Greater London Authority Bill

HL Deb 23 June 1999 vol 602 cc1006-56

8.35 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 39.

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 151:

Leave out Clause 39 and insert the following new Clause—

ANNUAL GREATER LONDON DEBATE

(" .—(1) In addition to the requirements of section 37, the Mayor shall once a year convene and attend a meeting of the Assembly to be known as the "Greater London debate".

(2) The sole item on the Agenda of such meeting shall be to debate the annual report of the Mayor prepared pursuant to section 38.

(3) The Greater London debate shall be held on a date determined by the Mayor on not less than three months' notice during April, May or June, excluding the date of and three weeks preceding a General Election, elections (other than by-elections) to the Authority, elections to the European Parliament or to London borough councils.

(4) The first Greater London debate shall be held in April, May or June 2001.

(5) Where the Mayor has determined that the debate shall be held in the month of June and a General Election or an election to the European Parliament would entail a breach of subsection (3) above, the Mayor shall give not less than one month's notice of a revised date which shall not be later than two weeks after the date of the election.

(6) As soon as practical following the Greater London debate, the Mayor and the Assembly shall hold a meeting to which two members of each London borough and the Common Council shall he invited to attend and participate in, the sole purpose of which meeting shall he to discuss the Mayor's annual report and the proceedings at the Greater London debate.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment proposes the entire deletion of Clause 39 and its replacement by another clause which has the same intention as the Government's clause.

On the last amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made it clear that they are not concerned about the intention but about the name of the debate. The drastic step which we propose to delete Clause 39 in its entirety is necessary because there is so much wrong with the drafting of the original clause that it is impossible to amend it piecemeal, phrase by phrase.

Our first objection is to the name of the meeting—the "State of London debate". I count myself as an admirer of the United States of America but that does not mean that we must copy every single Americanism or every facet of American politics. At the beginning of each political year, the President of the United States attends a joint meeting of both Houses of Congress and delivers what is called the State of the Union Address—a cross between an annual report and the Queen's Speech. It is the height of pretentiousness to use that name for the annual general meeting of the assembly. It is the ultimate in "me too-ism". It will make the assembly of one of the world's greatest cities the laughing stock of the political world, as indeed, it seemed to do when the earlier amendment was debated.

The next major fault is the lack of clarity as regards who is to take part in the debate. We know from subsection (1) that the mayor will be there. We know that the meeting is to be open to all members of the public. But in what capacity will that be? Will they be there as participators or merely as audience? We assume that it is as audience because Clause 40 creates the function with the rather twee name of the "People's Question Time". As the Government describe this function as the "State of London debate" we must assume by an analogy with the State of the Union address to Congress, the participants are the assembly members as well as the mayor. The Bill does not say so. In fact, it does not say anything.

What is the agenda? We assume that it is the State of London, but what else? There is another clue. The date of the meeting is connected with the date of the publication of the mayor's annual report. So by a process of deduction we can discern through the mist what we think the Government are getting at. But that is no way to legislate. Clarity is required and that is what our amendment provides.

There is an answer to all the questions raised by the omissions in the present draft. New subsection (1) makes it clear that it is a meeting of the assembly. New subsection (2) makes it clear that the sole subject on the agenda will be the mayor's annual report. Subsections (3) and (4) fix the date of the meeting but make sure that it does not get mixed up with local elections, elections to the European Parliament or, of course, a general election. Subsection (5) fixes the date when a general election is due. Last but not least, subsection (6) of the amendment requires the mayor and assembly to hold a joint meeting with the representatives of the boroughs and the Common Council solely for the purpose of discussing the annual report and, no less important, the proceedings at the debate. That latter provision seeks to build and maintain the links between the boroughs and the differently constituted assembly.

But there is still one thing missing. The meeting is to be open to the public. In that case, where is it to be held? Bearing in mind that it is not practical to hold it in the middle of Hyde Park or at the Millennium Dome, what restrictions are there to be on numbers? What arrangements will be made for the event to be televised? Will there be any obligation on the TV companies to broadcast it? There is a great deal more work to be done by the Government on that draft clause before it is in an acceptable shape.

I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is nothing in the Government's draft clause which is not in our amendment. The extra clarifications which appear in our amendment do not detract from the, Government's draft in one single iota. On the contrary, it fills the gap which should not exist. There should not be gaps. The clause as it stands does not make sense. Our amendment improves considerably the Government's draft and I hope the Minister will accept this suggestion, as well as many others which I have made, in the spirit of constructive contribution. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

The Conservatives have a number of points on the amendment with which we would agree but I regret that we are unable to support it. We believe that various debates should be held, and a debate with the assembly is one of those. But the clause does not provide a debate with members of the public. I make that point deliberately because it was suggested a number of times during the debate on the last group of amendments that we oppose a debate with members of the public. We do not. We oppose only the prescription of the name. As that provision is not included in the amendment before the Committee, we regret that we cannot support it.

The Conservatives, too, choose to attach a name to the debate. It may be a less contentious name, perhaps a less fashionable name, and that I think would be appropriate. Nevertheless, for the reasons we gave earlier, we do not feel that it is right for the legislation to provide what the debate should be called; the mayor is quite capable of finding the name herself.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

Before the Minister replies, I should just like to say that the purpose of the amendment was to try to match the intention of the Government's clause. The clause does not say that the public have to participate. That is the point I was trying to make—that the thing is a nonsense. If there is an intention that the public should come to this meeting and be able to debate it should say so, and it does not. After all, in a normal local council it is perfectly in order for the public to attend, but they do not have the right to participate in the discussion. The clause does not make that clear either. That is the point that I was trying to make in relation to the amendment.

Lord Whitty

I am sure the noble Baroness is trying to be helpful, as ever, and I understand the way in which she is approaching the matter. But by trying to be helpful she has fallen back on the deeply familiar. Instead of a new, innovative event whereby the mayor of London presents his report on London, his "State of London" report, to representatives of the public and the public themselves, we have yet another meeting of the assembly with the mayor, where he or she is to discuss the annual report.

We are trying to develop new means of communication, new means of participation, in London. I take the point that there must be some lack of clarity in what we have put here, because there have been various different interpretations of it. We shall have to consider whether we should come forward with greater clarity, at least to the extent of requiring the mayor to determine the procedure, to a limited extent at least.

But moving in the direction that the noble Baroness proposes, which is to take it to a normal meeting between the assembly and the mayor, which just happens to deal with the annual report, is not what we had in mind. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has clarified the position and that the Liberals are on board. I withdraw my previous allegation that they were rejecting a more expansive and more inclusive method of democratic participation. That is what this is about.

I am not entirely clear about the lesser provisions of the clause either. It is slightly bizarre in that it relates to elections in June only. The authority and London borough elections themselves will not be in June. At least, we have not decided to change the normal May dates, and one could presume that May is the month for the elections. I am not quite sure why there is the focus on June. The only elections in June are normally the European elections, which happen once every five years. The coincidence is unlikely.

I do not think this amendment is necessary. In many ways it is unduly prescriptive, as is the new idea, which no doubt the mayor will adopt in various different guises, of a duty of the mayor and the assembly to meet with representatives of London boroughs and the City. I am sure the mayor will engage in that, but to be prescriptive and define on the face of the Bill yet another formal meeting would be to go rather against some of the criticisms which we have had from the Opposition Benches during the rest of this evening.

I therefore think that there is a lack of imagination in the attempt by the noble Baroness to clarify. There is clarification by the clause, but we regard it as clarification in the wrong direction. We will consider whether, in order to make our intention clearer we should bring forward an amendment at a later stage, but I cannot accept the clause, and I hope that after consideration the noble Baroness will withdraw it.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I am not surprised that the Minister cannot accept our amendment. I am not sure that I would have liked it anyway. The truth is that I tried to draft an amendment that matched the intentions of the Government, which I think are non-existent. It is all very well saying that all I am suggesting is that the mayor should attend a meeting of the assembly. Maybe that is not what he intends with this great "State of London debate", but let me read to the noble Lord what the clause says:

The Mayor shall once in every financial year hold and attend a meeting which is to be open to all members of the public, to be known as a 'State of London debate'". And then what? There is no agenda. We do not know whether the public are allowed to participate. We know nothing. At least my amendment was a little clearer than the clause, which says nothing at all.

I have told the noble Lord, the Chief Whip, that I shall do my best not to take too long, and for that reason, and that reason only, I shall not argue the advantages of my amendment over this extraordinarily badly drafted clause.

The noble Lord picked me up on the question of April, May or June, and asked what kind of election would take place in June. First, I mentioned only those months, although we quite liked the previous amendment, Amendment No. 150, of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I was trying to match what he said.

Nevertheless, on the understanding that the Minister will take this away and will come up with a clause that will not make London a laughing stock, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39 agreed to.

Clause 40 [People's Question Time]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 152:

Page 23, line 13, leave out (", to be known as a "People's Question Time"").

The noble Baroness said: This is an uncontentious amendment. The purpose is to leave out not the proposal that there be a question time open to members of the public, at which they may ask questions and be given answers, but merely the description. I dislike the title "People's Question Time" even more than I dislike the "State of London debate".

My distaste for the name, since it is a matter of taste, and that is inevitably personal, is not very relevant. My objection is that the assembly ought to be able to find its own title, and if the members of the assembly are not capable of finding a title I would query their ability to deal with things that matter rather more than what this is to be called.

In another place the Minister said that the public should not be deterred from attending by the occasion's being referred to in a way which would make them think it was simply another boring old meeting. I concur with that, but let us leave it to those who will be involved in one way or another with the new authority to find a name and methods of publicity and so on which will attract members of the public, rather than feeling that any of us in Westminster or Whitehall should tell them how to do that by prescribing the title. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The amendment would, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, remove the name "People's Question Time" from the twice-yearly meeting open to all members of the public for which the clause provides. We are strongly committed—and this is a serious point—to strengthening the link between local people and local governments. An important aspect of this is to catch and retain people's interest, to enhance local accountability. We believe that a "People's Question Time" is a much better place to do that than a meeting which is to be open to all members of the public.

Amendment No. 152 would, in our opinion, be a backward step in our drive to engage people's interest. While I can understand that there may be a question of taste, I believe that putting it as the "People's Question Time" is different from describing something as a meeting open to the public. Many noble Lords may have been at meetings open to the public in which they were, if lucky, allowed to ask one question at the end. That is a common perception. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Tope

As the Minister knows, I am always keen to help her, and I should like to help her here. We wholly share the objectives. That is not at issue. But can the Minister tell me why the Government have chosen the rather old Labour, even socialist, phrase "People's Question Time" rather than the more usual description in local government of "public question time." Would that not avoid the need for this debate?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it is a matter of taste.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

It is more than a matter of taste. We have "the people's Peers", and "People's Question Time". It is ridiculous. I am sorry to say that it just makes us laugh.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

In the spirit of helpfulness which seems suddenly to have broken out, perhaps we could simply have a clause which states that the mayor and the assembly shall twice in every financial year hold and attend a question time open to all members of the public; and that the question time shall be held on a date, and so on. Then the mayor, the assembly and the authority can decide whether they want to give it some sexy name, but we would all know exactly what was intended.

Baroness Hamwee

I paused to see whether there was to be an answer. It appears not. I think that the mayor and the assembly should, if they wish, and if it is more of the age in, say, 2010, call it "Londoners' Question Time" or "Citizen's Question Time"—there are many descriptions. Whether it is an old Labour, a new Labour, a real Labour or a socialist term, I do not know or care. My point is that it is not for us to tell them what to do. That point has probably been recorded now half a dozen times. Perhaps the time has come for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 153:

Page 23, line 24, at end insert— ("() shall satisfy himself that the meeting is held at a venue of sufficient size to accommodate all members of the public who may wish to attend and to provide them with sufficient facilities to ask questions and to hear the proceedings; and () shall ensure that all members of the public shall be allowed to ask questions of the Mayor and members of the Assembly present at the meeting.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 153 is a probing amendment to extract from the Government more details of this rather bizarre idea of a so-called People's Question Time. I shall not comment further on the outlandish name which has been sufficiently commented on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in debate on the previous amendment—to which we added our two penn'orth.

I agree that this rather quaint name for the function seems to have originated in some socialist student society. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, when he discussed it in that way. Indeed, the whole outlandish idea smacks of people's soviets that Russia originally favoured until people started raising awkward questions of their leaders.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

As regards the people's Russia and the Soviet era, I lived there. I can assure noble Lords that there were never any public question times.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

The noble Baroness is probably right. It is no substitute for proper representation by a local councillor having a tie with the ward or borough which the Government have discarded in favour of the 14 remote super-constituencies and 13 other assembly members whose first allegiance is to their political party.

