it does not find support on both sides of this very troubled argument. At present, our best course of action, as a true friend of both countries, is to urge them to settle their differences between them. A great deal can be done through quiet diplomacy rather than through public statements, which only serve to inflame the situation.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the United Nations believe that this is a bilateral situation and should be resolved under Simla?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the United Nations and everyone else who wishes India and Pakistan well, including the EU and the G8 Foreign Ministers, have urged India and Pakistan to do everything in their power to resume the discussions that took place on 12th June. We were hopeful about those discussions. We hope that the invitation that has been issued to resume them in Islamabad will be taken up.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment of 21st May be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now 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 33 [General duties of the Mayor in relation to his strategies]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 19, line 42, at end insert—
("() In preparing or revising any strategy mentioned in subsection (1) the Mayor shall carry out and have regard to a sustainability appraisal of the strategy.").
The noble Lord said: This is a modest amendment. I shall move it in my usual modest way, allowing colleagues to leave the House in good order.
The purpose of the amendment is to help minimise conflicts between the different strategies and promote the social, economic and environmental general purposes of the GLA. The Committee should note at, while it is my amendment, it is supported by the RSF'B. Friends of the Earth, CPRE and the wildlife trusts of London.
As the Minister knows, the spatial development strategy, as a broad land use strategy for the region, should form the context within which the economic and other strategies are set, integrating and balancing the various economic, social and environmental needs of the Greater London area and taking account of the surrounding south-east region.
It is in the knowledge of the difficulties and the balance which the GLA and the mayor of London will have in reaching agreement that we suggest that the Minister can be helpful to those outside the House who are deeply involved in such matters. We welcome the Government's statements that each of the strategies will be consistent with and complementary to each other. The purpose of the amendment is to invite the Minister to tell us how it is intended that the various strategies can be made consistent and complementary to each other.
A set of sustainability principles should be developed to underpin all the policies and the different strategies. Sustainable appraisals should also be carried out during the preparation of each strategy. I believe that that will help to ensure consistency between the different strategies, identify any potential conflict between policies and promote the integration of economic, social and environmental objectives of the GLA's main purposes.
I am certain that the Minister will tell us that it is early days, discussions are going on, the objective is well understood and is one objective for which we should strive. In another context, one would say this is a probing amendment to find out whether the Minister can help us, and particularly those outside the House, to understand how he intends to achieve his objective of policies which are consistent and complementary and yet at the same time reach a rapport between the various bodies affected.
The Government have stated that a sustainability appraisal will be carried out on the spatial development strategy. Given the non-hierarchical approach, it is illogical not to carry out such an appraisal of the mayor's other strategies. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I have put down an amendment in this group—Amendment No. 118. Like that of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, it is designed to ask the Government what mechanisms they will support putting into effect. However, we on these Benches continue to juggle with the difficulty that we would like to see as much autonomy as possible on the part of the new authority, but as the Bill contains much detail, inevitably we shall also have to raise points of detail.
In relation to Clause 33(4), can the mayor have regard to matters which are not listed in that subsection? Clause 34(4), concerning consultation, states that it is without prejudice to the mayor's other duties. Clause 33(4) has a similar but not identical thrust in its different context.
I hope we shall be told that the mayor can exercise discretion as to the matters to be considered in preparing strategies and add to the list of matters to which she or he must have regard. My question is whether everything is intended to be set out in Clause 33(4), or whether the mayor can add to the matters specified.
Lord Whitty: My noble friend Lord Graham is correct. I have considerable sympathy with the objectives behind the amendment and with the bodies he cites that support it. The Government's commitment to sustainability is clear and is reflected in the Bill's provisions. I do not believe that it is necessary to add to this clause because already on the face of the Bill there are sufficient protections and insurances to ensure that the mayor takes sustainability into account in this context, as in others, and to ensure that there is consistency between the various strategies.
For the record, among the provisions are commitments: in the authority's principal purposes, set out in Clause 25, which reflect the sustainable development objectives of our strategy; in the requirement to consider the impact of the use of the general power on the achievement of sustainable development and in using it to do so in a way best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, as set out in Clauses 25(4) and (5); and in the requirement that in preparing or revising any strategy the mayor must have regard to the effect the proposed strategy or revision would have on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. That is in Clause 33(4).
Also, the mayor must, in preparing any strategy, ensure that it is consistent with national policies. That means any policies of the Government which are available in a written form and which have been laid before Parliament or have been published by a Minister of the Crown.
The mayor must therefore have regard to our national strategy for sustainable development and the guiding principles and approaches contained within it. If those
926
are combined, it is inevitable that, in preparing or revising his or her strategies, the mayor must undertake a sustainability appraisal. That is effectively a requirement and it is already built into the Bill.
In response to the noble Baroness's specific questions, the matters in Clause 33(4) are those to which the mayor must have regard under the Bill. But under general administrative law principles, the mayor should also have regard to any other relevant practice. The mayor will therefore, as the noble Baroness requests, be able to form a view of his own on those matters.
With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for doing what I ought to have done; namely, to try to relate the concerns which have been drawn to my attention to the possible solutions that appear in other parts of the Bill. I believe that those outside the House can rest assured that there is nothing between them and the Government in relation to their interests. It is a question of seeing how we go, heartened by the manner in which the Minister has drawn my attention to the Government's commitment to ensure sustainability. Our concern is how that will be achieved. But it is early days and we need to see the authority and the mayor working together and, with the Minister, ensuring that these worthy objectives are achieved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 113 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 114 to 116 inclusive.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 20, line 7, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) the need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with international obligations:
(aa) national policy:").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to Amendment No. 113 and not move Amendment No. 116. This amendment is one of the most important amendments to the Bill. It goes to the heart of the relationship between national and local government. The Bill goes beyond requiring the mayor to have regard to government policy, it requires him to have regard to the need to ensure that his strategies are consistent with government policy. He must therefore do more than consider national policy, he must follow it.
This is a major and undesirable constitutional innovation. It is right that public bodies should have regard to government policy. If legislation does not expressly impose such an obligation, the courts will do so on judicial review. But having regard to policy does not mean following it; the council can decide that it should not be applied in their circumstances or that the policy is wrong.
The law does not oblige local authorities to obey the Secretary of State's policies. Parliament has not obliged local government to follow national policies except in rare and limited cases; for example, the interpretation of the contaminated land regime. That sets a balance between national Government and elected councils. The Secretary of State will have policies on local government responsibilities, and he is right to do so, but he cannot demand obedience unless Parliament has given him the right to direct or the responsibility for determining appeals. Even in those circumstances, the exercise of intervention powers is limited by political reality and judgment.
Subsection (5)(a) is a dangerous and damaging innovation. It sets in law the desirability of consistency within government policy. The mayor must have regard to the need to be consistent. Although the provision does not in terms impose a duty to be consistent with government policy, the practical effect is not much different. The mayor would be hard pressed to justify in law a failure to follow a government policy, that could be complied with. The amendment reverses this rampant centralisation. The mayor will be obliged to have regard to government policy, but not to be consistent with it. Like all public bodies, the mayor's strategy should be consistent with this country's international obligations. The amendment maintains this obligation while removing the limitation in the present wording to obligations notified by the Secretary of State. Compliance with international obligations should not be dependent on a letter going out from Eland House to the mayor's office.
This amendment determines whether the mayor is an independent political figure elected by the people of London, and able to reflect their aspirations and concerns, or a government poodle who obeys the Secretary of State's orders. The clause removes the mayor's ability to decide his own policies and merely leaves him to apply the Government's. This amendment restores the proper balance and allows the mayor to decide what is best and the people of London to get what they voted for. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We have two amendments in this group, but I shall not be moving Amendment No. 115. Amendment No. 114 has perhaps already been answered in part by the noble Baroness. She appeared to be able to follow more easily than did I the distinction between ensuring that a strategy is consistent with some other matter and simply having regard to that other matter. I found the detailed purport of the provision quite difficult to understand. I shall be glad if the Minister can explain in his reply the precise purpose of the clause.
We do not believe that the GLA should be required to observe national policies that are not in legislation. We understand that the GLA must abide by "extant legislation", which was the term used by the Minister when this issue was touched on in Committee on Monday. I accept that he probably did not mean only extant legislation, but the term sums up our views.
928
Policies that have been supported and found their way into the legislative process are one thing; a twinkle in a Minister's eye is quite another.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This is a very interesting matter. I anticipate that the Government have in mind what happened towards the end of the reign of Mr Ken Livingstone when the Greater London Council was in existence. He set up in opposition to the government of the day on the other side of the river and said all manner of things about policies which were the total opposite of the government's. That made government extremely difficult, and it was resolved by the Greater London Council coming to an end. Obviously, it would have been very much better had those problems been avoided in another way. I remember being involved at the lime in that very difficult matter.
When the Minister replies, perhaps he can tell the Committee whether the statements in subsection (5) of the clause that we are discussing are legally binding on the mayor. What happens if he does not do them? If he simply fails to do what is said in the provision, is there a legal redress? I see that the Minister's noble friend is trotting off for a little bit of assistance, so perhaps I have put my finger on an important button. It seems to me that all of this is very desirable. Obviously, the mayor must do that which is legal. The noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench has pointed out that the mayor will have to abide by anything that is in legislation, but some of these matters will simply be government policy, international or domestic, which is not couched in legislative terms. Perhaps the Minister can explain to the Committee what happens if this part of the Bill is not obeyed by the mayor.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Rereading subsection (5) in the light of all of the amendments that have been tabled, it occurs to me, and no doubt also to the Minister, that the mayor will himself be a major player on the international scene. In particular, in the European scene he is almost bound to be involved with other similar people, and it is extremely likely that he and the authority—however they play their part in international organisations—will need the Secretary of State's instruction with regard to obligations under international arrangements. The authority will be part of drafting many such international arrangements.
Lord Whitty: Clearly, we hope that the mayor of London will be very much party to the development of strategies and will develop an international position, but the GLA is not a nation state that makes its own international obligations. The GLA may contribute to our national position in those negotiations, but once that position has been agreed, it is a matter for the state as a whole to do its best to ensure that it is met.
These provisions are not put into the Bill because of any earlier experience, but on the basis of common sense. If we have a national policy relating to, for example, various environmental objectives, it is reasonable to require the mayor to have regard to the need for consistency with national policies. If we have an international obligation, as we do, under Kyoto,

929
which is not in legislation, it is sensible to have a provision whereby the mayor must have regard to the need to be consistent with such an obligation. For example, the UK has an obligation in relation to EU waste strategy—this will be in legislation—and the mayor may decide, totally contrary to the direction of EU legislation in these matters, that London can get rid of waste only through huge landfill sites. It must be right that the mayor should have regard to the need for consistency with that obligation and the national policies that are being pursued to fulfil it. Therefore, all we are saying appears to be common sense. It is not centralisation. It is not imposing any penalties on the mayor other than those which exist generally within administrative law to deal with a person who has not carried out his duty. Nor does it constrain the mayor in the way in which he develops his strategies. However, it is fair and reasonable to impose on the GLA the duty to be consistent and to have regard to the need for consistency with those international obligations which have been notified by the state.
In one sense, I think the noble Baroness is being helpful to the Government in saying that there may be matters about which the department has forgotten to notify the mayor. But I also believe it is not reasonable to expect the GLA or any other local authority to be aware of obligations which may be in the minutiae of some obscure treaty. Therefore, there is an obligation on national government to notify the GLA of any international obligations.
I repeat that this is not a centralising measure but a commonsense measure. It is designed to ensure that London and its new administration play their part in the delivery of both our national policies and our international obligations. I believe that that is a sensible provision. To act otherwise would be difficult to explain. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not think there is anything between ourselves and the Government as regards this matter, although the wording of subsection (5)(a) on page 20 is somewhat peculiar. The need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with national policies is absolutely clear, but it is,
"with such international obligations as the Secretary of State may notify".
International obligations are international obligations. I accept absolutely that the last thing one would wish to see is the mayor having to build some minor department or even to use half or a quarter or even 1 per cent of a clerk's time to find out with which international obligations he may have to comply.
The use of the words "such international obligations" seems to imply some sort of distinction. Will the Minister consider whether altering the wording slightly
930
will make his intentions, with which I believe we all agree, absolutely clear? The wording seems to me to be odd, to say the least.
Baroness Hamwee: I think the noble Lord is saying—and my reaction was similar—that it suggests some picking and choosing. There may be picking and choosing as to the relevance. But I believe that the noble Lord is saying that the mayor should ensure that the strategy is consistent with international obligations, provided that there is notification by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister replies to that point, will he answer my question as to what would happen if he does not do some of these things? How is the matter resolved? Or is there no answer to that at the moment?
Lord Whitty: This provision, and many provisions within this Act, require the mayor to have regard to various aspects. Clearly, having taken into account the international obligations and so forth, if there is no specific legislation then there is not a direct penalty as there would be, for example, for a breach of financial arrangements under the local government regime. Nevertheless, the mayor is subject to the general provision within administrative law: that it is open to the Government or anyone else to apply for a judicial review if there is a challenge that the mayor has not taken into account the requirements within the legislation. However, there is no direct penalty in the sense to which I believe the noble Baroness was referring.
As I indicated earlier, with regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the duty to ensure that international obligations are carried out falls on the state. The state is party to those treaties. The state must therefore notify those other authorities and persons that are required to act in conformity. Therefore, I believe that the requirement that notification should take place is appropriate in those circumstances.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she believed that I had easily understood this matter. I must put her mind at rest and qualify that. I think that I understood it but it certainly was not easy when I went through it. The problem is with the word "such". Subsection (5)(a) states,
"is consistent with national policies and with such international obligations as the Secretary of State may notify".
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the word "pick". When I originally wrote my few lines to this amendment, in my own notes, which I did not read to the Minister, I said that it should not be left to the Secretary of State to "cherry pick" which of those international obligations he notifies to the mayor. I find that word quite unacceptable. I believe that the amendment, which refers to the need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with our national obligations, is much more sensible.

931
Before I take up the Minister's suggestion and decide whether or not to withdraw the amendment, I should be grateful if he will comment on my remark that this duty is not upon local councils.
Lord Whitty: The obligation is not the same in relation to councils. The legislation is different. There are no obligations on councils to draw up strategies in this way as part of their legislative duties. That is why it is not covered in local government legislation. That is the only reason for that.
Much is being made of the word "such" and of where the obligation arises. Clearly there are many international obligations which are totally irrelevant to the GLA and which the GLA would have no part in helping the Government to meet. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, expressed the matter, it is meeting international obligations, provided that the obligations have been notified to the GLA. It does not mean that we shall be able to cherry pick but the GLA only has that duty provided that it has been told that it has that duty. I hope that that clarifies the point.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am interested to hear what the Minister has said. I was not intending to speak again. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I was a member of an authority which was obliged by law to make a structure plan. In some ways, that is not so different from developing a strategy. There is no question of not accepting government guidance. It is all part of the habit of local government. If councils do that anyway—as our officers did on our behalf and then informed us of what was taking place, for example, at Rio—why do we need special rules for the new authority in London? If they do not do it anyway, why are these rules not being applied to all major authorities in the United Kingdom?
Lord Whitty: The key answer to that is that structure plans and other obligations on local authorities are subject directly, or on appeal, to the Secretary of State. This power of the mayor is being laid down for the first time in new legislation in a unique authority. We therefore need a degree of clarity on the relationship between the mayor and national governments in this respect where, as the noble Baroness rightly says, custom and practice over decades has established a degree of understanding within the local authority structure. I believe that when one is dealing with an authority with an entirely new structure and powers, which consists of a geographical area of 6 million to 8 million people—I cannot remember the exact figure—we have an entirely new situation with which to deal. Therefore, we must legislate in this area with greater clarity than perhaps in other areas.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister said earlier that he thought I was trying to be helpful but rather confused things. I always try to be helpful to the noble Lord, as he knows very well. In fact, my help extends beyond the Bill; I am always trying to be helpful to the Government.
932
On that happy note, I am delighted that we have had this discourse across the Dispatch Box because it has enabled us to pull out a few more of the Government's thoughts. I shall read the debate with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 114 to 118 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 20, line 13, after second ("the") insert ("safe and environmentally beneficial").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 119A in the name of [he noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I shall speak to that after she has introduced it if the Committee gives me leave to do so.
Amendment No. 119 returns in a way to an amendment moved on Monday by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Subsection (5)(d) relates to the need to promote the use of the river. The wording on the face of the Bill is:
"the desirability of promoting and encouraging the use of the River Thames, in particular for the provision of passenger transport service and for the transportation of freight".
One of the reasons why the Thames has improved so much as a waterway over so many years must be the reduction of traffic upon it. The amendment introduces two considerations with regard to the question of desirability. The first is the issue of safety. Everyone remembers only too clearly the "Marchioness" disaster. Certainly, if there is to be a large increase in the use of the river as a route for transport, it seems to me that that implies traffic not only going up and down the river, but also large volumes crossing backwards and forwards. That may have been very fine in the days when movement was by man-powered boat—in other words, by rowing. Nowadays powered craft not only travel more quickly; they are also likely to be carrying more people. The problems of traffic control if there is large expansion in the number of vessels will be quite considerable. In my view, the situation is potentially dangerous. Therefore, the insertion of "safe" is important.
The phrase we seek to introduce into consideration of desirability is "environmentally beneficial." Modern craft are not only large. They are also noisy. That is not particularly evident to those standing on the river hank. But noise is important from the point of view of anything that lives in the river. Those concerned with the environment of any river must perforce take some account of both flora and fauna; some consideration must be given to that aspect. In the case of small boats, whose exhaust is often not only washed but silenced by the waters of the river, we could have a difficult situation.
Those are the reasons for the amendment. I hope that the Government will consider it seriously.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, Amendment No. 119A, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, is

933
included in this group. It proposes to add to the transport uses of the River Thames, to which the clause makes specific reference, the word "waste", so that the river will be used for the transport of passengers, freight and waste.
I am sure all noble Lords are aware that waste is already transported along the River Thames. The amendment looks forward to our Amendment No. 451A to Clause 283. That amendment requires the word "transportation" to be added to those aspects of waste management which the mayor shall include in his waste strategy. I am in a slightly difficult situation. The amendment has not been grouped with the ones before us, and it is probably better if I do not go into great detail but deal with it when we reach it.
Basically, the problem is that the transport of waste is governed by different legislative regulations from those governing other aspects of waste management, such as how it is disposed of, how it is treated, or how it is recovered. We want to ensure that there is no block to the mayor's ability to cope with this aspect of waste management, which is very important, especially in the City, and to make sure that the river continues to be available as an important route for the disposal of waste.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right. We must bear safety in mind. No one wishes to do anything to threaten the safety of those who work on the Thames or travel on it. That goes without saying.
As to the question of the environment, I do not disagree with the noble Lord's amendment. But "environmentally beneficial" is always a matter of balance. There is no doubt that if all London's waste had to be carried through the streets of London over long distances there would be an enormous disbenefit to the citizens of London in terms of noise, pollution and congestion. Therefore, the role that the river currently plays in the transportation of waste is, I would say, on balance, beneficial, and it is in that light that we put forward our amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: With the leave of the Committee, I should declare what is now a non-interest, as a former chairman of Essex County Council and someone who had to spend a great deal of time, unsurprisingly, dealing with the problems of London's waste. Essex used to take, and, I think, still does take, of the order of 37 per cent of all of London's waste. Of course, consideration of the use of the river is significant in that respect.
Fortunately, the requirement has now reduced somewhat. Dumping at sea is no longer permissible. We should all be extremely glad that that is so. After a long battle, the point was finally conceded. The need for waste to be transported by river has therefore reduced. However, a proportion is still moved in that manner. Much also comes to Essex by land and will continue to do so, I suspect.
If one considers the river for the transport of waste it will be seen that nothing can be carried upstream because it would have to stop at Teddington weir. That means we are dealing with one-way traffic and implies
934
that there are adequate facilities in either Essex or Kent sufficiently close to the coast to dispose of the waste. That has been for many years the continuing problem.
I do not think we should debate what I would call the possibilities of the waste strategy at this point of the Bill. That would be wrong. But since the issue has been raised, and raised in relation to river transport, we need to recognise that if we use the river to transport waste we are forced to assume certain other conditions can also be met. Not only are they met at the expense of other communities; they diminish the capacity of those communities to dispose of their own waste. Those factors should be considered as part of the general issue.
Baroness Hamwee: Our amendment is not intended to address the issue of disposal or of the waste hierarchy, starting with reduction, use, and so on. It merely makes the point about the facility which runs through the centre of our capital. The contrast between that type of highway with the other congested highways is a point to be made.
The first time I saw in graphic form what happens to London's waste. I realised how much London dumps in a literal way on the counties surrounding it, including the noble Lord's county.
I believe that these two amendments illustrate the difficulties that we are bound to have and the time that we are bound to spend dealing with detail because of the prescriptive nature of the Bill. I doubt whether anything in subsection (5) needs to be spelt out. We have talked about consistency with extant legislation and with national obligations, and consistency of strategy between one and the other. The subsection also deals with resources. The question of the Thames is dealt with elsewhere. It illustrates the pity that the Government have seen it necessary to be so prescriptive and so detailed; and we get drawn into further prescription and detail.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I assure the noble Lord that I share fully the sentiments underlying the amendment. He is right. It is important to encourage the safe and environmentally beneficial use of the river. Indeed, the authority will have the improvement of the environment of Greater London as one of its principal purposes. I hope that I can persuade him that the amendment is unnecessary. We cannot conceive of circumstances in which any mayor would seek to promote the use of the river in a way that did not accord with the terms of the amendment. That is not because we have a naive faith in the good intentions of all future mayors of London, but because the authority's general purpose enshrines the improvement of the environment at the heart of everything that the authority does. Also, it is hard to imagine any situation in which taking traffic off the roads and onto the river would have no environmental benefit; or to imagine circumstances where the mayor would feel obliged by this provision of the Bill to promote something that was unsafe.
Therefore while we applaud and support the intentions of the amendment, we do not believe that a change to the Bill is necessary. I hope that in that context the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

935
Amendment No. 119A includes a specific reference to the desirability of using the river as a means of transporting waste. It is our intention that that should apply to the transport of waste within the provision because, as the noble Baroness said, over 20 per cent of London's municipal waste is currently carried on the Thames, saving hundreds of lorry movements a day, and we would wish to see this figure maintained and if possible increased. It is one of the reasons behind the provision in the Bill.
Our advice is that the term "freight" includes waste. Freight in its normal sense means any goods or cargo other than people carried for money. Waste would fall within that definition. While we agree with the thinking behind the amendment, I can assure the noble Baroness that it is not necessary. I hope that she will withdraw the amendment. I shall not deal with the other areas covered by a later amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most grateful to the Minister for her reassuring words, which I shall study with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 119A not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 20, line 15, at end insert ("; and
() the views of such organisations representative of business as the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult having regard to the impact of his strategy on business").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 120 is grouped with Amendment No. 121. The amendment introduces two new matters to subsection (5) of the clause to which we believe that the mayor and the authority should have regard in settling any of the strategies. Amendment No. 120 includes the views of business and commerce. It could be said that that we have introduced consultation almost ad nauseam in the Bill. I have no doubt that the Minister in his reply will tell me that that is so. None the less, we debated in Committee only two days ago the problems of lists. The greater the list, the more exclusive it becomes rather than inclusive. What we want is inclusivity rather than exclusivity. Therefore I do not apologise to the Committee for introducing these additional thoughts.
Amendment No. 121 is equally, if not more, important. It introduces the requirement to have some regard to compliance costs. Strategies in the field of the environment, whether spatial or those which affect transport, air quality, and so on, all have compliance costs. If those were unreasonably imposed, they could make London less economic as a unit. That would not only have undesirable effects on London. If London's economy starts to suffer it would have undesirable effects at the national level and indeed on the economy of many of the surrounding areas.
I do not think, therefore, that it is unreasonable that compliance costs should be referred to in the Bill. They should be taken into account in the drawing up of the strategies. Of course I accept that with strategies which
936
bring about improvement, inevitably there will initially be problems of compliance, and almost inevitably also costs. The purpose is not to prevent compliance costs but that those costs be assessed in the strategy so that there is a cost benefit analysis. Therefore the improvement goes hand in hand with the viability of the economy of London and does not get out of step with it. We believe that that is important. That is why the amendments are on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope that the Government will say, as we are used to hearing them say, that the amendments are unnecessary. In this case, that is for a specific reason. We made clear when we spoke to the amendments on Monday that we consider the interests of business to be extremely important, and we moved an amendment to that effect. We also noted that the views of business are not the only views which are important.
Clause 33 provides that in preparing a strategy the mayor must have regard to the authority's principal purpose. There are three clauses dealing with principal purpose. It should involve consultation with a wider range of groups than just those with business interests. All the interests which have been identified should remain in the frame.
It is not possible for the mayor not to have regard to the views of citizens' interests in framing the strategy, given that the principal purpose includes economic and social development. For the reasons that I gave on Monday, economic and social development, as well as the environment, are of considerable interest to businesses. They will have views on those matters and, whether or not it is stated, the mayor must have regard to them. My concern is to ensure that the views of all those with interests, the stakeholders, are taken into account where appropriate.
Lord Whitty: The Bill provides for essential and central consultation with business; I hope not ad nauseam because I hope to find a more constructive outcome.
As the noble Baroness predicted, I think that the amendment is unnecessary. It would duplicate the provisions of Clauses 34(2) and 27(3) which relate to consultation with business organisations about the preparations for the strategy, where appropriate. The impact of the strategies on the interests of business is a matter for consultation with the authority because it is integral to the consultation process and to the preparation of the strategy.
The authority is not a legislative body and therefore does not have regulation-making powers like the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. The requirement formally to undertake compliance cost assessment, which is normally included in legislation, is not included here. An assessment of the cost implications of the mayor's strategies and their potential impact on employment in London will clearly be part of

937
that consultation process and part of the strategy. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. It is no more and no less than I expected. I shall study his remarks with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 20, line 15, at end insert ("; and
() public safety including the needs of the ambulance, fire and civil defence services").
The noble Lord said: The amendment has a similar purpose to the last amendment and would require the mayor to draw up strategies that would have regard to the needs of the emergency services.
The emergency services, with the exception of the ambulance service, are part of the Greater London Authority's remit through the fire and emergency planning group, which we will be discussing at a later stage. There will be a Metropolitan Police Authority. There should be no difficulty about this matter, but these are important considerations and for the same reasons as we advanced Amendments Nos. 120 and 121, it is important that this matter should be considered by the Committee at this stage.
At Second Reading, I said that I hoped that what had been said during the passage of the Bill in the other place and here would make important reading for all those directly connected with the Greater London Authority at its inception; that is, staff and members. Therefore, although some of these debates might seem to be somewhat esoteric, they introduce matters which the new authority should take into consideration, whether or not such provisions are on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, had to say, because I had hoped that some new light would be shed on the matter. Of course, the mayor should have regard to the needs and interests of the emergency services. As the noble Lord almost said, it is inconceivable that he would not, not only because they are important but because the mayor will be directly or indirectly responsible for two of those three services.
At the risk of sounding like a Government Minister, I wonder whether the amendment is necessary. Why is it necessary to single out the emergency services—important though they are—for special mention, particularly as the mayor has responsibility for two of them?
In our view, the amendment is unnecessary. I share the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the whole subsection is unnecessary and that to add to it still further would be a retrograde step.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the "Alternative Minister", said, this amendment is unnecessary. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that it is not esoteric to raise the point at this stage of the debate.
I hope that noble Lords who have shown the greatest interest in the Bill will not be repetitive, as occasionally happens. Mention of these issues will clarify where the various aspects interlock. As I have explained, the mayor must consult people whose interests are affected, either by use of the general power or in the preparation of the strategy. The mayor would have to consult the services identified in the amendment where their interests were affected. He or she would also be expected to consult those services that have relevant expertise.
Public safety is already covered by the Bill. I am confident that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I am sure that we shall get through the Bill in a third of the time, with great expedition, if the three noble Lords from the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Front Benches do not all say the same thing.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I was most interested to hear the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, which is opposite to the approach taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the Local Government Bill. At that time, I tried to reduce a different list of statutory consultees. I suppose that one should expect that kind of thing from time to time from the Liberal Democrat Party.
I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, says. She is right to have confidence in me: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 122A:
Page 20, line 30, at end insert ("and
(c) to promote the prevention of crime and the promotion of community safety in Greater London,").
The noble Lord said: Crime and crime prevention are issues of the greatest importance to Londoners. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently observed in a survey, the most widespread source of neighbourhood dissatisfaction is crime. The highest level of dissatisfaction is in London inner city estates. In Brixton, in my own borough, a recent survey has shown that 82 per cent of the local population are very or fairly concerned about crime in their area.
As a result of the recent Crime and Disorder Act, which I greatly welcome, individual boroughs have a duty to co-operate with the police and probation services in the formulation of local strategies for the reduction of crime and disorder in their areas. The intention of Amendment No. 122A is to ensure that the GLA plays its part in ensuring that its strategies, whether in planning, urban regeneration, the environment or transport, contribute to the prevention of crime and to community safety.
The opportunities for crime reduction and prevention exist if support is properly given at the strategic stage. It is not good enough simply to assume that the police will sort things out after the event. Both crime and criminality can be prevented. Perhaps I may give a few examples: the design of Tube stations and trains or the nature of new developments and employment initiatives. There are some exciting developments in the crime prevention and community safety field. We have only to think of Youth Works which marries crime prevention, regeneration and employment initiatives. It is sponsored by Marks & Spencer, Groundworks and Crime Concern. That is one of the many initiatives which are available if a number of different strands are pulled together.
The creation of the Social Exclusion Unit within the Cabinet Office by the current Government was clear recognition of the interlinking of crime with many other departmental areas. If we are to crack crime we also need to tackle other factors. As a former chairman of Crime Concern and as a trustee of Lambeth Crime Prevention Trust, I can say that the real key significantly to prevent crime is now recognised as tackling the problems of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. We need to understand the problems and bring residents into the centre of regeneration. We need to target economic development. We need to strengthen communities. We need to ensure that long-term commitment to sustainable neighbourhood regeneration exists at all levels of government, including regional government.
With the amendment, I believe that the new authority's strategies will have a strong strand of crime prevention which will assist in solving some of London's problems that today seem so intractable. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment would require the mayor, so far as is practicable in preparing or revising any strategy, to include in it proposals to promote the prevention of crime and the promotion of community safety in Greater London.
We are already doing a great deal to reduce crime and promote community safety in Greater London. Clearly, the mayor will have a role to play in achieving the objectives we have set. He or she will do this through the influence he will have over the Metropolitan Police Authority in setting its budget; through the appointment of assembly members to the police authority; and through the prestige and consequent influence of his or her office, which offers a valuable opportunity to raise the profile of the fight against crime.
However, we have made it clear that the mayor's role must be distinct from that of the police authority and that of the police themselves. The mayor will not be involved in operational matters or "second guess" the police. Instead, the mayor will have influence over the policies and policy priorities in relation to policing the capital. The structure we have devised will provide democratic input to, but avoid the politicisation of, policing in London.
The mayor's strategies and his or her activities will clearly be directed at crime reduction and community safety. What other logical role could there be for the
940
mayor? Under the Crime and Disorder Act, local authorities and the local police force—known as the "responsible authorities"—are required to prepare crime reduction strategies for their area. In London, this is taking place at the London borough level, as many Members of the Committee know because of their distinguished involvement.
The Metropolitan Police Authority, once established, will of course have an important role to play in relation to these strategies as one of the key bodies with which the responsible authorities must co-operate. As I have made clear, the mayor will have an important role to play in the fight against crime in London. But lie or she should not duplicate what are, in essence, matters for the police and the London boroughs.
I hope that that explanation is satisfactory to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: I listened with care to what the Minister said. I hope that when she referred to some noble Lords having some involvement at borough level she meant involvement in crime prevention and not in crime itself! In my borough we made it a strategic priority some nine years ago, long before the Crime and Disorder Act, which we too welcome.
There were times when I thought that the Minister was speaking in favour of the amendment. Of course the promotion of community safety is an important matter for the police and the police authority, but not solely for them. It is certainly an important matter for London borough councils and will remain so. Indeed, they now have a duty in that respect.
Similarly, there is a need at regional level—city-wide level, if that phrase plays better with the Government Front Bench—for the proposal to be reflected. In London as a whole, we must have a holistic approach to crime prevention and community safety. The police and the police authority will of course be important players in it, just as they are at London borough level. However, many other agencies are involved, including the Greater London Authority, the Probation Service, the voluntary sector and so forth.
Just as the Government have rightly recognised a strong case at borough level for the promotion of community safety, the case is the same at city-wide level and is a proper responsibility for the Greater London Authority. The Minister is right to say that this will be an important matter for the mayor. It is inconceivable that any high profile mayor will say, "Matters of community safety, crime, crime prevention and so on are nothing to do with me"—quite the opposite, I suspect. Therefore, I had hoped for a slightly more understanding and sympathetic response to an important amendment.
It will be for my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones to say what he wants to do at this stage, but if he chooses to withdraw the amendment I am sure that it is a subject to which we shall wish to return. I hope that during the intervening period the Government will give more

941
thought to how in this prescriptive Bill they can better address the important role in terms of the promotion of community safety.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For the record,
I did not intend to imply that the noble Lord was involved in the pursuit of crime, but rather in the pursuit of combating crime. My experience of his abilities in local government here and in European forums leads me to know that, were he to choose at some distant time in the future to pursue a life of crime, he would be so effective that he would never be found!
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that tribute to my noble friend's versatility. I am very disappointed by her reply because there a philosophical misunderstanding about the nature of crime prevention and community safety strategies. We are not talking about influence over operational police matters. This issue goes far wider than any responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I took pains to mention the Social Exclusion Unit because I feel that its creation, which was supported by people in all parties, by chief police officers, local authorities and government departments, is about "joined-up government", to use a phrase coined by the Government. Its creation would link the strategies together and ensure that there is a strand of crime prevention throughout. The amendment is designed to place an explicit duty on the authority and the mayor to make sure that those strategies are as effective as possible in order to ensure crime prevention and community safety.
I believe that it is important that I mention the surveys showing that crime is top of Londoners' list of concerns, particularly in inner city areas. We already have a duty to promote health and sustainable development in Clause 33—we welcome those two important elements—but the third element surely is crime prevention.
Many of the tools are at our disposal. I mention merely Youth Works, which combines different strategies from many areas which hitherto have been kept in little boxes. They have not been treated as a coherent, holistic strategy—to use my noble friend's expression. This is an important matter about which I am very disappointed. I am sure that we shall raise this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 122B:
Page 20, line 34, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may formally move Amendment No. 122B, while the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith finds his papers. Some of my colleagues may have something to say and I can see that the Minister certainly has something to say about it. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am disappointed with the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The noble
942
Lord should have continued. I can reassure the noble Lord that this amendment is unnecessary. Should noble Lords want me to go into detail I shall do so.
Lord Tope: I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that this amendment is unnecessary and I am therefore more willing than ever to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 124.
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
THE FURTHER EDUCATION STRATEGY GROUP for LONDON
(" .—(1) There shall be a Further Education Strategy Group for London.
(2) The Further Education Strategy Group for London shall have—

(a) the function of providing advice to the Mayor on the contents and implementation of the further education strategy; and

(b) such other functions as may be conferred or imposed on, or made exercisable by them by or under any other enactment, whenever passed or made.

