Greater London Authority Bill

HL Deb 28 June 1999 vol 603 cc97-166

8.41 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 80.

[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 223A to 223D:

Page 46. line 15, leave out from ("sections") to ("calculations") in line 17 and insert (" 70, 71 and 73 to 75 above and Schedule 6 to this Act and sections 47 and 48 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 would be different from the last relevant").

Page 46, line 20, leave out ("sections") and insert ("provisions. () In subsection (5) above, "the last relevant calculations" means the last calculations made by the Authority in relation to the year in accordance with—

1. (a) sections 70 to 75 above and sections 47 and 48 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, or
2. (b) sections 70, 71 and 73 to 75 above and Schedule 6 to this Act and sections 47 and 48 of that Act.").

Page 47, line 11, at end insert ("under section 73(3)(b) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (in relation to item P1) or under section 74(5)(b) of that Act (in relation to item P2)").

Page 47, line 15, leave out from ("with") to end of line 17 and insert ("the appropriate Greater London provisions in making the calculations. () For the purposes of subsection (11) above, 'the appropriate Greater London provisions" means—

1. (a) in the case of calculations required to be made in accordance with sections 70 to 75 above and sections 47 98 and 48 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, those provisions; and
2. (b) in the case of calculations required to be made in accordance with sections 70, 71 and 73 to 75 above and Schedule 6 to this Act and sections 47 and 48 of that Act, those provisions.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 81 [Provisions supplemental to section 80]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 224:

Page 47, line 25, leave out ("35") and insert ("15").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is very short, very brief and very simple. It seeks to change the number "35" to "15". Before dinner we had a considerable debate around the question of the funding of the Metropolitan Police and the procedure to be followed in the event that the Secretary of State advised that the mayor's proposals were not adequate and that the mayor should do something about it. He is given a considerable period of time to do something about it. We do not think that that period of time is necessary. We think he should perfectly well be able to do it in much lesser time. After all, if he is a competent mayor he will have all the details of the Greater London Authority Bill at his fingertips, so to speak, and he will know what is and what is not possible and that if adjustments can be made he will be able to make them. For the peace of mind of the people of London, that prolonged period of time should be diminished. The amendment seeks to do just that. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

This amendment would require the GLA to make substitute calculations in 15 days rather than 35 days. We believe that this is too short. The GLA will have to follow the procedure set out in Schedule 6, which involves both the mayor and the assembly. It is essential that any changes to the budget are considered carefully, especially where cuts are being made, as might be the case here.

In general, when a local authority is designated and has to set a new budget requirement it is expected to do so in 21 days. To insist that the GLA, which has to involve both the mayor and the assembly in the process, completes its substitute calculations in a shorter time is unrealistic.

There is no prospect of any gap in funding for the MPA unless the GLA failed to make substitute calculations within the 35-day period. After receiving a direction, the mayor will continue to receive grant income from central government and council tax income from billing authorities as usual. Once the substitute calculations have been made, income from billing authorities will be on the basis of the substitute rather than the original calculations. It is only if the GLA does not meet the deadline that it will cease to receive income from billing authorities. So reducing the deadline to 15 days would not reduce the risk of a shortfall in funding for the police. It would have the opposite effect.

The GLA will, in any case, wish to complete these substitute calculations as quickly as possible as it may need to adjust its spending plans or rebill the local taxpayers. Therefore I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I listened to the remarks of the noble Baroness in response to the amendment with some fascination. She seems to be following the view that all things are possible in the best of all possible worlds.

We are facing a situation in which there is already a problem. Unless one actually imposes some need for expedition on the system of amendment, if it is required as a result of a difference of opinion between the mayor and the Secretary of State over the police budget, then, despite what the noble Baroness said, there could be difficulties. I accept that it is perfectly true that there could be difficulties after 15 days if an agreement was not reached. That would apply whatever the time limit suggested on the face of the Bill might be. The point about the 15 days is that it would bring the decision right back so that it was well within the current financial year and well within the current funding arrangements of the police. The proposals on the face of the Bill begin to take the decision day further and further away from the original budgetary proposals. More significantly, it brings it closer and closer towards the end of the financial year when the problems could really begin to rise.

I have heard what the noble Baroness said—I shall study Hansard with care—but I do not think that her explanation has gone to the core of the problem. We shall come back to the issue at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 224A:

Page 47, line 44, leave out ("to 75 above") and insert (", 71 and 73 to 75 above and Schedule 6 to this Act").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 82 [Emergencies and disasters]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 224B:

Page 48, line 23, leave out from ("year") to end of line 26.

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 224B I shall speak also to Amendment No. 224C. These are minor amendments. The first amendment deletes Clause 82(2)(c), which is not necessary and is a relic from an earlier draft of the clause. Amendment No. 224C corrects a minor error in Schedule 6. It replaces a reference to the existing capping legislation with a reference to the relevant provision in the new reserved powers under the Local Government Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Procedure for making of substitute calculations by the Authority]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 224C:

Page 201, line 39, leave out from ("section") to end of line 40 and insert (" 81 of this Act or section 52K or 52V of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.").p

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 224C formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 224D not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 224E

Page 202, line 18, at end insert—

("Publication

.—(1) This paragraph applies where any substitute calculations are made in accordance with this Schedule.

(2) Where this paragraph applies, the Mayor shall as soon as practicable publish a document containing the substitute calculations.

(3) In this paragraph "relevant document" means any document required to be published under sub-paragraph (2) above.

(4) A copy of each relevant document shall be kept available for the appropriate period by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge at the principal offices of the Authority at reasonable hours.

(5) A copy of any relevant document, or any part of a relevant document, shall be supplied to any person on request during the appropriate period for such reasonable fee as the Mayor may determine.

(6) In this paragraph "the appropriate period" in the case of any document is the period of six years beginning with the date of publication of the document pursuant to this paragraph:").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 224E formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 83 agreed to. Clause 84 agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 224F:

Before Clause 85, insert the following new clause—

("CHAPTER IA BORROWING POWERS GLA BORROWING POWERS

.—(l) The Greater London Authority shall by virtue of this section have the power to borrow money.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not intervene in decisions taken under subsection (1) above.

(3) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance on prudent levels of borrowings for the Authority.

(4) The guidance may include an indicative limit on borrowings which shall take account of—

1. (a) the need for prudent on-going debt management;
2. (b) specific capital projects proposed by the Authority; and
3. (c) the total stock of the debt of the Authority.

(5) The guidance issued by the Secretary of State shall be published after discussions with the Mayor, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountants and the Authority's auditor.

(6) If the budget proposed by the Mayor, and agreed by the Assembly, requires higher borrowings than the indicative limit in the Secretary of State's guidance, an Assembly vote shall take place with a two thirds majority of members voting required for the higher level of debt to be approved.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 224F and at the same time I shall speak also to Amendment No. 225D, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, to which have also put my name. These amendments deal with borrowing powers on the part of the authority. The Bill allows borrowing only with very considerable constraints, using the system of basic and supplementary credit approvals. These are very closely linked with the budgets of individual functional bodies.

I do not believe there can be any dispute that some of the functions of the GLA will be very capital intensive. For this reason, we think it is important to ensure that the GLA has adequate powers to invest. We prefer an approach which looks at the authority's overall budget, including, and because of, the revenue effects on the taxpayers. 'We believe that the GLA should have a general power to borrow.

We are prepared to accept that the Secretary of State should have a role, though not the only role, in this, and our proposed clause provides that the GLA shall have the power to barrow without the intervention in decisions by the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State might issue guidance as to the levels of borrowing, including an indicative limit on borrowing to take account of the various matters set out in the draft clause.