The proposal is as half baked, ill-thought out and lacking in detail as many of the other matters included in the Bill, to say nothing of the ones which await a ministerial decree before we can discover what the Government have in mind.

The meeting is not confined to voters. At least seven million people live in Greater London. Will tickets be needed? How is that compatible with the stipulation that all members of the public should be entitled to attend? If only one in 5,000 people wanted to come, that would mean 3,500 people who would have to be accommodated. It could even be more. If it were less, it would prove that the whole exercise was just window dressing.

I suspect that it might just be a platform for pressure groups, which is fair enough. I fear, however, that it might also attract the sort of anarchists who rioted in the City last Friday and who do not understand the concept of free speech and peaceful demonstration as compared with the opportunity to stick masks on and have a punch-up.

In my normal spirit of helpfulness, and in order to assist the Government improve the Bill, we have stipulated that the meeting must be held at a place which holds all those people who wish to come. I have no idea where that might be. The Albert Hall might not be big enough. Wembley Stadium? But what if it rains? The Millennium Dome? Getting all those people there and away again in a short period would be a major problem—the mayor's problem, and that of the Government who have landed him with it.

The function is described as a "People's Question Time". But, curiously, the Bill does not specifically provide the right for anyone to ask any questions. It is all very well giving the function a name, but where is it stated that individuals can ask questions? Our amendment makes good that deficiency. Of course there is no requirement for the mayor or assembly members to answer. If a few thousand people turn up and hundreds of them want to ask questions, how long will the meeting go on for? Will there be power to adjourn the meeting? Or will it become like the midnight marathons that your Lordships sometimes have to endure?

The Bill does not say how disruptive persons are to be dealt with. That is something the Government have to answer. So far it seems to have been overlooked. Our amendment only scratches the surface of the problems that this eccentric and costly concept produces. The most sensible idea—I told the Minister that we are trying to help—would be to abandon the whole project, dump it in "file 13", the dustbin where it belongs. If the Government are going to press on with it, they have to provide the power for the assembly to make practical rules, subject to the Secretary of State's approval, for the conduct of what at Second Reading I called the people's "pow-wow". In the meantime, I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

I was going to refer to it as the Dome amendment, but perhaps I shall not.

We support the proposal that there should be proper opportunity for Londoners to question both mayor and assembly. I have a question for the Minister on the clause. There may or may not be an answer. My underlying point again is the difficulty of writing so much on to the face of the Bill. My question is in connection with Clause 40(2) which states, A People's Question Time shall be held on a date to be determined by the Mayor and the Assembly". That is fine. But how are they to determine it? What are the voting arrangements to be? Should each assembly member have one vote and the mayor have one vote? Alternatively, is the assembly, by a majority, to have one vote and the mayor another? It is a slightly facetious question because one hopes that they will be able to co-operate and sort out the matter without that kind of row. But if this provision is to be prescribed, perhaps everything needs to be prescribed.

9 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendment No. 153 would place an explicit and clear duty on the mayor to hold the People's Question Time in a venue large enough to hold all the members of the public who may wish to attend and make provision for people to ask the mayor and assembly members questions at the meeting. The duty contained in the first part of the amendment is not sensible. No one can believe that the mayor who will be elected on the mandate by the people of London would hold public meetings in a venue that was deliberately not large enough to hold all the members of the public who may be expected to attend. Nor would he or she choose a venue that was not suitably equipped and did not meet the needs, for example, of disabled Londoners. Inevitably, there will be a period of trial and error. The clause clearly states that the meeting is to be open to all members of the public, but it would not be reasonable to put the mayor in a position whereby one person too many to fit into the venue would leave him or her in breach of their statutory duty.

My experience of a public consultation meeting, which was mandatory, during a review of surplus school places, was that at one meeting far more parents than anticipated had turned up. One member of the public tried to get the meeting closed down by the police and threatened to switch off all the lights. That was in spite of the fact that I had offered at the beginning of the meeting to hold a separate meeting to ensure that everyone's views could be known. That kind of situation demonstrates that the noble Baroness's amendment is not a sensible one.

It is obvious from the title that members of the public can ask the mayor and assembly questions. We intend to bring forward an amendment whereby the mayor would decide the procedure for the event, following consultation with the assembly. We would anticipate that, as in many other areas, this would be achieved through a process of consensus, following those discussions. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I feel for the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who has had to speak to, and reply to, three horrible amendments. The truth is that there is something drastically wrong with the way the Bill has been framed. I know that that is not the fault of the noble Baroness.

In the margin against Clause 40 are the words "People's Question Time", and if you look at it quickly that is what it appears to be. However, Clause 40 states that the mayor and assembly twice in every financial year should hold a meeting which is open to members of the public, which will be known as the People's Question Time. Great. There shall be a meeting; there can be a meeting; there must be a meeting twice in a financial year. And we are going to call it the People's Question Time.

Subsection (2) tells us that the date will be determined by the mayor and the assembly and that it shall be not less than one month before or one month after the State of London debate, which we somewhat ridiculed. At least one month prior to that People's Question Time the mayor shall decide where it is to be held and shall take sufficient steps to give adequate notice. When those people come, what are they going to do? The Bill does not say that they can ask questions. It is all very well having something in the margin, but it is ludicrous.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Would it help the noble Baroness if I told her that I accept her point that an important part of the process will be the arrangements for people to ask questions? I am sure we can bring forward suitable amendments on Report if necessary.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I am delighted to hear that the Government will bring forward some amendments to clarify the situation. I do not want to rub salt into the wound, but a number of amendments were added between the other place and this place, and the provision is still very poor. However, it is late at night and I should not like the Minister to think that I am less than gracious in accepting her kind offer. All I say is that more drafting is definitely needed in order to make sense of the clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Baroness Miller of Hendon had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 154:

After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—

PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS BY AUTHORITY

(" . The Authority shall make available at reasonable cost (or at no cost) copies of all public documents and minutes of the Authority and shall promptly make all such documents freely available to anyone visiting a public internet site to be maintained by the Authority.").

The noble Baroness said: This is a sensible amendment, not one of those silly ones. All I can say is that it needs sensible debate, and in the spirit of trying to hung things along I do not intend to move it.

[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]

Clause 41 [The Deputy Mayor]:

[Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 not moved.]

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 157:

Page 23, line 31, leave out ("appointed by the Mayor") and insert ("elected by the Assembly").

The noble Lord said: I am left somewhat breathless from the recent proceedings. One of the more bizarre reasons for not moving an amendment is because it is sensible. I am proposing this amendment and those grouped with it because they are sensible. They provide for the deputy mayor to be elected by the assembly and for other matters which flow from that.

The position of the Liberal Democrats is well known. We would have preferred the mayor to have been elected by the assembly, and I am not going to go over that again. We are not moving the amendment simply as a second best option, trying to go for the deputy mayor if we cannot get the mayor in that way, although there is a good reason for that.

We all agree that the relationship between the assembly and the mayor will be critically important. The deputy mayor will be in a difficult position, at best, if he or she is seen simply as the creature of the mayor, the mayor's nominee. A deputy mayor who is elected by the assembly will mean that that person is in a much stronger position to represent the assembly to the mayor, and the mayor to the assembly. Therefore, having a deputy mayor in that role who is elected by the assembly and answerable to the assembly, but obviously working closely and co-operatively with the mayor, is the best possible solution, given that the mayor is not directly elected by and accountable to the assembly.

The purpose of the amendments is to provide for the deputy mayor to be elected by the assembly for those reasons. Because the deputy mayor will be elected by the assembly, we are providing in Amendment No. 163 that the assembly, having elected the mayor, may also have the right by a two-thirds majority to remove the deputy mayor in the unlikely event that that was felt to be necessary by two-thirds or more of the assembly. It asks the Minister to explain why in all but one of the subsections in Clause 41 there is a reference to "shall", but in subsection (4) the reference is to "a person must"? It is not an important point, but we are intrigued to know the reason. I am sure it is one point which the Minister will be able to clarify to our satisfaction.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

We do not support the amendment for the reasons I touched on earlier. There should be an opportunity for the deputy mayor to be elected, because we believe that the proposal muddies the water by mixing up the executive with the legislature.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, with all his experience believes that this amendment would create a workable situation. The mandate for the mayor will produce someone of certain beliefs and understandings and the mandate for the assembly may produce a body which thinks differently. The assembly may appoint a deputy mayor deliberately to disagree with the mayor in order to make life difficult for him. I believe that this is a most unwise amendment. I do not know whether it is light-hearted or serious, but coming from a serious local government politician, I am truthfully surprised. That sounds rather pompous, but I cannot see the proposal working.

I believe that the Government have got this right; that the mayor chooses the deputy mayor from the assembly. My noble friend Lady Miller suggested the alternative; a dream ticket of mayor and deputy mayor elected together. In those two ways, there would be a deputy mayor who could work with the mayor, but I do not believe that this amendment would be at all wise.

Earl Russell

I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, finds the idea of cohabitation quite so shocking. If the French can do it, why cannot we?

Lord Whitty

Yes! If the noble Earl had been here earlier when we spoke of transposing the American constitution for the London one, he would realise that we are not transposing the French one either. We are setting up a new unique authority with two different parts. In a sense, the deputy mayor is a bridge between them.

I cannot but agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, when she says that the Government have got this right. It would be extremely difficult to envisage a situation in which the deputy mayor was elected by an assembly which was of a different political persuasion than the mayor. Indeed, the mayor may be of no political persuasion and the assembly of mixed political persuasion. However, the deputy mayor must share the platform and the commitment of the mayor and must act as his or her deputy and represent him or her and be involved as part of the mayor's executive in the authority's decision-taking structures. It would be a recipe for confrontation and chaos were the deputy mayor to be elected by the assembly.

We believe that all the parts of this new authority need to act together, but we do not want to build in another area of conflict by making the deputy mayor an indirect but nevertheless separate mandate from the mayor. We have been over the arguments in earlier stages in the Bill and I shall not go through them in any more detail. We do not accept this approach to changing the constitution, which we have proposed from the beginning in relation to the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked me about an issue of grammar. I do not believe that it is as significant as he suggests. My interpretation would be that "shall" means that someone has to do something and "must" means that someone must not hold two offices at the same time. All the shalls impose a duty on someone.

A noble Lord

Hear, hear!

Lord Whitty

I am glad that I have some support in this matter! My fall-back position is that it is not significant.

Lord Tope

I am prepared to accept the Minister's fallback position. He has done rather better with that one than he has with "People's Question Time", the "State of London debates", and so on. I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to answer that point. I shall read Hansard with care to see whether I understand it any better. However, I shall accept his fallback position. It is not a matter of major significance.

On a more substantive matter, I do not accept the election of the deputy mayor by the assembly. I do not accept the rather pessimistic view that it must necessarily or likely be a recipe for confrontation. We are all approaching the Greater London Authority on the basis of a co-operative body. It is on that basis that we propose this. We can all think of more pessimistic "what if' situations. I could, for instance, suggest what if the assembly passes a vote of no confidence in the deputy mayor—a member of the assembly—who has been appointed by the mayor? In what position would that put the deputy mayor?

We can all envisage scenarios that would be entirely negative and destructive. That is not the way in which any of us is approaching this matter. It is highly probable—much though each of us for different reasons may regret it—that the assembly will not normally have a majority of members of any one political party and, therefore, will need to work on a co-operative basis. I believe that the election of the deputy mayor, working co-operatively with the mayor, would strengthen the authority as a whole. I anticipated that that view would not be shared by the Government Front Bench or indeed the Conservative Front Bench, but that does not necessarily make it wrong. Nevertheless, at this time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 158 to 164 not moved.]

Clause 41 agreed to.

Clause 42 [Functions]:

9.15 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 165:

Page 24, line 9, leave out first ("Chair") and insert ("Chairman").

The noble Baroness said: I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 165 to 169 and 171 to 191.

However, before I do so, and with the leave of the Committee, I refer back to Amendment No. 154, on which I think I said, "This is not a sensible amendment". I would not have realised I had said that had it not been picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I did not intend to say that.

Lord Tope

Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness. What I heard her say—I hope this is right—was that she was not moving the amendment because it was sensible. I thought that was rather a bizarre reason for not moving an amendment.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I thank the noble Lord. I intended to say that as it is such a serious amendment, and as we were trying to move on, I would not move it this evening but bring it back on another occasion. I hope that clarifies the position for the record.

The 26 identical amendments in the group to Clauses 42, 43 and 44 call for the deletion of the word "Chair" wherever it appears and its replacement by "Chairman".