(3) The Further Education Strategy Group for London shall formulate and submit to the Mayor and Assembly a draft strategy containing proposed policies with respect to further education in Greater London.
(4) As soon as reasonably practicable after the draft strategy has been submitted, the Mayor and Assembly shall prepare and publish a document to be known as the "further education strategy".
(5) The Further Education Strategy Group for London shall keep the further education strategy under review and may submit proposed revisions of it to the Mayor.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 124. The amendment bears a close resemblance to Amendment No. 123, to which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones spoke on Monday evening. It reflects our view on these Benches that the Greater London Authority should have a strategic role in the planning of further education provision.
I shall begin by asking the Minister who currently has the responsibility for the strategic planning of further education in Greater London. I know that the Education and Employment Select Committee in another place asked that question of all the further education witnesses who came before the committee. They all denied having any responsibility for the strategic planning of further education until, finally, the Secretary of State said that he supposed that he must have that strategic responsibility. That may be so, and I look forward to some clarification. Certainly, it is no longer the responsibility of local education authorities. Since the incorporation of further education colleges, that has not been the responsibility of LEAs, so we are not in any way suggesting that we should impinge on what is currently carried out by LEAs—quite the contrary.
However, there is a need for better—indeed some—strategic planning of further education provision in our capital city and in other regions, although we are presently dealing with Greater London. If responsibility rests with the Secretary of State, I suggest that that

943
power should be one that is devolved. If it is still to be implemented through the Government Office for London, as to some extent I know that it is, I suggest that it would be better exercised and certainly more democratically accountable if it were part of the role of the mayor and the Greater London Authority.
We believe that life-long learning partnerships should have a strategic regional basis. That is something that we shall propose for the rest of the country as and when we move to regional assemblies, but we have an opportunity, which we should take, to deal with that first in London.
Following incorporation, further education provision in the capital, and indeed in the country, has become enormously competitive and, to some extent, wasteful in that provision. Therefore, there is a need for that strategic role, not in providing the services—that is not the role of the authority—but in planning their provision. I say that not only to try to reduce waste and duplication of provision but, more importantly, to ensure that proper provision is made. There is a greater danger—it happens in some parts of the country—that appropriate courses are not provided because it is not economic for a college to do so as they are too expensive and/or not profitable enough. So in some areas such courses are not provided at all. I suspect that may be the case on a sub-regional basis within London.
Therefore, it seems to be extremely important that the mayor and the authority need to have an overview of the provision of further education in the capital. I wonder how the mayor and the authority are to meet their responsibilities for economic development if they are unable to have a further education strategy that covers such important matters as the provision of training.
Funding is another issue. Currently, there are nine different funding streams in a further education college, for which I believe there is a need for a London view. I am aware that a White Paper is to be published imminently—perhaps the Minister can tell us when—on post-16 funding. I believe it is to be published before the end of the month. We are aware, as we keep reading, that there is a review under way on the role and purpose of training and enterprise councils, and so on.
Clearly, the role of the GLA will need to be considered in the light of that White Paper and the TEC review. I believe that the principle remains that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the mayor to discharge his responsibilities in relation to economic development and the general well-being of Londoners without also being able to develop a further education strategy. As we believe that that is an important gap in the provisions of the Bill, we take this opportunity to raise the issue. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has moved an amendment which is more than superficially attractive. Insofar as there is a lacuna in this area, it would appear to be a subject in which one might have expected the mayor to interest himself. But the Greater London Authority, as it is being established, has no
944
locus in the educational service directly at all, and when one is dealing with further education, while it is relevant to the mayor, it is properly the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
The nine funding streams which relate to further education, more or less have one source; that is, the DfEE. The way out of this dilemma from the point of view of the mayor is to ensure that he is consulted by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
It has always been a problem in any institution when we are dealing with a body that does not have direct responsibility, to give it some part to play in a specific service. However superficially attractive this amendment might be, because the GLA will not be in the business of education, it is perhaps a question that needs to be addressed to the DfEE rather than to the face of the Bill. Therefore, without a great deal more convincing, I cannot support the amendment from these Benches.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sure that the mayor will want to contribute to the improvement and development of education in London and she or he will be able to do this by bringing the key players together, by co-ordinating action and by encouraging debate.
But we have been quite clear that the responsibilities for education in London would not pass to the authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, acknowledged. Giving responsibility for education services to the authority would undermine the streamlined strategic: model of government we are seeking to create. Of course, responsibility for the preparation of a strategy need not necessarily depend on having control of the provision of key services. That is reflected in the model we have adopted in respect of culture, where we intend that the mayor's strategy should be a focal point for co-operation by a wide range of cultural organisations across London.
In the case of education, the mayor's formal locus of activity will, as acknowledged by the noble Lord. Lord Tope, be in the field of economic development strategy, which could include proposals to enhance the skills of people in all parts of London. But rather than trying to carve out a formal and distinct role for the mayor in respect of education, we consider it more appropriate to allow partnerships to develop between the mayor and those providing services, establishing relationships which will enable the mayor to make a positive contribution.
If the GLA has no responsibility for education, at whom would the strategy be directed and who would implement it? The GLA would obviously have no powers of direction and therefore a strategic approach, in particular to meet the training needs and skill shortages to which the noble Lord referred, would have to be in the context of the development partnerships. The noble Lord recognised and asked if it were true that a White Paper on post-16 funding is expected. It is expected shortly. It is clear that in the context of the noble Lord's amendments there are many ways in which we can come together. However, we do not feel that the

945
route suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is appropriate and hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: It may be that the short answer to whether or not the mayor can create such a group to advise and to discuss educational matters, whether or not there is a provision in the Bill, is "yes". As I listened to the noble Baroness, it seemed to me that she was suggesting that that was the case.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: That is so.
Baroness Hamwee: I am glad to hear that because, given that the mayor has responsibility, as she said, for economic development—the purpose laid down in the earlier clause—answering the question as to who is responsible for further education strategy (further education for this purpose includes training, but is far more than training), it is important to the economic and social health of London that there should be a focus for the subject.
The noble Baroness suggested that there may be other ways of addressing this issue. Perhaps it is something to which we can return at a later stage, if that seems appropriate. It is also something that could be properly developed in discussions outside this Chamber.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: If it would be helpful, we would be only too prepared to do that.
Lord Tope: That was a helpful response and I am sure that we will wish to take up what I believe was an offer and discuss it further.
Perhaps I can make it clear—because in responding the Minister referred many times to education and education services—that the purpose of the amendments does not relate at all to pre-school education, primary, secondary or even higher education. It relates specifically to further education. I want to be clear about that. I am not in any way suggesting that the role of LEAs should in some way be related to the role of the GLA. I am talking specifically about FE, which is not now a role of local education authorities.
This is an important area that the mayor will have to consider. Indeed, I find it hard to understand how the mayor will carry out his or her responsibilities in relation to economic development, social development and so forth without having some role in FE strategy. But I will be happy to discuss this matter further and to consider it further in the light of the White Paper we are promised, the TEC review and so on. At this stage, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Consultation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 20, line 44, at end insert ("and have regard to the views of").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 34 requires the mayor to undertake certain consultations in the preparation for revision of strategies. Again, I hope that there will be a short answer to this; that is, that the
946
Government agree that consultation cannot be proper consultation unless they consult or have regard to the views of the consultees. My wording seeks to provide that explicitly.
I tabled the amendment at this point, well aware that there are other references to consultation, because it is perhaps most important at the point at which the strategies are created. I simply seek an assurance that consultation will not be an exercise isolated from the response to the consultation. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. This amendment does not add to the normal understanding, long established and commonplace in both statute and the courts, that to consult means to ask someone his views and to have regard to them. That is well established in what is intended here. If the noble Baroness is happy with that, I too am happy. Were we to pursue this, we would have long hours amending large chunks of other legislation to make it clear. This is established practice and it is the intention in this case.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not seeking a long debate, at any rate not at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 21, line 3, after ("Council,") insert—
("() such organisations representative of business of all sizes as the Mayor considers appropriate having regard to the impact of his strategies on the interests of business and commerce,").
The noble Baroness said: Although this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 127 I shall not be moving that amendment because "business of all sizes", referred to in Amendment No. 126, must encompass Amendment No. 127 which simply refers to "business".
Although the Government have introduced swathes of new amendments to the Bill in its passage through Parliament to date, it is still possible to put a finger on another error or omission. Amendment No. 126 does exactly that. Clause 34 requires the mayor to consult with various bodies in preparing or revising his strategies. They include the assembly, the functional bodies such as Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the London boroughs, the Common Council and any other body or person whom the mayor deems appropriate.
London is the commercial centre of the United Kingdom. In many respects it is the world centre for various commercial activities such as insurance, foreign exchange, the Eurodollar and other bonds. It houses the markets that fix the world price for many commodities such as gold and silver and all sorts of consumables such as coffee. Yet the Government do not seem to believe that it is necessary that it shall be obligatory—yes, obligatory—for the mayor to consult with the representatives of business and commerce before launching one of his strategies.
I can think of schemes a mayor might launch which look quite nice on paper. mollify one pressure group or another or are politically correct according to the mayor's personal politics but which could be a disaster from the point of view of a great city trying to earn its living and help the nation to earn its living.
Clause 34 (1)(e) provides that the mayor shall consult with any other person or body he deems it appropriate to consult. But supposing he acts arbitrarily or capriciously. or happens to share—I accept that it is most unlikely—a political credo with the anarchists who ran amok in the City last Friday, and as a result decides to consult nobody. As the Bill stands he can ignore business or commerce altogether.
It is interesting to note that in Clause 27 the assembly is required to consult business along with a collection of other special interests, albeit business comes bottom of the list. Yet in this most important function of deciding on his strategies the mayor is not required by the Government to consult with what many would consider to be the centre of the economic life of London and of the country.
The Government should not allow the views of this important constituency to be ignored by the mayor if he so chooses. He may not have to act on the views and the advice he receives when he consults business, but he must not be allowed to choose not to consult. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I believe that my colleagues in another place set out clearly our intentions under the clause and indicated that the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 27(3)(d) requires the mayor, before using the authority's general power, to consult bodies which represent the interests of people carrying on business where their interests will be affected. Clause 34(2) requires the mayor to do this when preparing or revising any strategy.
I make it absolutely clear that the interests of business or commerce are, in the Government's view, already clearly safeguarded by the provisions of the Bill. I repeat the statement of my honourable friend the Minister for London. He made it clear that the guidance that the Secretary of State will issue under the provisions of Clause 25(7) of the Bill about the exercise of the general power will include guidance about the circumstances in which consultation with business and other people whose interests are affected must take place.
My colleague's commitment is there. The Bill already provides what the noble Baroness seeks for those in business circles who have anxieties. I can assure the noble Baroness and the business interests that their interests are safeguarded by the Bill as it stands. I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his welcome response even though we would have preferred it to be more definite. It is interesting how often he says that certain things are not necessary because they are already in place. If something is not
948
necessary, it is not unnecessary to say no to It is the reverse and it would not hurt. It is not quite the same when something is said to be in the guidance. While I am not implying that that may not happen, it is always more comforting for us when we see the provision actually made. I take note of what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 21, line 9, at end insert ("and in respect of any matter related to the River Thames, any voluntary body whose purposes encompass all aspects of its amenity and use").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment would be to extend the scope of consultation required. I firmly believe that consultation in these areas with essential bodies is of particular importance, not least for the development of the River Thames.
There is a plethora of agencies currently responsible for the management, use and planning of the River Thames. Some are statutory: there are partnerships, non-statutory co-ordinating advisory bodies and interest and user groups. It is clear that there needs to he some form of rationalisation of the functions of these bodies.
The amendment provides that organisations which provide a co-ordinating role and are representative would be drawn into the consultative process of the GLA and thereby able to influence the authority towards adopting measures reflecting the needs of different user groups.
I have referred to the organisations involved with the river. Many are represented on an umbrella body, the London Rivers Association. The River Thames Society, a sister organisation, deals with amenity and recreational issues affecting the River Thames.
A consultative body would help to resolve the current complexities that abound and provide an important advisory and co-ordinating role for issues impacting on the River Thames. I am not saying that what I suggest here is the last word, but it is the direction in which I urge the Government to go. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The other evening my noble friend spelt out the importance of the River Thames in developing strategies for London. I broadly concurred. It is important that in developing those strategies the mayor consults those who have the responsibilities and represent interests concerned with the river. As regards the way in which the mayor carries out the consultations, we have not sought to create consultative committees. We have not sought to lay that down in statute. It would be inflexible to do so. The general intent of the Bill is that we do not single out one specific grouping with whom the mayor should consult. If we did that here, we would have to do it at many other points in the Bill. That would lead to an even more unwieldy Bill than we have at the moment. It would be

949
an unnecessary constraint on the mayor to put such a provision on the face of the Bill. The mayor needs to have some discretion in this regard.
I recognise the importance of what the noble Lord says. We would expect the mayor to consult in any event. But the way in which he does so and those he consults must be left to the mayor himself. I hope that my noble friend can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Will the draft strategies mentioned in the Bill be published as drafts? That will enable any NGO or voluntary body to make representations if it wishes to do so, even if it is not specifically mentioned as having to be consulted. I do not see anything on the face of the Bill which requires such strategies to be promulgated in a form which would allow members of the public to make representations in this respect.
In the particular case of the Thames, I can think of several bodies which might well not be thought of by the mayor but which may have something useful to say to enable better strategies to be developed. If the Minister can assure me that there will be some provision requiring these strategies to be published in draft—and, for example, to be placed on the world wide web—so that anyone can inspect them before they become set in stone, that would be a very useful and democratic measure and would enhance the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Whitty: In most circumstances, the expectation is that there would be the opportunity for bodies which have not been picked out here, or mentioned in a list for consultation which the mayor may initially draw up, to have such a facility. We would not wish to prescribe that explicitly in all particulars in the Bill, but that is the way in which we envisage the mayor carrying out his duties.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I recognise that my noble friend does not wish to be too prescriptive about the organisational structure required for consultative purposes, especially as he would not be carrying out the responsibility; indeed, it would be the responsibility of the mayor. I understand that perfectly. However, I was seeking to emphasise the huge number of different organisations whose views need to be taken into account. I believe that it will be necessary for some clear machinery to be established to enable those voices to be heard effectively. They have a great deal to offer. There is a collective wisdom here which is important for when we come to the development of this major waterway.
I did not sense that my noble friend was too distressed about the principle behind the amendment. I believe he underlined, as he has previously, the importance of a form of delegation, so to speak, involving the mayor; in other words, that he or she
950
should have the ability to devise a policy with colleagues on the authority. The organisations to which I referred will want to see some coherence in this respect. We have discussed, albeit briefly, the importance of that particular theme.
It was an idea expressed by such an organisation which led to my tabling the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for what he said. He made an important contribution to this short, but not insignificant, debate. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 21, line 22, after ("considers") insert (", and the Assembly agree,").
The noble Baroness said: Under Clause 34(6) the mayor need not consult on revisions to a strategy if he considers that the strategy will not be materially altered. I am not suggesting that that proposition should be reversed, but I believe that there should be a check on the mayor's view on the matter. Therefore, I propose that the assembly should be required to agree that there is no material alteration in order to allow the mayor to rely on this provision.
The assembly has a scrutiny role and I believe that my amendment would be consistent with it. However, although the matter could be raised under the provisions for dialogue and public debate between the assembly and the mayor, I think that this is important enough to receive its own focus and for it to be a matter for provision in itself. That would not simply allow the assembly to question the matter, as no doubt it could under other provisions; it would also give it the right to say, "Mayor, you're making too great an assumption about your revision not bringing about an alteration that the rest of London would consider material. We think that it's a matter on which you should consult London and that you should follow the provisions laid down". I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness said, the amendment would require the assembly to be in agreement before the mayor could waive the consultation requirements set out in Clause 34 in relation to revising strategies.
As noble Lords know, we have made provision for extensive consultation to take place in relation to the mayor's strategies. That is essential to ensure that where particular interests are affected, their views are listened to and taken into account. However, under Clause 34(6), if the mayor considers that a proposed revision to a strategy will "not materially alter" the strategy in question, he will not be required to carry out consultation.
This provision is intended to ensure that the mayor does not have to consult on every minor and technical amendment he may make to the strategies. However, I must emphasise the words "not materially alter" a strategy. For consultation requirements to be waived, the proposed changes must satisfy that test.

951
The mayor must be able to demonstrate that he has good reasons for deciding not to consult on a particular strategy. He would have to be able to justify the view that revision did not materially affect the strategy. Those reasons could be challenged and tested if the mayor failed to consult where consultation was, in fact, appropriate. Of course, through its monthly meetings, the assembly will be in a prime position to question a mayor about any changes that he may intend to make to the strategies.
I hope that my response has reassured the noble Baroness that the mayor will not be able to use subsection (6) to circumvent the consultation requirements elsewhere in Clause 36. It is simply a way to ensure that minor and drafting changes can be made in a sensible way. I trust, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sad to say that I do not believe the Minister's response has taken the matter forward. Of course I accept that the mayor should have the ability to make what the noble Baroness describes as "minor and drafting changes" but the clause leaves the matter to the mayor's consideration in a case where,
"he considers that the proposed revisions will not materially alter the strategy in question".
As the Minister said, and as I suggested in my opening remarks, if there is a proposed revision the assembly can of course raise it at the next monthly meeting. However, the raising of the matter in that context will not require the mayor to follow the provisions of Clause 36. That would leave judicial review, which is an extraordinarily heavy sledgehammer, as the only really effective means of redress. It is clear that I did not explain myself sufficiently. The Minister's response repeated very much of what I said in my opening remarks. My concern is that the assembly should have the ability to make the mayor think again and do the right thing, which would be quite consistent with its scrutiny role.
I shall read what the noble Baroness said. I certainly wish to consider the matter further. We are concerned that the assembly, which has a clear scrutiny role—I accept that for this purpose it does not have a policy-making role—should be able to exercise that scrutiny role effectively. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, before we hear the Statement on the prevention of terrorism Act, I take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be
952
confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
5.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will be aware, the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are subject to annual renewal by the affirmative resolution procedure. It has, however, recently come to my attention that, because of technical defects in the drafting of the 1998 and 1999 continuance orders, certain provisions contained in the 1989 Act have not in fact been in force since 22 March 1998.
"I therefore come before the House today to apologise for this regrettable error for which I take responsibility. I also wish to explain what happened and to advise the House that I intend to revive these provisions, by order, as soon as practicable, subject of course to the approval of this House and the other place.
"The provisions concerned are Sections 16A, B, C, with Schedule 6A and Section 16D of the Act.
"Section 16A makes it an offence to possess articles for suspected terrorist purposes. Section 16B makes it unlawful to collect information likely to be useful for terrorist purposes. Together they form Part IVA of the Act.
"Section 16C provides the power to impose a police cordon in connection with a terrorist investigation, with Schedule 6A setting out the powers that may be exercised within a cordoned area. Section 16D imposes parking restrictions in a specified area. Together they form Part IVB of the PTA.
"The powers in Sections 16A and 16B were brought into the PTA in 1994 and Sections 16C and 16D in 1996. They continued in force each year until March 1998. It was then both my intention and my understanding—and I believe the understanding of the House—that these provisions had continued in force following the renewal debates in both 1998 and 1999.
"However, this has turned out not to be the case. Earlier continuance orders had referred collectively to Parts I to V of the Act, a formulation which obviously includes Part IVA and IVB. It was however as a matter of policy proposed by Ministers and agreed by Parliament that in the 1998 and 1999 orders, Part II relating to exclusion orders, should not operate. The 1998 and 1999 continuance orders, following the omission of Part II, listed separately Parts I, III, IV and V in a way which—inadvertently—did not include Parts IVA and IVB. This drafting subtlety

953
escaped the notice of the draftsman, Ministers, including myself, the House and the legal profession at the time.
"It has indeed only come to light as a result of an eagle-eyed author of an article in issue 19 of the Criminal Law Week of 24th May 1999. As soon as it was drawn to my attention, I sought advice; and once the status of the sections was clarified the police were advised not to rely on these provisions. I very much regret that these provisions have not in fact been in force since March 1998.
"My information is that six people have been charged with offences under Sections 16A and B since 1995 but no convictions have thus far taken place. One person was on bail awaiting trial for offences under Sections 16A and B which were alleged to have been committed after 22nd March 1998. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has told me that steps have been taken today to quash the indictment. Three other people—referred to as Kebilene and others—are also currently on bail charged with offences under Section 16A of the PTA but the alleged offences occurred before 22nd March 1998. None of these alleged offences relates to Irish terrorism.
"Records on the use of Section 16C—the power to raise a police cordon—are not held centrally. But I understand the section has been used reasonably frequently in recent times. The Metropolitan Police alone, for example, have used the provision 86 times since 22 March 1998. However, there have been no convictions under Section 16C for breach of a police cordon during the period in which this provision has not been in force.
"Notwithstanding the ceasefires in Northern Ireland, we still face the threat of terrorism from many quarters. In these circumstances I think that it is right that the earliest practicable opportunity is taken to revive these measures, so restoring what we all believed to be the status quo. I have therefore today tabled a draft order to bring Sections 16 A, B, C and D back into operation. This order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the revival of the provisions before they may be brought back into force. These debates will take place as soon as practicable.
"There is a separate but related point about Sections 16A and B of the PTA which arises in the case of Kebilene and others. This is a judicial review case which is scheduled to be heard by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords on 19th July. The case turns on whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should continue to give his consent to the prosecutions for offences under Sections 16A and 16B of the PTA if they are incompatible with the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.
"The Government believe these provisions, in their current form, are not incompatible with the ECHR and are an important part of the armoury in the fight against terrorism. It is entirely consistent with this
954
position to seek the early revival of these provisions now that it has come to light that they are not currently in force. In adopting this course of action the Government are not attempting to pre-empt. or in any way influence, the outcome of the appeal. We shall await their Lordships' judgment with interest.
"But that need not, and must not, stop us from taking action to ensure that all measures required to counter terrorism are properly available."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating this Statement. I am sure that your Lordships will also have sympathy with the Minister for having to confess that lawyers, even parliamentary draftsmen, let alone Home Secretaries and other Ministers with legal qualifications, can err. But this error arose directly from the regrettable fact that the Government did not continue all the provisions of the PTA. They intended to drop Part II and accidentally dropped Parts IVA and IVB too. This is a most serious matter.
As I understand the position, it is not now an offence to possess articles for the purposes of terrorism. That means it is not an offence to possess a gun, explosives or detonators for the purposes of terrorism under this Act. It is not an offence to possess disguises, masks, goggles and all the other apparatus of terrorist attacks. Nor is it an offence currently—as a result of this error—to collect information for the purposes of terrorism such as lists of targets, details of the movements of potential targets and other particulars. Of course these have not been offences since March 1998, originally because of the unrealised error. But that error was realised and indeed made public apparently on 24th May, nearly a month ago. Therefore, these have not been offences—with the Home Secretary's knowledge—for over four weeks.
What is more, the Home Secretary confirmed in another place that he had known about this matter since 26th May, if I heard him accurately. As I understand the position—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—they are not offences in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain. What is more, it would seem that they will not be offences for another few days because the Home Secretary has decided not to use the urgency provisions which I believe to be available to him. If he had used those provisions, the necessary orders could have been brought into force immediately and confirmed by Parliament subsequently.
The drafting point has been described as subtle, technical and obscure. Indeed, it was buried in the text of the orders. However, once pointed out, it is not at all a complex point but an extremely simple point of drafting. It is important that it is corrected at the earliest opportunity.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister when the police were advised of the position. We understand from the Statement that the Metropolitan police have relied on the cordon powers 86 times since the provisions were

955
no longer in force. How many times have the RUC relied on the cordon powers since the provisions were no longer in force?
So far as concerns the future, the provisions are necessary and important. They were supported by all sides when introduced by the previous government; everyone thought they were being renewed and everyone supported their renewal. We will facilitate the passage of the new order which has been made today. We are disappointed that the Home Secretary has not used the urgency provisions which, in this case, would have been entirely appropriate. I have obtained the permission of the Opposition Chief Whip to say that we are prepared to debate and pass this order tonight or tomorrow, should the Government so wish. We will do everything we can to facilitate the passage of the order at the earliest opportunity.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the words of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It states that:
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide … that all or any of those provisions which are for the time being in force … shall continue in force".
But also that:
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide … that all or any of those provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force".
So it is envisaged in the machinery of the Act that it should be expressly declared in the regulations that are passed under this Act that those provisions which continue in force should be named; and that those provisions that should cease to be in force should also be named. That was the way in which the statutory instrument itself was drafted; namely, continuing certain parts of the Act and declaring that the provisions at Part II of the Act shall cease to be in force.
The point that is so narrow, so technical and so mechanical is simply that Part IV is said not to include Part IVA and Part IVB. Nobody thought that that was an omission. I understand that the anonymous contributor to this journal has expressed his view and the Home Office lawyers have presumably agreed with that view. But it seems to me to be not at all clear that that is the right position.
Be that as it may, this is not a moment for sackcloth and ashes for the Home Secretary because he has made some dreadful error, some dreadful mistake; on the other hand, it is not a moment for spreading the blame to other people in this House or in the other place. I was on the Front Bench when the 1998 order was passed; the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was also in his place. If there is any suggestion that members of other parties failed to stop this matter and are in some way to blame, that is entirely wrong. The Government should not adopt by family motto—Ar Bwy Mae'v Bae, "Who can we blame?"—and seek to spread the responsibility any further than where it rests. We are entitled when we come to the House to assume that if there is a technical or a mechanical defect, then the Government will take
956
full responsibility for that. I have heard that in the other place there is an attempt to spread the responsibility beyond the Home Secretary himself.
My question to the noble Lord is: if the order is now to go through and the earliest practical measure is to be brought before the House, when is that to be? I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said; why not straightaway? Why do we not do it now if it is so urgent?
My final question concerns why the Government have made a pronouncement on a pending case, which is before the Judicial Committee of this House, concerning the application of the European Convention on Human Rights. Why did the Government make a reference to that case and firmly state their position on it when it is a matter that is to be decided at a later date? Is it right and proper for the Government to take that stance?
5.17 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Home Secretary would have been manifestly derelict in his duty if he had come before another place, or asked me to repeat a Statement in this House, without telling your Lordships the fullest possible related background detail. He has behaved absolutely properly. He said quire clearly in the Statement I repeated that there is a separate but related point. It is quite separate but it is related. The Home Secretary takes the view—which I share—that in speaking to Parliament we ought to be as candid, as open and as helpful as possible. The Home Secretary has behaved entirely properly.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the Home Secretary has said that in adopting this course of action the Government are not attempting to pre-empt or in any way influence the outcome of the appeal. Indeed, I take the noble Lord's point further because I think it is an entirely mistaken one. The point that the Government will submit, through their lawyers, to the Appellate Committee will be that we believe that the statutory provisions are convention compatible. That is simply a recitation of the Government's position. It does not determine the outcome; it does not influence the outcome. As the Home Secretary said, it is deliberately intended not to affect the outcome.
I agree with the noble Lord that it is not a case for sackcloth and ashes. I think that the Home Secretary has behaved rightly. I repeat his words:
"I therefore come before the House today to apologise for this regrettable error for which I take responsibility".
In the recent past, that has not always been the attitude of some Ministers in some departments. He could not have been clearer; he is not attempting to blame anyone. He is stating the bare truth; namely, that he missed it; his colleagues and Ministers missed it; the House missed it; the legal profession missed it; and the draftsmen missed it. It is surprising not that these small phrases should have been missed, but how rarely such errors occur. One ought to pay a proper tribute to the work carried out by the draftsmen, very often at very short notice and under great pressure, in getting things absolutely right.