We provide for publication of the guidance after discussions with the mayor and with other bodies, and we also suggest that, if the budget proposed by the mayor requires a higher borrowing than the indicative limit to which I have referred, then an assembly vote on the basis of a two-thirds majority will be required for the higher level of debt to be approved. This is all part of the GLA being able to determine its own strategic priorities. It is a matter a general principle for us that, as we have said several times in the course of this Bill, authorities should be able to take their own decisions about financial matters. That would include managing their budgets in both revenue and capital aspects.

If the GLA is to succeed with its important and onerous duties, many of which will require investment, then it should be able to take the decisions which are so closely related with carrying out its functions—that is, how to carry them out and how to ensure that the funding for the investment is there. That is why we have proposed this widely-worded amendment.

Amendment No. 225D, to which I have already referred, is. I admit from these Benches, a fall-back position. But it is one to which I am very happy to speak to tonight. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, is sad not to be here this evening but he is abroad. This amendment has come from the "stable" of London First, representing London's businesses. I believe it is very telling that it is London's employers who are so very vocally concerned with investment in public transport. The clause provides that the GLA can issue a loan instrument secured only on the revenue stream from new charges and levies: that is, from prospective revenue.

We believe that this amendment is something of a test of the Government's credibility in what they say about hypothecation in the context of this Bill. It is vital that Londoners see the spending effects of their payments and see what they will be paying by way of congestion and parking charges, assuming that the provisions proposed are implemented. They will also see how their money can be put to good use for investment in public transport without a long wait.

The ability to invest future income streams would, to our mind, be helpful—indeed probably vital—to ensure the success of what are undoubtedly going to be difficult policies to bring into effect. However, if the public are to be taken along with proposed new policies which will be the subject of very considerable debate and are likely in some quarters to meet considerable resistance, then the carrot of better public transport must be there at least at the same time as the stick of the charges.

Many of the most immediate improvements which the GLA will wish to put into effect through its functional bodies are likely to involve relatively small-scale expenditure—expenditure which may be able to be financed directly from revenues such as bus priority measures, measures for cyclists and so on. We will come to the details of these schemes later but, as the Committee will be aware, there is a need for capacity improvements on the London Underground. These, as we have already discussed, are likely to be beyond the scope of public/private partnership agreements. That is quite apart from how one deals with the need for investment before PPP bites: contributions to investment in better commuter rail services, improved interchanges, more radical bus and intermediate transport schemes, and so on.

This amendment anticipates future revenues, not with a profligate approach but with a sensible one. Without the ability to borrow outside the Treasury controlled total, either the investment will not be additional investment—and the views of the public on additionality will be very important to the success of this scheme—or the revenue will be able to be spent only on a pay-as-you-go basis, and that will very considerably limit what can be achieved. Having spoken enthusiastically about Amendment No. 225D, I commend Amendment No. 224F to the Committee.

Lord Berkeley

Perhaps I may intervene briefly to speak to Amendment No. 225D in the names of the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness's remarks. The principles behind the amendment are certainly worth considering. It seems that the main revenue of Transport for London will be parking and road user charges. It will probably take a number of years before those can be implemented. If the proposed improvements to public transport cannot begin until the revenue starts to flow in, the carrot and stick approach that the Government have been so keen to put forward—in other words, giving people an alternative to cars—will become very difficult. There will be no improvements, in terms of bus lanes and so on, for a very long time. If we take the example of the Jubilee Line or the World Squares' proposal for Trafalgar Square and the area outside this House, we see that these projects take a great deal of time.

I am not convinced that this amendment is necessarily the right one. However, I should like an assurance that cash will be forthcoming from some source—which must be the Government—in the interim period. The record of the past 10 years is not particularly good, especially under the previous government.

Many surveys have indicated that people who pay charges or taxes for motoring related activities would be happier to pay more if they knew that the money would be allocated to transport expenditure—it is to be hoped public transport. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say that, if the amendment is not acceptable, the Government will find some extra money to fill the gap between the revenue coming in and the need for the expenditure to begin. I look forward to my noble friend's reply.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support Amendment No. 225D, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Didgemere and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the Benches opposite.

We would encourage the Government to listen to the principle of Amendment No. 225D with great care, and to act upon it if at all possible. This may not be the precise amendment that is required to meet the needs of the situation. In any event, there is a particular problem in this area. We have not yet reached the point in the Bill where we might approve possible charges. However, the hypothecation period for the application of those charges is only 10 years. It might be extremely difficult to have the Greater London Authority issuing a loan instrument secured only on those revenues if there were not an assurance that that hypothecation would continue and that, let us say, the revenues raised in London and for London might be filched by a different government department for other purposes.

I have no doubt that in that situation the Government might argue that that was for the greater good. But Londoners would have some difficulty in following that argument. The Government would have even greater difficulty in persuading Londoners that it was appropriate. That obstacle exists. The time may come when we shall be able to do something about it. But from the point of view of using that revenue stream as a capital resource, the 10-year limit is a positive embarrassment.

That said, we support the principle of using that revenue stream as the base on which a capital sum might be raised for the future which would permit major improvements to London's transport system, without wishing in any way to specify what those improvements might be. My guess is that we could all think of 10 different improvements that we should like to see and believe are worth funding. Around this Committee there would probably be not 10 projects but 60—and that is being moderately unambitious.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, of London First, has wide support from London business and commerce. That is not to say that that automatically makes it right. But it does mean that there is a wide degree of public assent to the principle behind the amendment. I urge it upon the Government.

With Amendment No. 224F, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is in the business of once again enunciating one of her dreams. The dream is unexceptionable; we should all love to see that ideal state. But the problem is—and the Minister will undoubtedly check me if I am wrong—that at the end of the day the Treasury stands in and is the guarantor of any debts, particularly in a capital field, on the part of a public authority—which include all local authorities and the Greater London Authority. If the Treasury stands in as guarantor, much as I regret it, the Treasury will inevitably have its finger in the pie and its say in what happens. That has to be accepted as unavoidable.

I should prefer a situation in which local authorities and the Greater London Authority stood on their own feet without the Treasury as guarantor. That would make for a much more exciting ride for local authorities. If that were the situation, local authorities would have to behave in a totally responsible way. If they did so, this country, and the world, would be much better for it. But, unfortunately, for better or worse—in this case, it is for worse—that is not the situation. I share the dream of the noble Baroness and wish that we could remove the Treasury from these matters. I would do anything to support the noble Baroness if that was the proposal. However, I do not think that such an amendment would be appropriate for this Bill. Therefore, I cannot support Amendment No. 224F, but it gives me great pleasure to support Amendment No. 225D.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

I hope that my noble friend the Minister can answer the following simple point. My understanding is that if the GLA has a good case for capital borrowing, it can apply to the Secretary of State for credit clearance. That is exactly the way in which all other local authorities operate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did not advance a case as to why the GLA should be treated differently from any other local authority. That is the crux of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. fantasised about greater independence being given to local authorities. We all share that fantasy. I remember that it was his party which, when in government, took away a good deal of that independence. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness must explain to the Committee why the GLA is different from other local authorities in this respect.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

Perhaps I may draw a lesson from the recent past where the Government have gone through hoops and loops to get out of a particular bind. I refer to the housing stock of many authorities. They were unable to borrow the money needed to make substantial repairs. It is not appropriate to go into the details this evening. The Minister will be aware that to get round it the Government suggested to local authorities that, rather than borrow more money, they should form local housing companies. There may be something to be said for such bodies because in that way tenants have a greater say. Primarily, however, local authorities were forced down that road because they were not allowed to borrow money for the repairs which everyone agreed were necessary to make capital improvements to housing stock. If we look at that lesson, we see that my noble friend's amendment should be more than a dream. Drawing on history, if we do not allow this kind of borrowing, eventually we run into problems that must be resolved in a less than appropriate manner.