Perhaps I may ask for the Committee's indulgence by mentioning my qualifications to speak on the subject of this series of amendments. From 1985 to 1988 I was Chairman of the 300 Group, an all-party organisation dedicated to getting more women into the other place. From 1986 to 1992 I was the Chairman of the Women into Public Life Campaign, dedicated to ensuring that more women receive more appointments to public bodies. For my efforts in those two spheres, Her Majesty honoured me with the MBE for, services in the advancement of the status of women in public and political life". From 1993 to 1996 I was the Chairman of the Greater London Area of the Conservative Party. From 1990 to 1994 I was the Chairman of the Barnet Family Health Services Authority. Since 1997 I have been the Chairman of the National Association of Leagues of Hospital and Community Friends.

In none of those offices has anybody dared to call me "the Chair". Maybe it is because, despite my well-known mild and self-effacing manner, they simply did not dare to, or maybe they realised that I am not someone who can be sat upon. Certainly I do not need any lessons from anyone on how the interests of women are best promoted. I believe that they are certainly not promoted by those who cause the women's movement to be held up to ridicule by the sort of verbal absurdity that we find perpetrated in the Bill.

The French, the Italians, the Spanish and the Portuguese languages have two genders for their nouns. Hundreds of other languages have the same defect. The Germans run to three—masculine, feminine and neuter—with the word for "Miss" being male for some unfathomable, Teutonic reason.

The Queen's English—your Lordships will note that the name of our language which is spoken all around the world is English, not British or United Kingdomish—fortunately does not assign any gender to its nouns. The word "chairman" does not assign any connotation of the sex of the holder of the office.

Another grotesque word that is sometimes used is "spokesperson". Thank goodness all the perpetrators of this sexist nonsense do not call him or her the "spoke". There is a story which I cannot prove that one local council decided that the phrase, "manhole cover" was politically incorrect; and since "personhole cover" was too crass even for them, referred to them as "horizontal aperture closures".

A female executor is called an "executrix"; so why is a female director not called a "directorix"? Why is a female judge not called a "judgess"? Female ushers are called "usherettes", so why is a female Minister of the Crown not called a "Ministerette"?

I use the phrase "sexist nonsense" because in the name of what they call "political correctness", verbal vandals actually perpetrate gender disputes where none exists. Only yesterday some noble Lords in this Chamber were talking about "Peers" and "Peeresses". I am not a Peeress; I am a Peer and am proud to be a Member of this House as a Peer. A "Peeress" is the wife of a Peer. I did not say the "spouse" of a Peer because I would not insult my poor husband who is sitting in the Peeress's Box.

As I said, a Peeress is the wife of a male Peer. I am a Peer and when someone stands up and says, "My Lords", that includes me and every other noble Baroness in this House. My summons from Her Majesty the Queen instructs me to attend "with the other Lords". There are those who say that we should be using this different language and argue that it is the symbolism that counts. It is not. What counts is getting our arguments across without detracting from the main point.

In saying that, perhaps I may touch on the issue of consistency. In the three clauses that I am discussing the, draftsman used the word "chair" 26 times. However, Schedule 21, paragraph (6)(1) requires the Metropolitan Police Authority to appoint not a "chair'', but a "chairman"—a "chairman", after all this other nonsense of 26 times calling it a "chair". Schedule 23(3) requires the mayor to appoint a "chairman" of the Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; and not just a chairman, but a vice-chairman as well. Schedule 14 provides for the payment to be made to the "chairman" of the London Transport Users' Committee. Section 237 amends the Regional Development Agencies Act, passed only last year, by providing for the mayor to appoint a "chairman". Lastly, whoever drafted paragraph (3) of Schedule 25 was clearly torn in two directions and produced the following compromise, Appointment of member to take chair", and then it says, The Mayor shall appoint one of the members of the. Cultural Study Group for London to chair it". The draftsman could not make up his mind whether it was a "chair" or a "chairman" and came up with those two sentences.

The amendments we are proposing make not one jot of difference to the Act or the working of the authority. But it eliminates a piece of linguistic nonsense that I should have thought the Government would prefer not to inflict on the residents of London or to give arty degree of credence to by including it in an Act of Parliament. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

It is with the utmost reluctance that I rise to oppose my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, whom I first met in the 300 Group, which she was later to chair with elegance and distinction.

I have been a chairman, but not of as many organisations as the noble Baroness. After 11 years on Surrey County Council, during which I had insensibly—because all Liberal Democrats tend to speak in this language—unconsciously and unwillingly offended people by occasionally calling them "chair" when, according to the constitution of the county council I should have called them "chairman", I myself became chairman of the county council. I raised with the chief executive whether I could call myself "Chair". He said, "Certainly not". I said, "Why not?" He said, "Because of the way in which the standing orders of the county council are written at the moment you have been elected as a chairman and not as a chair".

This particular Bill is trying to guide—I put it no stronger than that—this modern institution into a more modern way of conducting its business. I believe that growing numbers of people find obnoxious terms which have "man" at the end of them, but are posts which may be filled with either men or women. Most of us do not get into a great tizzy about it, but we would still rather that things were not like that.

Some of the examples which the noble Baroness put before us did not follow the pattern of what she was saying. For example, the enviable characteristic of the word "judge" is that it does not distinguish between men and women. I could be a good or bad judge of a flower show, an apple, a taste or whatever I like. I cannot be a judge in court because I am not qualified, but Members of the Committee will know what I am trying to say.

If we are to be a little more modern let us choose one of the more acceptable modernisms. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me that "chair" is preferable to "chairperson", which is a repulsive term. It also has the great advantage of being consistent with the longstanding formality such as the need to address oneself to the chair. It is a way in which the seat of authority becomes first the office and now it is attached to the person who holds that office just as it is attached to the person who sits in the chair.

Interestingly enough, I took part in this very same debate in my own party many years ago at nine o'clock in the morning in Dundee, which is not a very attractive place or hour at which to conduct that kind of debate. I knew that I would have against me a very distinguished member of my party who was extremely cultivated in his own tongue. In fact, he was an English scholar. So I referred to the English dictionary which was in two volumes. It was printed in such small print that one needed a magnifying glass to read it. That was kindly provided by my county council. I found that the earliest use of the words "chair" and "vice-chair" are in letters of about 1780, written by the chair and vice-chair of the East India Company to each other. I do not believe that we need any further justification for this very small shift towards modernism. It was not even that modern.

Baroness Blatch

I rise for the first time in this debate. Having had some experience of local government, I find it deeply frustrating not to he taking part in this Bill. But, given the convention of the House that we do not become involved in every Bill, I have been full of restraint. If we have heard the best intellectual justification for most inelegant language, then I find it rather feeble.

When I was leader of Cambridgeshire County Council until 1985, I was entirely happy to be called the leader of the council. Until that time there was no contention about it. In the May elections of that year Cambridgeshire became a hung council or, as I look back on it now, I prefer to call it an unhinged council. Within hours of taking office the next morning the persons leading the Liberal and Labour parties and myself came together to decide how we were going to run the council. I found depressing the hours of debate about what we called each other. That took predominance over issues such as health, education and the state of the roads.

It turned out that the leader of the council was hierarchical and anyway at that time we did not have any one party which could claim leadership over the council. So there was a great debate. By the end of the day I became known as "an equal member of an egalitarian triumvirate". I was meant to languish with some gratitude in this new title of mine, but I said, "If I am going to be chairman of anything, I would like to be called chairman".

We went through "chairman", at the Liberal behest, to "chairperson". Then there was a discussion about that, after which we became "chair". We then had another debate which followed where it was decided that "chair" was also hierarchical and unacceptable to the council. So we then went through yet another debate and became "spokesman" through to "spokesperson" and then to "spoke". I had to suffer the indignity of being called "Madam Spoke" at meetings.

I remember on one occasion insisting that if I was going to be sitting in the chair at a meeting and had to be called anything, I would like to be called "chairman". There ensued something like a three-quarters-of-an-hour debate describing me as a disgrace to my gender because I was being offensive to my Liberal and Labour colleagues on the council by insisting on being called "chairman". If it had not been so serious, it would have been absurd; indeed, it was taken to absurd lengths.

It is inelegant. We all know that "man" is a universal term for a human being. As an individual, I have no objection whatever to being called "Chairman" or "Madam Chairman"; they are equally acceptable to me. Similarly, I find the term "Ms" inelegant. When I was a Minister, I refused to call anyone "Ms"; indeed, I preferred to use the christian name rather than "Ms", because I think that that is also inelegant. We have corrupted the language with this kind of political correctness. I find that if offends more people than it pleases. Of course, it pleases the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. It has been on their political agenda for a very long time. However, I believe that it provides a disservice.

I know that the Minister will argue against my noble friend's amendment. There are two Ministers: a lady Minister and a gentleman Minister, and only one of them will respond. I am not a gambling lady. but I will bet that there will be an objection to my noble friend's amendment. I find that rather sad. First, my noble friend has argued the case most cogently; and, secondly, she has also referred to the inconsistencies in the Bill. For example, why is the term "chairman" acceptable in one part of the Bill and yet wholly unacceptable in another part? What is the argument and the intellectual justification for that?

My final statement relates to the Civil Service. This kind of language is endemic in the Civil Service; indeed, it knows no other. I have to say that I spent a good deal of my time and energy when I was a Minister in three departments—namely, the Department of the Environment, the Department for Education and the Home Office—fighting against this nonsense and this inelegance. I want to convey to my noble friend the fact that I support her most enthusiastically, but I am not hopeful that the amendment will bear fruit on the other side of the Committee.

Lord Sheppard of Didgemere

I cannot get enthusiastic for this debate and that probably proves something about business or the private sector. For 10 years I was in the chair—and I choose my words carefully—of Grand Metropolitan and everyone at every level called me Allen.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

I have been in the chair quite a lot and I have always been "the Convenor".

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I knew what was going to happen as soon as I was asked to respond to this amendment. I have to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. with whom, I believe, I maintain a good friendship, that if she is going to develop her argument about ushers and usherettes I have absolutely no intention of being a "Whippet". I think that that would be most offensive.

I was intrigued by this series of amendments. As others have said in this short debate, I am conscious of how sensitive an issue this can be. I shall not mention the various offices I have held, but I was proud at one time to be the chairman of Lancashire County Council. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, discussed the term "chair". I shall return to that point.

I agree that debates on this matter can become heated and fearsome. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would not want that to happen here. I found that I had to change what I called myself when I reached Crewe because otherwise I became locked in sterile debates. Occasionally I forgot to change my title when I was in Lancashire and called myself the chair. Various people objected to that. Or I referred to myself as a chairman south of Crewe and various people objected to that too. When I chaired a committee in Europe I found the term "president" easier.

I will outline our reasons for the use of the term "chair" rather than "chairman". It is just one part of our proposal to modernise London governance.

Noble Lords

Oh!

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

We decided to update the terminology used to refer to the presiding officers of the assembly to a usage now recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary. When I acted in the capacity of chairman of Lancashire County Council on several occasions primary schoolchildren asked me how I could be the chairman as they expected to see a man. There is a serious point here as regards children's expectations of our democratically elected representatives.

It is true that previous legislation uses the term "chairman". Where this Bill modifies earlier Acts or makes provisions in the context of earlier legislation, the term "chairman" therefore appears. Alternatively we could have insisted on bringing before the Chamber amending legislation to all previous legislation 10 enable us to use—this would appear more logical on the face of it—the term "chair" throughout. However, we think it is unpractical in legal or handling terms to ensure consistency across the whole Bill by amending all references to "chairman" to "chair". The references to "chair" are therefore confined to the authority itself.

The authority could also choose to designate the leaders of its various committees as "chair" should it wish to do so, as happens now in relation to bodies established by the Local Government Act 1972. Therefore I think that there is a logic here. I hope that the Committee will not discuss this matter at length on many occasions because I know from past experience how much time that can take. Perhaps it may soothe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, if I tell her that I wrote down carefully the letters, EMET. Those letters, if pronounced phonetically, sound like a small, industrious animal. I am sure that it is not at all offensive to be an EMET.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

What is an EMET?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I understand that the noble Baroness was part of an egalitarian body in Cambridgeshire. I have forgotten the exact terms but together they form the word EMET.

Baroness Blatch

I was an equal member of an egalitarian triumvirate—a nonsense which I had no part of.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I find it hard to believe that in any gathering of which the noble Baroness was an egalitarian member she did not play a full role.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I thank my noble friend for adding to what I said. When she said they called her "Madam Spoke", I made a joke saying "Thank goodness they do not call a spokesman a "spoke"" I cannot imagine that anyone would call a person a "spoke". That sounds extraordinary.