957
Having said that, this is an important matter. We need to have it properly in perspective. I have already given the figures; there have been six charges since 1995 and no convictions. So, although these are important weapons in the armoury, they are not the only ones we have. No one should be unduly alarmist in claiming that they are.
I do not know who was the author of the article in Criminal Law Week. It may have been a woman. I do not assume that all legal knowledge reposes in the male sex. But he or she will have this undoubted continuing moment of glory and, I dare say, free drinks in legal circles for some time to come.
In reply to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, there are related offences in Northern Ireland which correspond to Sections 16A and 16B and there are comparable, although slightly different, powers that correspond to Sections 16C and 16D. But those do not depend on this legislation; they depend on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
My understanding is that the article was published on 24th May. It was brought to the personal attention of the Home Secretary on 26th May, in his Box. He then asked for advice to be taken. When advice was taken and, I believe, Law Officers were consulted, he thought it right to come immediately to the House to explain what had happened. He was absolutely right not simply to put into action the emergency procedure to which reference has been made. That would have been seen, with some justification, as a device to avoid responsibility and to avoid above all the duty to be candid to this House, which is what he has been. That means that if the affirmative procedure is used the House has the fullest opportunity to consider this matter. That is the proper, scrupulous way to treat, with proper regard, this House's interests. I do not know whether the Opposition Chief Whip has spoken to my noble friend Lord Carter. So far as I am concerned, we are ready to move as urgently as may be required.
There was a question about when the police were told. They were told informally that the status of the provisions had been queried on 27th May. There was no delay there. We had to obtain proper advice. As soon as that was available, at the end of last week, more authoritative guidance was given.
I stress that no charges have been brought in respect of Sections 16C and 16D, the cordon powers. Those powers do not stand alone. They have a relation to common law powers. The proposition was put that certain offences are no longer offences. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkley, if I noted his point correctly, said that possession of a gun, explosives, disguises and so forth would no longer be offences. That is not right. The fine point—and it is an important distinction—is that these two sections, which were wrongly thought to have been continued as part of Sections 4A and 4B, do not provide the foundations of criminal liability. But possession of a gun without a licence is in any event a criminal offence, and there are extremely severe penalties; so is the possession of explosives. If there is material such as disguises, masks and goggles, they can
958
form the evidential basis in appropriate circumstances for charges of conspiracy to cause explosions or grievous bodily harm, or any serious offence.
I am not minimising the mistake that was made. The Home Secretary could not have been plainer than he was: "I apologise. I take responsibility". But we have to put this matter in the proper context. There have been relatively few charges. There have been no convictions. The powers that the law has to deal with the possession of weapons, explosives and similar devices remain utterly intact.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House should be indebted to my noble friend for repeating the Statement, and to the Home Secretary for acknowledging the mistake that was made. We hope that it will not be fatal. He acknowledged that mistake very clearly indeed. That is never an easy thing for any Minister. But we could not have expected him to have been more frank than he was. He was open. He spoke with integrity, and Parliament is indebted to him for that.
Will my noble friend comment further on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the speed with which the necessary legislation should be put through Parliament? I would counsel rather more delay than he suggested. It is important that we digest carefully, in this House and in another place, what has been said today. It would be the worst of all worlds if further mistakes were to be made. We must feel impelled to try to avoid that at all cost. It is important to get this matter right. I suggest that speed is not necessarily the best instrument to use when one is in a difficulty of this kind.
I thank my noble friend for the characteristically sensible way in which he repeated the Statement and answered questions on it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. My proper approach ought to be that I am entirely in the hands of your Lordships, subject to discussions with the usual channels. I ought to have said, and I am sorry that I overlooked this, that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, indicated to me informally before I came to the Chamber to repeat the Statement that he was willing to stand ready on behalf of his party to co-operate in the way that the noble Lord. Lord Cope of Berkeley, indicated.
It is a relatively simple revision—but then, we all thought that originally. As the Home Secretary said in his Statement, the draft has been laid. We ought to get on with all appropriate speed in dealing with this matter. I stress that we have a duty—and I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Thomas of Gresford—not to alarm people unnecessarily. There is a very significant weaponry of criminal legislation available. I repeat, without attempting to derogate from the seriousness of this point, that very few charges have been brought and there have been no convictions.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, we are of course willing to co-operate with business managers in

959
processing the remedial amendments, recognising as we do the seriousness of the situation, and particularly its impact on affairs in Northern Ireland in the coming week.
At such a time there is always a temptation to blame Ministers and the draftsman of the legislation. But I am afraid that I must make myself unpopular. All of us in this House must recognise that we are not entirely blameless. We have no excuse. Although the other place seems nowadays to rush through legislation, often according to a timetable and under a guillotine, when the flawed and imperfect legislation reaches this House we do not make full use of the ranks of noble Lords who are learned in the law and other noble Lords with vast experience. We yield far too often to pressure to endorse measures for, to put it politely, rather dubious political reasons. For example, last September, we were "connived" into passing the post-Omagh legislation all in one day. Much good that has done us.
The impact on terrorism has been very limited. I am afraid that the same is evident in what some call the "grale-diggers" Bill, but which I term the "disappeared" Bill. Both Governments were conned, deceived and double-crossed. I am afraid that that may lead us to the conclusion that, rather than being persuaded—I use that polite term rather than "bullied"—into giving speedy treatment to ill thought-out legislation, of which in the past year there has been a whole host, particularly regarding Northern Ireland, the lesson of the Statement is that this House must insist on proper scrutiny, and on proper time for that scrutiny, from this day on.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord for his offer of co-operation, which I gratefully accept. I repeat, for those whose interests he keenly and properly represents, that none of the six cases I mentioned related in any way in terms of allegations to Irish terrorism, although I take the noble Lord's general point about rushing through legislation.
All I can say is that this is a draft order to put right the non-references to Sections 4A and 4B. It is not quite
in the category of the Northern Ireland legislation, if I may paraphrase and use that shorthand, which your Lordships discussed and passed in one day in September last year.
I have been given an indication which I ought to share with your Lordships. So far as I understand it, another place intends to take this business at 7 o'clock tomorrow. It would therefore be possible, if your Lordships and the usual channels were agreeable, that we should do it immediately following the dinner break tomorrow. That is the up-to-date intelligence that I have which has just come to me.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I was cut to the quick by the way the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, glanced in my direction when he said that all the lawyers in the House were guilty too. Thus I stand subject to that. I wish to make one serious point which perhaps the Minister will answer. As he said, it is unusual for the draftsman, whether departmental or in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, to make a slip of this kind. It is
960
a slip and it is easy for it to be replicated the following year once it has been made. I echo the tribute that the Minister paid to the draftsman but I wonder whether he is satisfied that in the Home Office or in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, if that is where the fault was, the resources are sufficient to meet the great pressure that the draftsman is frequently under, to which he rightly referred. This might be an opportunity for review.
Finally, I welcome the speed with which remedying will be brought about. In support of what my noble friend Lord Cope said, it would have been possible, as I understand it, to have made use of the emergency procedure, to have closed the gap straightaway and at the same time to have come to Parliament and made the frank Statement that the Home Secretary made. However, that is water under the bridge: it will he dealt with quickly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks and for the tribute he paid. He has far more knowledge and experience than I of the expertise available. His question on whether there is sufficient resource, either departmentally or in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is a proper one to take up. if undertake to transmit it to the Home Secretary. One of the problems is that if something happens and the public are rightly concerned, the pressure to bring in legislation is great. Added to what I may describe as "manifesto commitments"—if I do not irritate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, too much by using that phrase—the noble and learned Lord makes a good point. We overlook the pressure we put on people with deadlines which are difficult to meet. Sometimes the pressures are not reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said that he might want to blame lawyers and so on. I do not take that view. The statement that Jack Straw made is quite unambiguous and I repeated it on his behalf.
"I … apologise for this regrettable error for which t take responsibility".
That is the proper and honourable stance for a Home Secretary to take.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are talking about statutory instruments. That is the answer to the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Molyneaux. As an appointed member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I take a marginal amount of responsibility for all this. At least, I would if we were allowed to discuss matters of policy, which is directly contrary to Standing Orders. I am regularly hauled over the coals by the chairman for trying to do so.
At our meeting yesterday we were advised that art emergency order was in the process of being laid. We were advised by one of our legal counsel that there was nothing wrong with it from our point of view. I have no doubt—although I have not the authority of the committee to speak—that we will give it every fast-track procedure that we can. However, if it is to be debated tomorrow, it will almost certainly have to be

961
accompanied by a rubric stating that it has not been reported on by the Joint Committee. But that should by no means hold it up.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the characteristically helpful response of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I agree with him that it is something to put the drafting right but it has nothing to do with policy determination because the policy determination was that which underpinned the original draft which turned out to be incorrect. I take his point about the necessary care to be attached to the rubric and to the thought behind his observations.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Williams, confirm this? I believe the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is wrong in talking about guns, explosives, masks and so on, when a conspiracy was in order. First, none of this unfortunate event has affected the powers of the police in Northern Ireland under the Emergency Provisions Act. As regards the trouble that has occurred under the Prevention of Terrorism Act it only relates to matters which would not otherwise in themselves have caused a criminal prosecution to be available where people possessed such things as, in my time, lengths of nylon cord and other matters which were part of the apparatus of bombs. But they could not in themselves have been included in an offence under either the explosives Act or the firearms Act. Therefore, there is a very narrow area in which the defect will apply and only in Great Britain, not Northern Ireland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall divide those points into two parts. The noble Viscount is quite right: it does not affect Northern Ireland. That is a reassurance I sought to give earlier, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux.
On the second point, the noble Viscount also is quite right. The provisions—again I paraphrase, I hope accurately—were essentially to deal with the possession of items or information in circumstances which might give reasonable suspicion that—I put this generally—they might be connected with terrorist purposes. He is quite right. It was to fill a gap in the law which would not otherwise have been covered.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one important point was put to him by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew? It related to the Home Office legal advisers' department. That department has been under immense pressure for many years. I hope that the Minister will look into it, as he indicated he would, as a matter of urgency. I do not believe that the situation should be allowed to continue.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that. The noble Lord has particular knowledge of the Home Office. I never cease to marvel at the quality and expertise of the work we get, under extremely trying circumstances, with very long hours of work. To take one example, with the Northern Ireland legislation of September last year, to my certain knowledge officials
962
were working long hours through the night having to attend in the Box for the Home Secretary in the Commons and then immediately having to come here, with no rest. The work was not only of first-rate quality but they were always cheerful and enthusiastic. That is not something one is paid for, it comes from a loyalty to the cause, which is a good cause, well served by them.

Greater London Authority Bill
5.37 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 35 [Publicity and availability of strategies]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 21, line 27, after ("strategy") insert ("and draft strategy").
The noble Baroness said: I am moving Amendment No. 130 and grouped with it are Amendments Nos. 131, 132 and 133, the last of which is also in my name and those of my noble friends. Amendment No. 130 was trailed by my noble friend Lord Avebury shortly before the Statement. Clause 35 concerns the publicity to be given to each strategy and its availability. We are concerned that, as is proposed in the clause, there be adequate publicity, but we do not believe that it will be adequate unless similar publicity is also given to each draft of each strategy. We want to be sure that those who may be affected by a strategy and may wish to
contribute to it are able to inform themselves and take part in the process at the draft stage, and not only to be informed after the strategy is in place. We believe that to make drafts available will enable the final form to reflect the widest input. I accept that there are quite extensive provisions for consultation in connection with the preparation and provision of strategies, but that consultation relates to bodies and organisations. If it is not specifically articulated in that way, that is how it is likely to be read.
We touched on a similar issue concerned with best value plans and reviews at both previous stages of the Local Government Bill. In that Bill the Government have referred to the involvement of "representatives of" wide interests. We understood that that was intended to mean, as we had hoped, more than formally constituted groups of representatives. We should like to see something of the same flavour in the context of this Bill.
Amendment No. 133 is also concerned with publicity. It proposes that a copy of each strategy shall be sent to each principal library—by which we mean main library—in each London borough and be available for inspection. Despite recent sad closures in some parts of London, libraries are still regarded as important places of information. I believe that that remains the position despite the increasing use of electronic technology. Those libraries are a repository of information. It is up to each borough to decide how to disseminate information, but, on being consulted, as they are required to be by statute, most boroughs will themselves trickle down that consultation. We believe that this is a minimum requirement but nevertheless an important one.
Other noble Lords have tabled amendments that are concerned with electronic technology. Despite the gathering pace of new technology, not everyone has access to the Internet; and some who have access may not be very good at using it. I cast no aspersions on anyone other than myself. We want to ensure that traditional methods remain widely available. Although we support the autonomy of the boroughs, as this clause is about the GLA's strategy, it is appropriate that the authority should be subject to a minimum standard. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 131 and 132. At the moment there is no guaranteed provision for copies of the strategies to be available outside the mayor's office. Further copies are available to the public on payment of a fee to be determined by the mayor. The mayor is also obliged to take such steps as in his opinion will give adequate publicity to each strategy. None of these provisions is adequate in the interests of "transparency" (to use the current buzzword).
The mayor's office will not be readily accessible to most residents of London, especially considering the state of public transport on the one hand and the plans of the Deputy Prime Minister to drive private cars off the streets of London on the other. I ant willing to give very good odds that, in common with most local and national government and government agencies, any available parking will be restricted to officials only. There must be a way for someone who lives in Havering or Hillingdon to be able to discover what the mayor has in mind without having to traipse all the way to central London.
As to payment for copies of the strategies, one citizen's reasonable fee could be another's prohibitive expense. It may be that the mayor will consider it reasonable to provide a copy to every branch of every public library—certainly, we support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as to that. But, as drawn, the clause does not require him to do very much at all. In his opinion it may be sufficient for him to
publicise the strategy perhaps by notice in a newspaper, local or national, that is read by a small proportion of
the population. Which Members of the Committee can honestly say that they read the public notices in the paper of their choice? To send a copy of the strategies to each of the London boroughs is merely common courtesy. The councils can then make their own arrangements for giving residents access to the copies.
The mayor is obliged to consult the councils when formulating his strategies. Why should he not be obliged to send them a copy of the result? Is there to be a queue of council chief executives waiting for their turn to read the document? The Minister may very well argue that, naturally, the mayor will send copies to councils, but laws are made to make sure that people do what is expected of them. This amendment guarantees that the councils receive the information that they need promptly, without difficulty and also without charge to their council tax payers. It also ensures that the mayor cannot keep councils in the dark about his plans or delay informing them about those plans.
964
Amendment No. 132 also requires the mayor to post his strategies on a website to be established by him. The Government claim to have a target of 25 per cent of government services to be accessible electronically by the year 2002. They even sent Members of this House a disk to enable them to reach government direct, provided they know how to use the Internet. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that most noble Lords know how to use the Internet. I confess that I do not. Perhaps in the circumstances I should not make that admission. However, I have young grandchildren who know how to use it. This provision will require the mayor to follow the excellent example set by the Conservative administration in the London Borough of Wandsworth. It is also environmentally friendly for the information to be published on the Net rather than paper.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We believe that these amendments which relate to arrangements for publicising the GLA's work, in particular its strategies, are unnecessary. Clause 35 already requires the mayor to take such steps as he or she considers necessary to secure adequate publicity for each strategy. This requirement allows the mayor a sensible degree of flexibility. He or she will be able to decide whether or not to place a copy in each of London's libraries if lie or she so wishes, post them on an Internet site or send them to each of the London boroughs. We believe that it would be unduly prescriptive to legislate on these points.
I appreciate the sentiments behind the noble Baroness's proposal that would require the authority to maintain a public Internet site free of charge and post its most important literature on it. Now is the time for confession. I too have difficulty accessing information on the Internet. My 10 week-old grandson, I suspect, will be able to use it with fluency before I can. But this is surely a matter best left to the authority to decide for itself and not a point upon which we should legislate in the Bill.
The Committee will note that we have tabled amendments that will tidy up arrangements for the publication of GLA documents, including the mayor's. The effect of these amendments is that each of the authority's documents would be available for inspection free of charge, as the noble Baroness recognises, at the GLA's offices for a period of six years, and copies would be obtainable for a reasonable fee. These arrangements will bring the GLA into line with similar arrangements for local authorities. We shall shortly be discussing those matters.
In the light of my comments and the tabled amendments to be dealt with shortly concerning the authority's publications, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. However, as always we. shall consider very carefully the points that have been made by both noble Baronesses in dealing with these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My concern here was not to be too prescriptive. We have been trying to avoid that for some days now. I do not believe I am the only Member

965
of the Committee with experience of local government who, as local government has modernised itself over the last few years, has made attempts to ensure that information is available without residents having to go to an undue amount of trouble to obtain it. I believe that that is extremely important and that for a strategy or a draft strategy prepared by a borough to be available only in one place would be inadequate. One must localise far more imaginatively than simply providing for a paper to be inspected after the person who wants to read it has approached reception desks, been directed to different departments and had to make clear precisely what is required and so on, during office hours on only five days of the week. To have information available, particularly on issues on which the public may want to make an input (and that is why we referred to draft strategies), where it can conveniently be read by those who may not be able to do so during working hours is very important to the good operation of the authority. That was why we were concerned to make that quite clear. Of course I appreciate that the mayor can take other steps but, given that there are certain prescriptions, we want to make sure that they are the right prescriptions.
I heard what the noble Baroness said. I shall read her answer. In the light of amendments which are to be made to the Bill following the Government's proposals in a few minutes, the general subject may be one to
which we shall return.
Lord Lucas: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment perhaps I may ask a supplementary question of the Minister. Is the opinion of the mayor required to be reasonable? Is there an implied "reasonable" in his opinion? If not, would it not be a good idea to put it in there?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: It is.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 130A:
Page 21, line 29, leave out from ("available") to end of line 30 and insert ("for the appropriate period by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge at the principal offices of the Authority at reasonable hours.").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments has been trailed in the previous discussion. They deal with the arrangements for inspecting and obtaining copies of a number of GLA documents and TfL's annual report.
The amendments cover the mayor's strategies, the mayor's annual report, the GLA's budget, substitute calculations (for example, a revised budget), the capital spending plan, TfL's annual report, the mayor's guidance documents on applications for bus service permits, and the state of the environment report. The amendments ensure that the arrangements for inspecting and obtaining copies of all these documents are consistent.
The effect of the amendments is to require the mayor to leave a copy of each document available for inspection, for a period of six years from the date it is first made available, at reasonable hours, free of charge at the GLA's principal offices. The amendments also ensure that any person, and this includes London bodies and organisations as well as members of the public, will, on request, be supplied with a copy of each document or any part of it for such reasonable fees as the mayor may determine. Keeping documents available for inspection for six years is of course consistent with the requirements under Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 for agendas and minutes and reports of council meetings.
I shall not run through the details of all the amendments that are in this group. The vast majority of them make consistent arrangements for the documents referred to at various points during the Bill.
I shall draw particular attention to Amendment No. 219B because that deals with the GLA's budget. In addition to providing for inspection and obtaining copies, it places an express duty on the mayor to publish the consolidated budget and the component budgets of the GLA in each of the functional bodies. This will ensure that it will not be necessary to look at more than one document—the mayor's final draft budget and amendments passed by a two-thirds majority of the assembly of course, so that the GLA's actual budget can be inspected. Amendment No. 224E makes similar provision for substitute budget calculations.
Amendment No. 238B fulfils the commitment of my honourable friend the Minister for London to consider making provision for people to obtain copies of the capital spending plan at reasonable cost. This clearly deals with the formal documents of the GLA. A number of other points were raised in the previous debate but this will put into the Bill the commitments and the arrangements for publishing GLA documents. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may raise one question with the Minister. Clause 35 deals with the publicity and availability of strategies. Amendment No. 130D defines what one would have assumed to be a reasonable period for the availability of these strategies after the date of publication as six years.
There is in that amendment an in-built assumption that the strategy will be revised and republished within a six-year period. Should that not take place, at the end of a six-year period from first publication of the strategy one would face the situation in which a strategy still in place ceased to be available to the public under this particular restriction. One has to face the reality that it is unlikely that a strategy will go completely unrevised for a six-year period. It is not wholly inconceivable that in matters of waste disposal or possibly of air quality the strategy might be reviewed every year, but in fact its content might still be found to be valid, in which case there would be no need to republish. Although one could say that one is arguing about improbabilities, the business of the Committee is to consider such things, among others.

967
I invite the Minister to consider this possible impossibility, if one may use that phrase, and perhaps advise us how he would deal with such a situation if it arose because there is, it seems to me, a potential problem.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord has raised a point which concerned me. too, though I had not even considered the quite obvious point now he makes it that a strategy may still be in effect but not available if the authority were to stick to the letter of this provision. My anxiety related to the revision of the strategy because at that point no doubt members of the public would wish to see the strategy which is being revised and it might not be available.
I wondered too what the position was on draft strategies. I accept that to a large extent this has been covered by the answer in the previous group about whether the GLA could refuse to make draft strategies available.
Finally, will the Minister say how all this lies with the draft freedom of information Bill? I admit that I am not as familiar with it as I might be and it is, after all, only a draft. But given the Government's commitment to freedom of information, is it likely to be a period which will remain appropriate?
6 p.m.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may give the noble Baroness some comfort in relation to the freedom of information Bill. If it were enacted as it is now, the mayor would have no duty whatever to provide any information on anything if he felt it might damage himself or anyone of his acquaintance in any way whatever. But perhaps it will be revised slightly before it reaches us.
My technical question is in relation to the publication of a strategy which is, over time, subject to a number of small revisions. Is the date of publication of that strategy the date on which the latest revision is published? A strategy may well remain in place for 10 or 12 years, with occasional small revisions. Is the date of publication of a strategy the original date or the date of the publication of the latest amendment to that strategy? If so, is it the whole strategy or any amendment which is available for six years from that date?
Lord Whitty: The commonsense answer which, in this case, is also the legislative answer is that if a strategy is revised, then that revised strategy is available for six years from that point. Therefore, the totality of the revised strategy is available. If it is revised within six years, clearly the original strategy is still available for the period of six years. The noble Baroness asked whether it is possible to compare the revised and original strategies. That is possible for six years from the publication of the original strategy and the revised strategy will be available for six years.
Baroness Hamwee: But it is available only for six years. So if the revision takes place in year seven, common sense suggests that the original strategy should be available.
Lord Whitty: This legislation does riot provide for the strategy to remain extant beyond the six-year period.
968
We chose six years because that is the period which applies to similar formal documents in local authorities. Nevertheless, as the noble Baroness said—arid I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the previous debate—the mayor is required to act reasonably. If that strategy is still in effect, it would be reasonable to expect the mayor to provide that strategy in the same form. Six years was chosen for consistency but it is also subject to the requirement placed on the mayor by the legislation that he should act reasonably.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps the Minister will explain to me what are "reasonable hours" mentioned in Amendment No. 130A.
Lord Whitty: They are clearly not the proceedings of this Committee. "Reasonable hours" would normally be interpreted to be something slightly beyond normal office hours. In an earlier debate, the noble Baroness raised the question of means of access to documents. My noble friend indicated that we shall consider that point as will, no doubt, the mayor in exercising his reasonableness. However, "reasonable hours" does not mean half past one in the morning in terms of the physical copying of the document. Some flexibility should be allowed to the authority in determining precisely what are those "reasonable hours".
Lord Dixon-Smith: In view of the fact that we are all reasonably requiring the mayor to be reasonable, it seems to me that if a strategy had not been amended for a period of six years, it should be republished. Should that provision not be included in the Bill so that the matter is taken care of?
Lord Whitty: I do not believe that such a requirement is necessary. I take note of what the noble Lord says and I shall consider it. But there is a clear implication and any test of reasonableness would lead to the same conclusion as that drawn by Members of the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 130B 130D:
Page 21, line 31, after ("strategy") insert (", or any part of such a strategy,").
Page 21, line 31, leave out ("member of the public who requests it") and insert ("person on request during the appropriate period").
Page 21, line 32, at end insert—
("() In this section "the appropriate period" in the cave of any strategy is the period of six years beginning with the date of publication of the strategy.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 133 not moved.]
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 133A:
Page 21, line 41, at end insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State shall give his reasons for making a direction under subsection (1) when issuing the direction.").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 36 enables the Secretary of State to issue directions to the mayor if he has failed to publish a strategy and does not seem to be taking steps to prepare one. Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State to impose a time limit. Subsection (3) requires the mayor to comply with the direction. We can certainly understand the need for those powers just in case, for one reason or another, the mayor is dragging his feet over one or more of the strategies he is supposed to create and publicise.
However, there is one element missing from the powers which the Secretary of State is taking. He should be required to tell the mayor why he is making the direction. That may simply be, "Well, you have taken six months and that is far too long", or, "You have declined to form a strategy on that subject and I require you to do so". The reasons may be obvious to everybody, including or especially the mayor. The circumstances in which that power may need to be invoked may be extremely remote. However, whatever the reason for issuing the direction, it should contain just that one extra sentence or two which explains to the mayor why he is being subjected to that procedure.
There does not seem to be any sanction against the mayor for failing to comply with a direction. But, equally, the mayor does not seem to have any right of appeal against such a direction. In what I have described already as the extremely remote circumstance of the clause being invoked, I believe that the mayor should have the right to know the exact nature of the complaint against him. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: If we must have the clause in the form proposed in the Bill, then I agree with the noble Baroness that we need the amendment. We believe that an extra step is desirable in the process. Our Amendment No. 134 proposes that the assembly should first be able to take the mayor to task if he fails to publish a strategy before the Secretary of State can step in.
The assembly can do that through questions and so on. However, the amendment provides a more formal provision which gives the assembly a specific role. That is appropriate because the assembly will be closer than the Secretary of State to what the authority is doing. The assembly will have been involved with issues relevant to the strategy.
We are concerned about the ability of the Secretary of State, however far in reserve the powers may be, to intervene to the exclusion of the other part of the authority. So we propose that the assembly, which is the scrutiny body, will be most aware of whether or not the mayor is not preparing or—possibly more relevantly—not revising a strategy when he or he should be doing so, and it is only if the assembly fails to take necessary steps that the Secretary of State could carry out this exercise.
Lord Whitty: I think I need to explain that these provisions are intended solely to be transitional. They would enable the Secretary of State to issue a direction
970
to the mayor to prepare and publish the first of each of his strategies within a given period if it appeared that he was not taking the necessary steps in time to prepare the strategy.
Under the clause, only the very first of each strategy is "prepared and published." All future strategies are regarded as revisions of that first strategy, and the power of the Secretary of State in this clause would not bite on those further revisions. The provision is therefore more limited in scope than I think either noble Baroness indicated.
I do not in practice expect that the Secretary of State would need to issue a direction. It is likely that the incoming mayor will have pretty clear ideas about what he or she wishes to do in relation to each strategy, and it is therefore unlikely that the Secretary of State will have to hurry him or her up. Nevertheless, this is a fall-back should that situation arise.
That means that this clause as we envisage it would not apply to the ongoing situation described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, where effectively she would give powers to the assembly to do that hurrying-up process. Clearly, the assembly has broad powers of scrutiny and can hassle the mayor into producing those strategies. However, the amendment as drafted envisages the assembly actually taking over in those circumstances the executive powers of the mayor—not just temporarily, but, by implication, permanently. That would blur the executive and scrutiny function to a degree which would be inconsistent with the general approach to the structure of this authority, and I could not accept that.
Amendment No. 133A is unnecessary, given that we are dealing with transitional arrangements and the only reason for using this power would be that the mayor had not published the initial strategy. The reasons are, therefore, built into the purpose of the power to direct and would never need to be explained in that broader sense, because this is not an ongoing power.
I therefore hope that both noble Baronesses will understand that beyond the general requirement that the Secretary of State must act reasonably within the terms of the clause—in other words, his action would be open to challenge by the mayor or others—their amendments are not necessary.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I think I agree with the Minister. In fact, I think I said in moving my amendment that the chances of this happening were extremely low; and that the mayor knows what he wants in his strategy and will no doubt go ahead with it.
The point is that the Government propose in Clause 36, albeit for transitional purposes, to deal with the unlikely event that we have both discussed of the mayor's not going ahead. In that unlikely event, and the unlikely need for the clause to have to be brought into action, with two "unlikelys" on the table I can see no reason why we could not say, "If this unlikely thing should happen, and if therefore the Secretary of State should do that, he should

971
at least take a sentence or two to say why he was doing it." In no way would it destroy the Bill; it would do no more than clarify something which is unlikely ever to happen.
Lord Whitty: In this, as we have all acknowledged, extremely unlikely hypothetical situation, the Secretary of State is still required to act reasonably, as he is throughout the Bill. Therefore, spelling it out specifically in this case would perhaps cast doubt on other points where the Secretary of State is expected to act reasonably. I am not sure that saying that the Secretary of State should supply an explanation fully meets the general requirement to act reasonably. An explanation might turn out to be unreasonable. If anything, the noble Baroness's insistence on an explanation rather than a general requirement to act reasonably would dilute the requirements on the Secretary of State.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: With that very reasonable explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [The Mayor's monthly report to the Assembly]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 22, line 2, leave out ("three") and insert ("five working").
The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the distribution by the mayor of information to members of the assembly for its first and subsequent meetings. Subsection (1) requires that reports should be submitted three days before the meeting of the assembly.
Three days may appear to be reasonable. I accept that once it is into its swing the assembly will normally be meeting monthly. But it depends very much on the mayor, his style and how readable the reports are as to whether the three-day period is long enough. In my early days in local government if anyone had sent me the book of reports that I had to go through for a council meeting three days before the meeting, there is no way that I could have read it and absorbed the implications. Even should the mayor write in a clear and relatively concise style, I would suggest quite seriously that three days is not a very long period to absorb the content of those reports and then perhaps do some research work so that the member of the assembly feels that he can form a valid opinion on them.
Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 are designed to extend the period to five days for that reason and also because "submit a written report" does not necessarily mean that the member has received it. Even if a report is put on e-mail, if we go into the digitally literate age and assume that all members of the assembly can use e-mail, it does not mean that the recipient is there to receive it, so he may still get it rather late. The amendments extend the period by two days, which I do not regard as unreasonable.
Amendment No. 137, which is grouped with the other two, is to enable the mayor to notify the assembly of, say, business which might arise in the period between
972
his submitting his report and the meeting of the assembly, so that the assembly can consider it. I suppose it could be argued that the amendment to a certain extent negates the intention of the others, but that is not so. It is there to ensure that should some emergency happen which the mayor felt it appropriate for the assembly to discuss, he could notify the assembly so that it would know it was coming and do what preparation it could. We have tabled Amendment No. 137 in order to ensure that such an emergency procedure exists. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments seek to alter the arrangements set out in the Bill for the mayor's monthly report to the assembly.
Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 would require the mayor to submit his written report to the first and subsequent monthly meetings five working days in advance.
Amendment No. 137, is, I assume, intended to allow him to bring urgent issues which arise after the five working days deadline to the assembly's monthly meeting. The deadline of three days strikes the right balance between ensuring that the mayor's report covers recent decisions, and allowing the assembly sufficient time to consider the report and decide what questions to put to the mayor. A full-time assembly should have no difficulties with doing this in three days. Three days is also the length of time which local authorities generally and the assembly are obliged to give the public to inspect papers before meetings. We shall be bringing forward an amendment to clarify that the mayor should submit his report three clear days before the meeting, in line with the approach for local authorities in tine Local Government Act 1972.
Amendment No. 174 appears to be an attempt to address the problems that a deadline of five working days could create. The issues which interest the assembly most in any month, and on which assembly members are keenest to quiz the mayor, may fall outside the scope of his report.
Clause 37 does not limit assembly members to questioning the mayor about issues covered in the report. Nor does it prevent the mayor from submitting a further report to the assembly after the three day deadline if he wishes to. We are exploring whether the Bill as drafted would prevent the assembly from considering a supplementary report at a monthly meeting. But where issues are covered in the mayor's report, the assembly will have, in good time, not only details of the mayor's significant decisions, but also the reasons why he took them. And it is this information which will enable the assembly thoroughly to scrutinise the mayor's actions.
I urge noble Lords not to press the amendments. I repeat that we shall read and consider carefully the points raised by noble Lords during the debate.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the Bill states that the report will be submitted, does that mean that members will receive it—that it will be posted? Or will they be in the building and able to pick it up? It makes