Lord Whitty

I recognise the need to engage in early capital projects, particularly in the area of transport, and therefore some of the matters that lie behind the concerns of London First. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, intends to pursue this matter at a later stage as he cannot be here tonight. Therefore, I need to place on record for any future debate—although I hope that it will not be pursued tonight—the position of the Government.

I do not regard this matter as being wholly dreamland. It is fascinating to note that in this matter the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are in the same territory. We consider it important that the GLA is not treated differently from other local authorities. I should like to distinguish between the two amendments. I take first the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. That would give the GLA power to borrow money which would be restrained only through the guidance of the Secretary of State. The other would be specifically a loan instrument secured against revenues under the road-user charging scheme. Both cut across the Government's clear commitment that the GLA should be subject to the local government finance regime. I believe that the Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of these amendments should provide an answer to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby as to why that should be so. All local authorities use the current system of credit approval to borrow. Their expenditure through borrowing increases public expenditure and, ultimately, exposes the Treasury. Our aim is to ensure that borrowing by the GLA is subject to the same system of control as applies in other areas.

In response to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the GLA and any other authority can approach the Government for borrowing to be authorised by credit approvals. Further approvals can be sought from the Secretary of State or the mayor, in so far as he has power to make allocations. There is, therefore, provision for capital expenditure to be undertaken. We have also provided for the unique nature of the GLA in two important ways: first, by creating a special system of credit approval, which recognises explicitly the particular role of the mayor to produce a capital spending plan through which he approaches the whole of capital spending priorities across all the four functional bodies; and, secondly, in the production of the plan. Clearly there is an important need for the mayor to be able to tackle many of the problems of London's crumbling infrastructure, not least in transport. It will be important that the Secretary of State is able to view positively any proposals by the mayor for investment but within the total system of local government finance as we understand it.

It is also true, to complicate matters slightly further, that we announced in July a review of the local government capital finance system. We are looking at alternative arrangements for regulating borrowing as compared with existing arrangements which may be unnecessarily restrictive in some cases. One of the options being looked at is to allow authorities to borrow subject only to limits relating to the level of debt and to the guidance on prudent levels which underlies the noble Baroness's amendment. However, we are looking at that and a number of other options in this review. In the interim it is not appropriate that we authorise an entirely new and different regime for the GLA.

It is true that in addition to the ordinary credit approvals the GLA and the functional bodies will have a number of options to raise money to meet their capital spending needs, including transport. They could work with the private sector in relation to PFIs. Any deals which meet the PFI rules would not count against borrowing, and such deals could be established on the basis of expected revenues. We have also made clear that those authorities with innovative local transport plans will in effect get a larger share of existing resources in the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement.

It is also open to the GLA and functional bodies, where they are clear as to the future income, to issue bonds. A bond issued by one of those bodies would count on the public sector borrowing requirement and it would need to be secured against all the revenues of the authority and not a particular identified revenue scheme. A bond issue would, frankly, be more expensive than if the Government borrowed the money. In practice, in recent years local authorities have rarely used the bond route as it is cheaper to borrow from the public works loan. Nevertheless, that option is also open to them given adequate returns for the investment.

Therefore, a number of instruments are available to the GLA even within the current regime to finance early transport and other capital projects. But the general system of local government finance must be, subject to minor modifications, the same as applies to other local authorities.

I hope that that rather lengthy explanation both indicates the principle that we are adopting in relation to the GLA and other local authorities, and that the regime is not a straitjacket but will provide and allow for a number of ways in which the GLA could raise the capital finance itself even within the current regime; and that we are looking at changes within that capital spending regime which would apply to the GLA as it would to other authorities.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Perhaps I may make a few comments on Amendment No. 225D which relates to the revenue stream from the parking charges and the congestion charges. In my opinion the amendment would be better if it allowed the borrowing by Transport for London rather than the authority itself. That would then ring-fence it for transport purposes Are there not two precedents? I refer, first, to the changes the Government have made to local authority airport borrowing, where I gather that they freed local authority airports from the public sector borrowing requirement constraints. Is that not a precedent for Transport for London?

Secondly, a private company is being allowed to borrow large quantities of money from the market for the building of the Channel Tunnel rail link, but it is guaranteed by the Government and the company is therefore getting the money at government rates in the market which are considerably finer than they would be for a private company on its own.

Those are, I believe, precedents which would apply to Transport for London borrowing against revenue from both the items specified in the amendment: parking charges and congestion charges. Can the Minister comment on that?

Lord Whitty

I do not think that the second of those options is analogous. Clearly there is an underlying assumption concerning government support for the scheme, but it is not a direct public authority that is being allowed to borrow. It is an entirely private company.

In relation to municipal airports, we have agreed that there should be a relaxation in relation to local authority airport companies where they have constituted a separate incorporated company. That is possibly the analogy of housing stock drawn by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. But in relation to fully commercial operations such as municipal airports, we are in a different situation from that of an authority which is dependent ultimately on the Treasury for various forms of taxation for its finances. So there is not a direct comparison. Nevertheless, as I said, the Government are considering whether some change in regime should apply to local authorities as a whole. The point of principle I make tonight is that the GLA should not be treated differently from the rest of the local authority sector in this respect.

Lord Dixon-Smith

Perhaps I may comment briefly on the Minister's statement that in recent times the local authorities have not greatly resorted to the bond market. My experience has been that the decision of local authorities in the management of their capital debt depended very much on their reading of the long-term prospects for interest rates. If they were of the view that interest rates were likely to rise, the tactic was always to borrow long with the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB). However, if their view was that the interest rates were likely to be low, so far as they could they would borrow short and in the bond market. They did so for the good reason that they could borrow from the bond market for shorter periods than they could borrow from the PWLB.

That is the reading that tends to lie behind decisions on loans and I do not believe that we should assume that because local authorities have tended to use one type of loan debt as opposed to another at any particular time, the situation should or will continue for a while. In any major authority, the decision is tactical and can result in an authority which gets it right saving considerable sums of money on behalf of its council tax payers. Therefore, good financial management in responsible authorities does produce real and tangible benefits.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

Perhaps I may add a couple of points before the Minister responds. I am disappointed to hear the old canard that borrowing by local authorities adds to public expenditure. It does so only because the Treasury decides it does so. Many economists will not accept that that is sensible, but there we go! The argument is not easy to justify, because the borrowing would be done in the private market and would not have the effect of creating a new money supply.

The Minister said that the new authority could not be different from any other authority. The new authority is different. It is taking a direct charge from the people who live in its area in the form of congestion charging and levies on workplace parking. That is unique. Those powers combined are different. The new authority will have a new revenue stream, which is hypothecated within the Bill, and that will make it different from any other authority. I was chairman of my highways committee for three years and I know about borrowing, and the difficulties of it, for capital projects in highways and transport. But this authority will be different. We are talking about a stream of revenue which can be created by the local authority. In fact, the Bill provides for that. The GLA will not be the same as any other local authority.

The Minister referred to PFI for raising additional funds. Yes, that is possible. The various ways in which local authorities can combine with the private sector to achieve agreed objectives are most useful, but almost always the local authority has to make capital input to show commitment to the scheme. It is seldom that all the money is found in some magic way by the private sector. One of the uses which could be made of borrowing in this way against revenue streams is precisely to provide that top-up in the more expensive kind of schemes to which various members of the Committee have referred.

On the two last points, I should like the Minister to reconsider the theory that in this respect the GLA is exactly like every other local authority. In my submission, it is simply not like every other local authority. Therefore, it is at least worth considering whether its financial powers should not reflect that very different character.