My noble friend mentioned that, apart from being described as "Alan", he was described as "sitting in the chair". I have another friend who, when he became elected leader of his group on the council, said to the lady taking the minutes, "Please, do not describe me as "Councillor so and so, the chair" because I do not consider that I am a chair. I do not like the word; I am not a "chair"; I am a "chairman'"'. The lady taking the minutes said that she was not able to do that because under the rules and regulations he had to be described as a "chair". Eventually, they came to a kind of stand-off where the minutes said "Councillor so and so was sitting in the chair". That brings me back to the point that my noble friend made a few moments ago.

I listened with care to the explanation given by the Minister as to why in certain places in the Bill it refers to "chairman" and "vice-chairman" as opposed to those places where it refers to "chair". I shall go through all those clauses very carefully to ascertain whether the words are simply being brought in to replace a word that was already there. It seems to me that perhaps different draftsmen were involved; some more politically correct than others.

I agree with my noble friend Lady Blatch that there is a serious point involved here. What we said was not just for fun and an attempt to make the matter look even sillier than it is; political correctness is creeping in everywhere. The Minister said that she hoped I would withdraw the amendment. I was tempted to divide the Committee, not only on this amendment but, at some stage, to divide 26 times. But it is late and she need have no fear that that will happen tonight.

I am sorry that the Minister did not have a "persondate" to accept my amendments. It would have been extremely nice had she been able to do so. I shall certainly check and do all the things I said I would.

Baroness Blatch

I believe my noble friend is about to withdraw her amendment. If that is the case, before she does so, I wonder whether the Minister can help me further in answer to my question about why there is an inconsistency between the use of "chairman" and "chair" throughout the Bill. On page 235, in Schedule 14, there is a reference to "chairman" but no reference to an Act of Parliament. The Minister said it occurred when it refers to Acts of Parliament. On page 279 there is also a reference to "chairman"; again there is no reference to an Act of Parliament. On page 303 there is a reference to "chairman" and "vice-chairman"; again there is no reference to an Act of Parliament. It would be helpful to know to which Acts of Parliament the examples I have mentioned refer, which gives the right for the distinction to be made between the use of "chairman" and "chair".

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The first example the noble Baroness gave referred to the London Transport Users' Committee, which is established under a different Act of Parliament. I have not had time to check whether that is the case in every example she gave. It is my understanding that that is the way the Bill has been drafted.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

As to that particular point, I have said that I shall check all of those issues. Perhaps officials will manage to check the other side of the matter for the noble Baroness because we shall return to it. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 166 to 169 not moved.]

9.45 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 170:

Page 24, line 15, leave out from ("conferred") to end of line 16 and insert ("upon him by the Assembly pursuant to section 45").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 170. I think it will not detain the Committee as long as the previous group of amendments. Clause 42 deals with the functions of those who hold the chair and deputy chair of the assembly. Clause 42(2) deals with the function of chairing. I am trying to choose my words carefully so as not to alienate the Conservative Benches. Clause 42(2)(b) provides that the chair of the assembly shall have, such other functions as may be conferred or imposed … under this Act or any other enactment".

My amendment proposes that, rather than functions conferred by primary legislation, the functions will be those conferred by the assembly under Clause 45, which deals with assembly procedure—in other words, under standing orders.

I wish to make two points. The lesser is that the details of the functions, in addition to chairing meetings, will be matters for the standing orders. The other point is: if any functions are to be conferred by legislation, are they to be conferred on the authority rather than the individual person who is to chair meetings or act as chair of the assembly? This provision seems to open up an inappropriate opportunity to confer functions which, if they are set out anywhere, should be in the Bill. What we are really talking about is a procedural matter which would be best dealt with by standing orders.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The first element of the noble Baroness's amendment would delete the reference to the chair of the assembly having those functions conferred or imposed on him by the Bill. That simply means that the chair will have the functions that Parliament decides that he or she should have; for example, presiding over assembly meetings or standing in for the mayor if there is both a mayoral and deputy mayoral vacancy. So I do not accept the proposed deletion from Clause 42(2)(b).

As to the second part of the noble Baroness's amendment, it is unnecessary. Clause 45 allows the assembly to determine its own procedures and Clause 46 enables the assembly to arrange for its functions, other than where expressly prohibited, to be discharged by a single assembly member. The assembly will, therefore, be able to confer other functions on the chair if it so wishes. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

I thank the Minister for that reply. In the hope of slightly decreasing the average time that is spent on groupings, I simply beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 171 not moved.]

Clause 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 [Appointment]:

[Amendments Nos. 172 to 186 not moved.]

Clause 43 agreed to.

Clause 44 [Meetings of the whole Assembly]:

[Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 188A:

Page 25, line 8, leave out from ("election") to ("there").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 188A and 188B were tabled for entirely humanitarian reasons. As drafted, the Bill requires the assembly, after its first meeting, to meet, thereafter at intervals of not more than one month … to consider the Mayor's monthly written report".

It is not unknown for this House to become somewhat edgy if it is required to sit into August, and it becomes even more concerned if it has to return in September. We are probably asking a great deal of both the mayor and the assembly that they should have to meet monthly, year in, year out, non-stop, without the facility for any break at all.

It is for that simple humanitarian reason that I move Amendment No. 188A and commend Amendment No. 188B. These two amendments remove the requirement to meet at intervals of not more than one month and remove the adjective "monthly" from the subsequent paragraph (a). That is in order to allow those who, we hope, are as human as Members of this House to have a short break during the summer. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

If everything has a humanitarian intention—I take the noble Lord's word for it and I know him to be fairly humanitarian—I hope we will not be kept up too long on this Bill in the subsequent Committee days. Nevertheless, if the amendment has a humanitarian intention, the noble Lord should have moved an amendment stating, "except for August" or words to that effect. The effect of what the noble Lord suggests would be far more drastic than he intended. It would delete the requirement in Clause 44(2) to ensure that the mayor appears regularly before the assembly and provides a written report to that assembly. If we delete "monthly" then the mayor would have to present himself or herself to the assembly not later than 15 days after the election and never again thereafter.

The noble Lord entertained us earlier with the story of his acquaintance, a French mayor, who disappeared to Mexico. The amendment would enable the mayor to do so without any further requirement for him to appear and produce a report. Clearly that was not the noble Lord's intention, and if he wishes to consider the matter, I am sure that the deletion of August could be given reasonable consideration. It is in most local government standing orders that they meet monthly. Nevertheless, in practice some monthly meetings are cancelled.

If that was the noble Lord's intention, he put forward the wrong amendment and may wish to consider it for a later stage.

Lord Tope

I entirely share the humanitarian concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but I also agree with the comments of the Minister. For those reasons I shall not support the amendments as drafted because of their effect. Nevertheless, the noble Lord raised an important point. Perhaps rather than the Opposition bringing back an amendment, it is a small point that the Government should consider. It is probably not correct that most local authorities' standing orders require them to meet monthly, but it is a matter for those authorities to determine. Here we are talking about legislation which has the effect of requiring the assembly to meet in August. I doubt whether the Government gave that any thought; it is hardly a major matter. However, since it has been raised and I expect that the assembly would prefer not to meet in August, at the very least it should be free to determine itself whether to do so. Perhaps the Government should consider the point before a later stage.

Lord Whitty

I will undertake to consider the point.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who made a proper point. I am not certain at this stage whether it is I or the Minister who should bring forward an appropriate amendment. I am glad that the point is taken. There is sometimes virtue in moving an amendment incorrectly because it produces the desired response. That is exactly what I received. If the Minister would be kind enough to say that he would bring forward the appropriate amendment, he might do it on terms with which he would not have to argue. However, if he invites me to do it, I might have to use terms with which he would still wish to argue. That would take more time, so perhaps he would consider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 188B to 191 not moved.]

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 [Assembly procedure]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 192:

Page 25, line 32, at end insert ("and may publish standing orders accordingly").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 192 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 193. Neither amendment raises a major point. Amendment No. 192 provides that the assembly, having determined its own procedure and that of its committees under Clause 45(1), may publish standing orders accordingly".

I assumed that the assembly would publish standing orders but, given the prescription of the Bill, I thought it better to ask. Amendment No. 193 seeks to leave out Clause 45(2)(c) which provides that the subsection to which I have just referred is subject to any other provision under this Bill or any future, or even past, legislation. My particular query is related to future legislation. Why is it necessary to say this, since I assume that future legislation will in any event override this legislation? Perhaps the Minister can assist me as to the necessity for the whole of that provision. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Clause 45 enables the assembly to determine its own procedure and that of its committees (including quorum) except where provisions in this Bill provide otherwise. Amendment No. 192 would steer it towards publishing its standing orders but would not require it to do so. In the circumstances, this seems to be an unintended effect of the amendment. As currently drafted, Clause 45 permits the assembly to determine its own procedures. Therefore, the option of whether or not to publish its standing orders already exists under that discretion. Frankly, I find it difficult to conceive of an authority which would think it other than sensible to publish its standing orders to assist its members, staff and the public to understand its proceedings.

Amendment No. 193 would delete subsection (3) of Clause 45 from the Bill. This is an essential provision. Although the assembly is rightly allowed a considerable degree of discretion, it must still follow the provisions of this Bill and legislation that affect the procedures of the assembly which we believe are essential for the effective and transparent working of the authority. For example, we have provided in the Bill for a series of meetings and debates, which we have debated with great seriousness in this House, and also required that the political balance of the authority should be reflected in its committees.

We do not believe that it should be possible for the assembly to disregard these matters. I am sure the noble Baroness agrees that it is important for the committees to reflect the political balance of the authority. They and other provisions of the Bill play an important part in determining the culture and nature of the authority. I hope that I have answered the points raised by the noble Baroness, and therefore I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

As to the first matter, the Minister has answered my question in the affirmative. I am still not convinced that it is necessary to have Clause 45(2)(c). I do not for a moment part company with the noble Baroness on the proposition that the procedure of the assembly must be subject to legislation. I would have thought that that was the case without the need to say so, but I shall not labour the point.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

It may assist the noble Baroness if I make clear that the procedures can be subject to future legislation, but sometimes legal arguments arise as to whether a later Act overrides an earlier one.

Baroness Hamwee

I thank the Minister for that indication. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 192A and 193 not moved.]

Clause 45 agreed to.

10 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 194:

After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—

BROADCASTING OF AND ACCESS TO PROCEEDINGS

(" .(1) The Authority shall provide facilities to enable proceedings of the Assembly and its committees or extracts therefrom, to be broadcast both live and as recorded on radio and television, and at the Authority's discretion, over the internet.

(2) The Authority may provide such facilities free of charge, or may make a reasonable charge approximately equal to the cost to it of it providing such facilities.

(3) The Authority shall provide without charge adequate facilities to enable representatives of all bodies having functions under this Act and the London boroughs and the Common Council and accredited representatives of the media and a reasonable number of members of the public to attend—

1. (a) any meetings of the Assembly, and
2. (b) any meetings of its committees at which the public is entitled to be present.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 194 speaks for itself. First, it requires the authority to provide facilities for broadcasting on the radio and television. It gives the authority a discretion about additional broadcasting over the Internet, but I freely admit that that cautious approach about this new means of communication is only because it is new, and possibly all the ramifications and implications of it have not yet been discovered.

It allows the authority to make a reasonable charge for providing the facility because I suppose that it could cost the authority something by way of heating, lighting and the supply of electricity and so on. On the other hand, the authority has a discretion not to charge if, for example, the sums involved are not worth the bookkeeping trouble, or if the authority felt it ought not to make a charge as part of its public service.

Parliament fought a rearguard action for years, decades even, first against radio broadcasting and later against television. No-one would now doubt the value of both means, especially television, in informing the public about the activities of Parliament, especially of the other place. If there is some reservation in some quarters about the public actually seeing the antics that sometimes occur in the other place, they have only themselves to blame. The same applies to the temptation for some members to play to the camera in the hope that they may get on the "Six O'Clock News".

My only complaint about the broadcasting of Parliament is that not enough is shown of the proceedings in your Lordships' House and, when one listens to the debate here and compares it to the debate in the other place, one is really disappointed that the public do not see more of what is happening here. Perhaps the public would have a much better idea of what we do if they saw more of our very well-informed debates and Question Times and, if I may say so, the very courteous way in which they are conducted on all sides of the House.

In our opinion, if the broadcasting of Parliament or extracts from its proceedings is an everyday feature of the news, there is no reason why the affairs of the assembly should not be the same. Of course, there is no obligation at all on the broadcasters to broadcast anything, but that will depend on how interesting or otherwise the assembly's proceedings are. There is certainly enough space on the new digital and cable channels to fit in the assembly without depriving anybody of the re-runs of old soap operas and sitcoms, even though they do not seem to make programmes like them any more.