973
a difference whether you receive a report with just a day to spare when perhaps you are at another meeting. It is not only a question of reading a report of what the mayor has done but also reading his response to the proposals of the assembly. There is a lot to consider before a meeting. The noble Baroness knows the situation well from her experience in local government. It would be interesting to know what "submit" means. Does it means that the mayor puts the document in the post?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: "Submit" means "make available to" and "present to". The comparison with local government is not always valid. The small number of assembly members will be full time, and therefore would be expected to be in their place of work and able quickly to access the information, unlike some members of local authorities.
Baroness Hamwee: My point relates to that last remark. Submission to the assembly is not the same as "submission to" or "receipt by" members of the assembly. I believe that a member of the assembly, whether or not full time, may be outside the assembly building undertaking the work of the assembly. The scrutiny role requires an understanding of events outside the building. Although it is a small point, it bears examination.
The Government propose three clear days. Are those three clear working days, or three clear days? Members of this House and of local authorities—I accept that there are differences—are well accustomed to working on Saturdays and Sundays. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, nods wearily—no doubt from experience in both capacities! However, noble Lords on the Conservative Benches made the point about the need to undertake research following receipt of papers, and to contact other people. One cannot assume that people will be available on Saturdays or Sundays to reply to reasonable and necessary inquiries. I should like to be assured that there is an adequate period for the assembly members to undertake the work on which they will eventually spend all their time.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The answer to the noble Baroness's question is three days, and not three working days. I repeat: we shall consider carefully the points raised during the debate.
Lord Tope: I am a little disappointed with the Minister's response. I welcome her statement that she will consider the point carefully. I realise that she understands well the difference between three working days and three clear days. In other words, to send it out on Friday afternoon for consideration on Monday does not follow the spirit of the provision.
We all hope and believe that the relationship between the mayor and the assembly will be constructive and co-operative. I hope and expect that the mayor will send out such documents in good time. I believe that if it were a straightforward local authority the matter would be covered adequately in the authority's standing orders.
974
That is not appropriate to the relationship between a mayor and an assembly. I express a personal view. I hope that at an early stage the mayor and the assembly will work out some convention on how they will work together. That is best left to them.
However, since we are legislating, and it is not a major matter of government policy, I hope that the Government will consider carefully the points made. I hope that those Ministers who have experience of local government will recognise that three days (not three working days) may all too often be inadequate because they cover weekends. They may cover periods when hard-working full-time members may be representing the assembly outside the country at some important event and unable to see the document. The danger of providing for three days in the Bill gives the mayor a defence for sending it out late. The mayor is complying with his or her statutory requirement; and there is little that the assembly can do about it. If we are to specify a time limit, it needs to be a reasonable one. A period of five clear working days is a reasonable time limit.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. The simple amendments provoked a worthwhile discussion, to which I listened with care, as I am sure did the Ministers.
I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady
Farrington, will consider the matter further. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 22, line 20, at end insert—
("() The mayor shall additionally respond in writing within a reasonable time to any written question from any assembly member about matters in relation to which statutory functions are exercisable by him.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment envisages that the mayor may be subjected to questions for written answer in the same way that Members of this House can put down Questions for Written Answer by Government Ministers. That would be a very worthwhile procedure. On that assumption, Amendment No. 139 would also require that the answers should be published. Clearly, a procedure would have to be established to make a distinction between a written question and what might be regarded as normal correspondence. It would be an enhancement if assembly members undertook the function of monitoring, supervising and questioning the way in which the mayor fulfils his function, and therefore it would be worthwhile to include Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 in the Bill.
Amendment No.140 deals with Clause 37(4) and refers to "The duty of the mayor under subsection (3)". I am not sure whether that is restrictive, but if there is any possibility that it is, it would be better if it referred to the duty of the mayor under the whole section and not just under subsection (3).
Amendment No. 141 adds a duty for the mayor to publish his answers under subsection (4). I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We support the amendments. We have tabled a similar amendment, Amendment No. 192A, but it is not so elaborate and would not be as effective.
The noble Lord's reference to correspondence made me realise that access to information, in the way we are accustomed to dealing with it in relation to local authorities, may be relevant here, because certain correspondence is available to members of the public on inspection. I now realise that this may be a more complicated issue than I had anticipated when drafting the later amendment. Nevertheless, these provisions regulate the relationship between two constituent parts of the authority, and therefore it would be appropriate to have some provision which ensured that the mayor could not avoid answering the questions.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 138 is intended to place a duty on the mayor to answer in writing and within a reasonable time, any written question from an assembly member about his or her statutory responsibilities. Amendment No. 139 would require the text of such questions and the mayor's responses to be sent to each London borough and the Common Council and to be made available on an Internet site which the authority would be obliged to maintain.
Amendment No. 140 would allow the mayor not to disclose advice from GLA staff in answering written questions from assembly members as well as questions put to him at the monthly assembly meeting.
Amendment No. 141 would require the mayor to send his monthly report to each of the London boroughs and the Common Council at the same time as he sends it to the assembly.
The Government made it clear in another place that it is certainly the intention that the mayor should be required to answer written as well as oral questions put to him by assembly members at their monthly meeting. Similarly, it is the intention that if the mayor is not able to answer all the questions assembly members put to the mayor at a monthly meeting because there is not enough time, he should send written answers to assembly members whose questions were not reached. We also intend that written answers to questions put at the monthly meeting, including those given after the meeting, should be publicly available.
We shall be bringing forward amendments at Report stage to clarify these intentions.
I am not persuaded by other aspects of the provision which the amendments would make. I do not agree that the mayor should be required to answer written questions put to him by assembly members other than at the monthly meeting. If an assembly member writes to the mayor asking him a question, we fully expect that the mayor will reply, but the monthly assembly meeting is the key forum in which the assembly will hold the mayor to account, and a statutory duty to answer questions should rightly be reserved for it. We should
976
not be looking to replicate for the GLA the arrangements for MPs to question the Government in Parliament. The mayor, unlike the Government, is required to submit a report to the assembly each month. If the assembly urgently wishes to put questions to the mayor on handling a major crisis, for example, it can summon the mayor.
A duty to answer questions put at any time would detract from the arrangements for a monthly report and questions at a monthly meeting which are the centrepiece of accountability for the GLA. The mayor and assembly will of course be free to agree their own procedures for handling written questions put to the mayor other than at the monthly meeting. No doubt the resources available within the GLA to handle questions will be an important consideration in reaching such an agreement. it would certainly not be in Londoners' interests if the burden of assembly members' questions was so great that the mayor was left with little time to get on with the job.
I have made it clear that we do not intend to require the mayor to send to the London boroughs and the Common Council those documents which the mayor is required to send to the assembly and/or make available to the public. The assembly's statutory right to receive documents from the mayor derives of course from its status as part of the same authority.
I have assured the Committee that amendments will ensure that the mayor is obliged to answer written assembly questions put to him or her at the monthly meeting. The text of the questions and the answers will be publicly available, including those which the mayor answers after the meeting.
I appear to be repeating at every point at this stage that we will carefully consider the views that have been expressed. The reason for that is that obviously a bigger picture is emerging from the questions raised by the amendments, and we wish to consider them as a whole. I say that without commitment, but I certainly promise careful scrutiny.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is the Minister saying that access to information by the public will be legislated for in the Bill? If that is so, will it include a provision for the authority to charge for that information in the way the legislation allows in the case of local government?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have to admit to a certain disappointment at the response of the noble Baroness, particularly in relation to Amendments Nos. 138 and 139.
The Bill establishes a totally new type of authority. Not only will it have full-time professional members, but it will have a full-time professional mayor. He will need to be quite an exceptional mayor if he is to fulfil Londoners' expectations. If he is not a thorough-going professional, then he probably should not be doing the

977
job. If he cannot handle a quantity of written questions in between meetings and answer them, then perhaps the priorities should be different.
Baroness Hamwee: We on these Benches have been very grateful for the care the Government have taken when referring to the mayor, either to refer to "the mayor" or to say "she or he", in that order. I hope that in the legal formulae the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will accept that the male embraces the female because we would like to be assured that he accepts the possibility that there could be a female mayor.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Baroness is in danger of tempting me to make the observation that certain psychologists' surveys indicate that the female brain is more capable than the male of grasping more than one activity at once.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We are trespassing on to dangerous territory. I was always taught that under the Sexual Definitions Act 1936, for "him" read "she". In any event, I am afraid that I am an optimist and I always hope that the female embraces the male.
I heard what the Minister said about considering the debate on these amendments. I am grateful to her for that and shall hope optimistically for some favourable response in due course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 139 to 141 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 141A:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
STATE OF PUBLIC HEALTH REPORT
(" .—(1) The Mayor shall produce and publish a report on the state of the public health in Greater London to be known as a "state of public health report".
(2) The report required of the Mayor under subsection (1) shall be published—

(a) in the case of the first state of the public health report, before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day of the first ordinary election, and

(b) in the case of each state of the public health report subsequent to the first, before the end of the period of four years beginning with the day on which the previous state of the public health report was published.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is framed in similar terms to the duty to report on the state of the environment in Greater London, which is set out in Clause 281. The Secretary of State for Health recently said that public health is central to the Government's strategies. He then went further and said that he would be setting up an observatory in every NHS region to advise on impact health assessments and to evaluate progress towards cutting health inequalities.
All that is very good so far as it goes. But Sir Donald Acheson made clear in his report last year that health inequalities occur in a wide variety of other areas, such as a housing, education, planning and transport. Those
978
in Greater London come under a wide variety of authorities. Sir Donald said that unless we can eradicate inequality in these areas, we cannot eradicate all health inequalities. Without a general overview at regional level by the mayor on the state of public health, we cannot expect to tackle London's considerable health inequalities in all those areas.
The amendment is designed to ensure that the mayor takes regular stock of this and publishes key indicators in order to measure progress on public health. Without such a report, it will not be possible to assess how well the mayor is carrying out his or her duties under Clause 33(7)(a). There is a huge demand for information about the state of London's health, particularly by the Chief Medical Officer and by the King's Fund, and that needs to be drawn together for the benefit of Londoners and for the benefit of the strategy being developed by the GLA.
Currently Clauses 37 and 38 do not provide a duty to report on public health. Failing the Government placing a specific duty on the authority to produce a full health strategy, on which I moved an amendment in Committee, we believe that this is the next best option. I urge the Minister to consider it carefully. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: A great deal of effort is being made in relation to public health in London. I am aware that the new London NHS region is devoting a considerable amount of effort to developing a public health strategy and doing so in conjunction with all the relevant stakeholders, including local government and the voluntary sector. That is extremely welcome.
However, given the responsibilities placed on the mayor to look closely at public health indicators and to ensure that in developing strategies public health is kept in mind, it is extremely likely that the mayor will want to take an overview of the public health of the people of Greater London and of the policies which the Government and other agencies are following.
It is also inevitable that the mayor will produce something like a report on the state of public health. Given that the work is being done within the NHS region, would it not be better for that report to be published under the name of the mayor, which would give it a great deal more prominence and ensure that other agencies focus attention on its implications?
I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, proposed in his amendment because it corresponds to what is likely to happen and will give a considerable boost to this area of the mayor's work and responsibilities.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord's amendment would require the mayor to publish a state of public health report three years after the first ordinary election and subsequently every four years. We believe that it would be wrong to impose such a requirement on the authority. The GLA will have no responsibilities for the provision of health services in Greater London. It will not be responsible for the state

979
of health of Londoners. People's good or bad health depends upon a wide range of factors, including what they do to themselves.
However, the GLA will be under a duty, both in the exercise of its powers and the preparation of its strategies, to consider their effect on the health of people in London and to promote improvements in their health. The mayor will therefore be instrumental in seeking to effect improvements in public health. We have no doubt that both the mayor and the assembly will take an intense interest in what can and should be done to improve public health in London; and an equally intense interest in the quality and reliability of the provision of health services. Undoubtedly, they will produce reports of both a general and specific nature about the health of Londoners.
However, the monitoring of public health and the provision of public health services will not be their responsibility. The London executive of the NHS, the health authorities and other bodies will do that. We do, of course, expect there to be close liaison and co-operation between the GLA and the responsible health authorities and bodies. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that in the circumstances it would be wrong and inappropriate to require the mayor to produce a specific report and that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: We are well aware of that and did not intend the measure to be about the provision of health services. We tabled the amendment because of the mayor's duties and responsibilities, in particular social development and the environment. We believe that the state of public health is closely related to those two issues.
I believe that a report would be a necessary basis to allow those scrutinising draft strategies to test whether the strategies proposed are correct. I regard this provision, or something similar, as necessary in order to ensure that the constituent parts of the authority—the mayor and the assembly—are able to do their jobs properly.
Lord Clement-Jones: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for his support on the amendment. I know that it will carry considerable weight in London health circles. We tabled the amendment as a step back from requiring the authority to produce a full health strategy. We feel strongly that there is a good case for that. But, given that that is not possible, there are other ways of producing a health strategy. It is essential to have a state of public health support which pulls together progress being made by the different agencies and authorities in London. Who better than the mayor and the authority to do that pulling together, to demonstrate that leadership? I t is not about the delivery of health services, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee made clear. It is about the indicators and other aspects of the other strategies pursued by the mayor that have an impact on public health in London.
In many respects the health service plays a fairly limited part in ironing out health inequalities. Housing and education probably form a more important part in
980
ironing out health inequalities than the health service, which often deals with acute health as opposed to prevention or promotion of good health.
I do not believe that it is wrong to require the mayor to produce such a report. The duty being imposed—once every four years—is not an onerous one. I do not believe that an authority faced with a requirement to produce a report once every four years will find that unduly onerous. We hope that there will be a centre of excellence on public health matters, whether in the regional health authorities or in the authority itself, and that there will be a unit that concentrates on and has expertise in public health matters in Greater London. Wherever it is placed, it will help to produce that report. However, it is important that the report is produced and we believe that the best place to produce it is the GLA. Clearly, we shall not press the matter in Committee, but we may want to return to it on Report.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Is the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, saying that he would envisage the mayor being able to require people working for the health service in London to work for him in producing the report? I was unclear whether he was saying that the centre of excellence could be required to work with the mayor were the health authority not to consider that. Of course, the mayor, working in co-operation with the London health service executive and others, will have information necessary to produce the mayor's strategies. The service executive would not have to produce its own reports. It would want to monitor and assess the effect of the different strategies on health.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that additional response. I am not sure that I am clear about what the Minister is trying to say. There is a duty of co-operation and partnership under the new Health Bill, which, in a sense, should meet such matters. Of course, if the NHS region has information, it should be able to provide that to the GLA, if the GLA has the responsibility for drawing up the state of the public health report. It would not be a question of executive responsibility for a public health unit, but if it were felt appropriate that the mayor should have his or her own public health unit in order to assess health—there is a duty under Clause 25, I believe, about carrying out the mayor's duties under Clause 33—there may well be a need for health expertise within the GLA itself.
With the greatest respect, I believe it is a slight red herring to worry at this stage about where the expertise will be, and who will have control over that expertise. With the right partnership between the different agencies and authorities, which will be essential in drawing up other strategies across the board in London, it should be entirely possible once every four years—I emphasise that—to draw up a state of the public health report.
I urge the Government to think again because this is a matter that has considerable support and takes things a notch further than the health assessment inserted by the Government in the other place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 22, line 24, after ("year") insert ("and at least ten working days before the debate to be held under section 39 below").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 38 provides for the preparation by the mayor of an annual report and Clause 39 provides for an annual debate. I tabled my amendment to suggest that in addition to the mayor being obliged to produce it,
"As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year",
the mayor is under an obligation to ensure that the report is available in good time before the annual debate. Therefore, I suggest that it is available at least 10 working days before that debate—in other words two weeks. I believe that that is the minimum period one should expect, although one would hope that it would be available considerably earlier.
I realise that in drafting the amendment I should have made a similar amendment to line 39. Nevertheless, this amendment enables me to raise the general point. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: On this amendment we are arguing whether the report should be available in 10 working days or seven working days. Either provision is substantially better than we generally have in this House or the other place when discussing major reports from any government of any complexion. It is important that, as soon as the report is available, it is subject to immediate scrutiny and immediate debate. Seven days seems an adequate period for the full time assembly members and for most organisations within London to have considered it. I see no great advantage in extending the period to 10 days. I believe that a period of seven days gives enough time for interested parties to digest the report and it is not too long before the debate is held. Therefore, I am not convinced that that change is necessary.
Baroness Hamwee: I read Clause 39(2), which I assume is the source of the seven days—that the debate shall be held at least seven days after publication—as being an obligation on those organising the debate to make sure that there is sufficient time. I believe that the balance is slightly different. I agree that seven days and 10 working days is probably the difference of only one week and not three days. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 22, line 35, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) information of such descriptions as the Assembly or any of the London boroughs or the Common Council, prior to the end of the financial year to which the annual report relates, have notified the Mayor that they wish to have included in the annual report.").
The noble Baroness said: I speak to Amendments Nos. 144, 147 and 148. This series of amendments is an extension to Amendment No. 143 which we discussed on Monday. The amendments are intended to ensure that more information is made available to the boroughs and the public than provided for in Clause 38.
As drafted, only the assembly has the right to tell the mayor, in advance of the financial year, what information it will require in the ensuing annual report. However, the contents of the annual report are not only of concern to the assembly or the mayor—London is not their private fiefdom—as everything that they do affects each of the boroughs and the residents of the boroughs.
As I have said many times, the Government have deliberately divorced the assembly from the boroughs by refusing to make their constituencies coterminous with the boroughs. They have produced 14 super constituency representatives with no loyalty to any individual single borough. They have produced 13 representatives, euphemistically called "London representatives", but in reality the delegates of the political parties, and, by the exercise of naked political patronage, they have given them a place on the list which has ensured their election.
So where is the local accountability? How are the local councils to know what the mayor has done—or not done—for their own borough, and why, if they are not entitled to require the mayor to report on it? The mayor could totally neglect a borough and not give a single word of personalised explanation which the councillors could then pass on to their residents.
Amendment No. 147 requires the mayor to send a copy of the report to each of the London boroughs and to the common council, and to make it freely available on a public website to be established by the authorities. I do not need to say more on that point.
My motto, confirmed by the College of Arms, is "quare non?"—"Why not"? I ask the Minister the same question.
Amendment No. 148 adds to the perfectly reasonable embargo on the publication of the annual report until it is sent to the assembly, by saying it also has to be sent to the boroughs and the common council in advance. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Baroness referred to "naked political patronage". My party—I cannot speak for others—agreed a selection procedure which allows every member of the party in London to exercise a vote in the selection of candidates. To the extent that membership of a party allows the members to exercise a voice through a democratic process within the party, perhaps that is patronage because they will be conferring the ability to stand; but no more than that. On behalf of these Benches I cannot let it be suggested that patronage will be conferred on the select 11.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Baroness is absolutely right to pull me up on that point. As a matter of fact I said "all" parties and the same will apply in our

983
party; it is one member one vote for the list. The noble Baroness corrected me and it certainly did not apply to my party either.
Lord Whitty: It is probably better for me not to get too involved in this debate. I always find it slightly bizarre when Members of the House of Lords object to naked political patronage.
Baroness Hamwee: In our case, never naked.
Lord Whitty: I shall not pursue that: either.
Amendment No. 144 is intended to allow not only the assembly, but also any of the London boroughs or the City to require the mayor to include information in his or her annual report. It will allow both the assembly and those councils to exercise this right at any time up until the last day of the financial year to which the report relates.
The purpose of Clause 38(2)(c) is to give the assembly a substantive role in deciding what the annual report should cover. That ability lends weight to the assembly's clear scrutiny role. It is one of the mechanisms by which the assembly will hold the mayor to account.
Most of the GLA's statutory responsibilities are of course vested in the mayor. It is right that he or she should be responsible for reporting, in this case in an annual report. The assembly is part of the GLA along with the mayor. It will have a key role in the budget process. It will be responsible for most of the appointments of GLA staff. It will scrutinise all London issues. It will make proposals to the mayor. Because of its status and role, it is right that the assembly should have a say in what the annual report will cover.
While co-operation between the GLA and the London boroughs is vital, it is also the case that the boroughs and the common council of the City are not part of the GLA. They do not have a role in holding the mayor to account in that direct sense. They are separate and independent authorities and there is no case for them to require the mayor to include information in his or her annual report.
I should also point out that a statutory right for anyone to require at the end of the year that information should be included in the annual report is not practical. Careful advance planning is required to collect reliable, comprehensive and robust information of a financial and statistical nature. It cannot simply be produced as if by magic at any time up until the end of the year. This is a technical side issue but it indicates that the amendment is not practical as well as not desirable.
In relation to Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 and the posting of information to the councils and on the website, we have discussed this before. It may be sensible for the mayor to do it though it does not seem sensible for us to lay it down in legislation. The key point is that this information should be publicly available and this clause guarantees that it will be. These
984
amendments therefore are not necessary, and the first amendment would be undesirable. I ask the noble Baroness therefore to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I take the point in respect of Amendment No. 144, and the Minister is probably right in relation to Amendment No. 148. However, Amendment No. 147 concerns only the passing on of this information to the London boroughs or the Common Council and there is no reason why that should not be the case. I shall certainly read carefully what the Minister said. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 145 to 148 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 148A:
Page 22, line 43, at end insert—
("() A copy of the annual report sent to the Assembly shall be kept available for the appropriate period by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge at the principal offices of the Authority at reasonable hours.
() A copy of the annual report sent to the Assembly, or any part of that report, shall be supplied to any person on request during the appropriate period for such reasonable fee as the Mayor may determine.
() In this section "the appropriate period" in the case of an annual report is the period of six years beginning with the date of publication of that report pursuant to this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [The annual State of London debate]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 22, line 45, leave out (", to be known as a "State of London debate").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 149 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 150.
Amendment No. 149 deals with the debate which, according to the Bill, is to be known as a "State of London debate". The Bill prescribes an annual debate with much detail about the procedure. Even this is more than we on these Benches regard as appropriate. We believe it is up to the authority to determine how it conducts itself, though we are not suggesting that a debate is not a good thing—far from it.
But is it really necessary for legislation to impose a title on the debate? Moreover, it is a title which smacks very much of the language of the late 1990s which might become out of date fairly quickly. Whether or not it does, our point is that the more that is prescribed the less the authority may look for new and effective mechanisms for consultation and debate with Londoners. We point to the Government's concern to give a name to a debate to be held by another entity as an example of far too much nannying. I doubt that the American constitution required the President to call his annual statement the "State of the Union Address".
Amendment No. 150 is very different in nature. It proposes that spring may not be the right time to hold a debate. I appreciate that it will follow on from the end of the authority's financial year, but there is a lot to be said for shifting the debate and the consideration of the

985
budgets, to which we will come later, to the autumn. We propose an autumn budget cycle to fit in better with the boroughs' budget cycle so that the boroughs will be informed of and no doubt make representations in connection with the authority's budget in time to deal with that as part of their own operations.
This is important. At borough level one has had too much experience of hanging on, waiting to see what the precept from the GLC, as it was, was going to be and then the police precept, and so forth, working on the basis of rumours, suggestions and leaks. Our main concern is about the budget cycle. It may follow that a debate which fits in with it would be appropriate. That may be in the Government's mind. That is why we proposed the dates in Amendment No. 150.
Lord Tope: I support my noble friend. It has been suggested to us several times in Committee that some of our amendments are too prescriptive. We have occasionally suggested to the Government that they are too prescriptive. For them to feel that it is necessary to enshrine in legislation the title of a debate is a little too prescriptive. I hope that the Minister will be able to convince us that it is not a gimmick apeing the State of the Union debate in the United States. I can see no other reason why we should call it a "State of London debate".
I want to concentrate particularly on Amendment No. 150—
Lord Harris of Haringey: I want to make sure that the noble Lord is aware that it is not necessarily apeing the United States of America. A number of London boroughs, including my own, have an annual debate on the state of the London borough concerned. It is simply carrying on a tradition which already exists in a number of London boroughs.
Lord Tope: I am delighted to hear it. As the noble Lord said, most London boroughs have such debates. None of us is required to do so by legislation. It is not stated in legislation that I am required to have a state of a London borough debate in a prescribed three-months period of the year. That is not the point. It is not that there should not be such a debate but that we should be legislating to say what the mayor must call it and the months in which it should be held. I wonder why we need to prescribe the months in which the debate should be held.
As it has been suggested that we should do so, let us look at that. I recognise that the intention here is that we should be debating the mayor's annual report as soon as possible after publication. In a sense, that is a backward-looking process. It is necessary and desirable and I am sure that it will happen. But, as my noble friend said, we are trying to look forward and set the debate, whatever it is to be called, in the context of the forthcoming budget both of the London boroughs and the authority itself. We suggest that the autumn months of September, October and November are about the right time in an annual budget process to be able to have a meaningful and worthwhile debate as regards the
986
priorities of the authority and those for London. Enough work has been done on the coming year's budget to make it a meaningful debate and not enough to make it too much set in stone and too finalised.
Therefore, if we are to prescribe the period when we should have the debate, let us have it in the context of the priorities for the authority and the budget that should reflect those priorities. I believe that the Conservative Party recognised some of the difficulties in having the debate in the April, May. June period in its Amendment No. 151 which suggests that the debate should not be held in that period if it occurs during an election period.
If we are to continue to hold elections on the first Thursday in May or early in that month—it may move to a weekend—and if the Government adhere to their earlier proposals that there should be annual elections in the London boroughs and elsewhere, then we might just as well not state April because that will never be possible. It would have to be in the latter part of May, which would be difficult. In reality, therefore, we are talking about a debate in June, except, of course, when there are European parliamentary elections.
This is a nonsense. If we are to prescribe the time I urge that we have the debate in the budget context and in terms of the forthcoming priorities of the mayor, the authority and London generally. It should be taken at the proper time in the budget process, which is better in the autumn than immediately after the end of the financial year.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I admit to some sympathy with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, over the timing of the debate. If the period must be specified, one is always vulnerable to the possibility of a general election. There is nothing one can do about that so long as the Prime Minister has a discretion over the setting of that particular event.
Moving the debate to the autumn would have one further advantage, not yet mentioned. By that time the financial out-turns on the previous year would also be known. Although, in the context of a State of London debate, financial out-turns might seem relatively unimportant—one hopes that such a debate would spend a great deal of time on more significant matters than financial affairs—to have available the financial results from a previous year would be both advantageous if there is to be consideration of future budgetary matters and also advantageous because it is also a measure of outcomes which would enable judgment to be made on the relevance, appropriateness and precision of previous planning. In certain circumstances it could also be a measure of competence, which would then become very public indeed.
For a number of reasons I support moving the timing of this particular debate to the autumn.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It will be interesting to know the Government's motivation for the timing they have given. If the timing is changed to September, October or November, we shall have a great political debate about London mixed with several party

987
conferences and the opening of the Westminster Parliament with all the debates attached to that. It is a time of great political discussion. I do not know what are the Government's reasons.
I referred previously to the picture of Mr Livingstone being in command of the assembly. I can visualise him having very great fun with a debate on. London at party conference time. I know that that is entirely speculative. I wonder what is the Government's motivation for the time they have given.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am fascinated by this clause and Clause 40, which appears to have all the characteristics of a spoof clause if we are to have something called a "People's Question Time". The mayor has to hold and attend a meeting to which the public are to be admitted. That is clear enough. It is to be known as the "State of London debate". In the next clause there is to be what is known as a "People's Question Time". As I read the clauses there is no obligation on anyone at the meeting to debate anything. There is no obligation on anyone to answer questions. Nor is any right given to the citizens of London to ask questions.
This is one of the most extraordinary examples I have seen of filling up the statute book with provisions which have absolutely no purpose other than to have the mayor go along, hold a meeting, sit shtoom as long as he wants and when he has had enough bring the meeting to an end. That is completely without purpose. Both clauses should be removed.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My noble friend stated why we agree with Amendment No. 150. I would not like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to think that because I have not commented on a "State of London debate" and its name, that we do not have any views. I am saving that for my Amendment No. 151. We agree that the name is ludicrous.
Lord Whitty: I find this debate quite amazing. I am not a great one for importing Americanisms, but I rather like the term, "State of London debate". If we owe more to the London borough of Haringey than we do to the Founding Fathers of the Republic, so much the better. I am not sure that the noble Baroness is correct to say that it is not in the constitution of the United States; it is certainly a very early decision in the history of the USA. However, if it is not in the constitution, it probably should he, though that may be an ultra vires remark.
I am also amazed by the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. We are talking about opening up the process of consideration of important London issues to a wider participative audience—that is to say. an audience which affects the mayor and which can reflect public opinion within London. The precise structure and standing orders of such an event may well not be laid down by legislation. Indeed, to use the noble Baroness's term, it would certainly be extremely overprescriptive to do so. Nevertheless, I should have
988
thought that the fact that the events are being held, and are being required to be held, is a significant advance to democracy, whatever one may think of the name.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The Minister does not seem to have grasped my point. We are going to have an event—a meeting—which is called a "State of London debate", but what I am trying to gel: across to the Government is that, as I understand the provisions, there is no duty imposed on anyone who participates to debate anything or, indeed, to answer any questions. Moreover, there is no right given to ask questions. Unless I have missed the point, it seems to me that these provisions are completely redundant. All that will happen is that the mayor will go along and start the meeting. He is undoubtedly under a duty to attend, but there is no obligation on him to do anything which would take democracy forward in the way spelt out by the Minister.
Lord Whitty: The imaginative leap of the noble and learned Lord always amazes me. The event will allow citizens of London and their representatives to raise issues with the mayor and to debate and propose certain changes to his strategy. It is a requirement that the mayor at least sits there and listens to the debate. Indeed, the concept of "questions" tends to imply that there is a facility for answers. How that procedure will work has yet to be determined. No doubt it will evolve over time. But the idea of any of the putative candidates for mayor of London sitting shtoom for several hours while citizens throw points at him is quite remarkable. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, is not in his place this evening. I think he may well have had views about that, as would other putative mayors who have been mentioned during the debate.
I believe that Members of the Committee have got hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick. Alternatively, it may be that their instincts are not quite as open and democratic as those of the Government. I hesitate to believe that of any of the noble Lords who have spoken. The intention here is more than a gesture: it is a major contribution to an event in London in which people think they can—and, indeed, they can—positively participate. It brings back a new dimension to governance and accountability within the capital.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am sorry to intervene again, but perhaps the Minister can help me with the following point. Noble Lords will see that in Clause 47 the mayor is under quite a specific statutory duty to answer questions put to him by assembly members. I am perfectly content to see that in the statute, but what I do not understand is that, when we get to either the "State of London debate" or to "Question Time" under Clauses 39 and 40, no obligation is imposed on the mayor to participate in the debate or to answer any questions put to him.
Lord Whitty: All I can say is that we are talking about new events, standing orders for which will no doubt evolve. As regards the idea that the mayor of London should have a major, high publicity, high profile

989
event round which questions are put him and then refuse to answer, I should point out to noble Lords that that would certainly not do his re-election chances much good. The whole point of this event is participative; it will involve organisations and people within London. I am sorry that noble Lords cannot see the advantage of it.
As to the timing, I can tell the Committee that the reason for this timing is that it will be shortly after the production of the annual report. I understand that there are some arguments for having further information available later in the year, but the main point about producing the annual report was that it should be current, that it should contain full information on what has happened in the past financial year and that not only the assembly but Londoners more widely should have the opportunity to react. That is the reason for the timing and I would defend it. It would become less current and more decisions would be set in concrete if we were to wait until six months after the report had been published. Therefore, it is sensible for the mayor to engage with the public in London rapidly after the production of the report.
I hope that I have expressed my indignation at what I think is an attack on a major advance for democracy; it is not a pure gimmick, as noble Lords opposite seem to regard it. In fact, it is a genuine move to try to involve far more members of the public than has historically been the case within our capital. I believe that noble Lords should appreciate that.
Lord Tope: We have had a most entertaining debate, if somewhat unexpected, the consequences of which, I fear, will be that we shall see more government amendments on Report to make this provision even more prescriptive. The purpose of our amendment was not to suggest that there should not be a debate—indeed, we do not question that at all—but that we should not prescribe in legislation what it should be called.
In his reply. the Minister's only comment was that he rather liked the title, "State of London debate". That is fine. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will probably tell us in a minute that she quite likes the title "Greater London debate". However, the question that I should like to address to the Minister and, if I may, to the noble Baroness is: why do they feel unable to trust the mayor to make such a major decision for herself or himself as to what to call the debate? Why does the Minister not trust the mayor to decide whether to call it a "State of London debate", a "Greater London debate", or any other sort of debate? Why do the Government feel that they cannot even trust the mayor that much that they have to prescribe in legislation what the name shall be? I hope that the Minister can answer that question.
Lord Whitty: I think that the noble Lord demonstrated an unexpectedly patronising view as regards the mayor by referring to "his" debate, quite apart from the sexist overtones—
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I should point out to the Minister that the noble Lord actually referred to
990
"herself" or "himself". As a matter of a fact, I wondered how we got "her" in front of "him". It certainly was not patronising to the female sex.
Lord Whitty: Leaving aside that aspect of it, I believe that the noble Lord referred to it as the "mayor's debate". However, it is not the mayor's debate; it is the people of London's debate, which Parliament, as part of this reform of the way in which London is governed, is laying down that Londoners should have. If we regard it as the mayor's debate, we will miss the whole point. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will take that point on board and accept that it is reasonable for us not only to prescribe that event but to do so in a way that Londoners, who are outside the normal political classes, will actually recognise and accept as an important event in the political calendar.
Lord Tope: I do not want to go on and on about this, but I do not see why I should let the Minister off the hook so easily. All right, it is the people's debate. However, we are requiring the mayor to call the debate and, when he does so. he will have to call it something. My question to the Minister, which he keeps failing to answer, is: why is he not prepared to trust the mayor to decide what he is going to call this debate when he calls it? Does he have the answer yet?
Lord Whitty: I may now have a new answer here, but I shall stick to the old one. The Government believe that we should give a clear steer to the people of London as to what kind of debate we are expecting. Therefore, it is not up to the mayor—or, indeed, the mayor and the assembly together—to describe or define how that meeting operates. They are required to call it so that the people of London can participate. I think that that might be regarded with some favour by people outside these walls. The Liberal Democrat Benches are usually open and inclusive about these matters and want to inform people what event they are being invited to. The noble Lord has intervened frequently in this debate but I regret that for once he is on the wrong tack and we are on the right one.
Baroness Hamwee: If that is so, I am on the wrong tack with him. Throughout this debate we have made it entirely clear that we do not object to the holding of a debate—indeed quite the contrary—but we object to the Government prescribing the title of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, proudly told us of the debate held in his borough. We applaud that as an exercise. I do not want to put words into the noble Lord's mouth, but if he were told by central government that he had to call that the state of Haringey debate I wonder whether he might not feel a little insulted at the suggestion that he could not work out an appropriate title for his borough.
Lord Harris of Haringey: When we instituted that tradition a few years ago I devoted my address to the assembled councillors of the London borough of Haringey and the three people in the gallery to the subject of the evils of the then—I believe—about