We have taken note of the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and will consider whether the suggestion that borrowing against revenue streams might more properly be allocated to Transport for London is a sensible way of moving forward.

Lord Whitty

The view of the noble Baroness as to whether this should or should not be counted against public borrowing is a matter that we shall not resolve on the basis of this Bill. I understand that there are fairly firm views, and effectively we are now also bound by some European aspects which make our position more similar to that in other countries. Part of the argument against was that we were disadvantaging ourselves, but that is no longer the case.

As for whether the GLA is a different kind of local authority in terms of financial regimes, it is in certain respects, but there is no reason why the rest of the country should regard it as being subject to preferential treatment.

As for saying that the GLA is different because it will have a revenue stream arising from road-user charging, it is our intention, which has been signalled fairly clearly, to legislate more generally, and all local authorities should be able to raise such charges and levies. Therefore, the GLA would rapidly become the same as local authorities a year or so after the passage of this legislation, so that is not a particularly good argument for special treatment.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has considerably greater knowledge of local authorities in earlier periods raising more money through bonds. It is true that at times they have resorted to bonds, based on the expectation of relative movements of interest rates. However, in general it has been for relatively short periods of time compared with the long-term capital that we would be looking to raise under the objectives behind this clause—perhaps long-term capital investment in transport.

In any case, any judgment at any particular point in the cycle must be fairly subjective. We could not rely on a relative improvement in the bond rate of interest, as compared with that of the Public Works Loan Board, lasting long enough to alter the fact that bonds are a very particular way of financing capital expenditure. Nevertheless, it is an option that is available to the GLA, depending on its long-term assessment of the capital projects under consideration.

I hope I have responded to those additional points. We shall no doubt return to this debate later in the Bill, and I hope that for the moment, with those comments for the record, we can move on.

Baroness Hamwee

In a moment.

One of the things that I have gleaned from the debate is that in the eyes of the Committee I have dreams and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has fantasies. I shall stick with some of my dreams.

My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood referred to an issue that the Minister said we shall not resolve tonight: the definitions applied by the Treasury in the case of the PSBR. In our eyes, as was said in the report of the Select Committee on relations between local and central government, that is the Humpty-Dumpty argument—"Things mean what I say they mean."

As regards why the GLA should be treated differently from other authorities, we believe that these freedoms should be available to all authorities. Sadly, the Bill provides only for the GLA. Therefore, in our dreams, we wish the GLA to achieve that which we wish to see all authorities achieve. It is a question of taking advantage of the opportunities 'which are available.

I note what the Minister said about future legislation. But time will have been lost. I am sad but not surprised that there has been no answer to the points that I made about the need for public support for the schemes which may be brought forward by the mayor. Congestion and parking charging will be new to this country and it is extremely important that those measures should have public support and that the public should see the additionality of the funds used. They should be confident that they are not, yet again, being ripped off by some bureaucratic and rather grasping government, whichever level of government we are talking about.

In our eyes, those political points underlie and underpin the need for those financial freedoms. As the Minister said, we shall clearly want to return to this topic. We shall be talking to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, about the right approach. We may return with more than one approach to the issue. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.30 p.m.

Clause 85 [General GLA grant]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 225:

Page 49, line 10, at end insert ("and the cost assumptions on which the amount of the grant has been determined, which shall be published in such manner as the Secretary of State deems appropriate").

The noble Lord said: Clause 98 is of fundamental importance to the future of London because capital expenditure predicates future revenue expenditure. One is not talking just about interest and loan repayments when one says that; one is discussing also running costs. That could be the cost of running the Underground, if one puts in a new line, new signalling equipment, new rolling stock, highway improvements or it could be, because we are discussing capital expenditure in general, the cost of a building, staffing it and all the associated costs which would run with that. Therefore, consideration of the capital budget is fundamental to the future of this great conurbation. Capital investment can be regarded as good, by definition; but, in the way of the world, it is like everything else because an excess may have an adverse effect.

I apologise to the Committee. I am dealing with the wrong amendment. Amendment No. 225 is a simple amendment which requires that the Government should publish the cost assumptions on which they calculate the amount of grant which they are to give to the GLA. It is a simple matter which the Government could reasonably accept.

The cost assumptions on which the budget are made for the GLA grant and the GLA transport grant are fundamental. If they are not well and widely known, it makes it much more difficult for the people of London to understand what is going on. It also makes it more difficult for the people of London to understand the budgetary process of the authority.

I use the word "authority" because we are talking about the authority's budget. We are not talking about the mayor's budget. In the end, it must be the authority's budget.

This is really another of those issues of open government. The case should be unarguable. I look forward to the Minister accepting the absolute validity of this simple little matter. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The Secretary of State will be obliged to consult the mayor before determining the amounts of grant to pay to the GLA. It would be very surprising if the mayor did not make public the content of those consultations. It would also be surprising if noble Lords and Members of another place with an interest did not table parliamentary Questions asking about the basis for the determinations.

We do not agree that the Secretary of State should be under a duty to publish the cost assumptions on which the amount of grant has been determined. Noble Lords will be aware of the clear principle that policy advice to Ministers should not be published. This amendment would not add anything to the information that will already be in the public domain. Therefore, I feel sure that I can ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I always wonder at the wording of parliamentary etiquette. When the Minister feels sure she can ask me; for sure she always can. The question has to be whether I shall accede to the request. In this instance—

Baroness Hamwee

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I sense that the noble Lord may be about to withdraw his amendment. Perhaps I may interrupt him to ask the Minister whether a cost assumption is a matter of policy. It seems to me to be based on economic assessments, and so on, and not something which is confined to the policy area.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Surely there is an element of judgment in putting together the amount in the end in terms of policy and priorities. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, if he calls me Pangloss, I am bound to assume that he is prepared to withdraw an amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

We are back in the business of discussing open government. I believe that it would not be disagreed anywhere on this side of the Committee that the way the Bill is drafted and the way the Government are answering these questions leaves something to be desired on the question of openness. In the light of that comment, I shall study with care what the Minister said in response to the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 85 agreed to.

Clause 86 [GLA transport grant]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 225A:

Page 49, line 27, at end insert ("but the amount of the grant shall increase by at least the annual rate of the Retail Price Index in each year beginning from the Authority's second financial year.").

The noble Baroness said: Clause 86 provides that the Secretary of State will provide what is to be called the "GLA transport grant" to the authority for the purposes of transport for London. Our amendment provides that the amount of the grant shall increase by at least the annual rate of RPI in each year from the second year of operation of the authority.

As I mentioned in the debate on borrowing, it is important that Londoners have confidence that public transport is regarded by central government, as well as by the authority, as a very high priority. Indeed, from everything that has been said by the Government about the functions of the GLA and about getting London moving, I believe that they regard transport as a high priority.

The public must not be allowed to think that congestion and parking charges will go into a general pot rather than into improving public transport. We did not agree with the amendment proposed earlier today which linked in that case the precept to the rate of RPI. Amendment No. 225A, which is extremely modest, appropriately links the grant to RPI. There is a closer connection, although if any Member of the Committee has any other basis for ensuring that the GLA grant is kept up in a manner which the public would regard as keeping up with inflation, we are open to suggestion.

The general point is a question of public confidence and support for what the authority is doing. The travelling public must believe that the GLA is keeping up the proper level of investment in London's transport system. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I understand that the noble Baroness is after a degree of stability in the funding of transport, but that will arise when the mayor produces the plan, when the plan is agreed by central government and when we have some means of delivering that plan. To link the level of government grant to the RPI is potentially counterproductive and unhelpful to the mayor. The mayor may want, for example, to see some substantial increases over a short period of time in order to meet the costs of a major project which needs to fit in with the general timetable planned. Were central government to look at that request and know that that exceptionally high level of grant would thereafter be linked to RPI, they might well hesitate to accede, whatever their political complexion at that point.