Apart from providing facilities for broadcasting its proceedings, the amendment requires the authority to provide facilities for the London boroughs and the Common Council, and for a reasonable number of members of the public to be present at the meetings of the assembly and at committee meetings. I am surprised that this last item is not already provided for specifically in the Bill. I do not think we should be told that such matters are provided for in this or that local government act. If I do not have the time to look it up—and, frankly, I do not—why should members of the public, with fewer facilities than I enjoy, have to do so?

This Bill is about the Greater London Authority and, so far as possible, it should be self-contained, even if an extra couple of lines of text are needed in an already giant-sized Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Tope

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the Greater London Authority should provide these facilities for broadcasting. However, I find it difficult to conceive that the 25 politicians who will comprise the assembly, and still less, the mayor, will be so publicity shy and so reluctant that they have to be required by statute to do so. That is just not a real probability, either with the nature of the authority or in this day and age. Whilst I have every sympathy for, and indeed support, the intentions here, I do wonder how it squares with the view which we take on these Benches, and indeed has been taken on the Conservative Benches on a number of occasions, that the Bill is already much too prescriptive. I question why it is necessary to put it on the face of the Bill when it is so improbable that a publicity shy mayor and a publicity shy assembly will refuse to allow the people of London to know or to hear what they are saying.

Therefore, I have considerable doubts about the amendment and suspect that I am about to hear the Minister tell us that it is not necessary.

Lord Whitty

I am about to echo the noble Lord's views on the matter. It is fairly unlikely that London's politicians will decide that the proceedings should not be broadcast. This amendment asks us to compel the authority to do so. When your Lordships' House, well ahead of the other place, decided that it wanted its proceedings broadcast, that was our decision. It was not laid down by statute. We should favour the new authority with the same freedom to decide whether or not its proceedings should be broadcast. I believe that it will decide so to do.

In specifying the requirements of the new GLA building, the Government will require the provision of media facilities. Therefore, in one sense, we are anticipating such a decision. But it is a decision for the authority to make.

With regard to the provision of adequate facilities, the noble Baroness is absolutely correct because I refer her to the arrangements for the public to attend which exist in other legislation relating to local authorities; in particular, the Local Government Act 1972. The provisions will require the proceedings of the authority, unless subject to confidentiality, to be open to the public. The same criteria which apply to other local authorities in relation to access to meetings and documents will apply to the GLA. I am sure that the GLA members will wish to make clear to their public the facilities which are available for them to view their debates.

Therefore, the first part of the amendment is over-prescriptive and the second part is unnecessary.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I cannot argue with the Minister's explanation for refusing my small amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 195:

After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—

PETITIONS

(" .—(1) The Mayor or the Deputy Mayor or the Assembly may receive petitions bearing such minimum numbers of signatures of electors registered in Greater London as the assembly may from time to time determine.

(2) Any petition so received shall be the subject of a report from the Mayor to the Assembly including specific comments on such matters contained in it as the Assembly may request.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment, very lightly, imposes a further duty on the mayor, his deputy or the assembly; namely, the duty to receive petitions from the electors of Greater London.

The assembly will fix the minimum number of signatories required to protect the mayor or the assembly from being pestered by crackpots and small but vociferous single-issue groups. I say that it is a light duty because the clause provides only that the mayor or assembly "may", not "shall" receive petitions. That will entitle them to reject petitions which are no-hopers. Once the petition has been received, the petitioners will be sure that their request will be considered or their complaint investigated. We believe that that facility is important in any democracy. It is certainly available in the other place, where there is a long tradition of petitions being put "in the Bag", which hangs symbolically behind the Speaker's Chair.

The assembly will represent 7 million Londoners and a vast number of businesses. As I have already had to remind the Committee on several occasions, the assembly members will be remote from them because of the way in which the assembly is constituted Therefore, a means of direct access to the mayor and assembly, as a matter of importance to a substantial number of Londoners, is vital.

The proposed subsection (2) makes sure that the petition is not pigeon-holed before it has at least been considered. This amendment provides a facility which any democratic legislature should be only too willing to provide. I beg to move.

Lord Tope

Again, I have much sympathy with what lies behind the amendment but I wonder about it. First, I do not think it is possible to draft any legislation that can protect us from crackpots. If there is, after 25 years in local government, I hope the Government will pass it very soon.

I cannot think that it is necessary to have legislation to enable the authority to receive petitions. I am sure they will come anyway. The important point, which is in part addressed in the second part of the proposed new clause, is what happens when the petition has been received. In that sense, I am not certain that this goes far enough. I hope that the mayor and the assembly will make provision for petitioners presenting a proper petition, in terms of the legislation, not only to present their petition but to speak to it, explain what it is about and be available to answer questions. That is what many good local authorities of all political persuasions already do, and have done for many years.

Therefore, the amendment is probably not adequate, but I return to my previous point, which is why it should be necessary to have it in the legislation in the first place, legislation we are already describing as too prescriptive. It seems to me that this is a proper and appropriate matter for the mayor and the assembly to decide for themselves. They cannot refuse to receive petitions; petitions will arrive anyway. It is inconceivable that a petition received from a number of Londoners will not be considered properly. It is for the mayor and the assembly to determine these matters: what constitutes a proper petition for their consideration—presumably signed by a given number of electors, or representative bodies and so on; and how they will treat petitions in terms of hearing petitioners and so on. These are matters which are properly considered by the mayor and the assembly, not matters which need to be enshrined in legislation.

As I have said, most local authorities already have some provision for dealing with petitions from people who live and work in their areas, but so far as I know there is no legislation, nor any intention of legislation, requiring local authorities to have such a provision. So, while I entirely support the objectives of the amendment, I cannot support it, because the matter should be left to the mayor and the assembly to determine how they want to deal with it.

Lord Whitty

Without any collusion whatsoever, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has made my case for me. I have nothing to add, and I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment in the light of the noble Lord's remarks.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I think I might withdraw in view of the fact that the Minister agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but I shall not do so on the basis of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, making those comments.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46 [Discharge of functions by committees or single members]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 196:

Page 25, line 43, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Lord said: The clause deals with aspects of the procedure of the assembly, specifically its power to delegate. It says that it may delegate either to a committee of the assembly, which is entirely acceptable, or to a single member. I have some hesitation about delegating to a single member. I am not aware that that would be practice anywhere else in local government, or indeed in general. It is, of course, not unusual for a body to appoint committees, and it may even be that the committees will subsequently delegate aspects of their work to the chairman. But that would always be subject to the sanction of the committee.

It is not for us to lay down on the face of the Bill in detail the way in which the assembly shall do its business. So what we are dealing with here is perhaps more a matter of judgment than something which should appear on the face of the Bill.

I am concerned that the assembly may delegate some of its functions to one member to be discharged on its behalf. That is a quite extraordinary arrangement. It was because of that scepticism that we tabled the amendment. We wish to explore what is in the Government's mind in making this extraordinary proposition. I do not think that it is a wise one. I beg to move.

10.15 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

Before he replies, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I share the concerns of my noble friend.

Clause 46(1)states: Subject to any express provision contained in this Act or any Act passed after this Act, the Assembly may arrange for any of the functions excisable by it to be discharged on its behalf ", by a single member of the authority. However, subsection (3) states: Subsection(1)(b) above does not apply in relation to functions under or by virtue of section 20A of the Police Act 1996 (questions by Assembly members to representatives of the Metropolitan Police Authority)". Given that that is an area which cannot be delegated to a single member of the assembly, does the Minister argue that almost any function contained within the Bill can be delegated to a single member of the assembly?

Baroness Hamwee

Amendment No. 196A takes up a similar point to that made by the noble Baroness. I have provided that the ability to delegate to a single member, does not apply to functions relating to the capital spending plan", of the authority. That seems far too significant to allow a single member to deal with it. I doubt that the assembly would agree to delegate functions to a single member in that connection. But, for instance, under Clause 108 the assembly's comments on the plan are invited. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for a single member to respond.

Lord Whitty

One of the oddities about this debate is that for most of the evening we have been accused of being over-prescriptive but when we are allowing the assembly to determine its own procedures we are attacked. Amendment No. 196 would prevent any function of the assembly from being delegated to an individual assembly member. Amendment No. 196A relates to a specific matter. But Amendment No. 196 is a substantial restriction on the assembly's ability to decide its own procedures. The Bill contains a number of restrictions on the assembly's ability to decide how to discharge its functions. As regards a handful of key functions, such as questioning the mayor, the exercise of assembly power to summon, the assembly's role in deciding the budget and matters in relation to the chief finance officer and the auditor, under the existing provisions of the Bill a single member cannot exercise any of those functions. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, drew our attention to the clause in relation to the police authority.

In general, we say that the assembly will determine its own procedures, and in other areas there is the freedom for the assembly to delegate to a group or single individual. I do not believe that it is likely that the assembly will delegate a substantial role in capital spending to a single member of the assembly. Nevertheless, I believe that it is right that the assembly has the authority to determine its own procedures in that respect.

Noble Lords may believe that this is a way in which the majority group on the assembly would deny other assembly members the ability to scrutinise the mayor. That is not the implication because Clause 44(3) makes clear that assembly members will be able to question the mayor in all respects; and we intend to bring forward amendments in relation to written answers too. The Bill does not affect the ability of any other member of the assembly in exercising the scrutiny function. What it does is to provide the authority with the ability to so organise the procedures that there is an element of delegation to committees and individual members. Whether that is likely to be the situation in the case of capital spending is another matter. But it should be left to the assembly to decide. Therefore, I suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch

What matters is the words on the page, not what the Minister has said in reply. I assume that there can be delegation to a single member of the assembly unless there is an express provision stating that there cannot be delegation to a single member of the assembly. In that event, I cannot understand why there is only one area referred to in subsection (3). In the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, a single member of the authority could receive delegated power from the mayor and act without accountability, but there is no mention of those to whom they would be accountable and whether the power would be an absolute power to act as an individual in the name of the assembly. The Minister's reply simply did not address that concern. One must therefore assume that any other provision in the Bill could be delegated not only to a committee but to an individual member who could act without accountability, representing the whole assembly and, I assume, then reporting back to the committee or to the mayor.

Lord Whitty

The functions I referred to in my initial reply are provided for in Clause 44 which deals with meetings. It expressly states that Clause 46 shall not apply. The next reference to Clause 46 not being applicable is in Clause 52(1) and there are others relating to the budget, for example, recurring throughout the Bill. The restrictions are not referred to in this clause because there are already exclusions within the Bill.

It is only the Metropolitan Police point, which does not appear elsewhere in the Bill, that needs to be expressly added in the clause. All other areas where there should be a restriction are dealt with in the Bill. That may not be enough for the noble Baroness. Clearly, it is not enough for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to Amendment No.197A which deals with capital spending, but that is how the Bill is drafted.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He will not be surprised to hear that I am not satisfied with it. Nonetheless, we will study the matter carefully and may return to it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. I96A not moved.]

Clause 46 agreed to.

Clause 47 agreed to.

Clause 48 [Openness]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 197.

Page 26, line 30, leave out ("which is available to").

The noble Lord said: As a general rule, in local government any document that is in the possession of the authority, unless it contains information which is either commercially sensitive or personally sensitive, is, by right, available to the public.

If I have correctly understood the drafting of Clause 48, it provides that any document in the possession of the authority and available to the assembly shall be available to the public. That puts the mayor of London in a unique situation. As I read it, if he holds documents which are not available to the assembly because he does not make them available, they are not available for publication. The consequence is that it is much more difficult for members of the public to discover and understand what advice the mayor might be receiving on particular issues. Information on planning and highways issues, and many other subjects, are of great interest to the general public and are highly contentious. The public will want to know what guidance the mayor is receiving and I believe that they are entitled to know that.

The purpose of Amendments Nos. 197 and 197A is to remove the exclusion so that documents held by the mayor are also available to the public. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

The noble Lord said that he was not clear about how the clause operated. I am not clear as to how his amendment would operate. I assume that it is intended to extend the rights of assembly members under Section 100F of the Local Government Act 1972 to inspect documents relating to any business to be transacted at a meeting of the assembly. As currently drafted, Clause 48(3) provides that this right to inspect documents applies only to documents available to the assembly. This means that assembly members will not have the right to inspect advice to the mayor. The amendment would allow assembly members to inspect documents which were in the possession of the GLA and the assembly. It is not certain whether it would in fact allow rights of inspection to all GLA documents, as I assume it is intended to do.

Amendment No. 197A would require the authority to make available for inspection on request any document in its possession which did not contain information defined as exempt or confidential under the terms to which the noble Lord referred.