991
12 years of Conservative government and the impact that had had on local people. I can quite understand why the Government might have wished us to change the title of that debate to something that related specifically to the responsibilities of the local authority and the work that we were doing in the borough. I can see why the Government might wish to specify in legislation that the debate we are discussing should be called the "State of London debate" rather than, say, the state of foreign affairs and the policies which are being adopted by the Government debate, as otherwise the mayor could give a lengthy address on that subject. I am sure that none of us in this Chamber would want to see that happen.
Baroness Hamwee: The authority's remit includes sustainable development in the UK. That is the extent of its remit outside London. Therefore I believe that the mayor would have some difficulty in holding a debate on the state of the universe, interesting as that might be.
There is a significant point here. I am quite prepared to accept that the Government have no answer to Amendment No. 149. As I say, we are concerned about the extraordinary degree of prescription here. As regards Amendment No. 150 on the timing of the debate, and more particularly how it fits into the budget cycle, that is a matter to which we shall return. lit is with some regret that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
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 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Feltham Young Offender Institution and Remand Centre
7.33 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons on HM Young Offender Institution and Remand Centre Feltham.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I come to the terms of this Question, I would like to say two things. First, I wish to acknowledge the debt of gratitude we all owe to the recently retired Director-General of the Prison Service, Richard Tilt. He led the service during one of its most difficult periods. He was there during those unhappy days when Mr Howard told the country that "prison works", a view that prison governors knew to be nonsensical; when numbers in custody escalated month after month; and there was a mood of near despair among many of the most responsible members of the Prison Service. Mr Tilt led the service with dedication and good humour and was rightly greatly admired by his colleagues. We wish him well in his retirement. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of
992
Mostyn, will pass on our congratulations to Mr Tilt on his well deserved award of a knighthood in the Birthday Honours List.
Secondly, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will recognise that debates on prisons of this character inevitably tend to take place when things have gone badly rather than well. We all know the considerable amount of admirable work that is carried out day by day by members of the Prison Service. Often the chief inspector's reports recognise this, but the one we are discussing today unhappily tells a very different story. It is right that when serious failings have been identified—as they have been in this report—Parliament discusses the issues involved.
Let me turn to the details of the report. Sir David Ramsbotham has presented his conclusions in the starkest terms. He says that his report on this unannounced inspection at Feltham is,
"without doubt the most disturbing that I have had to make during my three years as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. I have to disclose to the public not only that conditions and treatment of the 922 children and young prisoners … are in many instances totally unacceptable. They are in many instances worse than when I reported on them two years ago".
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will recognise, that is an extremely severe criticism and it is one which I know he will wish to meet.
The chief inspector adds that the picture emerges of an institution and staff overwhelmed. He says that the conditions at Feltham are unacceptable in a civilised country. This brings me to my first question to the noble Lord. What action has been taken to meet these trenchant criticisms? As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will recognise, the most damaging revelations are those related to the chief inspector's penultimate report. Sir David reminds us that in that report he made 187 recommendations. The purpose of his most recent inspection, he says, was to determine whether adequate action had been taken on these recommendations. His conclusion is that,
"Regrettably, on our return, we found that little had been achieved, and that there was a marked deterioration in the provision of care, especially for juveniles and young prisoners located in the Health Care Unit".
I must tell the Minister that I was particularly concerned with what the chief inspector said about the nursing staff. He said that half the posts were not available for patient care. Nine places were vacant and four staff were on long-term sick leave. Inevitably Feltham found it difficult in these circumstances to retain staff because of the forbidding problems in the unit. Staff simply resigned or retreated into long-term sick leave.
The regime in the in-patient area was, said Sir David, very deprived, partly due to gross shortage of staff. There was no confidence that patients would always get their medication on time, nor that basic nursing observations would be completed. The average time unlocked each day was no more than four hours instead of the 12 hours required and was often nil at weekends. Staff said that the mental health of in-patients was at risk of deterioration because of the prolonged periods locked in and the poor levels of nursing. Let us be clear

993
about this. What is being described in this report is a disgraceful situation. Mentally afflicted young people were being held in conditions which are a most serious reflection on our society.
The report goes on to pass more general comment on the situation at Feltham. One senior manager told the chief inspector that the core of the institution was rotten—his words, not mine.
As is unhappily the case in a number of establishments, industrial relations seem to be poor—indeed, very poor. When efforts were made to improve conditions and there were consultations with the staff, there were constant "failures to agree"—that is a term of art—and progress was stopped dead in its tracks. The report said that managers and staff trying to improve the poor conditions and treatment of these young people were constantly thwarted by the time it took to achieve any form of agreement.
I have no interest in matters of this kind of simply blaming the Prison Officers Association for these problems at Feltham. In many cases it is clearly not its responsibility. In any event, there are large numbers of decent, conscientious prison officers working in our prisons. Unhappily, as we all know—the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will certainly know—a number of branches of the Prison Officers Association are not prepared to co-operate with management when it attempts to establish more civilised conditions in our prisons. To take a more recent example, there is such a branch at Wormwood Scrubs prison.
I hope that by the time we have another report on Feltham we will be told that there has been a significant improvement in industrial relations there. I shall welcome anything that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, can say to reassure us that there has already been such an improvement. In the meantime, I was encouraged to read of the chief inspector's comment that there had been a swift response to his report by the Minister for Prisons—presumably the noble Lord, Lord Williams, himself—and by the director-general. That at least is good news. But I hope that we shall not be compelled to read many more reports such as this.
Another folly related to a group of teenagers, whose homes were in London, being sent off to Yorkshire just a few weeks before their discharge. There has sometimes been a gloomy sense of inevitability within the service that it has just got to put up with a good thumping from the chief inspector every now and then. The Feltham report is far more than a good thumping; it is a brutally frank report about a deplorable situation which was allowed to develop in one of our prison establishments.
I look forward to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, can tell us. I hope that he will be able to reassure us that dramatic changes have been put in hand at Feltham. When the chief inspector next reports on another, perhaps unannounced, inspection, which is what we want—hopefully it will take place before too long—I hope that we will then be able to read of a very different situation obtaining at Feltham.
7.43 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for putting this Question to the Government.
Perhaps I should start with a disclaimer. I am no expert on prison reform. What I hope to contribute is a view of the issues facing management, having myself been in management for some 40 years in both the public and private sectors. I shall proceed with some caution because of the complex management task which faces the senior management at Feltham.
I am encouraged by the fact that the chief inspector's two reports—the first in 1996 and the second at the end of 1988—both address the issue of the roles of the Prison Board and of the senior management. There is no doubt that they have a very difficult task. As Feltham is large and is both a young offender institution and a remand centre, they have many variables with which to deal. The depth and spread of the necessary professional skills is formidable.
An added difficulty is created by the public and political context within which the management works. There is no—at least I suspect no helpful—public consensus on the ways in which young sentenced and unsentenced people should be treated. Voters do not always support those who are thought to be soft on crime. Yet those involved in the service will always be striving to implement regimes which will reduce recidivism—a task with its own great difficulties since, whatever else we can modernise we cannot modernise human nature.
Yet management needs to be accountable. It is often said—I think with accuracy—that one cannot manage what one cannot measure. Recidivism may be the best long-term surrogate for the more complex list of performance indicators, which is itself the subject of criticism by the chief inspector in his annual report.
In these difficult circumstances, senior management needs to find strategic direction; it needs to set out its own position and aspirations clearly and needs, where possible, to have its task simplified. Using this last test, one positive step would be success in reducing the average remand time from 142 days to 71 days, which is the Government's target for March 2002. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made towards this target?
Remembering the dual capacity of Feltham and looking at the management organisation in the reports, it might well be a useful simplification to create a more formal split of responsibilities between the young offender institution and the remand centre. The agreed objectives for each will have great differences between them, the needs of the one being different to those of the other, and the measurement of managerial progress in each is probably best carried out in differing ways. It may well be easier for management and staff to cohere around a simplified set of objectives, one for the young offenders and one for those on remand.
No doubt other ways can be found to improve management's ability to make progress, which, in the chief inspector's view, has eluded it in the period between his two reviews. Nevertheless, I am left with

995
the perception that one underlying problem needs to be tackled if progress is to be made. The two inspection reports leave me with the uneasy belief that Feltham's senior management and staff are both working in a house to some degree divided against itself. Two of the most trenchant inspectorate statements which apply to Feltham are, first, on the wider culture:
"It is inward looking; it is a blame culture and it does the name of the Prison Service no good".
And, secondly, which follows up the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, although it is a wider comment in the report:
"I find it quite inappropriate that Industrial Relations procedures should inflict such a severe impact on the treatment and condition of prisoners".
However, for their part, and in discussion with the inspection team, the Prison Officers' Association staff say that "Staffing levels are insufficient"; that "Morale is low or very low"; and that "Communication between staff and managers is poor"; and much more of the same ilk. Indeed, the staff imply in some of the evidence that they have given a deeper relationship with the prisoners than they have with the senior management.
Surprisingly, in the many pages of recorded opinion—apart from the one senior manager referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—the senior management's views are not included. I wonder if this is Government policy. If it is, is it wise? I cannot believe that the Prison Board and the senior management would agree with every detailed comment, nor with every one of the 187 recommendations in the first report. But we have no means of knowing if they stay almost wholly silent. Perhaps the Minister will comment. It seems unlikely that much progress will be made between the inspectorate's second and third reports. if there is no coming together by senior management and staff under the direction of the Prisons Board to achieve consensus.
One area that clearly needs such consensus and agreement is staffing. Is the staffing, to the greatest extent possible within the changes and chances of this life, adequate to the task in hand? There is in reality no room for continued disagreement and debate on this issue if everyone is to give of his or her best—and particularly not if it has become an article of faith that, "We are always short of staff'. In the old days, the 1950s, I was told in the steel foundry which I managed that we were always short of work at Christmas. When I said, "Not this Christmas", they looked at me pityingly, with a look that said, "He's young. He will find out, hard though he may try". The Prison Officers' Association seems to be in something of a similar bind. Its members probably believe that senior management try, but do not have any faith in their ability to succeed.
Admittedly, it is hard to change endemic cultures. But if they lead to low expectations, they will usually be self-fulfilling, and thus entirely inappropriate to the complex and professional task to be done at Feltham. It seems certain that Feltham needs cultural change in the relationships between the senior management and the staff. How do the Government propose to assist the Prisons Board to achieve that change?
996
Finally, while it is both helpful and necessary to have reports from the inspectorate and, as a result of due diligence, from the Board of Visitors also, would it not also be helpful if the Prisons Board and the senior management, led by the governor, were to respond in writing and in the public domain? That step would show leadership and a commitment, which will not be satisfied either by the Feltham vision or by administrative instructions. Nor are frequent changes of governor likely to be helpful.
At any one time there are 800 young people whose future depends in large measure on their experience at Feltham. It is a grave and risky, but I would say exhilarating, responsibility to be discharged in the public interest. I am sure that there are many at Feltham who are determined to assist in convincing your Lordships that progress can and will be made in the next two years. I hope that the Minister can be similarly convincing.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing this subject before the House. I am rather less warm in my thanks for being allowed to read the document. It is one of the most depressing I have ever read. The description of the physical conditions in which these young men, indeed boys, are living reminds me more of an extract from Solzhenitsyn than something happening in our own society. It is incredibly depressing—the idea that people are restricted in terms of access to light, exercise and indeed food.
That said, the physical conditions merely contribute to what else is going on. I refer to the fact that in many cases any process of rehabilitation seems to be stopped before it has started. The only aspect that seems totally to receive a rubber stamp of approval in the report is voluntary service. My interest in Feltham is totally down to the fact that many years ago—too many years ago now to be reflected by anything in the report—I was part of a voluntary unit, the Apex Trust, working at Feltham on pre-release courses.
Much of what was said then is exactly the same as I read in the report. It was said that members of staff had bad attitudes. Certain people were renowned for being bad, for provoking assaults with which they could not be connected, for making sure that people could not get out of their cell and for being very "anti" to the idea of being able to have access to showers, soap and clean clothes.
I thought that most of the complaints would turn out to be whingeing. Those of us who work in any of the voluntary groups involved in prisons hear and experience the fact that certain units within the Prison Service are very "anti" such groups. Indeed, that is stated in some parts of the report. The idea is mentioned that such people think there is too much access to volunteers, that volunteers are messing up the system, that there is too much criticism. But the report accords with much of what I heard from inmates and those working within the voluntary group. It is a confirmation of all that I heard that was negative about the whole process.

997
It should be borne in mind exactly what that means. These young people are probably at their lowest in terms of self-esteem. It is a time when they probably have the greatest number of doubts about themselves. After all, what is a teenager except a mass of doubts covered in spots? Basically, that is what we have here—young people who are having to look at themselves for the first time, having been told by society that they have failed. They are in prison. One way of dealing with that is to develop a hide like a rhino; one tries to get through to them. They are faced with these kinds of conditions. There are the problems of getting people into education units, and of people being transferred out. I shall mention the inappropriateness of the education courses shortly. There is the additional idea that people must turn up dirty, smelling bad and hungry. If we want to create a background that is going to reinforce failure, I suggest that we have taken a damn good step forward.
As to the education and the rehabilitation courses within them—for want of a better expression—the report states that many people work well but that those under school age (I shall not attempt to use the acronym) seem to "burn up" most of the time. It also mentions something that is no surprise to anyone; namely, that large numbers of those under the age of 16 find themselves placed back in classroom situations in which, almost by definition, they will have failed—thus reinforcing the idea of failure. The staff believe that it is inappropriate to place them back in that situation and that something more creative should be done. The report also states that courses such as cookery achieve more, and there is less disruption. That is no surprise to anyone who deals in this sector. If we reinforce failure with more failure, the result will be resentment.
The report also mentions that there is no initial assessment of such problems as dyslexia. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will not be at all surprised that I raise the point again. He is well aware of this matter and has given it his attention. It is suspected that up to half the prison population suffer from dyslexia. They have a condition which is a disability. They are entitled to some support under the education Acts passed under this Government and their predecessors. Unless there is some process included in the induction procedure to find out who those people are, a major opportunity to help them is being missed, one which may well be able to remove them from the cycle of re-offending and being such failures educationally and thus difficult to employ.
In the modern world the cycle of re-offending is universally recognised. People fail educationally. They come from a social background where crime is thought to be a real option, at least by their peer group. They are sucked into a life of crime. Dyslexia contributes in that process. It is not a decisive factor; social conditions are probably more important. It is said that a "thick" middle-class child is often labelled dyslexic. It is to be hoped that we are now moving on. But in a working-class background, when someone is under-achieving and feels frustrated, that may well be happening.
998
The Prison Service has the opportunity to do something about it. Effectively, it has the most captive audience that anyone can ever have, and there is time. Unless the rest of the system supports the idea, we shall not be able to take the opportunity to improve the situation, to improve the lot of the individual and to remove people from the cycle of re-offending.
If we can try to reinforce positive aspects, there may be a way forward. As the report stands, the only comment made that receives universal praise concerns the few weeks with voluntary groups before the offender leaves. When talking about young offenders, that is probably the most damning condemnation of an institution or part of an institution we will ever get. None of it works properly until they are about to leave.
7.59 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in the gap. Listening to the debate this evening I was much reminded of my own experience, regularly speaking to traumatised young people who had had unhappy experiences in their families or had no parents at all. I spoke to the professionals who work with these young people. Low self-esteem is infectious. The other day I talked to the director of a unit who remarked how she woke up in the morning finding herself depressed, with no confidence in herself; she felt that everything she did was lacking. She asked herself why she felt that way. Then she realised it was exactly how the young people felt with whom her workers dealt directly. The feeling had passed to the workers and on to her.
Low self-esteem, misery, despair are infectious. The people who work with traumatised young people need support to cope with it. On the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about the division, the house divided unto itself, there needs to be support all the way up. The people at the top need to listen to those beneath them. In a sense they must be a strong parent or father, supporting the younger members of the family as they deal with the youngest and most difficult members.
My question to the Minister is this: are the staff supervised? By that I mean: do they have an opportunity to talk to a professional in mental health work on a regular basis about their experience?
8.1 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for initiating this debate and to associate ourselves with the thanks from this side of the House to Mr Tilt. I would be grateful if the Minister could pass them on to him.
This is a most disturbing report. We have had the benefit of four significant speeches, with the masterly summary by the noble Lord, Lord Hams, of the report. My noble friend Lord Eccles made some constructive proposals about future management. We also had the unexpected and welcome personal experiences of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in connection with the problem.
Looking at one or two criticisms of the report which cannot be laid at the feet of the management of Feltham, the first is of overcrowding. It is an endemic problem

999
with the Prison Service and one of the important recommendations in Sir David's report was the need for a new young offender institution, preferably to the east of London. At the time of his visit in 1998, no action appeared to have been taken about it and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister can tell us what progress has been made.
As my noble friend Lord Eccles pointed out, Feltham is a remand centre as well as a young offender institution. The remand population is sadly growing and it is a highly transient one. It is a major impediment to the building up of a settled regime and, in the case of Feltham, the drain on resources by the remand side, at the expense of the youth offender institution, is marked. So this is another major problem for the Home Office to address.
Running through the report is a constant complaint about lack of resources, but on more than one occasion one feels that that has been used as a convenient excuse for shortcomings in the regime which better management might have addressed. Nevertheless, an undoubted problem it is.
Moving on to more specific criticisms of Feltham, we find the bald statement that there is a failure on the part of management to understand the needs of the patients, which is disturbing. Indeed, the overall conclusion that staff morale is low is a cause of great worry, which, moreover, cannot fail to affect staff relations with inmates. Relations between management and staff clearly leave a lot to be desired and the high staff turnover tells its own story.
Incidentally, there is an instance of a good idea which is possibly spoilt in its implementation. The accelerated promotion scheme is clearly to be welcomed, attracting candidates of ability with good career prospects. But staff complain that too many are in that category at Feltham who are perceived to have their own personal agenda. Because their stay is limited and known to be limited, it leads to an uncaring situation on their part. We would welcome the Minister's view on the subject.
The report had serious criticisms of basic prisoner amenities; for example, inadequate washing and shower facilities, dirty clothing and bedding and lack of exercise periods—blamed on staff shortages in many cases. However, in the case of dirty clothing and bedding, the presence of clean bedding in adjacent lockers invites an explanation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out, these are matters of real concern as they affect the whole demeanour of an individual, the more so when he or she is in conditions of confinement.
The section relating to healthcare at the institution makes bad reading. It has been more than covered by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I understand that Feltham provides medical services for several other prison establishments and the resulting staffing demand which necessitates transfer from other departments is unsettling and one of the most vigorous of the staff's complaints. I also note that indifference to the shortcomings of the Feltham healthcare regime appears to have extended up the scale to area managers.
1000
One of the most welcome and interesting features of Sir David's report is the admittedly small and isolated pockets where he found good practice. The contrast between Partridge and Swallow units is salutary and disturbing. In the latter, the report refers to,
"What … amounted to institutionalised deprivation, compounded by the fact that many staff seem to have surrendered to this process".
Compare that with Partridge wing, where the environment was clean and well organised and the inmates motivated and,
"Staff interacted positively with [the young prisoners]".
One must also compliment those in Quail unit for the information and support for young prisoners facing potential life sentences for murder. That was praised by the inspector. This uneven performance must surely point to a failure in consistent management. But sadly, in the case of Feltham, it must also highlight the fact of good staff delivering high standards in spite of, rather than thanks to, the managerial environment.
On 24th March we had a very constructive debate in your Lordships' House on the serious situation which had developed in the recently opened Medway prison for young offenders. I was privileged to take part in it and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, replied on behalf of the Government. One of the salient features of the incident was the frankness with which the private contractors acknowledged the many serious shortcomings in the first few months of the institution. They produced a detailed statement of how they were to be addressed. I suggest that this is not the place, in what I believe has been a constructive debate on Feltham, to go into the question of private versus public management of prisons. However, I draw your Lordships' attention to page 8 of the inspector's report which states:
"I am most disturbed by the very negative influence of current Industrial Relations procedures, which can obstruct any form of change, and can be seen to be a major contributory factor in the inability of Prison Service management to make progress in actioning our recommendations".
It is not the policy of these Benches to advocate wholesale privatisation of the Prison Service. Her Majesty's Prison Service has many loyal men and women who serve in it. Nevertheless, the prison staff associations are national negotiating bodies, as are the Home Office and Prison Service, and between them they have an obligation to work together to eliminate outdated industrial relations procedures so as to make it unnecessary for an inspector to make such observations in any future report.
The report is a hard-hitting one, and I find no evidence that it is unfair. We have had a constructive debate. Some of the criticisms are outside the control of management and can be laid at the feet of senior levels of the Prison Service. On the other hand, some problems are properly within the responsibility of Feltham management to address and rectify.
The report notes that the Minister for Prisons, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the Director-General gave a swift response to Sir David's concerns. I should like to echo the thanks and congratulations of the noble

1001
Lord, Lord Harris, in that respect. Both are to be congratulated. However, we look for actions which match these reactions.
We from these Benches appreciate that neither manpower nor material resources grow on trees, but these problems, particularly overcrowding, will not go away. We look to the Government to ensure that these problems are addressed vigorously.
I conclude by referring to the inspector's last recommendation on page 37:
"A director the Prisons Board should be accountable for improvements to be made to the treatment of young people held at Feltham as identified in the time-targeted Action Plan".
I suggest that the presence of one person will unlock many of the other problems. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is a bleak report, and it will not be the last one in that category. We are determined to improve and change the Prison Service. It is a great advantage to look at the recent Honours List to which the noble Lord referred. I absolutely echo, and am grateful for, the congratulations offered to Sir Richard Tilt. Usha Prashar, chairman of the Parole Board, is on that list, as is Vivien Stern—long overdue—for her work with NACRO. Helen Reeves of Victim Support is also on that list, as is Mrs Mary Blackburn of the Boards of Visitors. That is an indication, but no more, of the importance we attach to the work of those engaged in the penal and criminal justice system generally.
It is customary to thank the noble Lord for securing the debate. Very often it is cosmetic, but this evening it is not. The one regret that I have is that so few noble Lords are here to participate in the debate. We see once again where the balance of values lies between a packed House agog to deal with the question of club rights and something that falls into a fundamentally different moral category.
These are very worrying problems. The report was published on 26th March. It is particularly critical—I accept that—of the fact that many, many of the first report's recommendations remained unactioned. Personally, I found aspects of the report quite shocking. I well understand the anger and concern expressed by noble Lords because I share those sentiments. I can tell noble Lords about a number of events that have taken place. The new governor, Mr Clifford, took up post on 19th April. To pick up the noble Viscount's last point, a new area manager, Mr Peter Atherton, is responsible for Feltham. They are determined to turn matters around.
There are good staff who have worked in difficult conditions and have had successes. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. As examples, I refer to the Nightingale pre-release course and the Quail murder charge project. Referring to a slightly different aspect of what is, by and large, a gloomy history, both of those activities received Butler Trust awards recently. Those awards are not lightly handed out, as noble Lords will be aware.
1002
To give some history, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, to whom I pay ready tribute—I have frequently said in his presence on public occasions that the more of an irritant he is to me the better I am pleased—came to see me on 11th December of last year to tell me of his deep concerns and preliminary findings. I immediately contacted the then Director-General, Sir Richard Tilt. Having spoken to Sir Richard, I had a joint meeting on 16th December with him and Sir David Ramsbotham. By that time—only a matter of days later—the director had been to Feltham and had immediately instituted a task force to report back to a steering group as a matter of urgency. We were approaching Christmas, but it was heartening to me that Sir Richard said that that task force was to go in on 23rd December.
The task force was to identify issues for immediate action and chart a plan for improvement to be implemented over the next six months. I intend to go to Feltham myself when those six months are up, or a little longer, to satisfy myself about what has happened. If any noble Lords wish to join me on that occasion I shall be more than happy to make arrangements. It is critical that we define objectives and then castigate ourselves if we have not achieved the overwhelming majority of them. In this context, and perhaps in others to follow in the next few days, if Sir David returns and finds in a sensible period of time—perhaps 12 months or so—that the overwhelming bulk of his recommendations have not been put into effect, people will have to reconsider their positions with great care.
I will deal with some specific matters. The task force, which has worked very quickly and in a focused way, identified 39 issues for immediate action. Thirty-three have been implemented and the remaining six are well in hand. I shall give some examples which have been referred to by noble Lords in particular contexts. One is to make significant inroads into the transit camp problem (as Sir David described it) by ending the use of Kestrel as a daily discharge unit and the use of Osprey for allocation purposes. Another is a reduction of the capacity of Feltham by 72 to reduce overcrowding and to allow refurbishment of two units to start.
A further recommendation, which was a particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is an increase in the quality of healthcare by a move into a fully refurbished healthcare unit and the provision of eight officers on detached duty from other establishments to offset the staff shortages to which the noble Lord referred. Another recommendation is to increase PE from two to five classes in both the morning and afternoon sessions and to increase the numbers attending education by 30. A further recommendation is to secure another £2 million funding to develop a separate regime for the under 18 year-olds which will include 12 hours out of cell each day and 30 hours purposeful activity each week, for which a further £3.4 million capital investment is to be made to provide separate reception and education facilities.
These are only beginnings. I want to deal with the specific question about the new establishment to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred. The number of prisoners has already been reduced. That is in part to facilitate the opening of the new healthcare

1003
centre and in part to allow for the refurbishment of other units and, significantly, to try to break the back of overcrowding. There will be an overall reduction in the proportion of remand prisoners, which point was well raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
We must draw together many aspects. I slot in the fact that I have invited the Chief Inspector to conduct a thematic review, starting later this year, of how we deal with remand prisoners in the whole of the prison estate. That is another review which I believe is long overdue. It is undoubted that the presence in the general prison regime of a large body of remand prisoners causes a distortion in what should be the fundamental work of the prison system in dealing with prisoners of whatever age group.
If I may trespass without reproof into the Lord Chancellor's Department's area, with great respect, I believe it is incumbent on every person in judicial authority who is remanding in custody as opposed to bail to ponder a very long time before taking that decision, and also to ponder upon whether they know the conditions that remand prisoners have to tolerate. That is a much wider problem than Feltham, but I do not think we shall get anywhere in terms of prison reform without dealing with these matters on a general spectrum basis.
I am coming to the question of the new young offender establishment. A planning application to build a young offender establishment to serve east London and Essex is being taken forward. It is unlikely that that establishment will be open before late 2002 at the earliest. That is the answer that I am able to give.
Those are some particular questions which were raised and some particular steps that have been taken. I can personally tell your Lordships, because I have involved myself closely, that the area manager, who is new, and the governor, who is new, are entirely determined to change things at Feltham. We are extremely fortunate to have a successor Director-General of the Prison Service of the quality of Martin Narey to follow Sir Richard Tilt, an extremely difficult act to follow, as they say. I am not saying this in a flippant way. He is determined that when these questions are raised there will be no sheltering, there will be no shuffling off of responsibility. He is prepared to accept the responsibility, as I am.
There was a particular question about accelerated promotion schemes. The Governor of Feltham is happy with his staff, which includes a Governor Grade 5 currently in the accelerated promotion scheme, and the current Deputy Governor is in fact a graduate of that scheme. What I have seen of it at work in the Prison Service is encouraging; indeed I have—I must spare her blushes—an excellent graduate of that scheme seconded from the Prison Service, indeed seconded from Feltham, to work in my private office as an Assistant Private Secretary. That is an extremely useful and important cross-fertilisation between Prison Service headquarters, the Home Office and the prison regime itself.
We discussed dyslexia on a previous occasion and I was able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who had his particular interest which he described to us, that
1004
advice on dyslexia screening has now been circulated to all prison governors as I promised it would be. There is now screening on arrival and induction, with proper testing and assessment, to ensure that education is properly targeted, and in particular there is additional CSR spending for the Morrisby testing, which again is an invaluable tool, curiously very well spoken of by young men in young offender institutions, amazed at what it tells them about themselves. It surprised me.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised questions about mentally disordered offenders. On 18th May eight were waiting at Feltham for admission to hospitals under Part 3 of the Mental Health Act of 1983. This is wider than Feltham but I ought to tell your Lordships what we are doing in the context of more sensible co-operation between the National Health Service and the Prison Service. It has been lamentably bad in the past years. In fact, I would not have described it as co-operative working at all. I have had very close contacts with my colleague, my noble friend Lady Hayman. We are instituting much closer workings. We will have a health policy unit and a health task force in place by the autumn and the winter of this year respectively. I went to a most heartening conference this morning, the first of its type, with professionals from the health service and the Prison Service, 500 of them in the Queen Elizabeth Centre, all eager to deliver what we can deliver: much better outcomes in terms of prisoner care.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, claimed to be a non-expert. We could do with rather more non-experts in your Lordships' House because he asked extremely interesting questions, if I may say so without appearing to be over-pompous. He asked about questions of management in a more general sense. I can answer him in what the Home Secretary has approved. The Home Secretary, the new Director-General and myself came to the conclusion that we ought to organise the management of the prison system in a different way. We now have two boards. One is a management hoard, chaired by Martin Narey as the new Director-General, and the other is the strategy board, which I chair, which is designed to take a long term view, not simply to respond, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, to the immediate disaster of the moment. I believe that is the proper way to manage a reformed, invigorated, modern Prison Service.
The noble Viscount also raised the question of what happens in terms of response to reports which are frequently damning, often critical and sometimes extremely positive. I have to say, the world being what it is, that when one has excellent reports on particular institutions, I detect no publicity for them. I ought to say that young offender institutions can be made to work. I was at Huntercombe recently, which is a great success story, dealing with offenders who are just as difficult as those at Feltham, an excellent staff, excellent members of the Prison Officers' Association, a first-rate governor, and, interestingly, very good donations and assistance from the private sector, Nissan and Kwik-Fit to mention but two. It can be made to work given the determination.
What happens on the reports is that there is always a response, however many the recommendations. We respond to every one of them in writing. The response

1005
is tabulated in the form of "Accepted", with a timescale, "Rejected" or "Postponed", with reasons given, brief reasons, I accept, but that is a useful discipline in management terms and in terms of discharging our responsibilities. Those documents go from the Prison Service, with the approval of the Director-General and myself, to the Chief Inspector. Therefore the consequence of every report is an action plan. I have to say at once, because it does not need to be underlined too much, that that scheme of things plainly did not work in terms of consequence and effect after the first of these reports.
The noble Viscount raised a very important question which I have discussed on several occasions with the new Director-General, namely the vice which many boards of visitors identify of a governor who starts to succeed and is in post for far too short a time. It is a frequent refrain from boards of visitors and we have taken that very much on board so that we should be looking to new circumstances where governors do not, having turned round an institution and made it a success, find themselves transferred to another institution.
The other important tool that we have is that all the annual boards of visitors' report come to me. I do read them. Obviously I have to take advice and I try to respond as fully as I possibly can to each set of criticisms or recommendations.
On speeding up court procedures, the noble Viscount and I are in absolute agreement. We have to speed them up. Curiously, it was Mr Martin Narey who devised the scheme for speeding up juvenile court cases. The pilot schemes are working well and I believe we can get remand times down. First of all, we ought to because it pollutes the court process, and, secondly, we must because it distorts and disturbs the true purpose of the prison regime.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Minister has been extremely helpful, if I may say so, replying to a range of issues. One matter which he might touch on, if not this evening, perhaps in correspondence, is what the position is in terms of industrial relations. It is one of the most worrying aspects of this report and I should be grateful for anything he could say about it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly. That is one aspect that always strikes my mind and I am hoping to deal with it in a moment or two. I realise that I have taken more than my 10 or 12 minutes, but I refuse not to because it is too important, I think, not to give a full public response.
With the new regime, the new governor is now turning around the industrial relations situation there. I must say, in fairness to members of the POA, that many of them do good, unsung, extremely difficult, stressful work with different ways of dealing with young offenders.
The past industrial relations climate undoubtedly contributed to the difficulties which Sir David identified. Discussions are taking place because we shall get nowhere without involvement and discussion. They
1006
are starting to pay dividends. The area manager is pleased to report that currently industrial relations are good.
I have dealt with the question of health. That is not specific solely to Feltham. We must have that joint systematic approach which I mentioned a few moments ago.
Perhaps I may summarise briefly. We have addressed to a large extent the shortfall in staff. Ten officers started training in April. Reverting to the efficient use of officer time, a profiling exercise is taking place at the moment. Progress has been made on the amending of shift patterns and staff consultation will start in July.
PE is much better managed, and I have indicated that. Available activity places are better used. There will have been a further 71 places brought on stream by the summer. Six hundred mattresses have been replaced and more are available. That is specifically to deal with the filthy conditions identified by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. General cleanliness and hygiene have been improved. New cleaning schedules have been introduced and—I go back to the management point—new inspection arrangements. Additional laundry facilities have been made available. Some gain has been made already in the frequency of clean clothing. We have started on a backlog of small repairs. A new healthcare inpatient facility opened at the beginning of April.
The new governor and deputy governor are in post. The exercise yards have been created in the short-stay side of the establishments. Proposals are in hand—this was not mentioned specifically but it particularly concerns me on any prison visit I make—to end the standing queue of visitors outside the front of the establishment. We hope that we can achieve an efficient, workable system of booked visits. An overhaul of the management structure is under way.
We started at a very low ebb—I did—when Sir David came to see me as recently as 11th December. We are not out of the woods. I have indicated. and it has been received with general approval, that I want to visit the establishment in August or September to see for myself. I repeat that if any noble Lords are sufficiently concerned at that time to wish to join me, the area manager, the prison governor and his staff will be more than pleased to receive them.