Although I understand what lies behind the amendment, it may be counterproductive and I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not press it. In relation to the congestion charge situation, I can reassure Members of the Committee again that the money arising from the road-user charging scheme will be available for transport projects. It will be hypothecated entirely to transport projects for the first 10 years of each scheme. There is therefore a built-in stability in that respect. This amendment does not add to that and it could deter a future Secretary of State from allocating specific resources to a specific need.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

Perhaps I may ask the Minister a specific question. He may already have made this point and I missed it.

Behind Amendment No. 225A lies the question of additionality. There is real concern that the new revenue stream will be a substitute for existing income or existing permissions to spend (however one phrases it) in London on transport or other objectives. If the Minister could reassure the Committee today and, through us, a wider world that the principle of additionality is built into the way in which the Government regard this Bill and the revenue streams we are discussing—that is, the current transport grant and the new revenue streams—that would go some way to making these amendments unnecessary.

Lord Whitty

That is probably the wrong question. Additionality and non-additionality are not the issue; the issue is whether the mayor proposed a plan which needed to be financed, whether the Government agreed that plan, and whether adequate revenues were available for it. The source of those revenues will certainly include hypothecated road-user charges. For many years to come—I suspect, well beyond the 10 years that we are talking about now London will require substantial additional transport grant from the centre. The question of additionality therefore does not arise in that context. The key is need and whether that need can be financed by the various revenue sources.

9.45 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

I believe that my noble friend's question was exactly the right question, even if it was an awkward question. The concerns expressed about the hypothecation of the two income streams are understood by the Minister when he says that he anticipates that they will be hypothecated for many more than the 10 years of which we have heard. That will certainly be necessary because it will take a large chunk of those 10 years to get such schemes off the ground.

Lord Whitty

I will clarify the position for the sake of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I did not say that the hypothecation would necessarily last more than 10 years for each scheme that is started within the next 10 years. I said that I suspected that grants could be necessary for well beyond that period. I clarify that point just in case.

Baroness Hamwee

The Minister is absolutely right. I did not mean to put words into his mouth. Perhaps I was hoping to understand something of what was in his mind, but I would not like the noble Lord to find disfavour with the Chancellor.

The Minister challenged our amendment on the basis that it might be counter-productive but it is specifically worded as a minimum. We used the words, the amount of the grant shall increase by at least the annual rate of the Retail Price Index". so I do not think that could be regarded as prejudicing the cause.

The main point is the question of additionality and stability, as identified by the Minister. If I were confident that central government were committed to funding the transport strategy and its implementation— including local implementation plans—I would have felt less need to table the amendment. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86 agreed to.

Clauses 87 to 91 agreed to.

Clause 92 [Judicial review]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment 225B:

Page 52, line 4, leave out from ("1999") to end of line 5 and insert— ("(cd) a substitute calculation made in accordance with an) of sections 70, 71 and 73 to 75 of, and Schedule 6 to, that Act;" ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 93 [Functions to be discharged only by certain authorities]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment 225C:

Page 52, line 14, leave out from ("1999") to end of line 15 and insert— ("(bc) making a substitute calculation in accordance with any of sections 70, 71 and 73 to 75 of, and Schedule 6 to, that Act;".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 94 to 96 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 225D not moved.]

Clause 97 agreed to.

Clause 98 [Aggregate credit approval for Authority and functional bodies]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 226:

Page 54, line 30, leave out paragraph (c).

The noble Lord said: It seems to me that it would be superfluous to repeat the words that I spoke in error when we were discussing the previous amendment. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, perhaps we could take those words as having been spoken and relevant to this amendment. That would spare me the bother of repetition, which would, of course, greatly add to everyone's feeling that we were not making the progress that we ought to be making.

Clause 98 sets out pretty much a system which is largely consistent with existing local government practice. We have category A schemes which are specifically approved by the Secretary of State; we have category B schemes which relate to a nominated sum by the Secretary of State and which can be allocated by the authority; and we have category C schemes which, if I read the paragraph correctly, relate to designated amounts for allocation by the mayor to such authorities and for such purposes as he sees fit. I have no problem with any of those designations.

I have a little difficulty with category D schemes because this area appears to me to go back to giving the Secretary of State control, once again, over matters with which the mayor is dealing. I therefore find myself wondering more than somewhat whether that category really is necessary in view of the previous three.

Amendment No. 227 has been tabled because I must confess that Clause 99(3) is beyond my powers of comprehension, unless particular circumstances arise. As drafted, the subsection states: Where an additional credit approval is issued not more than six months after the end of a financial year"— in other words, it seems to me that it is a post-dated approval— the period specified under subsection (2) above may be one which begins, or begins and ends, at any time during that financial year".

For that clause to have any place in the Bill, the GLA will, perforce, have carried out items of capital expenditure which are, presumably, outwith its capital budget and, more significantly, outwith any capital approvals which it has previously received.

It is possible that circumstances could arise where such post-dated approval is in fact required. But if that is the case, it does not give me a great deal of confidence in the financial management either of the authority or indeed of the system of approvals which could allow such a situation to arise. It is with that in mind that I have tabled the amendment to remove subsection (3). I await the Minister's response with considerable interest. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I could attempt to go into considerable detail on this clause, but it seems to me that I should indicate to the noble Lord the fact that I do not think his objectives would be achieved by these amendments. Amendment No. 226 would remove Category C from the aggregate credit approval that the Secretary of State will issue to the mayor before the start of the financial year. That would restrict the mayor. Amendment No. 227 would remove Clause 99(3), which provides that as long as, an additional credit approval is issued not more than six months after the end of a financial year the period for which it has effect may begin at any time during that year. It is important that the Government should have the option of supplementing the allocation of capital resources by means of the aggregate credit approval. The provision gives additional flexibility to the Minister in that regard if an authority approaches him.

In my view the amendments would add unnecessary restrictions to the GLA's capital finance system. Amendment No. 226 would severely restrict the role of the mayor in allocating credit approvals to the GLA. Amendment No. 227 would also be restrictive and would be inconsistent with the flexibility which applies in the issue of supplementary credit approval to other local authorities. Therefore it would place the GLA at a disadvantage.

I am happy to write to the noble Lord with further detail. I have some rather lengthy notes here which I could read out but I am not sure that that would greatly enlighten any of us. I believe that the noble Lord's amendments would have the contrary effect to that which he seeks. Therefore I hope that he will not pursue them. However, as I said, I am happy to provide further detail request it.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He has filled in some of the background which was what I hoped to prise out of him in tabling these amendments. I shall study with care what he has said. I should be grateful if he would write to me with the pages of detail that he says he has. Other interested persons might find that useful too. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 98 agreed to.

Clause 99 [Additional credit approval]:

[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]

Clause 99 agreed to.

Clauses 100 to 103 agreed to.

Clause 104 [Power to redistribute capital receipts of functional bodies]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe)

Amendment No. 228. Lord Dixon.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 228:

Page 57, line 46, at end insert ("provided that no such payment may be directed to be made by a body until that body's debts have been fully repaid").

The noble Lord said: I hope that the Deputy Chairman of Committees will forgive me if I point out that I need to be referred to as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, sits on the Government Benches. He may be upset if when he reads Hansard in the morning he discovers that he has proposed opposition amendments.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon, was one of my Whips. With his physique I would not like to offend him. I call Amendment No. 228 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am most grateful for those comments. Clause 104 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations to enable the mayor to direct the allocation of a functional body's usable capital receipts to some other part of the Greater London Authority. Amendment No. 228 requires that before the Secretary of State can make regulations to permit the mayor to designate those usable capital receipts for other purposes the functional body should have paid off any of its capital debt that is outstanding. Once that has taken place, reallocation becomes permissible.