The Government cannot accept either of these amendments. We have made it clear that the arrangements for access to information for the GLA are to be tailored to the separation of the executive and scrutiny functions within the authority. The provisions of the Bill are designed to provide private space for the mayor to consider policy options and to take decisions. This means that the mayor is being treated more as a Minister than as an equivalent to other local authority leaders, committee chairs or whatever.

We have done that consciously because the GLA is a unique form of city-wide government. We are separating the executive and scrutiny function and it is not structured like other local authorities. It therefore requires tailor-made mechanisms for accountability, and the Bill includes provision for the mayor to make a monthly report to the assembly setting out the decisions he has taken and so forth. However, it does not allow access to the advice from the officials of the authority to the mayor. Therefore, the approach is not identical to that for a traditionally structured local authority. It has more resonance with Whitehall and Westminster, and we believe that the executive power of the mayor requires the personal advice given to him to be outside the provisions of access to other GLA documents.

I expect that there will be some opposition to that provision, but it is intentional. In any case, I am sure that it is not one that the amendment corrects. I am working on the presumption that the amendment was intended to do so, in which case I shall have to oppose it.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I now understand why there is so much difficulty in making progress on the subject of open government. It seems to me that the sort of shadowy secrecy in which the Government indulge is being permitted to spread.

I have listened with interest to what the Minister has had to say. I accept that we are establishing a new type of authority with an entirely new way of working that will have an executive mayor who in some ways will be able to act in a similar fashion to a Minister of government. However, I would have thought that, although we are establishing a new authority, we could have moved the procedures with regard to openness forward in this regard.

I do not accept the Minister's response to these amendments. If they do not wholly achieve what I had set out to achieve, I shall have another go. We can take the matter no further this evening. If my amendments are faulty, as the Minister advises me they may be, it would not be wise to press them. We shall return to this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 197A not moved.]

Clause 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 [Proposals by the Assembly to the Mayor]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 197B:

Page 27, line 15, at end insert — ("() The Mayor shall take such steps as are necessary to implement any proposal submitted by the Assembly under subsection (1) above.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 197B. Clause 50 provides that, the Assembly may submit a proposal to the Mayor". My amendment adds that, The Mayor shall take such steps as are necessary to implement", such a proposal. I have no doubt that I shall be told by the Government that the assembly should not have the ability to bind the mayor in that way.

The point is that the mayor should be required to do something about it and not just say to the assembly, "That is very nice, thank you", and not even consider the matter. If that is so, why is it necessary to have Clause 50, which says that the assembly can submit a proposal to the mayor£ That seems to be the sort of commonsense thing that one would expect the assembly to be able to do. If the assembly cannot bind the mayor but can simply put a point to the mayor, that would not require a clause in the Bill.

Lord Whitty

I find it extraordinary that the exponents of the great Liberal traditions seem unable to grasp the concept of the separation of powers in the Bill. The noble Baroness and the Liberal Democrat Party adopt a logical position: they do not like the separation of powers. Once we have the separation of powers, we have to be logical about the matter, and that is the position of the Government.

The amendment of the noble Baroness does not say that the mayor should take seriously any proposals. It says that the mayor should implement such proposals. In effect, that turns the assembly into the executive arm of the authority. That is not the intention. Certainly we would expect the mayor to take them seriously and to give a considered response to them. That is not what the amendment says. It therefore cuts across the intention of the whole structure of the authority.

I understand that Clause 37(2)(c) needs to be read with this amendment. That indicates that the mayor must respond to assembly proposals. The fact that the mayor has to take the assembly seriously in such proposals is clearly written into legislation. But this provision would go far further than that and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

As I said when I moved the amendment, I knew that the proposition that the mayor should simply have to do what the assembly asks would not be attractive. I understand the separation of powers. That does not mean that we will not go on protesting about that separation.

I was glad to be referred to Clause 37(2)(c), but whether proposals have to be submitted under a particular section or simply submitted without the legislative provision is the point that I was making. However, we keep having the same debate as to how much it is necessary to show on the face of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50, agreed to.

Clause 51 [Power to require attendance at Assembly meetings]:

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 198:

Page 27, line 20, leave out (", (3), (4)").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 198 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 200, 200A and 201.

Clause 51 gives the assembly powers to summon persons into its presence to give evidence on various matters. This statutory power is unique in local government. No doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong on that point. The power is analogous to that inherently belonging to Parliament. Looking forward to Clause 54, we see there that the power is backed by severe criminal sanctions; that is, a fine of up to £5,000 and three months' imprisonment. Unlike in other spheres of local government, the assembly does not make most decisions and does not necessarily have access to offices, or the right to receive documents and explanations. Hence the assembly's access to information is restricted.

It is argued that there is therefore a need to allow the assembly to summon persons connected with the authority to give evidence and to produce documents. I should have thought that the place for the assembly to go for that information was the mayor, his officials and his office. However, the Government feel otherwise. So we find draconian powers, backed up by severe penalties affecting people who by any normal process would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the assembly.

Amendment No. 198 is a paving amendment to make way for the deletion of subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (3) catches any person who within the preceding three years had a contractual relationship with the authority or with a member of his staff. Subsection (4) catches anybody who has received a grant from the authority or a member of his staff.

The best way to illustrate the excessive nature of these provisions is to reduce them to a number of examples. Anyone having a contractual relationship with the authority could be any business any where in the EEC because of the obligations for open tendering across the EU. We could therefore have a firm in Greece, not within the jurisdiction of the British courts, being summoned before the assembly under threat of sanctions in the magistrates' court, which equally has no jurisdiction. We could even try to summon a clerk in the Greek firm who did not speak English. Similarly, this would be an opportunity for disgruntled employees—or, more likely, former employees—to create problems. Its scope is so wide that a sub-committee bent on empire building or its chairman bent on personal or political advancement could summon a wide range of witnesses irrespective of need or relevance simply to make a name for himself or themselves. We have only to look across the Atlantic to see what can happen when one has committees with untrammelled powers to subpoena witnesses. Simply put, the power is just too wide. The Government must take the provision back to the drawing board and produce something more practical and reasonable.

Similarly, we object to subsection (10). That exempts the mayor's two political advisers, paid for at the public expense, and his staff paid for by the taxpayer from having to give evidence to the assembly. I realise that there is an argument that if they could not give advice in confidence they would be inhibited in their work. But I repeat that these people are paid for by the council tax payers and that they should be directly answerable to the assembly. The staff of Ministers are not exempt from appearing before parliamentary committees, however distinguished their rank in the Civil Service. We only have to recall how the Cabinet Secretary himself, now the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, was put on the rack in an Australian court in 1986 and had to admit that he had been economical with the truth over the Spycatcher affair to see how even the most senior civil servants in the country can be called to give an account before a court with appropriate jurisdiction.

We seek to delete subsection (10). It is partially contradictory to Clause 59(4) and (5). These two subsections stipulate that any of the 10 members of the mayor's personal staff, other than his special advisers, must, if so required by the assembly, attend every routine monthly meeting of the assembly and answer any questions put to them. If they have to attend the routine meetings and answer questions, why should they not be required to attend special investigation meetings and answer questions? Conversely, how does subsection (10) prevent the assembly from asking awkward questions of the mayor's personal staff at the normal monthly meetings? Ministers themselves are answerable to select committees. Why should the mayor's advisers and staff not be answerable to the local taxpayers via the assembly? There is no reason or need to create an unaccountable elite.

Amendment No. 201 is simply a small drafting amendment to Clause 53. That clause states that the Secretary of State may by order prescribe the categories of information a person who is required to give evidence to the assembly may refuse to give and the categories of documents that he may refuse to produce. That may be helpful to a potential witness or it may not. Clause 54(3) confirms that a person is not obliged to answer questions or to produce documents to the assembly if he could refuse to do so in an ordinary court. That is quite right.

The purpose of our amendment is to make sure that any order made by the Secretary of State does not erode the right that a person has. It is arguable that by a convoluted trick from Clause 51(1) and Clauses 52 and 53 and Clause 54(3) the result is achieved without our amendment. To assist the layman who may be faced with a summons from the assembly, the addition of just four simple words makes it plain and avoids the journey that I have just described. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

These amendments are not acceptable to us. The assembly must be able to undertake the proper scrutiny of the actions of the mayor and of the staff of the authority. The categories of summonable organisations and individuals that we have identified in the Bill are those who will be responsible for either the allocation of the GLA's resources or their use. As such they must be able to be held to account by the authority to avoid abuse and to expose abuse.

As regards individuals or organisations which have had a contractual relationship with the authority or who have been paid a grant by it, they have a duty to explain whether or not they have fulfilled the contract, subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts. Individuals or bodies who might have been at fault where contracts have been let illegally or grants have been used for purposes other than that for which they were given might very well be unwilling to accept the assembly's invitation to meet them were it not backed by sanctions. That is why we have provided them in this clause.

If such persons or bodies could not be summoned, which is what the noble Baroness is proposing in the amendments, the assembly would be incapable of ensuring that the public funds for which it is responsible were not misused. However, the need for scrutiny does not need to extend to the scrutiny of the advice or political advice which the mayor receives, as we discussed when dealing with the previous amendment.

Amendment No. 201 would make the Secretary of State's order-making powers in Clause 53 subject to the provisions of Clause 54(3). Under Clause 53, the Secretary of State would be able to prescribe categories of information which someone summoned by the assembly could legitimately refuse to give. Clause 54(3) already exempts people who are summoned from having to give evidence to the assembly which they would be entitled to refuse were they in a court in England or Wales. As drafted, the provisions of Clause 53 could not override or affect the Clause 54 provisions and, therefore, do not need to be subject to them as proposed in the amendment. We believe that the assembly needs the powers set out in these clauses and that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.

10.45 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

Can the Minister tell the Committee how the political adviser will be accountable and held to account publicly?

Lord Whitty

I can tell the noble Baroness that it is the mayor who is publicly accountable, not his individual political advisers. It is the same situation as one has in Whitehall.

Baroness Blatch

I believe that the Minister misunderstood my question. I repeat: how is the political adviser to be held accountable publicly?

Lord Whitty

The role of a political adviser is to provide political advice to the mayor. The mayor is responsible for the actions taken, not the political adviser. Therefore, the legal adviser is in a different role from the rest of the staff of the authority.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

Before I express in full my disappointment in the Minister's answer, perhaps he could comment on another matter. Earlier I asked about Clause 51 which gives the assembly powers to summon persons into its presence to give evidence on various matters. The noble Lord may remember that I then leapt forward to Clause 54 and talked about the power being backed by severe criminal sanctions. I then returned to Clause 51 and said that I believed that that statutory power was unique to local government. I would like the Minister to comment on that aspect.

Lord Whitty

The noble Baroness is right to say that this is unique to local government, as indeed are the powers of the mayor and the authority.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I know of no other system whereby people can be called forward and then it is down to an assembly to decide the matter. People can end with fines of up to £5,000 or three months' imprisonment. I find this whole series of matters, galloping as it does from one to the other, to be totally unsatisfactory. If I may say so, it is extraordinarily late at night. The best that I can do at this stage is to say that we will take it away; but this is not a matter that will be dropped. We will return to it. This whole matter is absolutely shocking.

In passing, I have to make a further comment. This Bill grew like Topsy in the other place. Yet we have dealt with clause after clause which is not clear, especially those I spoke about earlier. The Minister kindly said that the Government will try to clarify the points raised, but it seems to me that this Bill has been extraordinarily badly drafted. I feel extremely sorry for both Ministers because they have to answer to this, but the fact remains that this is a shocking state of affairs. I feel that someone should take the matter up and deal with it in a much more appropriate manner. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 199:

Page 27, line 24, at end insert — ("() The Assembly may also require the Secretary of State, or any person who has within the three years prior to the date of the requirement been the Secretary of State, to attend proceedings of the Assembly for the purpose of explaining, and justifying any guidance or direction given by him under this Act.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 202. As we have discussed, the assembly can require the attendance of witnesses. Amendment No. 199 suggests that the Secretary of State should also be required to attend proceedings of the assembly to answer questions. The Secretary of State can, among other things, cap the authority's budget; give guidance governing the exercise of powers—and regard must be had to that guidance—and he can limit the authority's powers and national policies. The assembly has a scrutiny role.

From time to time when we try to widen the powers of the assembly we are accused of not understanding the principle of the separation of powers, but we appreciate the model that is being put forward. We believe that the assembly should have the opportunity to deal direct with the Secretary of State. I appreciate that questions may be asked of the Secretary of State in Parliament with regard to the powers that are exercised. However, I do not believe that that process would be adequate or appropriate in the case I am discussing. In a modern system of London government, where the Secretary of State will play such a large role in the authority, I suggest that there is no reason why he or she should not appear before it in order to answer questions.