Greater London Authority Bill
8.35 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 39.
Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 151:
Leave out Clause 39 and insert the following new Clause—
ANNUAL GREATER LONDON DEBATE
(" .—(1) In addition to the requirements of section 37, the Mayor shall once a year convene and attend a meeting of the Assembly to be known as the "Greater London debate".
(2) The sole item on the Agenda of such meeting shall be to debate the annual report of the Mayor prepared pursuant to section 38.
(3) The Greater London debate shall be held on a date determined by the Mayor on not less than three months' notice during April, May or June, excluding the date of and three weeks preceding a General Election, elections (other than by-elections) to the Authority, elections to the European Parliament or to London borough councils.
(4) The first Greater London debate shall be held in April, May or June 2001.
(5) Where the Mayor has determined that the debate shall be held in the month of June and a General Election or an election to the European Parliament would entail a breach of subsection (3) above, the Mayor shall give not less than one month's notice of a revised date which shall not be later than two weeks after the date of the election.
(6) As soon as practical following the Greater London debate, the Mayor and the Assembly shall hold a meeting to which two members of each London borough and the Common Council shall he invited to attend and participate in, the sole purpose of which meeting shall he to discuss the Mayor's annual report and the proceedings at the Greater London debate.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment proposes the entire deletion of Clause 39 and its replacement by another clause which has the same intention as the Government's clause.
On the last amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made it clear that they are not concerned about the intention but about the name of the debate. The drastic step which we propose to delete Clause 39 in its entirety is necessary because there is so much wrong with the drafting of the original clause that it is impossible to amend it piecemeal, phrase by phrase.
Our first objection is to the name of the meeting—the "State of London debate". I count myself as an admirer of the United States of America but that does not mean that we must copy every single Americanism or every facet of American politics. At the beginning of each political year, the President of the United States attends a joint meeting of both Houses of Congress and delivers what is called the State of the Union Address—a cross between an annual report and the Queen's Speech. It is the height of pretentiousness to use that name for the annual general meeting of the assembly. It is the ultimate in "me too-ism". It will make the assembly of one of the world's greatest cities the laughing stock of the political world, as indeed, it seemed to do when the earlier amendment was debated.
The next major fault is the lack of clarity as regards who is to take part in the debate. We know from subsection (1) that the mayor will be there. We know that the meeting is to be open to all members of the public. But in what capacity will that be? Will they be there as participators or merely as audience? We assume that it is as audience because Clause 40 creates the function with the rather twee name of the "People's Question Time". As the Government describe this function as the "State of London debate" we must assume by an analogy with the State of the Union address to Congress, the participants are the assembly members as well as the mayor. The Bill does not say so. In fact, it does not say anything.
What is the agenda? We assume that it is the State of London, but what else? There is another clue. The date of the meeting is connected with the date of the publication of the mayor's annual report. So by a process of deduction we can discern through the mist what we think the Government are getting at. But that is no way to legislate. Clarity is required and that is what our amendment provides.
There is an answer to all the questions raised by the omissions in the present draft. New subsection (1) makes it clear that it is a meeting of the assembly. New subsection (2) makes it clear that the sole subject on the agenda will be the mayor's annual report. Subsections (3) and (4) fix the date of the meeting but make sure that it does not get mixed up with local elections, elections to the European Parliament or, of course, a general election. Subsection (5) fixes the date when a general election is due. Last but not least, subsection (6) of the amendment requires the mayor and assembly to hold a joint meeting with the representatives of the boroughs and the Common Council solely for the purpose of discussing the annual report and, no less important, the proceedings at the debate. That latter provision seeks to build and maintain the links between the boroughs and the differently constituted assembly.
But there is still one thing missing. The meeting is to be open to the public. In that case, where is it to be held? Bearing in mind that it is not practical to hold it in the middle of Hyde Park or at the Millennium Dome, what restrictions are there to be on numbers? What arrangements will be made for the event to be televised? Will there be any obligation on the TV companies to broadcast it? There is a great deal more work to be done by the Government on that draft clause before it is in an acceptable shape.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is nothing in the Government's draft clause which is not in our amendment. The extra clarifications which appear in our amendment do not detract from the, Government's draft in one single iota. On the contrary, it fills the gap which should not exist. There should not be gaps. The clause as it stands does not make sense. Our amendment improves considerably the Government's draft and I hope the Minister will accept this suggestion, as well as many others which I have made, in the spirit of constructive contribution. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: The Conservatives have a number of points on the amendment with which we would agree but I regret that we are unable to support it. We believe that various debates should be held, and a debate with the assembly is one of those. But the clause does not provide a debate with members of the public. I make that point deliberately because it was suggested a number of times during the debate on the last group of amendments that we oppose a debate with members of the public. We do not. We oppose only the prescription of the name. As that provision is not included in the amendment before the Committee, we regret that we cannot support it.
The Conservatives, too, choose to attach a name to the debate. It may be a less contentious name, perhaps a less fashionable name, and that I think would be

1009
appropriate. Nevertheless, for the reasons we gave earlier, we do not feel that it is right for the legislation to provide what the debate should be called; the mayor is quite capable of finding the name herself.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the Minister replies, I should just like to say that the purpose of the amendment was to try to match the intention of the Government's clause. The clause does not say that the public have to participate. That is the point I was trying to make—that the thing is a nonsense. If there is an intention that the public should come to this meeting and be able to debate it should say so, and it does not. After all, in a normal local council it is perfectly in order for the public to attend, but they do not have the right to participate in the discussion. The clause does not make that clear either. That is the point that I was trying to make in relation to the amendment.
Lord Whitty: I am sure the noble Baroness is trying to be helpful, as ever, and I understand the way in which she is approaching the matter. But by trying to be helpful she has fallen back on the deeply familiar. Instead of a new, innovative event whereby the mayor of London presents his report on London, his "State of London" report, to representatives of the public and the public themselves, we have yet another meeting of the assembly with the mayor, where he or she is to discuss the annual report.
We are trying to develop new means of communication, new means of participation, in London. I take the point that there must be some lack of clarity in what we have put here, because there have been various different interpretations of it. We shall have to consider whether we should come forward with greater clarity, at least to the extent of requiring the mayor to determine the procedure, to a limited extent at least.
But moving in the direction that the noble Baroness proposes, which is to take it to a normal meeting between the assembly and the mayor, which just happens to deal with the annual report, is not what we had in mind. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has clarified the position and that the Liberals are on board. I withdraw my previous allegation that they were rejecting a more expansive and more inclusive method of democratic participation. That is what this is about.
I am not entirely clear about the lesser provisions of the clause either. It is slightly bizarre in that it relates to elections in June only. The authority and London borough elections themselves will not be in June. At least, we have not decided to change the normal May dates, and one could presume that May is the month for the elections. I am not quite sure why there is the focus on June. The only elections in June are normally the European elections, which happen once every five years. The coincidence is unlikely.
I do not think this amendment is necessary. In many ways it is unduly prescriptive, as is the new idea, which no doubt the mayor will adopt in various different guises, of a duty of the mayor and the assembly to meet
1010
with representatives of London boroughs and the City. I am sure the mayor will engage in that, but to be prescriptive and define on the face of the Bill yet another formal meeting would be to go rather against some of the criticisms which we have had from the Opposition Benches during the rest of this evening.
I therefore think that there is a lack of imagination in the attempt by the noble Baroness to clarify. There is clarification by the clause, but we regard it as clarification in the wrong direction. We will consider whether, in order to make our intention clearer we should bring forward an amendment at a later stage, but I cannot accept the clause, and I hope that after consideration the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am not surprised that the Minister cannot accept our amendment. I am not sure that I would have liked it anyway. The truth is that I tried to draft an amendment that matched the intentions of the Government, which I think are non-existent. It is all very well saying that all I am suggesting is that the mayor should attend a meeting of the assembly. Maybe that is not what he intends with this great "State of London debate", but let me read to the noble Lord what the clause says:
"The Mayor shall once in every financial year hold and attend a meeting which is to be open to all members of the public, to be known as a 'State of London debate'".
And then what? There is no agenda. We do not know whether the public are allowed to participate. We know nothing. At least my amendment was a little clearer than the clause, which says nothing at all.
I have told the noble Lord, the Chief Whip, that I shall do my best not to take too long, and for that reason, and that reason only, I shall not argue the advantages of my amendment over this extraordinarily badly drafted clause.
The noble Lord picked me up on the question of April, May or June, and asked what kind of election would take place in June. First, I mentioned only those months, although we quite liked the previous amendment, Amendment No. 150, of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I was trying to match what he said.
Nevertheless, on the understanding that the Minister will take this away and will come up with a clause that will not make London a laughing stock, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [People's Question Time]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 23, line 13, leave out (", to be known as a "People's Question Time"").
The noble Baroness said: This is an uncontentious amendment. The purpose is to leave out not the proposal that there be a question time open to members of the public, at which they may ask questions and be given

1011
answers, but merely the description. I dislike the title "People's Question Time" even more than I dislike the "State of London debate".
My distaste for the name, since it is a matter of taste, and that is inevitably personal, is not very relevant. My objection is that the assembly ought to be able to find its own title, and if the members of the assembly are not capable of finding a title I would query their ability to deal with things that matter rather more than what this is to be called.
In another place the Minister said that the public should not be deterred from attending by the occasion's being referred to in a way which would make them think it was simply another boring old meeting. I concur with that, but let us leave it to those who will be involved in one way or another with the new authority to find a name and methods of publicity and so on which will attract members of the public, rather than feeling that any of us in Westminster or Whitehall should tell them how to do that by prescribing the title. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment would, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, remove the name "People's Question Time" from the twice-yearly meeting open to all members of the public for which the clause provides. We are strongly committed—and this is a serious point—to strengthening the link between local people and local governments. An important aspect of this is to catch and retain people's interest, to enhance local accountability. We believe that a "People's Question Time" is a much better place to do that than a meeting which is to be open to all members of the public.
Amendment No. 152 would, in our opinion, be a backward step in our drive to engage people's interest. While I can understand that there may be a question of taste, I believe that putting it as the "People's Question Time" is different from describing something as a meeting open to the public. Many noble Lords may have been at meetings open to the public in which they were, if lucky, allowed to ask one question at the end. That is a common perception. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope: As the Minister knows, I am always keen to help her, and I should like to help her here. We wholly share the objectives. That is not at issue. But can the Minister tell me why the Government have chosen the rather old Labour, even socialist, phrase "People's Question Time" rather than the more usual description in local government of "public question time." Would that not avoid the need for this debate?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it is a matter of taste.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: It is more than a matter of taste. We have "the people's Peers", and "People's Question Time". It is ridiculous. I am sorry to say that it just makes us laugh.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In the spirit of helpfulness which seems suddenly to have broken out,
1012
perhaps we could simply have a clause which states that the mayor and the assembly shall twice in every financial year hold and attend a question time open to all members of the public; and that the question time shall be held on a date, and so on. Then the mayor, the assembly and the authority can decide whether they want to give it some sexy name, but we would all know exactly what was intended.
Baroness Hamwee: I paused to see whether there was to be an answer. It appears not. I think that the mayor and the assembly should, if they wish, and if it is more of the age in, say, 2010, call it "Londoners' Question Time" or "Citizen's Question Time"—there are many descriptions. Whether it is an old Labour, a new Labour, a real Labour or a socialist term, I do not know or care. My point is that it is not for us to tell them what to do. That point has probably been recorded now half a dozen times. Perhaps the time has come for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 23, line 24, at end insert—
("() shall satisfy himself that the meeting is held at a venue of sufficient size to accommodate all members of the public who may wish to attend and to provide them with sufficient facilities to ask questions and to hear the proceedings; and
() shall ensure that all members of the public shall be allowed to ask questions of the Mayor and members of the Assembly present at the meeting.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 153 is a probing amendment to extract from the Government more details of this rather bizarre idea of a so-called People's Question Time. I shall not comment further on the outlandish name which has been sufficiently commented on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in debate on the previous amendment—to which we added our two penn'orth.
I agree that this rather quaint name for the function seems to have originated in some socialist student society. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, when he discussed it in that way. Indeed, the whole outlandish idea smacks of people's soviets that Russia originally favoured until people started raising awkward questions of their leaders.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: As regards the people's Russia and the Soviet era, I lived there. I can assure noble Lords that there were never any public question times.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Baroness is probably right. It is no substitute for proper representation by a local councillor having a tie with the ward or borough which the Government have discarded in favour of the 14 remote super-constituencies and 13 other assembly members whose first allegiance is to their political party.

1013
The proposal is as half baked, ill-thought out and lacking in detail as many of the other matters included in the Bill, to say nothing of the ones which await a ministerial decree before we can discover what the Government have in mind.
The meeting is not confined to voters. At least seven million people live in Greater London. Will tickets be needed? How is that compatible with the stipulation that all members of the public should be entitled to attend? If only one in 5,000 people wanted to come, that would mean 3,500 people who would have to be accommodated. It could even be more. If it were less, it would prove that the whole exercise was just window dressing.
I suspect that it might just be a platform for pressure groups, which is fair enough. I fear, however, that it might also attract the sort of anarchists who rioted in the City last Friday and who do not understand the concept of free speech and peaceful demonstration as compared with the opportunity to stick masks on and have a punch-up.
In my normal spirit of helpfulness, and in order to assist the Government improve the Bill, we have stipulated that the meeting must be held at a place which holds all those people who wish to come. I have no idea where that might be. The Albert Hall might not be big enough. Wembley Stadium? But what if it rains? The Millennium Dome? Getting all those people there and away again in a short period would be a major problem—the mayor's problem, and that of the Government who have landed him with it.
The function is described as a "People's Question Time". But, curiously, the Bill does not specifically provide the right for anyone to ask any questions. It is all very well giving the function a name, but where is it stated that individuals can ask questions? Our amendment makes good that deficiency. Of course there is no requirement for the mayor or assembly members to answer. If a few thousand people turn up and hundreds of them want to ask questions, how long will the meeting go on for? Will there be power to adjourn the meeting? Or will it become like the midnight marathons that your Lordships sometimes have to endure?
The Bill does not say how disruptive persons are to be dealt with. That is something the Government have to answer. So far it seems to have been overlooked. Our amendment only scratches the surface of the problems that this eccentric and costly concept produces. The most sensible idea—I told the Minister that we are trying to help—would be to abandon the whole project, dump it in "file 13", the dustbin where it belongs. If the Government are going to press on with it, they have to provide the power for the assembly to make practical rules, subject to the Secretary of State's approval, for the conduct of what at Second Reading I called the people's "pow-wow". In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I was going to refer to it as the Dome amendment, but perhaps I shall not.
We support the proposal that there should be proper opportunity for Londoners to question both mayor and assembly. I have a question for the Minister on the clause. There may or may not be an answer. My
1014
underlying point again is the difficulty of writing so much on to the face of the Bill. My question is in connection with Clause 40(2) which states,
"A People's Question Time shall be held on a date to be determined by the Mayor and the Assembly".
That is fine. But how are they to determine it? What are the voting arrangements to be? Should each assembly member have one vote and the mayor have one vote? Alternatively, is the assembly, by a majority, to have one vote and the mayor another? It is a slightly facetious question because one hopes that they will be able to co-operate and sort out the matter without that kind of row. But if this provision is to be prescribed, perhaps everything needs to be prescribed.
9 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 153 would place an explicit and clear duty on the mayor to hold the People's Question Time in a venue large enough to hold all the members of the public who may wish to attend and make provision for people to ask the mayor and assembly members questions at the meeting. The duty contained in the first part of the amendment is not sensible. No one can believe that the mayor who will be elected on the mandate by the people of London would hold public meetings in a venue that was deliberately not large enough to hold all the members of the public who may be expected to attend. Nor would he or she choose a venue that was not suitably equipped and did not meet the needs, for example, of disabled Londoners. Inevitably, there will be a period of trial and error. The clause clearly states that the meeting is to be open to all members of the public, but it would not be reasonable to put the mayor in a position whereby one person too many to fit into the venue would leave him or her in breach of their statutory duty.
My experience of a public consultation meeting, which was mandatory, during a review of surplus school places, was that at one meeting far more parents than anticipated had turned up. One member of the public tried to get the meeting closed down by the police and threatened to switch off all the lights. That was in spite of the fact that I had offered at the beginning of the meeting to hold a separate meeting to ensure that everyone's views could be known. That kind of situation demonstrates that the noble Baroness's amendment is not a sensible one.
It is obvious from the title that members of the public can ask the mayor and assembly questions. We intend to bring forward an amendment whereby the mayor would decide the procedure for the event, following consultation with the assembly. We would anticipate that, as in many other areas, this would be achieved through a process of consensus, following those discussions. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I feel for the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who has had to speak to, and reply to, three horrible amendments. The truth is that

1015
there is something drastically wrong with the way the Bill has been framed. I know that that is not the fault of the noble Baroness.
In the margin against Clause 40 are the words "People's Question Time", and if you look at it quickly that is what it appears to be. However, Clause 40 states that the mayor and assembly twice in every financial year should hold a meeting which is open to members of the public, which will be known as the People's Question Time. Great. There shall be a meeting; there can be a meeting; there must be a meeting twice in a financial year. And we are going to call it the People's Question Time.
Subsection (2) tells us that the date will be determined by the mayor and the assembly and that it shall be not less than one month before or one month after the State of London debate, which we somewhat ridiculed. At least one month prior to that People's Question Time the mayor shall decide where it is to be held and shall take sufficient steps to give adequate notice. When those people come, what are they going to do? The Bill does not say that they can ask questions. It is all very well having something in the margin, but it is ludicrous.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Would it help the noble Baroness if I told her that I accept her point that an important part of the process will be the arrangements for people to ask questions? I am sure we can bring forward suitable amendments on Report if necessary.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am delighted to hear that the Government will bring forward some amendments to clarify the situation. I do not want to rub salt into the wound, but a number of amendments were added between the other place and this place, and the provision is still very poor. However, it is late at night and I should not like the Minister to think that I am less than gracious in accepting her kind offer. All I say is that more drafting is definitely needed in order to make sense of the clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 154:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS BY AUTHORITY
(" . The Authority shall make available at reasonable cost (or at no cost) copies of all public documents and minutes of the Authority and shall promptly make all such documents freely available to anyone visiting a public internet site to be maintained by the Authority.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a sensible amendment, not one of those silly ones. All I can say is that it needs sensible debate, and in the spirit of trying to hung things along I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
Clause 41 [The Deputy Mayor]:
[Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 23, line 31, leave out ("appointed by the Mayor") and insert ("elected by the Assembly").
The noble Lord said: I am left somewhat breathless from the recent proceedings. One of the more bizarre reasons for not moving an amendment is because it is sensible. I am proposing this amendment and those grouped with it because they are sensible. They provide for the deputy mayor to be elected by the assembly and for other matters which flow from that.
The position of the Liberal Democrats is well known. We would have preferred the mayor to have been elected by the assembly, and I am not going to go over that again. We are not moving the amendment simply as a second best option, trying to go for the deputy mayor if we cannot get the mayor in that way, although there is a good reason for that.
We all agree that the relationship between the assembly and the mayor will be critically important. The deputy mayor will be in a difficult position, at best, if he or she is seen simply as the creature of the mayor, the mayor's nominee. A deputy mayor who is elected by the assembly will mean that that person is in a much stronger position to represent the assembly to the mayor, and the mayor to the assembly. Therefore, having a deputy mayor in that role who is elected by the assembly and answerable to the assembly, but obviously working closely and co-operatively with the mayor, is the best possible solution, given that the mayor is not directly elected by and accountable to the assembly.
The purpose of the amendments is to provide for the deputy mayor to be elected by the assembly for those reasons. Because the deputy mayor will be elected by the assembly, we are providing in Amendment No. 163 that the assembly, having elected the mayor, may also have the right by a two-thirds majority to remove the deputy mayor in the unlikely event that that was felt to be necessary by two-thirds or more of the assembly. It asks the Minister to explain why in all but one of the subsections in Clause 41 there is a reference to "shall", but in subsection (4) the reference is to "a person must"? It is not an important point, but we are intrigued to know the reason. I am sure it is one point which the Minister will be able to clarify to our satisfaction.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We do not support the amendment for the reasons I touched on earlier. There should be an opportunity for the deputy mayor to be elected, because we believe that the proposal muddies the water by mixing up the executive with the legislature.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, with all his experience believes that this amendment would create a workable situation. The mandate for the mayor will produce someone of certain beliefs and understandings and the mandate for the assembly may produce a body which thinks differently. The assembly may appoint a deputy mayor deliberately to disagree with the mayor in order

1017
to make life difficult for him. I believe that this is a most unwise amendment. I do not know whether it is light-hearted or serious, but coming from a serious local government politician, I am truthfully surprised. That sounds rather pompous, but I cannot see the proposal working.
I believe that the Government have got this right; that the mayor chooses the deputy mayor from the assembly. My noble friend Lady Miller suggested the alternative; a dream ticket of mayor and deputy mayor elected together. In those two ways, there would be a deputy mayor who could work with the mayor, but I do not believe that this amendment would be at all wise.
Earl Russell: I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, finds the idea of cohabitation quite so shocking. If the French can do it, why cannot we?
Lord Whitty: Yes! If the noble Earl had been here earlier when we spoke of transposing the American constitution for the London one, he would realise that we are not transposing the French one either. We are setting up a new unique authority with two different parts. In a sense, the deputy mayor is a bridge between them.
I cannot but agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, when she says that the Government have got this right. It would be extremely difficult to envisage a situation in which the deputy mayor was elected by an assembly which was of a different political persuasion than the mayor. Indeed, the mayor may be of no political persuasion and the assembly of mixed political persuasion. However, the deputy mayor must share the platform and the commitment of the mayor and must act as his or her deputy and represent him or her and be involved as part of the mayor's executive in the authority's decision-taking structures. It would be a recipe for confrontation and chaos were the deputy mayor to be elected by the assembly.
We believe that all the parts of this new authority need to act together, but we do not want to build in another area of conflict by making the deputy mayor an indirect but nevertheless separate mandate from the mayor. We have been over the arguments in earlier stages in the Bill and I shall not go through them in any more detail. We do not accept this approach to changing the constitution, which we have proposed from the beginning in relation to the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked me about an issue of grammar. I do not believe that it is as significant as he suggests. My interpretation would be that "shall" means that someone has to do something and "must" means that someone must not hold two offices at the same time. All the shalls impose a duty on someone.
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Lord Whitty: I am glad that I have some support in this matter! My fall-back position is that it is not significant.
Lord Tope: I am prepared to accept the Minister's fallback position. He has done rather better with that one
1018
than he has with "People's Question Time", the "State of London debates", and so on. I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to answer that point. I shall read Hansard with care to see whether I understand it any better. However, I shall accept his fallback position. It is not a matter of major significance.
On a more substantive matter, I do not accept the election of the deputy mayor by the assembly. I do not accept the rather pessimistic view that it must necessarily or likely be a recipe for confrontation. We are all approaching the Greater London Authority on the basis of a co-operative body. It is on that basis that we propose this. We can all think of more pessimistic "what if' situations. I could, for instance, suggest what if the assembly passes a vote of no confidence in the deputy mayor—a member of the assembly—who has been appointed by the mayor? In what position would that put the deputy mayor?
We can all envisage scenarios that would be entirely negative and destructive. That is not the way in which any of us is approaching this matter. It is highly probable—much though each of us for different reasons may regret it—that the assembly will not normally have a majority of members of any one political party and, therefore, will need to work on a co-operative basis. I believe that the election of the deputy mayor, working co-operatively with the mayor, would strengthen the authority as a whole. I anticipated that that view would not be shared by the Government Front Bench or indeed the Conservative Front Bench, but that does not necessarily make it wrong. Nevertheless, at this time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 158 to 164 not moved.]
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Functions]:
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 24, line 9, leave out first ("Chair") and insert ("Chairman").
The noble Baroness said: I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 165 to 169 and 171 to 191.
However, before I do so, and with the leave of the Committee, I refer back to Amendment No. 154, on which I think I said, "This is not a sensible amendment". I would not have realised I had said that had it not been picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I did not intend to say that.
Lord Tope: Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness. What I heard her say—I hope this is right—was that she was not moving the amendment because it was sensible. I thought that was rather a bizarre reason for not moving an amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Lord. I intended to say that as it is such a serious amendment, and as we were trying to move on, I would not move it this evening but bring it back on another occasion. I hope that clarifies the position for the record.

1019
The 26 identical amendments in the group to Clauses 42, 43 and 44 call for the deletion of the word "Chair" wherever it appears and its replacement by "Chairman".
Perhaps I may ask for the Committee's indulgence by mentioning my qualifications to speak on the subject of this series of amendments. From 1985 to 1988 I was Chairman of the 300 Group, an all-party organisation dedicated to getting more women into the other place. From 1986 to 1992 I was the Chairman of the Women into Public Life Campaign, dedicated to ensuring that more women receive more appointments to public bodies. For my efforts in those two spheres, Her Majesty honoured me with the MBE for,
"services in the advancement of the status of women in public and political life".
From 1993 to 1996 I was the Chairman of the Greater London Area of the Conservative Party. From 1990 to 1994 I was the Chairman of the Barnet Family Health Services Authority. Since 1997 I have been the Chairman of the National Association of Leagues of Hospital and Community Friends.
In none of those offices has anybody dared to call me "the Chair". Maybe it is because, despite my well-known mild and self-effacing manner, they simply did not dare to, or maybe they realised that I am not someone who can be sat upon. Certainly I do not need any lessons from anyone on how the interests of women are best promoted. I believe that they are certainly not promoted by those who cause the women's movement to be held up to ridicule by the sort of verbal absurdity that we find perpetrated in the Bill.
The French, the Italians, the Spanish and the Portuguese languages have two genders for their nouns. Hundreds of other languages have the same defect. The Germans run to three—masculine, feminine and neuter—with the word for "Miss" being male for some unfathomable, Teutonic reason.
The Queen's English—your Lordships will note that the name of our language which is spoken all around the world is English, not British or United Kingdomish—fortunately does not assign any gender to its nouns. The word "chairman" does not assign any connotation of the sex of the holder of the office.
Another grotesque word that is sometimes used is "spokesperson". Thank goodness all the perpetrators of this sexist nonsense do not call him or her the "spoke". There is a story which I cannot prove that one local council decided that the phrase, "manhole cover" was politically incorrect; and since "personhole cover" was too crass even for them, referred to them as "horizontal aperture closures".
A female executor is called an "executrix"; so why is a female director not called a "directorix"? Why is a female judge not called a "judgess"? Female ushers are called "usherettes", so why is a female Minister of the Crown not called a "Ministerette"?
I use the phrase "sexist nonsense" because in the name of what they call "political correctness", verbal vandals actually perpetrate gender disputes where none exists. Only yesterday some noble Lords in this Chamber were talking about "Peers" and "Peeresses". I am not a Peeress; I am a Peer and am proud to be a
1020
Member of this House as a Peer. A "Peeress" is the wife of a Peer. I did not say the "spouse" of a Peer because I would not insult my poor husband who is sitting in the Peeress's Box.
As I said, a Peeress is the wife of a male Peer. I am a Peer and when someone stands up and says, "My Lords", that includes me and every other noble Baroness in this House. My summons from Her Majesty the Queen instructs me to attend "with the other Lords". There are those who say that we should be using this different language and argue that it is the symbolism that counts. It is not. What counts is getting our arguments across without detracting from the main point.
In saying that, perhaps I may touch on the issue of consistency. In the three clauses that I am discussing the, draftsman used the word "chair" 26 times. However, Schedule 21, paragraph (6)(1) requires the Metropolitan Police Authority to appoint not a "chair'', but a "chairman"—a "chairman", after all this other nonsense of 26 times calling it a "chair". Schedule 23(3) requires the mayor to appoint a "chairman" of the Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; and not just a chairman, but a vice-chairman as well. Schedule 14 provides for the payment to be made to the "chairman" of the London Transport Users' Committee. Section 237 amends the Regional Development Agencies Act, passed only last year, by providing for the mayor to appoint a "chairman". Lastly, whoever drafted paragraph (3) of Schedule 25 was clearly torn in two directions and produced the following compromise,
"Appointment of member to take chair",
and then it says,
"The Mayor shall appoint one of the members of the. Cultural Study Group for London to chair it".
The draftsman could not make up his mind whether it was a "chair" or a "chairman" and came up with those two sentences.
The amendments we are proposing make not one jot of difference to the Act or the working of the authority. But it eliminates a piece of linguistic nonsense that I should have thought the Government would prefer not to inflict on the residents of London or to give arty degree of credence to by including it in an Act of Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: It is with the utmost reluctance that I rise to oppose my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, whom I first met in the 300 Group, which she was later to chair with elegance and distinction.
I have been a chairman, but not of as many organisations as the noble Baroness. After 11 years on Surrey County Council, during which I had insensibly—because all Liberal Democrats tend to speak in this language—unconsciously and unwillingly offended people by occasionally calling them "chair" when, according to the constitution of the county council I should have called them "chairman", I myself became chairman of the county council. I raised with the chief executive whether I could call myself "Chair". He said, "Certainly not". I said, "Why not?" He said, "Because

1021
of the way in which the standing orders of the county council are written at the moment you have been elected as a chairman and not as a chair".
This particular Bill is trying to guide—I put it no stronger than that—this modern institution into a more modern way of conducting its business. I believe that growing numbers of people find obnoxious terms which have "man" at the end of them, but are posts which may be filled with either men or women. Most of us do not get into a great tizzy about it, but we would still rather that things were not like that.
Some of the examples which the noble Baroness put before us did not follow the pattern of what she was saying. For example, the enviable characteristic of the word "judge" is that it does not distinguish between men and women. I could be a good or bad judge of a flower show, an apple, a taste or whatever I like. I cannot be a judge in court because I am not qualified, but Members of the Committee will know what I am trying to say.
If we are to be a little more modern let us choose one of the more acceptable modernisms. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me that "chair" is preferable to "chairperson", which is a repulsive term. It also has the great advantage of being consistent with the longstanding formality such as the need to address oneself to the chair. It is a way in which the seat of authority becomes first the office and now it is attached to the person who holds that office just as it is attached to the person who sits in the chair.
Interestingly enough, I took part in this very same debate in my own party many years ago at nine o'clock in the morning in Dundee, which is not a very attractive place or hour at which to conduct that kind of debate. I knew that I would have against me a very distinguished member of my party who was extremely cultivated in his own tongue. In fact, he was an English scholar. So I referred to the English dictionary which was in two volumes. It was printed in such small print that one needed a magnifying glass to read it. That was kindly provided by my county council. I found that the earliest use of the words "chair" and "vice-chair" are in letters of about 1780, written by the chair and vice-chair of the East India Company to each other. I do not believe that we need any further justification for this very small shift towards modernism. It was not even that modern.
Baroness Blatch: I rise for the first time in this debate. Having had some experience of local government, I find it deeply frustrating not to he taking part in this Bill. But, given the convention of the House that we do not become involved in every Bill, I have been full of restraint. If we have heard the best intellectual justification for most inelegant language, then I find it rather feeble.
When I was leader of Cambridgeshire County Council until 1985, I was entirely happy to be called the leader of the council. Until that time there was no contention about it. In the May elections of that year Cambridgeshire became a hung council or, as I look back on it now, I prefer to call it an unhinged council. Within hours of taking office the next morning the
1022
persons leading the Liberal and Labour parties and myself came together to decide how we were going to run the council. I found depressing the hours of debate about what we called each other. That took predominance over issues such as health, education and the state of the roads.
It turned out that the leader of the council was hierarchical and anyway at that time we did not have any one party which could claim leadership over the council. So there was a great debate. By the end of the day I became known as "an equal member of an egalitarian triumvirate". I was meant to languish with some gratitude in this new title of mine, but I said, "If I am going to be chairman of anything, I would like to be called chairman".
We went through "chairman", at the Liberal behest, to "chairperson". Then there was a discussion about that, after which we became "chair". We then had another debate which followed where it was decided that "chair" was also hierarchical and unacceptable to the council. So we then went through yet another debate and became "spokesman" through to "spokesperson" and then to "spoke". I had to suffer the indignity of being called "Madam Spoke" at meetings.
I remember on one occasion insisting that if I was going to be sitting in the chair at a meeting and had to be called anything, I would like to be called "chairman". There ensued something like a three-quarters-of-an-hour debate describing me as a disgrace to my gender because I was being offensive to my Liberal and Labour colleagues on the council by insisting on being called "chairman". If it had not been so serious, it would have been absurd; indeed, it was taken to absurd lengths.
It is inelegant. We all know that "man" is a universal term for a human being. As an individual, I have no objection whatever to being called "Chairman" or "Madam Chairman"; they are equally acceptable to me. Similarly, I find the term "Ms" inelegant. When I was a Minister, I refused to call anyone "Ms"; indeed, I preferred to use the christian name rather than "Ms", because I think that that is also inelegant. We have corrupted the language with this kind of political correctness. I find that if offends more people than it pleases. Of course, it pleases the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. It has been on their political agenda for a very long time. However, I believe that it provides a disservice.
I know that the Minister will argue against my noble friend's amendment. There are two Ministers: a lady Minister and a gentleman Minister, and only one of them will respond. I am not a gambling lady. but I will bet that there will be an objection to my noble friend's amendment. I find that rather sad. First, my noble friend has argued the case most cogently; and, secondly, she has also referred to the inconsistencies in the Bill. For example, why is the term "chairman" acceptable in one part of the Bill and yet wholly unacceptable in another part? What is the argument and the intellectual justification for that?
My final statement relates to the Civil Service. This kind of language is endemic in the Civil Service; indeed, it knows no other. I have to say that I spent a good deal

1023
of my time and energy when I was a Minister in three departments—namely, the Department of the Environment, the Department for Education and the Home Office—fighting against this nonsense and this inelegance. I want to convey to my noble friend the fact that I support her most enthusiastically, but I am not hopeful that the amendment will bear fruit on the other side of the Committee.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: I cannot get enthusiastic for this debate and that probably proves something about business or the private sector. For 10 years I was in the chair—and I choose my words carefully—of Grand Metropolitan and everyone at every level called me Allen.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have been in the chair quite a lot and I have always been "the Convenor".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I knew what was going to happen as soon as I was asked to respond to this amendment. I have to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. with whom, I believe, I maintain a good friendship, that if she is going to develop her argument about ushers and usherettes I have absolutely no intention of being a "Whippet". I think that that would be most offensive.
I was intrigued by this series of amendments. As others have said in this short debate, I am conscious of how sensitive an issue this can be. I shall not mention the various offices I have held, but I was proud at one time to be the chairman of Lancashire County Council. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, discussed the term "chair". I shall return to that point.
I agree that debates on this matter can become heated and fearsome. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would not want that to happen here. I found that I had to change what I called myself when I reached Crewe because otherwise I became locked in sterile debates. Occasionally I forgot to change my title when I was in Lancashire and called myself the chair. Various people objected to that. Or I referred to myself as a chairman south of Crewe and various people objected to that too. When I chaired a committee in Europe I found the term "president" easier.
I will outline our reasons for the use of the term "chair" rather than "chairman". It is just one part of our proposal to modernise London governance.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We decided to update the terminology used to refer to the presiding officers of the assembly to a usage now recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary. When I acted in the capacity of chairman of Lancashire County Council on several occasions primary schoolchildren asked me how I could be the chairman as they expected to see a man. There is a serious point here as regards children's expectations of our democratically elected representatives.
1024
It is true that previous legislation uses the term "chairman". Where this Bill modifies earlier Acts or makes provisions in the context of earlier legislation, the term "chairman" therefore appears. Alternatively we could have insisted on bringing before the Chamber amending legislation to all previous legislation 10 enable us to use—this would appear more logical on the face of it—the term "chair" throughout. However, we think it is unpractical in legal or handling terms to ensure consistency across the whole Bill by amending all references to "chairman" to "chair". The references to "chair" are therefore confined to the authority itself.
The authority could also choose to designate the leaders of its various committees as "chair" should it wish to do so, as happens now in relation to bodies established by the Local Government Act 1972. Therefore I think that there is a logic here. I hope that the Committee will not discuss this matter at length on many occasions because I know from past experience how much time that can take. Perhaps it may soothe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, if I tell her that I wrote down carefully the letters, EMET. Those letters, if pronounced phonetically, sound like a small, industrious animal. I am sure that it is not at all offensive to be an EMET.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: What is an EMET?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand that the noble Baroness was part of an egalitarian body in Cambridgeshire. I have forgotten the exact terms but together they form the word EMET.
Baroness Blatch: I was an equal member of an egalitarian triumvirate—a nonsense which I had no part of.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I find it hard to believe that in any gathering of which the noble Baroness was an egalitarian member she did not play a full role.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank my noble friend for adding to what I said. When she said they called her "Madam Spoke", I made a joke saying "Thank goodness they do not call a spokesman a "spoke"" I cannot imagine that anyone would call a person a "spoke". That sounds extraordinary.
My noble friend mentioned that, apart from being described as "Alan", he was described as "sitting in the chair". I have another friend who, when he became elected leader of his group on the council, said to the lady taking the minutes, "Please, do not describe me as "Councillor so and so, the chair" because I do not consider that I am a chair. I do not like the word; I am not a "chair"; I am a "chairman'"'. The lady taking the minutes said that she was not able to do that because under the rules and regulations he had to be described as a "chair". Eventually, they came to a kind of stand-off where the minutes said "Councillor so and so was sitting in the chair". That brings me back to the point that my noble friend made a few moments ago.