The issue of capital funding and the tactics of capital management is inevitably complex. There is not the slightest doubt but that, even with interest rates where they are today, the cheapest way of funding capital expenditure is to fund it directly on revenue. One is then not subject to interest charges and interest payments over a long period of time, which of course inevitably raise the cost of projects. If that happens, the consequence is that the present generation finds itself paying for benefits which are enjoyed and will continue to be enjoyed by future generations, benefits to which they make no contribution. Of course, they may undertake their own capital expenditure. Loans spread the cost across the generations but, in doing so, they also increase the costs.

We are discussing the good management of resources. It is an issue which requires careful consideration. There is a separate issue within it; that is, that the functional bodies within the Greater London Authority will need financial incentives of some kind if they are to manage their assets efficiently and effectively in the interests of the people of London. If the financial consequences remain with the functional body, good asset management will bring about either lower cost systems or lower costs. Alternatively, possibly more beneficially, it might permit an increase in the overall volume of service.

However, if we follow the Secretary of State's powers of designation and the mayor reallocates the usable capital receipts elsewhere, the functional body may well find that it is not receiving the direct benefits of its good financial management; and, if it finds that it is not getting the direct benefits of its good management or its good management of its property assets, it may feel less inclined to manage those assets well in the best interests of the wider public.

It is with that in mind that we have tabled the amendment. Perhaps it would only partially bring about the effect that I desire, but partially is better than not at all. I beg to move.

10 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

The noble Lord will not be surprised that we have difficulty in supporting the amendment. We have taken the line throughout that the authority's budget should be regarded as one budget, not as a group of individual budgets from the functional authorities. Although we do not much like the need in Clause 104 for the regulations to come from the Secretary of State to allow the redistribution of the receipts, we do at least recognise that the mayor will be the beneficiary of any regulations and be given the power to make directions. We think it is appropriate that the budget is one single budget, not a group of individual budgets. Questions of the control and care to be taken by the functional bodies are ones to which the mayor should have regard in running the authority rather than being matters for legislation.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendment No. 228 would mean that a functional body could be required to give up part of its useable packet of receipts for the benefit of the GLA or another functional body only if it has become free from debt. In fact the power to make such regulations as those in Clause 104 is an important reserve power. We have no immediate plans to make such regulations and it may be that they would never be needed.

Clauses 105 and 106 enable the bodies to redistribute resources voluntarily, subject to the mayor's consent. If these arrangements are used in a co-operative way it may never be necessary to invoke the powers. The mayor's power to redistribute capital receipts is subject to a number of safeguards. First, amounts that the mayor directs a functional body to pay to him can only be used to meet the capital expenditure of the GLA or of another functional body. Secondly, the mayor cannot take away from a functional body capital receipts derived from particular disposals of assets. Thirdly, any regulation made by the Secretary of State will contain a number of safeguards to make sure that the power was exercised reasonably.

I must say that I find this amendment unhelpful, and its effect is unclear. It appears to mean that a body could be required to give receipts for redistribution by the mayor only if it was free from debt. This may be intended to require the prior discharge of long-term borrowing rather than all debts. That would need to be made clear. Assuming that that is the intention behind the amendment, it would prevent the mayor from securing the most efficient use of capital receipts across the GLA family, but at the same time it would do nothing to require or encourage the functional bodies to take any steps to discharge their debts.

This amendment could strain the use of any power conferred on the mayor to redistribute the capital receipts of functional bodies, and would certainly make it more difficult to use the power sensibly and effectively. It would probably render it unworkable. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of the reasons why the Government feel they cannot support these amendments. I shall need to study the answer with great care before deciding whether to take the matter further. There is always a potential for conflict between the interests of the constituent bodies and the authority as a whole, and that is something which we have to face in this Bill and which must be faced by the authority in due course. Our function here is to try to make sure that the process will work as smoothly as possible within the authority. It was with that in mind that the amendment was moved, and I now beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 229:

Page 58, line 26, at end insert— ("() The anticipated percentage of the available capital receipts of each functional body that are to be paid to the Authority as specified in subsection (I) above shall be published by the Mayor in the capital spending plan prepared for that body under section 106 below. () The amount paid out of available capital receipts to the Authority by that body during the year shall not exceed or be less than the amount stated in the capital spending plan by more than ten per cent of available capital receipts.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 229. This amendment, with Amendments Nos. 230 to 235, appears on the Marshalled List in my name. With the leave of the Committee, I will speak to them all. The Government's proposals give a great deal of discretion: to shift capital receipts from the functional bodies to fund capital spending of other bodies within the authority in Clause 104; to make grants for capital spending in Clause 105; and even to make grants for current spending in Clause 106.

While some degree of flexibility is desirable, it seems to me that the amount of flexibility which is permissible under the Bill as drafted is perhaps rather more than is reasonable. In the wrong hands, it could lead to possible abuse by, for example, raiding the capital receipts of one body in favour or projects elsewhere, when the body that was, so to speak, raided was itself in desperate need of capital expenditure. I accept that there is always a judgment to be drawn. To borrow the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we are dealing with one authority and the mayor has to be able to set his priorities. But the authority should be bigger than the mayor. It will in the end be bigger than the mayor and the assembly too. A judgment will always have to be made as to what is responsible financial management. These amendments are directed towards that.

Turning to Amendment No. 233, the Bill as drafted seems to specify a minimum capital grant. The provision relates to grants under Clause 105. The Government's proposal is that the mayor's capital spending plans should set out the minimum amount of grant that the authority is to pay to each functional body for its capital spending in the coming year. To set out a minimum at this stage seems inappropriate. It would be better to set out the estimated amount of the grant rather than the minimum. That would be a tighter definition; it would be less capable of subsequently being, let us say, adjusted unfortunately if a mayor were so inclined.

Amendments Nos. 234 and 235 reinforce the disclosure requirements of the earlier amendments. The first amendment ensures that all the capital spending plans of each functional body should make clear all the funding resources for that functional body's capital spending: not just the capital grants from the authority but also any proposed transfer of capital receipts from other functional bodies. That would increase the transparency of the assembly and, through public access to public spending plans, the understanding of the wider public as to how capital spending was being funded.

The existing government proposal suggests that there should be some disclosure of funding from capital grants, but does not indicate what will come from the transfer of the capital receipts. The amendments are directed towards improving the transparency under which the authority is working.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

This group of amendments would require the mayor to include in the capital spending plan a wide range of additional information about capital grants and the redistribution of capital receipts. That is information that could be given only if at the time when he came to prepare the capital spending plans for the forthcoming financial year the mayor had made, and was in a position to make, firm decisions about the distribution of such resources. Taken together, the amendments would greatly reduce the mayor's discretion in allocating capital resources to the functional bodies and they are not acceptable to the Government.

Four of the amendments relate to information in the capital spending plan about redistributed capital receipts. Members of the Committee will be aware from previous debates that Clause 104 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations under which the mayor would be allowed to redistribute the capital receipts of functional bodies. If such regulations were made, Amendment No. 232 would require the mayor to include in section A of the capital spending plan the amount of capital receipts functional bodies would be expected to pay him or her.

Amendment No. 234 would require the mayor to estimate in section B of the plan the amount of capital receipts he would take away from one functional body and give to another.

The mayor would also be required under Amendment No. 235 to include in the figure for the expenditure that he expects each functional body to meet out of capital grants in Section D the amount he expects them to meet out of redistributed capital receipts and grants paid by the GLA.

