Greater London Authority Bill

HL Deb 23 June 1999 vol 602 cc923-52

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 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 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 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. 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, 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) the function of providing advice to the Mayor on the contents and implementation of the further education strategy; and
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.