I turn to Amendment No. 202. Under the Bill the Secretary of State may prescribe categories of information and documents which a person may refuse to provide to the assembly. Earlier today I asked how certain measures would comply with the forthcoming freedom of information legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, I believe, that he sought to reassure me on this issue. I was not in the slightest bit reassured by his comment, although I was not surprised by it; namely, that as the proposed legislation is weak in that almost anything can be exempted from its provisions, there is no inconsistency in this regard.

Amendment No. 202 seeks to require the Secretary of State to explain his reasons for issuing any order under this part of the Bill. I am aware that when my honourable friends in another place proposed a similar amendment they were considered to be silly. However, I do not think that these are silly points at all. These matters raise serious issues. I understand the argument about lines of accountability being blurred in that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. Although I understand that argument, I do not accept it as an argument against these amendments which permit no more than the asking of questions. Therefore I do not think that they involve a blurring of accountability or a breach of privilege that Members of Parliament would find offensive. I do not believe that I am coming anywhere near that.

We do not believe that powers should be retained at the centre when their dispersal is necessary. In this case the assembly members have direct knowledge of the situation. As I say, they are members of a scrutiny body and they should be able to ask questions of the Secretary of State direct. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I did not know that in the other place these two amendments that were spoken to so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were thought to be silly. However, we on these Benches will stand side by side in support of these so-called silly amendments.

When my noble friend Lady Blatch asked about political advisers, the Minister said that advice would be given to the mayor and he would be accountable for what he did as a result of following that advice. Several times during the course of this Bill we have asked whether the Secretary of State will be the mayor for London as he has taken upon himself so many powers that one wonders how independent the mayor will be.

If the Secretary of State is happy that members can be summoned before the assembly in this unique way—there is no reason why there should be such a power—and as the Minister tells us that the Government want the Bill to be modern, new and so on, the Secretary of State should be prepared to come before the assembly, if that is what the assembly wishes, to answer questions in the way he or she expects everyone else to.

Lord Whitty

I have to withdraw the accusation that the Liberal Democrats do not understand the separation of powers; they have a very innovative approach to the separation of powers. However, as the noble Baroness anticipates, to move down this road would be a blurring of the lines of responsibility. The Secretary of State is responsible for the powers conferred on him or her by Parliament. He or she is not responsible to the Greater London assembly. His powers do not emanate from the Greater London assembly but from the Palace of Westminster. It would be anomalous if he or she had to account for the use of those powers to an assembly which did not grant them and which has no authority over them.

Whether the Secretary of State or his representative might wish to give information to the assembly is an entirely different matter. But the question of accountability should be clear—it is to Parliament and not to the assembly part of the authority.

Baroness Hamwee

Of course the powers emanate from Parliament, but, given the way the Bill is framed, their exercise is pretty much courtesy of the Secretary of State. This is a serious issue and we may want to come back to it, in this form or another. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment Nos. 200 and 200A not moved.]

Clause 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 agreed to.

Clause 53 [Restriction of information]:

[Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 not moved.]

Clause 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 [Failure to attend proceedings etc]:

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 203:

Page 30, line 13, at end insert (", or (e) knowingly makes any statement which is false or misleading in a material manner").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 203 deals with an anomaly in the Bill, yet another omission of something that ought to be there. Clause 54(1) prescribes a list of offences in relation to a summons to appear before the assembly. Briefly they are: fails to attend a meeting; refuses to answer a proper question; refuses or fails to produce documents; alters or destroys any document. Curiously, omitted from the list of offences is a witness lying to the assembly in respect of a material matter.

The assembly has no power to make a witness testify under oath. Unless an offence is created, it will be better for a reluctant witness to go and lie, rather than refuse to go to the assembly. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My honourable friend the Minister for London agreed to consider this amendment when it was brought forward in another place. We thought then that it was unnecessary because it would be covered by the provisions of the Perjury Act 1911. Having taken further legal advice, we remain of that view. In those circumstances, I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I will agree to withdraw the amendment. At this stage, I am not happy or content that the matter falls within the Perjury Act and I shall take legal advice on it. There are so many mistakes in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 agreed to.

Clause 55 [The Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards]:

[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 205 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

11 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 206:

Page 30, line 25, at end insert — ("() The guidance shall provide that the standards to be observed by the Mayor shall be the equivalent of standards to be observed by Ministers of the Crown.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 208.

In dealing with the Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards, Amendment No. 206 proposes that in the case of the mayor the standards, shall be the equivalent of standards to be observed by Ministers of the Crown".

It might be said that, in the mayor's executive powers, the mayor has responsibilities that are arguably greater than those of Ministers of the Crown. At the very least, in a different context the mayor's responsibilities are arguably equivalent to those of Ministers. The electoral mandate that the mayor will have is much greater than that of Ministers.

Ethical standards will be important for the reputation of the authority, although I believe that generally it should be a matter for the authority itself to set them up. However, an amendment from these Benches to delete Clause 55 would be likely to be misunderstood. I therefore sought to avoid that by not tabling such an amendment.

We propose that the mayor should be subject to the ministerial code of conduct by the guidance providing equivalent standards. I hope that the Government may give us some comfort that those standards will be as stringent. The standards for assembly members, and indeed staff, should be as close as possible to those that apply to a local authority. We anticipate detailed provisions for local authorities coming down the track quite soon. Amendment No. 208 seeks to insert that new provision applying to assembly members and staff. In the current cultural, moral and legislative climate we are currently considering, through a joint Select Committee of this House and another place, the whole question of ethical standards. We expect legislation on that point very shortly. I do not see the need for any distinction other than a technical one. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

We support Amendment No. 206, in that our Amendment No. 207 is extremely similar.

Lord Whitty

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred directly to the fact that ethical standards in local government are being looked at in a wider context. It is our intention that, when any such Bill has been agreed by Parliament, the new ethical framework will apply to the GLA. In advance of that legislation, appropriate measures need to be included to ensure that the GLA operates to ethical standards.

The noble Baroness's amendment recognises the fact that the existing local government provisions are not directly well suited to the structure of the new authority, which will be based on the separation of powers. So an alternative approach is needed.

I agree with the noble Baroness's amendments in so far as they recognise that the mayor, as an individual elected to take executive decisions, will need different treatment from an assembly member. However, I do not agree that an exact parallel can be drawn between the office of mayor and a Minister of the Crown. After all, the mayor will be directly elected to take the decisions, whereas the Minister is elected to be a Member of Parliament and is then a member of a collective executive which takes individual decisions. Those in which a Minister, for example, might have an interest can be passed on to another Minister. The mayor is not in that position.

To base the provisions on the ministerial statutory code also involves problems. The ministerial code has no statutory force. It is up to the Prime Minister to write the code and enforce it. It would be slightly odd to use that code as the statutory basis for securing ethical standards in relation to the authority.

We shall be taking work forward to secure high ethical standards generally in local authorities in tandem with our other proposals to modernise local authorities. Thai is the most appropriate framework in which to establish ethical standards for this authority. Therefore, in advance of the new ethical framework, we will leave it for the Secretary of State to be able to issue guidance to the authority on a range of ethical matters. But in the end, the ethical framework for local authorities generally will need adaptation which will be applied to the authority as a whole.

Baroness Blatch

Is the noble Lord saying that the department and those advising it on the drafting of the Bill are incapable of defining what the ethical standards should be which should be upheld in the course of the establishment of the authority?

Lord Whitty

No. I am saying that it is a matter of guidance rather than something to be shown on the face of the Bill. That is partly because we shall be issuing a new ethical framework shortly to go into subsequent legislation.

Baroness Hamwee

I do not believe there is much between us on the point. I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 206A:

Page 30, line 27, at beginning insert ("disposal ").

The noble Baroness said: This is a more specific amendment relating to the mayor. It proposes that the guidance should deal not only with disclosure and registration of interests but also with the disposal of interests. I said in speaking to the last amendment that the mayor is in a particular and sensitive position. She or he will have to be extremely careful. Interests could quite easily arise in connection with transport contracts, with the whole issue of regeneration and. so on. Huge commercial interests will be involved in the exercise of the mayor's functions. I believe that the mayor must be careful not to put herself or himself in a position where there could be any questioning of a conflict of interest.

Unlike a Minister of the Crown, with the awarding of contracts the mayor is in an even more sensitive position. The current ministerial code issued by the Prime Minister provides for this in detail. It explains why Ministers must scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual or apparent conflict of interest. It deals with legal obligations, with the interests concerned, and makes the point by way of a general principle that the Minister should either dispose of a financial interest giving rise to an actual or perceived conflict or take all steps to prevent it.

I hope that we will have assurances from the Government that this particular but important point is in the minds of the Government in considering how to deal with the question of standards and perceptions. We must all be concerned that the new authority and its constituent parts are assisted in every way not to bring the authority into disrepute by perception, quite apart from whatever the reality may be. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

This amendment would add the disposal of interests to the list of matters that may be dealt with in the Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards. Clause 55 sets out the basic framework around which the ethical guidance will be structured. It could be more wide-ranging if, after consultation, that was felt to be appropriate. 'What we have sought to do in drafting this clause is simply to set out the essential features that the guidance will include—the bones on which we shall put the flesh.

As the noble Baroness is aware, we sought the views of the Neill Committee in relation to the handling of mayoral interests. The views that that committee expressed will be taken into account in the preparation of the guidance. That guidance will be made available in draft for consultation. This is a matter on which we wish thorough consultation to take place. The amendment could be seen as pre-empting that process as it would signal that the disposal of interests must be included in the guidance when that might not be the conclusion we reached following those consultations.

I reassure the noble Baroness that the guidance would not be precluded by the current wording of Clause 55 from including reference to the disposal of certain interests, or the creation of blind or bare trusts. But, as I have explained, more detailed consideration of this particular matter is needed. As the noble Baroness said, the handling of mayoral interests is a very sensitive area. All of these issues are to be taken into account in preparing the guidance, and we shall consult on the: draft. In the circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

Perhaps the Minister can inform the Committee when the draft is likely to be available for consultation.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I am unable to do so at the moment, but I shall write to the noble Baroness and ensure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, is given a copy of that letter.

Baroness Hamwee

The Minister's response is helpful. The noble Baroness suggested that this amendment would pre-empt consultation. It seems to me that the whole of Clause 55(2) on that basis pre-empts consultation. It is perhaps a little late at night to pursue this further, but I hope that we are able to see that draft and that consultation will be well under way before Report stage. I am sure that all Members of the Committee want to ensure that the public understand our concern that impeccable propriety must be exercised in this unusual situation.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I am sure that the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that I am able to confirm that the draft will be available before Report stage.

Baroness Hamwee

I am grateful for that indication. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 207:

Page 30, line 36, at end insert— ("() In addition to the matters which may be included in the guidance issued under subsection (2) the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the Assembly members in accepting office and the members of the Authority's staff in accepting employment shall be deemed to agree to be bound by the "Seven Principles of Public Life" set out in the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life published in May 1995 and this obligation shall be specifically incorporated in any contract of employment.").

The noble Baroness said: I should like to move Amendment No. 207 and speak also to Amendment No. 212, but I can be extremely brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has dealt with a number of matters and in response the Minister has informed the Committee that guidance is to be available before Report stage. Clause 55 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance on ethical standards to the mayor, assembly members and the authority's staff. Subsection (2) prescribes the contents of that guidance in very general terms. They are certainly not objectionable in themselves. Paragraph (e) includes the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe model codes of conduct.

However, the amendment seeks to ensure that the code of conduct includes the Nolan principles. We know not what the Secretary of State has in mind and we must wait until we see the guidance. However, we want to ensure that the standards are the minimum that should be applied; in other words, Nolan.

Amendment No. 212 relates to Clause 59 which set out the terms of employment of the mayor's personal staff and special advisers. All that our amendment does is to require the Nolan principles to be included as those minimum standards. I beg to move.

11.15 p.m.

Lord Whitty

Amendment No. 207 would require the mayor and assembly, in accepting office, and members of the authority staff, in accepting employment, to agree to be bound by the seven principles. This obligation would be included in any contract of employment made with the authority. Amendment No. 212 would require the mayor's 10 personal appointments also to be bound by the seven principles.

I have some doubts as to whether this is the best way to proceed. The GLA will in due course be subject to the new ethical framework for local authorities, as we explained a couple of amendments ago. That legislation will essentially give effect to the Government's formal response to the Third Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in Local Government. It is our view that the ethical arrangements for the GLA should be firmly grounded in our wider proposals for local government generally.

Secondly, the principles in themselves have no statutory force in relation to any local authority or any public body. It would not be appropriate to incorporate them into law or into contracts of employment in respect of the GLA alone. Of course we anticipate that the ethics guidelines would be based very much on the framework already set out in the Nolan report and on the Government's response to it. But it is important that arrangements for the GLA are consistent with our proposals for local authorities more generally.