Amendment No. 229 would constrain the availability of capital receipts to the mayor under Clause 104 to an amount which does not vary by more than 10 per cent from the amount that he states in the capital spending plan. These amendments would constrain the use of any power conferred on the mayor to redistribute the capital receipts of functional bodies and make it more difficult to use that power in a sensible and effective way.

Under Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 the powers of the GLA and functional bodies to pay capital and revenue grants to each other are similarly intended to be exercisable at any time during the financial year. The need for an exchange of resources between bodies in the GLA family could arise at any time during the financial year. The amendments would prevent and undermine this. I go back to the point made in several contributions by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. These amendments could completely undermine one of the methods by which the Bill promotes the most efficient use of the resources of the GLA and the bodies as a whole. I do not wish to misquote the noble Baroness, who believes that we do not go far enough in this respect.

Finally, Amendment No. 233 would require the mayor to include in Section B a statement of how much capital grant he estimates the GLA will pay to each functional body. The Bill as currently drafted requires the mayor to state the minimum amount. The Government's Amendment No. 232A allows him to specify nothing if he has not reached a decision on that amount. In requiring all such payments to be estimated before the start of the financial year, the amendment cuts down the discretion and financial flexibility that the power is intended to confer. Thus, to reduce the mayor's discretion will disadvantage the functional bodies because the amendments will remove financial flexibility in making available capital resources.

The mayor is to be in a position to help meet the expenditure needs of the functional bodies, which can change during the course of a financial year. He can help by making available grants and helping with the redistribution of resources. We believe that it is not cost effective or sensible to have these matters tied down in a plan before the year begins. The amendments would seriously undermine the mayor's discretion and, therefore, cannot be acceptable. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, which takes me some way forward. She may well be right in saying that the amendments make it more difficult for the mayor to operate in a sensible and effective way with regard to management of the capital resources of the authority, but I also suggest that they would make it considerably more difficult—this is the intention—for the mayor to act in a rash and less effective way. Every coin has an obverse and reverse. One must always consider that aspect. Nonetheless, I shall consider with care the response of the noble Baroness. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 104 agreed to.

Clause 105 [Capital grants between Authority and functional bodies]:

[Amendment No. 230 not moved.]

Clause 105 agreed to.

Clause 106 [Revenue grants between Authority and functional bodies]:

[Amendment No. 231 not moved.]

Clause 106 agreed to.

Clause 107 [Form and contents of capital spending plan]:

[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 232A:

Page 59, line 31, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— ("(a) if the Mayor has decided a minimum amount of grant which the Authority is to pay to the body for the year under section 105(1) above, that minimum amount;").

The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment. It is intended to remove a possible misunderstanding of the existing draft; namely, that the mayor is required to state for each functional body a minimum amount of capital grant he will pay to that body (and therefore is required to decide four minimum amounts). That was not the intended effect of Clause 107(4)(a). It was intended to leave the mayor free to decide what capital grants to make to the functional bodies and to require him to specify an amount only where he makes a decision to pay a body no less than a certain amount.

The amendment ensures that the requirements for preparation of the capital spending plan are brought completely into line with other arrangements in the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree)

In view of Amendment No. 232A being carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 233.

[Amendments Nos. 233 to 245 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 236:

Page 60, line 16, at end insert ("(7) Section E of a capital spending plan made for any financial year ("the relevant financial year") other than the first two financial years following the commencement of the Authority shall consist of—

1. (a) a statement of—
1. (i) the amount of the body's total capital spending in the preceding financial year, and
2. (ii) the total amount of expenditure which the Mayor had expected the body to incur in the capital spending plan for the previous year;
2. (b) where the amount in paragraph (a)(i) exceeds the amount in paragraph (a)(ii), a statement of the reasons for this and a proposal for reducing the capital spending plan for the relevant financial year by the amount of the excess.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to guard against systematic overspending on capital items by publishing an outturn at the end of the year so that it can be compared with the planned amounts of capital spending for each functional body in each of the previous two financial years so that the level of financial management, or the competency of that management, can be perceived easily.

The amendment maintains a principle for which we have been pressing throughout the Bill of imposing greater visibility in the authority's spending. It reinforces the disclosure requirements of earlier proposed amendments. Were this disclosure to reveal an overspend in relation to the plan, it would require reasons to be given together with proposals to claw back or deal with the problem of an overspend. This would be a protection for the people of London and would help to prevent poor management of capital resources which might lead to an unacceptable risk for the people of London in the future, which would be permissible as the Bill is currently framed. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

The amendment is somewhat overprescriptive. It would require the mayor to produce every year an extra part of his plan which reported precisely on the deviations from the plan the previous year and explained the reasons for the excess. It would also require proposals to be made for clawing back that excess.

The mayor will draw up every capital spending plan in consultation with the functional bodies and others, and with the GLA as a whole. It is clearly important that we have serious monitoring. But this is a vigorous straitjacket. Under Clause 109, the mayor may take account of any factors which appear to him to be appropriate. That would include the extent to which functional body spending departed in either direction from expected levels, bearing in mind that the expected level specified is not intended to fix the amount of capital spending for the functional body. There may well be good reasons why more or less spending is incurred by a functional body and its departure from the mayor's expectation may be for the general benefit not only of the functional body but of the GLA and London as a whole. Therefore, the requirement that not only should be publish it in this form, but that it should be subject to a commitment to claw it back in the following year would be excessive. The mayor needs freedom to exercise discretion responsibly. It would be wrong to prescribe his specific course of action in legislation. Having said that, I accept the mayor's responsibility to report on the monitoring, but not in this form.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which I shall study with some care. When I was involved in local government, we were used to the idea of producing a precise capital expenditure plan for every year which was entirely expenditure based. It was always the case that if there was an underspend, the reasons were established, explained and published. If there was an overspend, which one must admit could occur, the reasons had to be established, explained and the consequences dealt with in the subsequent year's financial plan. As night follows day, an overspend in one year was followed by a diminution of the planned spend in the subsequent year.

Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister said. I shall study it and, in the mean time, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 108 [Preparation of the plan: consultation and completion]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 237:

Page 60, line 22, after ("Assembly") insert (", to each of the London borough councils, to the Common Council").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 238 and 239. We are still in the business of achieving greater approval and openness for the mayor's capital spending plans. The first two amendments propose that the boroughs and the Common Council, together with the assembly and the functional bodies, should be circulated with the draft and final version of the capital spending plan. The plans are almost bound to have a direct impact on the boroughs and at the least they should be aware of them as soon as they are available. The amendment would achieve that.

The third amendment deals with openness with regard to the capital spending plan and brings it more into line with local government standards of openness; for example, the right to make copies is clear in Section 14 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, which provides for the right to make copies of documents in relation to the period in which the authority's finances are under audit. That is a good principle to follow.

The Government's proposals refer to the right of inspection, but they do not refer to the right to make copies. We believe that the right to make copies should exist, particularly in this complex area of capital spending. Careful examination and careful consideration are needed if any lay member is to have some understanding of what has happened. Members of the public should be able to examine the plans properly and this right could well be essential for that to be possible. I do not believe that the Government should have any difficulty in accepting the amendments, although I am bound to admit that their ability to receive good amendments has not been much revealed in our proceedings up to this point. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

We would not take issue with the first two amendments in this group, but the points made by the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith, illustrate the importance of good consultation, not just on the financial matters but on the strategies underlying them. We have made comments already today about the importance of the authority's financial cycle and the provision of information and so on being sensible as regards the boroughs' own financial cycles. We perhaps stumbled on an issue about whether the Secretary of State can take decisions and give directions in such a way as would be a nonsense in view of the dates by which the boroughs have to agree their budgets.

The timing for the capital spending plan, its availability to the public and discussion of it seem to us necessarily to involve the other players on the London scene, and not just the assembly. But the January date is rather late; it highlights some of the points made earlier today.