1025
I listened with care to the explanation given by the Minister as to why in certain places in the Bill it refers to "chairman" and "vice-chairman" as opposed to those places where it refers to "chair". I shall go through all those clauses very carefully to ascertain whether the words are simply being brought in to replace a word that was already there. It seems to me that perhaps different draftsmen were involved; some more politically correct than others.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Blatch that there is a serious point involved here. What we said was not just for fun and an attempt to make the matter look even sillier than it is; political correctness is creeping in everywhere. The Minister said that she hoped I would withdraw the amendment. I was tempted to divide the Committee, not only on this amendment but, at some stage, to divide 26 times. But it is late and she need have no fear that that will happen tonight.
I am sorry that the Minister did not have a "persondate" to accept my amendments. It would have been extremely nice had she been able to do so. I shall certainly check and do all the things I said I would.
Baroness Blatch: I believe my noble friend is about to withdraw her amendment. If that is the case, before she does so, I wonder whether the Minister can help me further in answer to my question about why there is an inconsistency between the use of "chairman" and "chair" throughout the Bill. On page 235, in Schedule 14, there is a reference to "chairman" but no reference to an Act of Parliament. The Minister said it occurred when it refers to Acts of Parliament. On page 279 there is also a reference to "chairman"; again there is no reference to an Act of Parliament. On page 303 there is a reference to "chairman" and "vice-chairman"; again there is no reference to an Act of Parliament. It would be helpful to know to which Acts of Parliament the examples I have mentioned refer, which gives the right for the distinction to be made between the use of "chairman" and "chair".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The first example the noble Baroness gave referred to the London Transport Users' Committee, which is established under a different Act of Parliament. I have not had time to check whether that is the case in every example she gave. It is my understanding that that is the way the Bill has been drafted.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: As to that particular point, I have said that I shall check all of those issues. Perhaps officials will manage to check the other side of the matter for the noble Baroness because we shall return to it. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 166 to 169 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 24, line 15, leave out from ("conferred") to end of line 16 and insert ("upon him by the Assembly pursuant to section 45").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 170. I think it will not detain the Committee as long as the previous group of amendments. Clause 42 deals with the functions of those who hold the chair and deputy chair of the assembly. Clause 42(2) deals with the function of chairing. I am trying to choose my words carefully so as not to alienate the Conservative Benches. Clause 42(2)(b) provides that the chair of the assembly shall have,
"such other functions as may be conferred or imposed … under this Act or any other enactment".
My amendment proposes that, rather than functions conferred by primary legislation, the functions will be those conferred by the assembly under Clause 45, which deals with assembly procedure—in other words, under standing orders.
I wish to make two points. The lesser is that the details of the functions, in addition to chairing meetings, will be matters for the standing orders. The other point is: if any functions are to be conferred by legislation, are they to be conferred on the authority rather than the individual person who is to chair meetings or act as chair of the assembly? This provision seems to open up an inappropriate opportunity to confer functions which, if they are set out anywhere, should be in the Bill. What we are really talking about is a procedural matter which would be best dealt with by standing orders.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The first element of the noble Baroness's amendment would delete the reference to the chair of the assembly having those functions conferred or imposed on him by the Bill. That simply means that the chair will have the functions that Parliament decides that he or she should have; for example, presiding over assembly meetings or standing in for the mayor if there is both a mayoral and deputy mayoral vacancy. So I do not accept the proposed deletion from Clause 42(2)(b).
As to the second part of the noble Baroness's amendment, it is unnecessary. Clause 45 allows the assembly to determine its own procedures and Clause 46 enables the assembly to arrange for its functions, other than where expressly prohibited, to be discharged by a single assembly member. The assembly will, therefore, be able to confer other functions on the chair if it so wishes. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that reply. In the hope of slightly decreasing the average time that is spent on groupings, I simply beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 171 not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Appointment]:
[Amendments Nos. 172 to 186 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Meetings of the whole Assembly]:
[Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 188A:
Page 25, line 8, leave out from ("election") to ("there").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 188A and 188B were tabled for entirely humanitarian reasons. As drafted, the Bill requires the assembly, after its first meeting, to meet,
"thereafter at intervals of not more than one month … to consider the Mayor's monthly written report".
It is not unknown for this House to become somewhat edgy if it is required to sit into August, and it becomes even more concerned if it has to return in September. We are probably asking a great deal of both the mayor and the assembly that they should have to meet monthly, year in, year out, non-stop, without the facility for any break at all.
It is for that simple humanitarian reason that I move Amendment No. 188A and commend Amendment No. 188B. These two amendments remove the requirement to meet at intervals of not more than one month and remove the adjective "monthly" from the subsequent paragraph (a). That is in order to allow those who, we hope, are as human as Members of this House to have a short break during the summer. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: If everything has a humanitarian intention—I take the noble Lord's word for it and I know him to be fairly humanitarian—I hope we will not be kept up too long on this Bill in the subsequent Committee days. Nevertheless, if the amendment has a humanitarian intention, the noble Lord should have moved an amendment stating, "except for August" or words to that effect. The effect of what the noble Lord suggests would be far more drastic than he intended. It would delete the requirement in Clause 44(2) to ensure that the mayor appears regularly before the assembly and provides a written report to that assembly. If we delete "monthly" then the mayor would have to present himself or herself to the assembly not later than 15 days after the election and never again thereafter.
The noble Lord entertained us earlier with the story of his acquaintance, a French mayor, who disappeared to Mexico. The amendment would enable the mayor to do so without any further requirement for him to appear and produce a report. Clearly that was not the noble Lord's intention, and if he wishes to consider the matter, I am sure that the deletion of August could be given reasonable consideration. It is in most local government standing orders that they meet monthly. Nevertheless, in practice some monthly meetings are cancelled.
If that was the noble Lord's intention, he put forward the wrong amendment and may wish to consider it for a later stage.
Lord Tope: I entirely share the humanitarian concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but I also agree with the comments of the Minister. For those reasons I shall not support the amendments as drafted because of their effect. Nevertheless, the noble Lord
1028
raised an important point. Perhaps rather than the Opposition bringing back an amendment, it is a small point that the Government should consider. It is probably not correct that most local authorities' standing orders require them to meet monthly, but it is a matter for those authorities to determine. Here we are talking about legislation which has the effect of requiring the assembly to meet in August. I doubt whether the Government gave that any thought; it is hardly a major matter. However, since it has been raised and I expect that the assembly would prefer not to meet in August, at the very least it should be free to determine itself whether to do so. Perhaps the Government should consider the point before a later stage.
Lord Whitty: I will undertake to consider the point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who made a proper point. I am not certain at this stage whether it is I or the Minister who should bring forward an appropriate amendment. I am glad that the point is taken. There is sometimes virtue in moving an amendment incorrectly because it produces the desired response. That is exactly what I received. If the Minister would be kind enough to say that he would bring forward the appropriate amendment, he might do it on terms with which he would not have to argue. However, if he invites me to do it, I might have to use terms with which he would still wish to argue. That would take more time, so perhaps he would consider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 188B to 191 not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Assembly procedure]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 25, line 32, at end insert ("and may publish standing orders accordingly").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 192 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 193. Neither amendment raises a major point. Amendment No. 192 provides that the assembly, having determined its own procedure and that of its committees under Clause 45(1),
"may publish standing orders accordingly".
I assumed that the assembly would publish standing orders but, given the prescription of the Bill, I thought it better to ask. Amendment No. 193 seeks to leave out Clause 45(2)(c) which provides that the subsection to which I have just referred is subject to any other provision under this Bill or any future, or even past, legislation. My particular query is related to future legislation. Why is it necessary to say this, since I assume that future legislation will in any event override this legislation? Perhaps the Minister can assist me as to the necessity for the whole of that provision. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 45 enables the assembly to determine its own procedure and that of its committees (including quorum) except where provisions in this Bill provide otherwise. Amendment No. 192 would steer it towards publishing its standing orders but would not require it to do so. In the circumstances, this seems to be an unintended effect of the amendment. As currently drafted, Clause 45 permits the assembly to determine its own procedures. Therefore, the option of whether or not to publish its standing orders already exists under that discretion. Frankly, I find it difficult to conceive of an authority which would think it other than sensible to publish its standing orders to assist its members, staff and the public to understand its proceedings.
Amendment No. 193 would delete subsection (3) of Clause 45 from the Bill. This is an essential provision. Although the assembly is rightly allowed a considerable degree of discretion, it must still follow the provisions of this Bill and legislation that affect the procedures of the assembly which we believe are essential for the effective and transparent working of the authority. For example, we have provided in the Bill for a series of meetings and debates, which we have debated with great seriousness in this House, and also required that the political balance of the authority should be reflected in its committees.
We do not believe that it should be possible for the assembly to disregard these matters. I am sure the noble Baroness agrees that it is important for the committees to reflect the political balance of the authority. They and other provisions of the Bill play an important part in determining the culture and nature of the authority. I hope that I have answered the points raised by the noble Baroness, and therefore I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: As to the first matter, the Minister has answered my question in the affirmative. I am still not convinced that it is necessary to have Clause 45(2)(c). I do not for a moment part company with the noble Baroness on the proposition that the procedure of the assembly must be subject to legislation. I would have thought that that was the case without the need to say so, but I shall not labour the point.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may assist the noble Baroness if I make clear that the procedures can be subject to future legislation, but sometimes legal arguments arise as to whether a later Act overrides an earlier one.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that indication. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 192A and 193 not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 194:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
BROADCASTING OF AND ACCESS TO PROCEEDINGS
(" .(1) The Authority shall provide facilities to enable proceedings of the Assembly and its committees or extracts therefrom, to be broadcast both live and as recorded on radio and television, and at the Authority's discretion, over the internet.
(2) The Authority may provide such facilities free of charge, or may make a reasonable charge approximately equal to the cost to it of it providing such facilities.
(3) The Authority shall provide without charge adequate facilities to enable representatives of all bodies having functions under this Act and the London boroughs and the Common Council and accredited representatives of the media and a reasonable number of members of the public to attend—

(a) any meetings of the Assembly, and

(b) any meetings of its committees at which the public is entitled to be present.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 194 speaks for itself. First, it requires the authority to provide facilities for broadcasting on the radio and television. It gives the authority a discretion about additional broadcasting over the Internet, but I freely admit that that cautious approach about this new means of communication is only because it is new, and possibly all the ramifications and implications of it have not yet been discovered.
It allows the authority to make a reasonable charge for providing the facility because I suppose that it could cost the authority something by way of heating, lighting and the supply of electricity and so on. On the other hand, the authority has a discretion not to charge if, for example, the sums involved are not worth the bookkeeping trouble, or if the authority felt it ought not to make a charge as part of its public service.
Parliament fought a rearguard action for years, decades even, first against radio broadcasting and later against television. No-one would now doubt the value of both means, especially television, in informing the public about the activities of Parliament, especially of the other place. If there is some reservation in some quarters about the public actually seeing the antics that sometimes occur in the other place, they have only themselves to blame. The same applies to the temptation for some members to play to the camera in the hope that they may get on the "Six O'Clock News".
My only complaint about the broadcasting of Parliament is that not enough is shown of the proceedings in your Lordships' House and, when one listens to the debate here and compares it to the debate in the other place, one is really disappointed that the public do not see more of what is happening here. Perhaps the public would have a much better idea of what we do if they saw more of our very well-informed debates and Question Times and, if I may say so, the very courteous way in which they are conducted on all sides of the House.
In our opinion, if the broadcasting of Parliament or extracts from its proceedings is an everyday feature of the news, there is no reason why the affairs of the assembly should not be the same. Of course, there is no

1031
obligation at all on the broadcasters to broadcast anything, but that will depend on how interesting or otherwise the assembly's proceedings are. There is certainly enough space on the new digital and cable channels to fit in the assembly without depriving anybody of the re-runs of old soap operas and sitcoms, even though they do not seem to make programmes like them any more.
Apart from providing facilities for broadcasting its proceedings, the amendment requires the authority to provide facilities for the London boroughs and the Common Council, and for a reasonable number of members of the public to be present at the meetings of the assembly and at committee meetings. I am surprised that this last item is not already provided for specifically in the Bill. I do not think we should be told that such matters are provided for in this or that local government act. If I do not have the time to look it up—and, frankly, I do not—why should members of the public, with fewer facilities than I enjoy, have to do so?
This Bill is about the Greater London Authority and, so far as possible, it should be self-contained, even if an extra couple of lines of text are needed in an already giant-sized Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the Greater London Authority should provide these facilities for broadcasting. However, I find it difficult to conceive that the 25 politicians who will comprise the assembly, and still less, the mayor, will be so publicity shy and so reluctant that they have to be required by statute to do so. That is just not a real probability, either with the nature of the authority or in this day and age. Whilst I have every sympathy for, and indeed support, the intentions here, I do wonder how it squares with the view which we take on these Benches, and indeed has been taken on the Conservative Benches on a number of occasions, that the Bill is already much too prescriptive. I question why it is necessary to put it on the face of the Bill when it is so improbable that a publicity shy mayor and a publicity shy assembly will refuse to allow the people of London to know or to hear what they are saying.
Therefore, I have considerable doubts about the amendment and suspect that I am about to hear the Minister tell us that it is not necessary.
Lord Whitty: I am about to echo the noble Lord's views on the matter. It is fairly unlikely that London's politicians will decide that the proceedings should not be broadcast. This amendment asks us to compel the authority to do so. When your Lordships' House, well ahead of the other place, decided that it wanted its proceedings broadcast, that was our decision. It was not laid down by statute. We should favour the new authority with the same freedom to decide whether or not its proceedings should be broadcast. I believe that it will decide so to do.
In specifying the requirements of the new GLA building, the Government will require the provision of media facilities. Therefore, in one sense, we are anticipating such a decision. But it is a decision for the authority to make.
1032
With regard to the provision of adequate facilities, the noble Baroness is absolutely correct because I refer her to the arrangements for the public to attend which exist in other legislation relating to local authorities; in particular, the Local Government Act 1972. The provisions will require the proceedings of the authority, unless subject to confidentiality, to be open to the public. The same criteria which apply to other local authorities in relation to access to meetings and documents will apply to the GLA. I am sure that the GLA members will wish to make clear to their public the facilities which are available for them to view their debates.
Therefore, the first part of the amendment is over-prescriptive and the second part is unnecessary.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I cannot argue with the Minister's explanation for refusing my small amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 195:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
PETITIONS
(" .—(1) The Mayor or the Deputy Mayor or the Assembly may receive petitions bearing such minimum numbers of signatures of electors registered in Greater London as the assembly may from time to time determine.
(2) Any petition so received shall be the subject of a report from the Mayor to the Assembly including specific comments on such matters contained in it as the Assembly may request.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment, very lightly, imposes a further duty on the mayor, his deputy or the assembly; namely, the duty to receive petitions from the electors of Greater London.
The assembly will fix the minimum number of signatories required to protect the mayor or the assembly from being pestered by crackpots and small but vociferous single-issue groups. I say that it is a light duty because the clause provides only that the mayor or assembly "may", not "shall" receive petitions. That will entitle them to reject petitions which are no-hopers. Once the petition has been received, the petitioners will be sure that their request will be considered or their complaint investigated. We believe that that facility is important in any democracy. It is certainly available in the other place, where there is a long tradition of petitions being put "in the Bag", which hangs symbolically behind the Speaker's Chair.
The assembly will represent 7 million Londoners and a vast number of businesses. As I have already had to remind the Committee on several occasions, the assembly members will be remote from them because of the way in which the assembly is constituted Therefore, a means of direct access to the mayor and assembly, as a matter of importance to a substantial number of Londoners, is vital.
The proposed subsection (2) makes sure that the petition is not pigeon-holed before it has at least been considered. This amendment provides a facility which any democratic legislature should be only too willing to provide. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: Again, I have much sympathy with what lies behind the amendment but I wonder about it. First, I do not think it is possible to draft any legislation that can protect us from crackpots. If there is, after 25 years in local government, I hope the Government will pass it very soon.
I cannot think that it is necessary to have legislation to enable the authority to receive petitions. I am sure they will come anyway. The important point, which is in part addressed in the second part of the proposed new clause, is what happens when the petition has been received. In that sense, I am not certain that this goes far enough. I hope that the mayor and the assembly will make provision for petitioners presenting a proper petition, in terms of the legislation, not only to present their petition but to speak to it, explain what it is about and be available to answer questions. That is what many good local authorities of all political persuasions already do, and have done for many years.
Therefore, the amendment is probably not adequate, but I return to my previous point, which is why it should be necessary to have it in the legislation in the first place, legislation we are already describing as too prescriptive. It seems to me that this is a proper and appropriate matter for the mayor and the assembly to decide for themselves. They cannot refuse to receive petitions; petitions will arrive anyway. It is inconceivable that a petition received from a number of Londoners will not be considered properly. It is for the mayor and the assembly to determine these matters: what constitutes a proper petition for their consideration—presumably signed by a given number of electors, or representative bodies and so on; and how they will treat petitions in terms of hearing petitioners and so on. These are matters which are properly considered by the mayor and the assembly, not matters which need to be enshrined in legislation.
As I have said, most local authorities already have some provision for dealing with petitions from people who live and work in their areas, but so far as I know there is no legislation, nor any intention of legislation, requiring local authorities to have such a provision. So, while I entirely support the objectives of the amendment, I cannot support it, because the matter should be left to the mayor and the assembly to determine how they want to deal with it.
Lord Whitty: Without any collusion whatsoever, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has made my case for me. I have nothing to add, and I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment in the light of the noble Lord's remarks.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I think I might withdraw in view of the fact that the Minister agrees
1034
with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but I shall not do so on the basis of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, making those comments.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [Discharge of functions by committees or single members]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 25, line 43, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: The clause deals with aspects of the procedure of the assembly, specifically its power to delegate. It says that it may delegate either to a committee of the assembly, which is entirely acceptable, or to a single member. I have some hesitation about delegating to a single member. I am not aware that that would be practice anywhere else in local government, or indeed in general. It is, of course, not unusual for a body to appoint committees, and it may even be that the committees will subsequently delegate aspects of their work to the chairman. But that would always be subject to the sanction of the committee.
It is not for us to lay down on the face of the Bill in detail the way in which the assembly shall do its business. So what we are dealing with here is perhaps more a matter of judgment than something which should appear on the face of the Bill.
I am concerned that the assembly may delegate some of its functions to one member to be discharged on its behalf. That is a quite extraordinary arrangement. It was because of that scepticism that we tabled the amendment. We wish to explore what is in the Government's mind in making this extraordinary proposition. I do not think that it is a wise one. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before he replies, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I share the concerns of my noble friend.
Clause 46(1)states:
"Subject to any express provision contained in this Act or any Act passed after this Act, the Assembly may arrange for any of the functions excisable by it to be discharged on its behalf ",
by a single member of the authority. However, subsection (3) states:
"Subsection(1)(b) above does not apply in relation to functions under or by virtue of section 20A of the Police Act 1996 (questions by Assembly members to representatives of the Metropolitan Police Authority)".
Given that that is an area which cannot be delegated to a single member of the assembly, does the Minister argue that almost any function contained within the Bill can be delegated to a single member of the assembly?
Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 196A takes up a similar point to that made by the noble Baroness.

1035
I have provided that the ability to delegate to a single member,
"does not apply to functions relating to the capital spending plan",
of the authority. That seems far too significant to allow a single member to deal with it. I doubt that the assembly would agree to delegate functions to a single member in that connection. But, for instance, under Clause 108 the assembly's comments on the plan are invited. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for a single member to respond.
Lord Whitty: One of the oddities about this debate is that for most of the evening we have been accused of being over-prescriptive but when we are allowing the assembly to determine its own procedures we are attacked. Amendment No. 196 would prevent any function of the assembly from being delegated to an individual assembly member. Amendment No. 196A relates to a specific matter. But Amendment No. 196 is a substantial restriction on the assembly's ability to decide its own procedures. The Bill contains a number of restrictions on the assembly's ability to decide how to discharge its functions. As regards a handful of key functions, such as questioning the mayor, the exercise of assembly power to summon, the assembly's role in deciding the budget and matters in relation to the chief finance officer and the auditor, under the existing provisions of the Bill a single member cannot exercise any of those functions. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, drew our attention to the clause in relation to the police authority.
In general, we say that the assembly will determine its own procedures, and in other areas there is the freedom for the assembly to delegate to a group or single individual. I do not believe that it is likely that the assembly will delegate a substantial role in capital spending to a single member of the assembly. Nevertheless, I believe that it is right that the assembly has the authority to determine its own procedures in that respect.
Noble Lords may believe that this is a way in which the majority group on the assembly would deny other assembly members the ability to scrutinise the mayor. That is not the implication because Clause 44(3) makes clear that assembly members will be able to question the mayor in all respects; and we intend to bring forward amendments in relation to written answers too. The Bill does not affect the ability of any other member of the assembly in exercising the scrutiny function. What it does is to provide the authority with the ability to so organise the procedures that there is an element of delegation to committees and individual members. Whether that is likely to be the situation in the case of capital spending is another matter. But it should be left to the assembly to decide. Therefore, I suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: What matters is the words on the page, not what the Minister has said in reply. I assume that there can be delegation to a single member of the assembly unless there is an express provision stating that there cannot be delegation to a single member of the assembly. In that event, I cannot understand why there
1036
is only one area referred to in subsection (3). In the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, a single member of the authority could receive delegated power from the mayor and act without accountability, but there is no mention of those to whom they would be accountable and whether the power would be an absolute power to act as an individual in the name of the assembly. The Minister's reply simply did not address that concern. One must therefore assume that any other provision in the Bill could be delegated not only to a committee but to an individual member who could act without accountability, representing the whole assembly and, I assume, then reporting back to the committee or to the mayor.
Lord Whitty: The functions I referred to in my initial reply are provided for in Clause 44 which deals with meetings. It expressly states that Clause 46 shall not apply. The next reference to Clause 46 not being applicable is in Clause 52(1) and there are others relating to the budget, for example, recurring throughout the Bill. The restrictions are not referred to in this clause because there are already exclusions within the Bill.
It is only the Metropolitan Police point, which does not appear elsewhere in the Bill, that needs to be expressly added in the clause. All other areas where there should be a restriction are dealt with in the Bill. That may not be enough for the noble Baroness. Clearly, it is not enough for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to Amendment No.197A which deals with capital spending, but that is how the Bill is drafted.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He will not be surprised to hear that I am not satisfied with it. Nonetheless, we will study the matter carefully and may return to it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. I96A not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Openness]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 197.
Page 26, line 30, leave out ("which is available to").
The noble Lord said: As a general rule, in local government any document that is in the possession of the authority, unless it contains information which is either commercially sensitive or personally sensitive, is, by right, available to the public.
If I have correctly understood the drafting of Clause 48, it provides that any document in the possession of the authority and available to the assembly shall be available to the public. That puts the mayor of London in a unique situation. As I read it, if he holds documents which are not available to the assembly because he does not make them available, they are not available for publication. The consequence is that it is much more difficult for members of the public to discover and understand what advice the mayor might be receiving on particular issues. Information on planning and highways issues, and many

1037
other subjects, are of great interest to the general public and are highly contentious. The public will want to know what guidance the mayor is receiving and I believe that they are entitled to know that.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 197 and 197A is to remove the exclusion so that documents held by the mayor are also available to the public. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord said that he was not clear about how the clause operated. I am not clear as to how his amendment would operate. I assume that it is intended to extend the rights of assembly members under Section 100F of the Local Government Act 1972 to inspect documents relating to any business to be transacted at a meeting of the assembly. As currently drafted, Clause 48(3) provides that this right to inspect documents applies only to documents available to the assembly. This means that assembly members will not have the right to inspect advice to the mayor. The amendment would allow assembly members to inspect documents which were in the possession of the GLA and the assembly. It is not certain whether it would in fact allow rights of inspection to all GLA documents, as I assume it is intended to do.
Amendment No. 197A would require the authority to make available for inspection on request any document in its possession which did not contain information defined as exempt or confidential under the terms to which the noble Lord referred.
The Government cannot accept either of these amendments. We have made it clear that the arrangements for access to information for the GLA are to be tailored to the separation of the executive and scrutiny functions within the authority. The provisions of the Bill are designed to provide private space for the mayor to consider policy options and to take decisions. This means that the mayor is being treated more as a Minister than as an equivalent to other local authority leaders, committee chairs or whatever.
We have done that consciously because the GLA is a unique form of city-wide government. We are separating the executive and scrutiny function and it is not structured like other local authorities. It therefore requires tailor-made mechanisms for accountability, and the Bill includes provision for the mayor to make a monthly report to the assembly setting out the decisions he has taken and so forth. However, it does not allow access to the advice from the officials of the authority to the mayor. Therefore, the approach is not identical to that for a traditionally structured local authority. It has more resonance with Whitehall and Westminster, and we believe that the executive power of the mayor requires the personal advice given to him to be outside the provisions of access to other GLA documents.
I expect that there will be some opposition to that provision, but it is intentional. In any case, I am sure that it is not one that the amendment corrects. I am working on the presumption that the amendment was intended to do so, in which case I shall have to oppose it.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I now understand why there is so much difficulty in making progress on the subject of open government. It seems to me that the sort of shadowy secrecy in which the Government indulge is being permitted to spread.
I have listened with interest to what the Minister has had to say. I accept that we are establishing a new type of authority with an entirely new way of working that will have an executive mayor who in some ways will be able to act in a similar fashion to a Minister of government. However, I would have thought that, although we are establishing a new authority, we could have moved the procedures with regard to openness forward in this regard.
I do not accept the Minister's response to these amendments. If they do not wholly achieve what I had set out to achieve, I shall have another go. We can take the matter no further this evening. If my amendments are faulty, as the Minister advises me they may be, it would not be wise to press them. We shall return to this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 197A not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Proposals by the Assembly to the Mayor]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 197B:
Page 27, line 15, at end insert —
("() The Mayor shall take such steps as are necessary to implement any proposal submitted by the Assembly under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 197B. Clause 50 provides that,
"the Assembly may submit a proposal to the Mayor".
My amendment adds that,
"The Mayor shall take such steps as are necessary to implement",
such a proposal. I have no doubt that I shall be told by the Government that the assembly should not have the ability to bind the mayor in that way.
The point is that the mayor should be required to do something about it and not just say to the assembly, "That is very nice, thank you", and not even consider the matter. If that is so, why is it necessary to have Clause 50, which says that the assembly can submit a proposal to the mayor£ That seems to be the sort of commonsense thing that one would expect the assembly to be able to do. If the assembly cannot bind the mayor but can simply put a point to the mayor, that would not require a clause in the Bill.
Lord Whitty: I find it extraordinary that the exponents of the great Liberal traditions seem unable to grasp the concept of the separation of powers in the Bill. The noble Baroness and the Liberal Democrat Party adopt a logical position: they do not like the separation of powers. Once we have the separation of powers, we have to be logical about the matter, and that is the position of the Government.