In relation to Amendment No. 212, this would require the seven principles to be written into the contracts of the mayor's two political advisers and 10 other staff. These mayoral appointments will all be members of the authority's staff under the terms of the Bill and will therefore be covered by the Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards. In addition, noble Lords will wish to note that Clause 60 applies Section 117 of the Local Government Act 1972 to the GLA. This makes provision for the disclosure by employees of the authority, which will include both the 10 and the two, of interests in contracts and so on.

I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness that we are planning to meet what I think is the intention behind these amendments, but we need to do so in a way that is consistent with the ethical framework which we will be advancing for local authorities in general.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I should have thought that there would have been statutory force if they agree to these terms when they come into the ambit of the thing. I do not understand the Minister's answer. He says that that is not done normally in local government. There are all sorts of things that the Government are wanting to do in this Bill that are not done in local government, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But certainly at this time of night I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 208 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 209:

Page 30, line 39, at end insert— ("() The Secretary of State shall publish the guidance issued pursuant to subsection (1) and any variation thereof he may issue from time to time.").

The noble Baroness said: This small amendment probably needs the least explanation of any that we have dealt with today. The Secretary of State is going to issue guidance to the mayor, the assembly and the staff about the ethical standards they will be required to follow. We want them to be published and put in the public domain so that the residents of Greater London can see that they are being complied with. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

It is of course important that the Secretary of State's guidance should be in the public domain, but it is not necessary to make specific provision for this. When the Secretary of State issues the guidance he will be publishing it. The guidance will be publicly available and the Secretary of State will of course ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place so that the guidance is widely disseminated. For example, departmental publications are made available on the Internet. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55 agreed to.

Clause 56 [Appointment]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 210:

Page 30. line 42, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("political advisers and other members of staff whose aggregate remuneration and expenses in each year shall not exceed the amount provided for in the consolidated budget agreed pursuant to Part of this Act.").

The noble Baroness said: Clause 56 provides for the mayor to be able to appoint not more than two people as his political advisers and not more than 10 other members of staff. My amendments suggests that rather than having a limit by numbers there should be a budgetary limit. At the very least, I wonder aloud whether the issue is not as regards the cost in aggregate of the mayor's staff, including political advisers. Of course, if a budgetary limit is set, it will be for the mayor to decide how to use that budget.

If one deals only with numbers, anomalies may arise; for example, the mayor's appointees may be paid well out of line with other staff working for the authority. That would be inappropriate. However, I am puzzled as to why the Government feel it necessary to impose a numerical limit on this when the issue may simply be one of cost. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

In turn, I was rather puzzled by the amendment. As the noble Baroness explained, it limits the number of political and personal advisers in terms of aggregate remuneration rather than numbers. It deletes all reference to number.

The intention of having a limit by number is to ensure that there is not an over-balance of staff in relation to the rest of staff, including very senior members of staff, who will be appointed by the assembly and not by the mayor. The two plus 10 will be appointed by the mayor, although they will be authority staff.

As it stands, the amendment ignores that need to ensure a balance and, therefore, a limitation on numbers. Therefore, in an extreme situation it is open for the mayor to appoint 100 members of the staff so long as he pays them significantly below the national minimum wage or, indeed, they were people with a private income who did not need to be paid at all. That is not a sensible approach.

As regards the budget figure, the noble Baroness must recall that the budget is proposed by the mayor. The assembly needs a two-thirds majority to overturn the mayor. Therefore, the assembly could do so only if the mayor provided a profligate budget and if it could garner a two-thirds majority. On the other hand, if the mayor were in a position that he needed so many political advisers because he had so little political support within the assembly, the assembly could severely limit the amount provided in the budget for the remuneration and expenses of the staff so that, in fact, it would not be possible to appoint two plus 10 staff. The latter would be more difficult to achieve because of the role of the chief administrative officer who must ensure that both the mayor and assembly have adequate resources to fulfil their functions.

Moreover, some flexibility is required in relation to the budget once it is set. If we leave it as it is so that there is a limitation on the numbers that the mayor can appoint, it will preserve the balance in terms of numbers and within the budget-making process. It is then for the chief administrative officer to ensure that the budget is spent for the purposes for which it is dedicated.

This is a misplaced amendment which would not achieve the noble Baroness's intention. Therefore, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch

Because Clause 46 is not disapplied, does that mean that this function can he delegated to another member of the assembly?

Lord Whitty

Which function?

Baroness Blatch

The function of Clause 56.

Lord Whitty

I am not sure that that relates directly to the amendment. Under Clause 46, if there is not a disapplication, functions can be delegated to a single member of the assembly. But the amendments to which we were referring concern the appointment by the mayor of members of his personal staff, not the power in Clause 46.

Baroness Blatch

We were indeed talking about the mayor and his ability to appoint staff, but I was saying that if Clause 46 is not disapplied the mayor can delegate this to a single member of the assembly.

Lord Whitty

The mayor cannot delegate it. The assembly can delegate it to a single member. But we are talking, in relation to the amendment, about the mayor's power to appoint, not the assembly's role in appointments of the rest of the staff. Of course, the assembly does have the authority to appoint staff, and could theoretically delegate that to a single member. So I suppose the noble Baroness is right, if that is what she is driving at.

Lord Tope

The essential point that my noble friend Lady Hamwee was making in moving the amendment was that the issue here, surely, is one of the total expenditure on such staff, rather than their actual number. The Minister seems to be suggesting that it is otherwise. I would have thought that it was the amount of public money spent which was crucial, not how the mayor chooses to divide up the amount of money allocated to him. That is the crucial point we are driving at here.

The Minister seems to be suggesting that the actual number is more important than the cost. If the mayor chooses to pay below the national minimum wage—and, unless it has escaped my notice, I do not think it is proposed that he shall be exempt from that legislation—he will be caught by the legislation, just like any other employer. Therefore, that does not apply. If he chose to have people working for him who were so rich that they did not need to be paid, I imagine they would be volunteers and not staff. So I think that is a rather spurious argument.

I should like the Minister to clarify what is meant in the clause. It refers very specifically to two persons and to not more than 10 other members of staff. It does not say "full-time equivalent." Is this legislation actually prohibiting the mayor from, for instance, appointing 20 part-time members of staff equivalent to 10 full-time members? It appears to be so. Is he not able to have four or five part-time political advisers equivalent to two full-time?

The Minister seems to be concerned that numbers matter more than cost. The wording here is very specific—two persons and 10 other members of staff—so it would seem that the mayor is not able to employ a greater number of people part-time, but must restrict himself to full-time employees. If that is the case, can the Minister tell us why the Government wish to restrict to such a great extent the individual liberty of the mayor to determine his most personal staff?

Lord Whitty

I would have thought that the provision related to full-time equivalents, but it seems that my previous understanding needs to be revised, and that it applies to 10 members of staff and two political advisers. I think I had better clarify that to the noble Lord in writing.

However, the point is that the numbers of staff are the limitation. The remuneration, of course, has to be dealt with in the budget. In relation to political advisers, it is also affected by the Secretary of State's ability to prescribe the maximum limit for political advisers to political groups within local authorities. I believe that we are dealing with subjects related to that in the next amendment.

The aim is not primarily to determine the level of remuneration; it is to determine that the mayor shall have only a small level of personal staff. The rest of the staff will not be political appointments, and the responsibility for appointing them will be a matter for the assembly. The budget can be altered by the assembly, but only by a two-thirds majority, should the mayor over-provide on remuneration. I think that the issue in certain circumstances might be remuneration. The second main issue is how many personal staff, outside the normal practice of appointment for local authorities the assembly will exert, can the mayor make by himself. We are limiting that by number. That will he the general expectation: that we shall limit it by number.

11.30 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

Before the noble Baroness decides what she will do about the amendment, I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about whether or not it could be part-time workers; and even more interested by the answer that the Minister gave. Wearing a different hat, I lead for the Opposition on the Employment Relations Bill. In that Bill several clauses make sure that part-time workers should not in any way be discriminated against or dealt with differently from full-time workers. The Greater London Authority Bill seems an extraordinary Bill.

Lord Whitty

My initial reaction to the noble Lord's question was along those lines. That is why I need to clarify that aspect of my response.

Baroness Blatch

It was not clear whether the answer referred to full or part-time. Is it 10 full or part-time personnel?

Lord Whitty

As prescribed here, it is 10 personal appointments and two political advisers. There is a total of 12. The noble Lord asked whether the number can be broken down into full-time equivalents and therefore more part-time than 12. My initial reaction would be, yes. I think that the noble Baroness's reaction would be yes. My latest understanding, however, indicates that there is a different answer. I had better clarify that to noble Lords.

Lord Tope

I understand the position in which the Minister finds himself. I await the letter with interest, as I am sure we all shall do. From reading the provision, my understanding—he has confirmed it—is that it relates to the number two and the number 10 and how many hours those people work is a matter to be determined between them and the mayor. But he can have no more than 10 whether they work for two hours or 42 hours a week.

If the Minister writes to me confirming that that is what is meant, I hope that he will also tell me why the Government feel it necessary so to restrict the mayor in determining how he disposes of the total hours available to him. This seems ludicrously restrictive on a mayor. If we are going to do this by number, surely the number is two full-time equivalent, and 10 full-time equivalent. To say to the mayor, "If you are going to get your number's worth, you must employ full-time staff whether or not that is sensible", is ludicrous. The Minister has taken the point. I look forward with considerable interest to receiving the letter from him, and the subsequent amendments.

Baroness Hamwee

The Minister's point about needing a two-thirds majority of assembly members to overturn the mayor's budget was telling. It is a point at which we shall arrive on Monday. Our concerns about the majority needed to make any alterations to the budget are amply confirmed by the warnings tonight of the difficulty of doing so.

The point highlighted by my noble friend and supported by others is important. On the question of the minimum wage, we referred to national policy. Clearly, that would apply. However, I add to my noble friend's points that in a modern authority one would want employers to be able to encourage, for instance, job shares. That might be desirable. I, too, look forward to the amendments. And if they are not forthcoming from the Government, they will be forthcoming from these Benches. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 56 agreed to.

Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.

Clause 59 [Terms and conditions of employment]:

[Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 not moved.]

Clause 59 agreed to.

Clauses 60 to 66 agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 212ZA.

After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—

EXERCISE OF ORDER-MAKING POWERS

(" . Any power conferred by this Part on a Minister of the Crown to make an order which has not been exercised before 1st May 2004 shall become null and void.").

The noble Baroness said: This is what one might call the sunset clause, moved rather after sunset, but I shall not spend long tonight on this point.

We have talked a great deal about the control exercised by central government in relation to many aspects of the new authority. We have previously made the point that trust between the different spheres is very important. That is a term which my noble friend tells me is used in certain European contexts to avoid any notion of a hierarchy by reference to tiers. I referred on Monday to the report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which concerned rebuilding trust between the two spheres of government. The constraints on the exercise of powers also tend to constrain success.

If the Government are concerned that they may be creating a monster, a creature that will get out of control, then they should know fairly soon whether it is necessary to retain powers in central government. I accept that the example of the GLC may be quoted back at me. We, on these Benches, have always felt that there were other methods that could have been used to deal with the GLC rather than abolition.

We propose that the sun should go down on the Secretary of State's powers if he does not exercise them, on a power by power basis. We propose that if any given power is not exercised by May 2004, immediately prior to the second election of the mayor and members of the assembly, then that power should disappear. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

The noble Baroness has been consistent in claiming that the Secretary of State's powers in the Bill are excessive, and I understand her view. However, we contend differently. We believe that the Secretary of State needs certain reserve powers, and although some powers accorded to the Secretary of State are transitional, the bulk of the powers are reserve powers to be used in exceptional circumstances.

There is no logical reason why those reserve powers, if they are not exercised in the term of office of the first mayor, should be unnecessary in the term of office of the second mayor, or the mayor's second term, depending on circumstances.

We consider that a proper balance is struck in the Bill in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State, which are mainly reserve powers. Apart from the powers which relate to the setting up of the authority in its early days, we consider that the powers we have built into the Bill should apply throughout the period of whichever mayor is elected henceforth.

We need a balance. We are not giving total autonomy to Greater London; nor are we totally. laying down from the centre what a Greater London Authority should do. We are giving it a fair degree of flexibility and freedom, subject to reserve powers. That seems to be the correct and sensible constitutional balance which does not run out on 1st May 2004. If it is right now, there is no obvious reason why it should be wrong on 2nd May in five years' time.

Baroness Hamwee

I confess that I would have been surprised if I had received any different answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.