Greater London Authority Bill

HL Deb 23 June 1999 vol 602 cc962-91

5.37 p.m.

House again in Committee.

Clause 35 [Publicity and availability of strategies]:

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.

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 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 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.

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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 "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 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.