1039
The amendment of the noble Baroness does not say that the mayor should take seriously any proposals. It says that the mayor should implement such proposals. In effect, that turns the assembly into the executive arm of the authority. That is not the intention. Certainly we would expect the mayor to take them seriously and to give a considered response to them. That is not what the amendment says. It therefore cuts across the intention of the whole structure of the authority.
I understand that Clause 37(2)(c) needs to be read with this amendment. That indicates that the mayor must respond to assembly proposals. The fact that the mayor has to take the assembly seriously in such proposals is clearly written into legislation. But this provision would go far further than that and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: As I said when I moved the amendment, I knew that the proposition that the mayor should simply have to do what the assembly asks would not be attractive. I understand the separation of powers. That does not mean that we will not go on protesting about that separation.
I was glad to be referred to Clause 37(2)(c), but whether proposals have to be submitted under a particular section or simply submitted without the legislative provision is the point that I was making. However, we keep having the same debate as to how much it is necessary to show on the face of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Power to require attendance at Assembly meetings]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 27, line 20, leave out (", (3), (4)").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 198 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 200, 200A and 201.
Clause 51 gives the assembly powers to summon persons into its presence to give evidence on various matters. This statutory power is unique in local government. No doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong on that point. The power is analogous to that inherently belonging to Parliament. Looking forward to Clause 54, we see there that the power is backed by severe criminal sanctions; that is, a fine of up to £5,000 and three months' imprisonment. Unlike in other spheres of local government, the assembly does not make most decisions and does not necessarily have access to offices, or the right to receive documents and explanations. Hence the assembly's access to information is restricted.
It is argued that there is therefore a need to allow the assembly to summon persons connected with the authority to give evidence and to produce documents. I should have thought that the place for the assembly to go for that information was the mayor, his officials and his office. However, the Government feel otherwise. So
1040
we find draconian powers, backed up by severe penalties affecting people who by any normal process would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the assembly.
Amendment No. 198 is a paving amendment to make way for the deletion of subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (3) catches any person who within the preceding three years had a contractual relationship with the authority or with a member of his staff. Subsection (4) catches anybody who has received a grant from the authority or a member of his staff.
The best way to illustrate the excessive nature of these provisions is to reduce them to a number of examples. Anyone having a contractual relationship with the authority could be any business any where in the EEC because of the obligations for open tendering across the EU. We could therefore have a firm in Greece, not within the jurisdiction of the British courts, being summoned before the assembly under threat of sanctions in the magistrates' court, which equally has no jurisdiction. We could even try to summon a clerk in the Greek firm who did not speak English. Similarly, this would be an opportunity for disgruntled employees—or, more likely, former employees—to create problems. Its scope is so wide that a sub-committee bent on empire building or its chairman bent on personal or political advancement could summon a wide range of witnesses irrespective of need or relevance simply to make a name for himself or themselves. We have only to look across the Atlantic to see what can happen when one has committees with untrammelled powers to subpoena witnesses. Simply put, the power is just too wide. The Government must take the provision back to the drawing board and produce something more practical and reasonable.
Similarly, we object to subsection (10). That exempts the mayor's two political advisers, paid for at the public expense, and his staff paid for by the taxpayer from having to give evidence to the assembly. I realise that there is an argument that if they could not give advice in confidence they would be inhibited in their work. But I repeat that these people are paid for by the council tax payers and that they should be directly answerable to the assembly. The staff of Ministers are not exempt from appearing before parliamentary committees, however distinguished their rank in the Civil Service. We only have to recall how the Cabinet Secretary himself, now the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, was put on the rack in an Australian court in 1986 and had to admit that he had been economical with the truth over the Spycatcher affair to see how even the most senior civil servants in the country can be called to give an account before a court with appropriate jurisdiction.
We seek to delete subsection (10). It is partially contradictory to Clause 59(4) and (5). These two subsections stipulate that any of the 10 members of the mayor's personal staff, other than his special advisers, must, if so required by the assembly, attend every routine monthly meeting of the assembly and answer any questions put to them. If they have to attend the routine meetings and answer questions, why should they not be required to attend special investigation meetings and answer questions? Conversely, how does subsection (10) prevent the assembly from asking awkward

1041
questions of the mayor's personal staff at the normal monthly meetings? Ministers themselves are answerable to select committees. Why should the mayor's advisers and staff not be answerable to the local taxpayers via the assembly? There is no reason or need to create an unaccountable elite.
Amendment No. 201 is simply a small drafting amendment to Clause 53. That clause states that the Secretary of State may by order prescribe the categories of information a person who is required to give evidence to the assembly may refuse to give and the categories of documents that he may refuse to produce. That may be helpful to a potential witness or it may not. Clause 54(3) confirms that a person is not obliged to answer questions or to produce documents to the assembly if he could refuse to do so in an ordinary court. That is quite right.
The purpose of our amendment is to make sure that any order made by the Secretary of State does not erode the right that a person has. It is arguable that by a convoluted trick from Clause 51(1) and Clauses 52 and 53 and Clause 54(3) the result is achieved without our amendment. To assist the layman who may be faced with a summons from the assembly, the addition of just four simple words makes it plain and avoids the journey that I have just described. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: These amendments are not acceptable to us. The assembly must be able to undertake the proper scrutiny of the actions of the mayor and of the staff of the authority. The categories of summonable organisations and individuals that we have identified in the Bill are those who will be responsible for either the allocation of the GLA's resources or their use. As such they must be able to be held to account by the authority to avoid abuse and to expose abuse.
As regards individuals or organisations which have had a contractual relationship with the authority or who have been paid a grant by it, they have a duty to explain whether or not they have fulfilled the contract, subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts. Individuals or bodies who might have been at fault where contracts have been let illegally or grants have been used for purposes other than that for which they were given might very well be unwilling to accept the assembly's invitation to meet them were it not backed by sanctions. That is why we have provided them in this clause.
If such persons or bodies could not be summoned, which is what the noble Baroness is proposing in the amendments, the assembly would be incapable of ensuring that the public funds for which it is responsible were not misused. However, the need for scrutiny does not need to extend to the scrutiny of the advice or political advice which the mayor receives, as we discussed when dealing with the previous amendment.
Amendment No. 201 would make the Secretary of State's order-making powers in Clause 53 subject to the provisions of Clause 54(3). Under Clause 53, the Secretary of State would be able to prescribe categories of information which someone summoned by the assembly could legitimately refuse to give. Clause 54(3) already exempts people who are summoned from having
1042
to give evidence to the assembly which they would be entitled to refuse were they in a court in England or Wales. As drafted, the provisions of Clause 53 could not override or affect the Clause 54 provisions and, therefore, do not need to be subject to them as proposed in the amendment. We believe that the assembly needs the powers set out in these clauses and that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Can the Minister tell the Committee how the political adviser will be accountable and held to account publicly?
Lord Whitty: I can tell the noble Baroness that it is the mayor who is publicly accountable, not his individual political advisers. It is the same situation as one has in Whitehall.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the Minister misunderstood my question. I repeat: how is the political adviser to be held accountable publicly?
Lord Whitty: The role of a political adviser is to provide political advice to the mayor. The mayor is responsible for the actions taken, not the political adviser. Therefore, the legal adviser is in a different role from the rest of the staff of the authority.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before I express in full my disappointment in the Minister's answer, perhaps he could comment on another matter. Earlier I asked about Clause 51 which gives the assembly powers to summon persons into its presence to give evidence on various matters. The noble Lord may remember that I then leapt forward to Clause 54 and talked about the power being backed by severe criminal sanctions. I then returned to Clause 51 and said that I believed that that statutory power was unique to local government. I would like the Minister to comment on that aspect.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness is right to say that this is unique to local government, as indeed are the powers of the mayor and the authority.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I know of no other system whereby people can be called forward and then it is down to an assembly to decide the matter. People can end with fines of up to £5,000 or three months' imprisonment. I find this whole series of matters, galloping as it does from one to the other, to be totally unsatisfactory. If I may say so, it is extraordinarily late at night. The best that I can do at this stage is to say that we will take it away; but this is not a matter that will be dropped. We will return to it. This whole matter is absolutely shocking.
In passing, I have to make a further comment. This Bill grew like Topsy in the other place. Yet we have dealt with clause after clause which is not clear, especially those I spoke about earlier. The Minister kindly said that the Government will try to clarify the points raised, but it seems to me that this Bill has been

1043
extraordinarily badly drafted. I feel extremely sorry for both Ministers because they have to answer to this, but the fact remains that this is a shocking state of affairs. I feel that someone should take the matter up and deal with it in a much more appropriate manner. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 27, line 24, at end insert —
("() The Assembly may also require the Secretary of State, or any person who has within the three years prior to the date of the requirement been the Secretary of State, to attend proceedings of the Assembly for the purpose of explaining, and justifying any guidance or direction given by him under this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 202. As we have discussed, the assembly can require the attendance of witnesses. Amendment No. 199 suggests that the Secretary of State should also be required to attend proceedings of the assembly to answer questions. The Secretary of State can, among other things, cap the authority's budget; give guidance governing the exercise of powers—and regard must be had to that guidance—and he can limit the authority's powers and national policies. The assembly has a scrutiny role.
From time to time when we try to widen the powers of the assembly we are accused of not understanding the principle of the separation of powers, but we appreciate the model that is being put forward. We believe that the assembly should have the opportunity to deal direct with the Secretary of State. I appreciate that questions may be asked of the Secretary of State in Parliament with regard to the powers that are exercised. However, I do not believe that that process would be adequate or appropriate in the case I am discussing. In a modern system of London government, where the Secretary of State will play such a large role in the authority, I suggest that there is no reason why he or she should not appear before it in order to answer questions.
I turn to Amendment No. 202. Under the Bill the Secretary of State may prescribe categories of information and documents which a person may refuse to provide to the assembly. Earlier today I asked how certain measures would comply with the forthcoming freedom of information legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, I believe, that he sought to reassure me on this issue. I was not in the slightest bit reassured by his comment, although I was not surprised by it; namely, that as the proposed legislation is weak in that almost anything can be exempted from its provisions, there is no inconsistency in this regard.
Amendment No. 202 seeks to require the Secretary of State to explain his reasons for issuing any order under this part of the Bill. I am aware that when my honourable friends in another place proposed a similar amendment they were considered to be silly. However, I do not think that these are silly points at all. These matters raise serious issues. I understand the argument about lines of accountability being blurred in that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. Although I understand that argument, I do not accept it as an argument against these amendments which permit
1044
no more than the asking of questions. Therefore I do not think that they involve a blurring of accountability or a breach of privilege that Members of Parliament would find offensive. I do not believe that I am coming anywhere near that.
We do not believe that powers should be retained at the centre when their dispersal is necessary. In this case the assembly members have direct knowledge of the situation. As I say, they are members of a scrutiny body and they should be able to ask questions of the Secretary of State direct. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I did not know that in the other place these two amendments that were spoken to so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were thought to be silly. However, we on these Benches will stand side by side in support of these so-called silly amendments.
When my noble friend Lady Blatch asked about political advisers, the Minister said that advice would be given to the mayor and he would be accountable for what he did as a result of following that advice. Several times during the course of this Bill we have asked whether the Secretary of State will be the mayor for London as he has taken upon himself so many powers that one wonders how independent the mayor will be.
If the Secretary of State is happy that members can be summoned before the assembly in this unique way—there is no reason why there should be such a power—and as the Minister tells us that the Government want the Bill to be modern, new and so on, the Secretary of State should be prepared to come before the assembly, if that is what the assembly wishes, to answer questions in the way he or she expects everyone else to.
Lord Whitty: I have to withdraw the accusation that the Liberal Democrats do not understand the separation of powers; they have a very innovative approach to the separation of powers. However, as the noble Baroness anticipates, to move down this road would be a blurring of the lines of responsibility. The Secretary of State is responsible for the powers conferred on him or her by Parliament. He or she is not responsible to the Greater London assembly. His powers do not emanate from the Greater London assembly but from the Palace of Westminster. It would be anomalous if he or she had to account for the use of those powers to an assembly which did not grant them and which has no authority over them.
Whether the Secretary of State or his representative might wish to give information to the assembly is an entirely different matter. But the question of accountability should be clear—it is to Parliament and not to the assembly part of the authority.
Baroness Hamwee: Of course the powers emanate from Parliament, but, given the way the Bill is framed, their exercise is pretty much courtesy of the Secretary of State. This is a serious issue and we may want to come back to it, in this form or another. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 200 and 200A not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Restriction of information]:
[Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Failure to attend proceedings etc]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 30, line 13, at end insert (", or
(e) knowingly makes any statement which is false or misleading in a material manner").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 203 deals with an anomaly in the Bill, yet another omission of something that ought to be there. Clause 54(1) prescribes a list of offences in relation to a summons to appear before the assembly. Briefly they are: fails to attend a meeting; refuses to answer a proper question; refuses or fails to produce documents; alters or destroys any document. Curiously, omitted from the list of offences is a witness lying to the assembly in respect of a material matter.
The assembly has no power to make a witness testify under oath. Unless an offence is created, it will be better for a reluctant witness to go and lie, rather than refuse to go to the assembly. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My honourable friend the Minister for London agreed to consider this amendment when it was brought forward in another place. We thought then that it was unnecessary because it would be covered by the provisions of the Perjury Act 1911. Having taken further legal advice, we remain of that view. In those circumstances, I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I will agree to withdraw the amendment. At this stage, I am not happy or content that the matter falls within the Perjury Act and I shall take legal advice on it. There are so many mistakes in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [The Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards]:
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 205 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
11 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 30, line 25, at end insert —
("() The guidance shall provide that the standards to be observed by the Mayor shall be the equivalent of standards to be observed by Ministers of the Crown.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 208.
In dealing with the Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards, Amendment No. 206 proposes that in the case of the mayor the standards,
"shall be the equivalent of standards to be observed by Ministers of the Crown".
It might be said that, in the mayor's executive powers, the mayor has responsibilities that are arguably greater than those of Ministers of the Crown. At the very least, in a different context the mayor's responsibilities are arguably equivalent to those of Ministers. The electoral mandate that the mayor will have is much greater than that of Ministers.
Ethical standards will be important for the reputation of the authority, although I believe that generally it should be a matter for the authority itself to set them up. However, an amendment from these Benches to delete Clause 55 would be likely to be misunderstood. I therefore sought to avoid that by not tabling such an amendment.
We propose that the mayor should be subject to the ministerial code of conduct by the guidance providing equivalent standards. I hope that the Government may give us some comfort that those standards will be as stringent. The standards for assembly members, and indeed staff, should be as close as possible to those that apply to a local authority. We anticipate detailed provisions for local authorities coming down the track quite soon. Amendment No. 208 seeks to insert that new provision applying to assembly members and staff. In the current cultural, moral and legislative climate we are currently considering, through a joint Select Committee of this House and another place, the whole question of ethical standards. We expect legislation on that point very shortly. I do not see the need for any distinction other than a technical one. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We support Amendment No. 206, in that our Amendment No. 207 is extremely similar.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred directly to the fact that ethical standards in local government are being looked at in a wider context. It is our intention that, when any such Bill has been agreed by Parliament, the new ethical framework will apply to the GLA. In advance of that legislation, appropriate measures need to be included to ensure that the GLA operates to ethical standards.
The noble Baroness's amendment recognises the fact that the existing local government provisions are not directly well suited to the structure of the new authority, which will be based on the separation of powers. So an alternative approach is needed.
I agree with the noble Baroness's amendments in so far as they recognise that the mayor, as an individual elected to take executive decisions, will need different treatment from an assembly member. However, I do not agree that an exact parallel can be drawn between the office of mayor and a Minister of the Crown. After all, the mayor will be directly elected to take the decisions, whereas the Minister is elected to be a Member of Parliament and is then a member of a collective

1047
executive which takes individual decisions. Those in which a Minister, for example, might have an interest can be passed on to another Minister. The mayor is not in that position.
To base the provisions on the ministerial statutory code also involves problems. The ministerial code has no statutory force. It is up to the Prime Minister to write the code and enforce it. It would be slightly odd to use that code as the statutory basis for securing ethical standards in relation to the authority.
We shall be taking work forward to secure high ethical standards generally in local authorities in tandem with our other proposals to modernise local authorities. Thai is the most appropriate framework in which to establish ethical standards for this authority. Therefore, in advance of the new ethical framework, we will leave it for the Secretary of State to be able to issue guidance to the authority on a range of ethical matters. But in the end, the ethical framework for local authorities generally will need adaptation which will be applied to the authority as a whole.
Baroness Blatch: Is the noble Lord saying that the department and those advising it on the drafting of the Bill are incapable of defining what the ethical standards should be which should be upheld in the course of the establishment of the authority?
Lord Whitty: No. I am saying that it is a matter of guidance rather than something to be shown on the face of the Bill. That is partly because we shall be issuing a new ethical framework shortly to go into subsequent legislation.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not believe there is much between us on the point. I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 30, line 27, at beginning insert ("disposal ").
The noble Baroness said: This is a more specific amendment relating to the mayor. It proposes that the guidance should deal not only with disclosure and registration of interests but also with the disposal of interests. I said in speaking to the last amendment that the mayor is in a particular and sensitive position. She or he will have to be extremely careful. Interests could quite easily arise in connection with transport contracts, with the whole issue of regeneration and. so on. Huge commercial interests will be involved in the exercise of the mayor's functions. I believe that the mayor must be careful not to put herself or himself in a position where there could be any questioning of a conflict of interest.
Unlike a Minister of the Crown, with the awarding of contracts the mayor is in an even more sensitive position. The current ministerial code issued by the Prime Minister provides for this in detail. It explains why Ministers must scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual or apparent conflict of interest. It deals with legal obligations, with the interests concerned, and makes the point by way of a general principle that the
1048
Minister should either dispose of a financial interest giving rise to an actual or perceived conflict or take all steps to prevent it.
I hope that we will have assurances from the Government that this particular but important point is in the minds of the Government in considering how to deal with the question of standards and perceptions. We must all be concerned that the new authority and its constituent parts are assisted in every way not to bring the authority into disrepute by perception, quite apart from whatever the reality may be. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This amendment would add the disposal of interests to the list of matters that may be dealt with in the Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards. Clause 55 sets out the basic framework around which the ethical guidance will be structured. It could be more wide-ranging if, after consultation, that was felt to be appropriate. 'What we have sought to do in drafting this clause is simply to set out the essential features that the guidance will include—the bones on which we shall put the flesh.
As the noble Baroness is aware, we sought the views of the Neill Committee in relation to the handling of mayoral interests. The views that that committee expressed will be taken into account in the preparation of the guidance. That guidance will be made available in draft for consultation. This is a matter on which we wish thorough consultation to take place. The amendment could be seen as pre-empting that process as it would signal that the disposal of interests must be included in the guidance when that might not be the conclusion we reached following those consultations.
I reassure the noble Baroness that the guidance would not be precluded by the current wording of Clause 55 from including reference to the disposal of certain interests, or the creation of blind or bare trusts. But, as I have explained, more detailed consideration of this particular matter is needed. As the noble Baroness said, the handling of mayoral interests is a very sensitive area. All of these issues are to be taken into account in preparing the guidance, and we shall consult on the: draft. In the circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps the Minister can inform the Committee when the draft is likely to be available for consultation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am unable to do so at the moment, but I shall write to the noble Baroness and ensure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, is given a copy of that letter.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister's response is helpful. The noble Baroness suggested that this amendment would pre-empt consultation. It seems to me that the whole of Clause 55(2) on that basis pre-empts consultation. It is perhaps a little late at night to pursue this further, but I hope that we are able to see that draft and that consultation will be well under way before Report stage. I am sure that all Members of the

1049
Committee want to ensure that the public understand our concern that impeccable propriety must be exercised in this unusual situation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sure that the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that I am able to confirm that the draft will be available before Report stage.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that indication. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 30, line 36, at end insert—
("() In addition to the matters which may be included in the guidance issued under subsection (2) the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the Assembly members in accepting office and the members of the Authority's staff in accepting employment shall be deemed to agree to be bound by the "Seven Principles of Public Life" set out in the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life published in May 1995 and this obligation shall be specifically incorporated in any contract of employment.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to move Amendment No. 207 and speak also to Amendment No. 212, but I can be extremely brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has dealt with a number of matters and in response the Minister has informed the Committee that guidance is to be available before Report stage. Clause 55 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance on ethical standards to the mayor, assembly members and the authority's staff. Subsection (2) prescribes the contents of that guidance in very general terms. They are certainly not objectionable in themselves. Paragraph (e) includes the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe model codes of conduct.
However, the amendment seeks to ensure that the code of conduct includes the Nolan principles. We know not what the Secretary of State has in mind and we must wait until we see the guidance. However, we want to ensure that the standards are the minimum that should be applied; in other words, Nolan.
Amendment No. 212 relates to Clause 59 which set out the terms of employment of the mayor's personal staff and special advisers. All that our amendment does is to require the Nolan principles to be included as those minimum standards. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 207 would require the mayor and assembly, in accepting office, and members of the authority staff, in accepting employment, to agree to be bound by the seven principles. This obligation would be included in any contract of employment made with the authority. Amendment No. 212 would require the mayor's 10 personal appointments also to be bound by the seven principles.
I have some doubts as to whether this is the best way to proceed. The GLA will in due course be subject to the new ethical framework for local authorities, as we explained a couple of amendments ago. That legislation
1050
will essentially give effect to the Government's formal response to the Third Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in Local Government. It is our view that the ethical arrangements for the GLA should be firmly grounded in our wider proposals for local government generally.
Secondly, the principles in themselves have no statutory force in relation to any local authority or any public body. It would not be appropriate to incorporate them into law or into contracts of employment in respect of the GLA alone. Of course we anticipate that the ethics guidelines would be based very much on the framework already set out in the Nolan report and on the Government's response to it. But it is important that arrangements for the GLA are consistent with our proposals for local authorities more generally.
In relation to Amendment No. 212, this would require the seven principles to be written into the contracts of the mayor's two political advisers and 10 other staff. These mayoral appointments will all be members of the authority's staff under the terms of the Bill and will therefore be covered by the Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards. In addition, noble Lords will wish to note that Clause 60 applies Section 117 of the Local Government Act 1972 to the GLA. This makes provision for the disclosure by employees of the authority, which will include both the 10 and the two, of interests in contracts and so on.
I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness that we are planning to meet what I think is the intention behind these amendments, but we need to do so in a way that is consistent with the ethical framework which we will be advancing for local authorities in general.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I should have thought that there would have been statutory force if they agree to these terms when they come into the ambit of the thing. I do not understand the Minister's answer. He says that that is not done normally in local government. There are all sorts of things that the Government are wanting to do in this Bill that are not done in local government, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But certainly at this time of night I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 208 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 30, line 39, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall publish the guidance issued pursuant to subsection (1) and any variation thereof he may issue from time to time.").
The noble Baroness said: This small amendment probably needs the least explanation of any that we have dealt with today. The Secretary of State is going to issue guidance to the mayor, the assembly and the staff about the ethical standards they will be required to follow. We want them to be published and put in the public domain so that the residents of Greater London can see that they are being complied with. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is of course important that the Secretary of State's guidance should

1051
be in the public domain, but it is not necessary to make specific provision for this. When the Secretary of State issues the guidance he will be publishing it. The guidance will be publicly available and the Secretary of State will of course ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place so that the guidance is widely disseminated. For example, departmental publications are made available on the Internet. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Appointment]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 30. line 42, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("political advisers and other members of staff whose aggregate remuneration and expenses in each year shall not exceed the amount provided for in the consolidated budget agreed pursuant to Part of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 56 provides for the mayor to be able to appoint not more than two people as his political advisers and not more than 10 other members of staff. My amendments suggests that rather than having a limit by numbers there should be a budgetary limit. At the very least, I wonder aloud whether the issue is not as regards the cost in aggregate of the mayor's staff, including political advisers. Of course, if a budgetary limit is set, it will be for the mayor to decide how to use that budget.
If one deals only with numbers, anomalies may arise; for example, the mayor's appointees may be paid well out of line with other staff working for the authority. That would be inappropriate. However, I am puzzled as to why the Government feel it necessary to impose a numerical limit on this when the issue may simply be one of cost. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: In turn, I was rather puzzled by the amendment. As the noble Baroness explained, it limits the number of political and personal advisers in terms of aggregate remuneration rather than numbers. It deletes all reference to number.
The intention of having a limit by number is to ensure that there is not an over-balance of staff in relation to the rest of staff, including very senior members of staff, who will be appointed by the assembly and not by the mayor. The two plus 10 will be appointed by the mayor, although they will be authority staff.
As it stands, the amendment ignores that need to ensure a balance and, therefore, a limitation on numbers. Therefore, in an extreme situation it is open for the mayor to appoint 100 members of the staff so long as he pays them significantly below the national minimum wage or, indeed, they were people with a private income who did not need to be paid at all. That is not a sensible approach.
As regards the budget figure, the noble Baroness must recall that the budget is proposed by the mayor. The assembly needs a two-thirds majority to overturn the
1052
mayor. Therefore, the assembly could do so only if the mayor provided a profligate budget and if it could garner a two-thirds majority. On the other hand, if the mayor were in a position that he needed so many political advisers because he had so little political support within the assembly, the assembly could severely limit the amount provided in the budget for the remuneration and expenses of the staff so that, in fact, it would not be possible to appoint two plus 10 staff. The latter would be more difficult to achieve because of the role of the chief administrative officer who must ensure that both the mayor and assembly have adequate resources to fulfil their functions.
Moreover, some flexibility is required in relation to the budget once it is set. If we leave it as it is so that there is a limitation on the numbers that the mayor can appoint, it will preserve the balance in terms of numbers and within the budget-making process. It is then for the chief administrative officer to ensure that the budget is spent for the purposes for which it is dedicated.
This is a misplaced amendment which would not achieve the noble Baroness's intention. Therefore, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Because Clause 46 is not disapplied, does that mean that this function can he delegated to another member of the assembly?
Lord Whitty: Which function?
Baroness Blatch: The function of Clause 56.
Lord Whitty: I am not sure that that relates directly to the amendment. Under Clause 46, if there is not a disapplication, functions can be delegated to a single member of the assembly. But the amendments to which we were referring concern the appointment by the mayor of members of his personal staff, not the power in Clause 46.
Baroness Blatch: We were indeed talking about the mayor and his ability to appoint staff, but I was saying that if Clause 46 is not disapplied the mayor can delegate this to a single member of the assembly.
Lord Whitty: The mayor cannot delegate it. The assembly can delegate it to a single member. But we are talking, in relation to the amendment, about the mayor's power to appoint, not the assembly's role in appointments of the rest of the staff. Of course, the assembly does have the authority to appoint staff, and could theoretically delegate that to a single member. So I suppose the noble Baroness is right, if that is what she is driving at.
Lord Tope: The essential point that my noble friend Lady Hamwee was making in moving the amendment was that the issue here, surely, is one of the total expenditure on such staff, rather than their actual number. The Minister seems to be suggesting that it is otherwise. I would have thought that it was the amount of public money spent which was crucial, not how the

1053
mayor chooses to divide up the amount of money allocated to him. That is the crucial point we are driving at here.
The Minister seems to be suggesting that the actual number is more important than the cost. If the mayor chooses to pay below the national minimum wage—and, unless it has escaped my notice, I do not think it is proposed that he shall be exempt from that legislation—he will be caught by the legislation, just like any other employer. Therefore, that does not apply. If he chose to have people working for him who were so rich that they did not need to be paid, I imagine they would be volunteers and not staff. So I think that is a rather spurious argument.
I should like the Minister to clarify what is meant in the clause. It refers very specifically to two persons and to not more than 10 other members of staff. It does not say "full-time equivalent." Is this legislation actually prohibiting the mayor from, for instance, appointing 20 part-time members of staff equivalent to 10 full-time members? It appears to be so. Is he not able to have four or five part-time political advisers equivalent to two full-time?
The Minister seems to be concerned that numbers matter more than cost. The wording here is very specific—two persons and 10 other members of staff—so it would seem that the mayor is not able to employ a greater number of people part-time, but must restrict himself to full-time employees. If that is the case, can the Minister tell us why the Government wish to restrict to such a great extent the individual liberty of the mayor to determine his most personal staff?
Lord Whitty: I would have thought that the provision related to full-time equivalents, but it seems that my previous understanding needs to be revised, and that it applies to 10 members of staff and two political advisers. I think I had better clarify that to the noble Lord in writing.
However, the point is that the numbers of staff are the limitation. The remuneration, of course, has to be dealt with in the budget. In relation to political advisers, it is also affected by the Secretary of State's ability to prescribe the maximum limit for political advisers to political groups within local authorities. I believe that we are dealing with subjects related to that in the next amendment.
The aim is not primarily to determine the level of remuneration; it is to determine that the mayor shall have only a small level of personal staff. The rest of the staff will not be political appointments, and the responsibility for appointing them will be a matter for the assembly. The budget can be altered by the assembly, but only by a two-thirds majority, should the mayor over-provide on remuneration. I think that the issue in certain circumstances might be remuneration. The second main issue is how many personal staff, outside the normal practice of appointment for local authorities the assembly will exert, can the mayor make by himself. We are limiting that by number. That will he the general expectation: that we shall limit it by number.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the noble Baroness decides what she will do about the amendment, I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about whether or not it could be part-time workers; and even more interested by the answer that the Minister gave. Wearing a different hat, I lead for the Opposition on the Employment Relations Bill. In that Bill several clauses make sure that part-time workers should not in any way be discriminated against or dealt with differently from full-time workers. The Greater London Authority Bill seems an extraordinary Bill.
Lord Whitty: My initial reaction to the noble Lord's question was along those lines. That is why I need to clarify that aspect of my response.
Baroness Blatch: It was not clear whether the answer referred to full or part-time. Is it 10 full or part-time personnel?
Lord Whitty: As prescribed here, it is 10 personal appointments and two political advisers. There is a total of 12. The noble Lord asked whether the number can be broken down into full-time equivalents and therefore more part-time than 12. My initial reaction would be, yes. I think that the noble Baroness's reaction would be yes. My latest understanding, however, indicates that there is a different answer. I had better clarify that to noble Lords.
Lord Tope: I understand the position in which the Minister finds himself. I await the letter with interest, as I am sure we all shall do. From reading the provision, my understanding—he has confirmed it—is that it relates to the number two and the number 10 and how many hours those people work is a matter to be determined between them and the mayor. But he can have no more than 10 whether they work for two hours or 42 hours a week.
If the Minister writes to me confirming that that is what is meant, I hope that he will also tell me why the Government feel it necessary so to restrict the mayor in determining how he disposes of the total hours available to him. This seems ludicrously restrictive on a mayor. If we are going to do this by number, surely the number is two full-time equivalent, and 10 full-time equivalent. To say to the mayor, "If you are going to get your number's worth, you must employ full-time staff whether or not that is sensible", is ludicrous. The Minister has taken the point. I look forward with considerable interest to receiving the letter from him, and the subsequent amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister's point about needing a two-thirds majority of assembly members to overturn the mayor's budget was telling. It is a point at which we shall arrive on Monday. Our concerns about the majority needed to make any alterations to the budget are amply confirmed by the warnings tonight of the difficulty of doing so.

1055
The point highlighted by my noble friend and supported by others is important. On the question of the minimum wage, we referred to national policy. Clearly, that would apply. However, I add to my noble friend's points that in a modern authority one would want employers to be able to encourage, for instance, job shares. That might be desirable. I, too, look forward to the amendments. And if they are not forthcoming from the Government, they will be forthcoming from these Benches. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Terms and conditions of employment]:
[Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 66 agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 212ZA.
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
EXERCISE OF ORDER-MAKING POWERS
(" . Any power conferred by this Part on a Minister of the Crown to make an order which has not been exercised before 1st May 2004 shall become null and void.").
The noble Baroness said: This is what one might call the sunset clause, moved rather after sunset, but I shall not spend long tonight on this point.
We have talked a great deal about the control exercised by central government in relation to many aspects of the new authority. We have previously made the point that trust between the different spheres is very important. That is a term which my noble friend tells me is used in certain European contexts to avoid any notion of a hierarchy by reference to tiers. I referred on Monday to the report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which concerned rebuilding trust between the two spheres of government. The constraints on the exercise of powers also tend to constrain success.
If the Government are concerned that they may be creating a monster, a creature that will get out of control, then they should know fairly soon whether it is necessary to retain powers in central government. I accept that the example of the GLC may be quoted back at me. We, on these Benches, have always felt that there were other methods that could have been used to deal with the GLC rather than abolition.
We propose that the sun should go down on the Secretary of State's powers if he does not exercise them, on a power by power basis. We propose that if any given power is not exercised by May 2004, immediately prior
1056
to the second election of the mayor and members of the assembly, then that power should disappear. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness has been consistent in claiming that the Secretary of State's powers in the Bill are excessive, and I understand her view. However, we contend differently. We believe that the Secretary of State needs certain reserve powers, and although some powers accorded to the Secretary of State are transitional, the bulk of the powers are reserve powers to be used in exceptional circumstances.
There is no logical reason why those reserve powers, if they are not exercised in the term of office of the first mayor, should be unnecessary in the term of office of the second mayor, or the mayor's second term, depending on circumstances.
We consider that a proper balance is struck in the Bill in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State, which are mainly reserve powers. Apart from the powers which relate to the setting up of the authority in its early days, we consider that the powers we have built into the Bill should apply throughout the period of whichever mayor is elected henceforth.
We need a balance. We are not giving total autonomy to Greater London; nor are we totally. laying down from the centre what a Greater London Authority should do. We are giving it a fair degree of flexibility and freedom, subject to reserve powers. That seems to be the correct and sensible constitutional balance which does not run out on 1st May 2004. If it is right now, there is no obvious reason why it should be wrong on 2nd May in five years' time.
Baroness Hamwee: I confess that I would have been surprised if I had received any different answer. 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.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.

Tax Credits Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the reasons were ordered to be 'printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before midnight.