On Amendment No. 239, I hope that the Government will tell us that somewhere in their amendments about making material available the point about copies is already covered. The amendment and subsection (5) illustrate the comment that has run as a thread through the points made from these Benches about how detailed the Bill has become, and also the amendments being put forward, because it seems not to be possible to deal with such matters in a general and common-sense fashion. We would not, of course, wish that copies of the capital spending plan should not be available for copying, however.

10.30 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendment No. 237 would require the mayor to send a copy of his draft capital spending plan to the London borough councils and the Common Council and invite them to submit their written comments within 21 days.

Amendment No. 238 would require the mayor to send the final version of the capital spending plan to those councils.

The capital spending plan is the means by which the mayor will control and influence the capital spending amounts and priorities of the GLA and the four functional bodies. It is clear that the assembly should be consulted on the draft plan, given its relationship with the mayor and the fact that its members are elected representatives of Londoners in relation to GLA functions. Similarly, it is clear that the functional bodies, which will be directly affected by the plan, should also have this right.

It is vital that the mayor should send the assembly and the functional bodies the final capital spending plan because the assembly will want to monitor the capital spending of the GLA and the functional bodies by reference to the plan, and the functional bodies will need to be guided by it. The plan also serves in part as statutory notification of credit approvals they have been allocated for the year.

The mayor could, of course, send the draft and final capital spending plan to the London borough councils and the Common Council if he thought that this would serve a particular purpose and—which I stress—if time allowed him to take account of any observations that they made to him. But their interest in the plan is not of the same kind as that of either the assembly or the functional bodies, and there is no case for requiring the mayor to do so in primary legislation.

With regard to Amendment No. 239, on making copies, government Amendment No. 238B fulfils our commitment to ensure that members of the public should be able to obtain copies of the capital spending plan for a reasonable fee. This right will, of course, also apply to the London boroughs and the Common Council.

In the light of what I have said, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation, which I shall study with care. We move these amendments with no other purpose than to help London and its future. It is with that thought in mind that the amendment was moved and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 238A:

Page 60, line 33, at end insert— ("(4A) The Assembly shall debate and vote on the capital spending plan. (4B) If the Assembly votes by a majority of those voting to reject the Mayor's capital spending plan, not later than 56 days thereafter an election shall be held for the office of Mayor and all Assembly members as if such election were an ordinary election and the Mayor and Assembly members so elected shall hold office until the first Thursday in May in the fourth calendar year following that in which the ordinary election preceding such election was held.").

The noble Baroness said: Under the clause, the assembly is to be consulted. On a previous occasion in this Committee, I moved that the words "have regard to" the results of consultation should be included in conjunction with a requirement to consult. I was told, and was glad to receive the assurance, that the words were not necessary. I, wonder whether, in including the provision in Clause 108(3), that the mayor is to consider the comments, that negates that point elsewhere. I hope that the Minister can assure me that simply because consultation is specifically to be followed by consideration and that the consideration is on the face of the Bill, that does not undo the requirement on the part of the mayor to have regard to the results of other consultations and to act reasonably.

However, the major point in the amendment is to give the assembly a greater role and voice in relation to the capital spending plan. One may regard that provision as something of a nuclear option. We have had a number of nuclear options already in the course of the Bill. Earlier this evening, I said that it seemed that Members of the Committee regard me as having dreams and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, as having fantasies. I accept that that may be something of a nightmare.

The incentive for the assembly not to take a frivolous view of the capital spending plan is contained in the second part of the amendment, which provides that, if it votes to reject the plan, then not only the mayor but also the members of the assembly must submit themselves to the London electors for election.

As we have discussed already, the success of the GLA will be quite closely related to a number of major projects and new approaches to London's problems which will require considerable investment. In our view, the capital spending plan is extremely important to the success of the new authority. That is why this amendment proposes that the assembly should be able to vote on the capital spending plan but, as I say, we are providing an incentive to ensure that it does so in a sensible and constructive manner. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

It seems to me that, without the inclusion of this amendment, the assembly is rather emasculated. It will be good that everyone will be able to discuss the state of London annually and to have public question time. However, nothing arouses the interest of people so much as discussions in relation to where the money is to be spent. If the assembly is not able to debate and vote on future spending plans, it will feel undermined from the beginning.

The assembly is to debate strategies; it is able to debate how owls are doing in the biodiversity plan: how ancient monuments are coming along in the culture plan. But, as the Bill is drafted at present, it will not have any say in how the money will be spent. That is regrettable and begs the question: why should it not have a say? What is the point in having an assembly? One of the biggest issues with which it will deal is how to spend the money and where it will be going. If that is controversial, that is a good thing. Hopefully the mayor will have done his consultation well, there will be a lively debate and the spending plan will go through. However, not to allow for that debate and vote will considerably weaken the position of the assembly. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on why the assembly should not debate this. It seems to me a fundamental part of what their duty should be.

Lord Whitty

There may be some misunderstanding as well as total disagreement with our approach here. In relation to the misunderstanding, I assure the noble Baroness that, where we speak of specific requirements for the mayor to consider comments from the assembly and wider consultation, that applies in this area also. In view of her remarks, we will consider whether this reference is out of step with other provisions on consultation in the Bill. To ensure that it is clear, I will take her point away.

It is obviously important that the assembly has a chance to have its say about the capital spending plan. That is why the mayor will be under a duty to send it in draft to the assembly, consider the latter's amendments and have regard to them in making any changes to the draft. But if, at the end of that process, the assembly disagrees with the mayor, the idea of a two-thirds majority being able to precipitate an election on one aspect of the mayor's total stewardship seems to me a little out of kilter. After all, the mayor is responsible for the whole provision of transport for London; the whole of the police authority; the development of the various strategies; the fire agency, and so forth. This is a power for the assembly effectively to sack him and sack itself. That is probably more of a kamikaze tactic than a nuclear deterrent on this one important, but nevertheless single, dimension of the mayor's responsibilities.

I think that this would have an unfortunate effect on the relationship between the assembly and the mayor, even if it was never used. Were it to be used, it would be pretty disastrous for the stability and forward plan for London which the mayor is supposed to deliver. If, for example, the mayor was of a different political complexion or there was within the assembly a fluctuating majority which could reach two-thirds, there would always be the danger of the capital spending plan in any one year being subject to this trigger of an election mid-term or, indeed, in the first year of a mayor's mandate.

That seems to be entirely contrary to what everyone in London wants; that is, a degree of stability, of long-term strategic planning and of clear strategy from the mayor and the executive powers. If it was constantly under threat from such a clause as this, I do not think that would be appropriate. We have had this discussion before on earlier parts of the Bill. I am probably only repeating myself, but I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the first part of my comments on the amendment. As to this being out of kilter, we have proposed amendments elsewhere in the Bill with regard to the role of the assembly. The self-destruct option is certainly extreme, but that is because the issue of the capital spending plan is a matter of particular moment.

The Minister says that London wants long-term planning and stability. It will be Londoners who elect members of the assembly, as well as electing the mayor. I believe that above all Londoners will want the right decisions to be taken. The smack of government does not necessarily mean that that government are absolutely right and correct. However, I note the view of the Government, which is not unexpected. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 238B:

Page 60, line 34, leave out subsection (5) and insert— ("() A copy of the capital spending plan shall be kept available for the appropriate period by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge at the principal offices of the Authority at reasonable hours. () A copy of the capital spending plan, or any part of it, shall be supplied to any person on request during the appropriate period for such reasonable fee as the Mayor may determine. () In this section "the appropriate period" in the case of a capital spending plan is the period of six years beginning with the date of publication of that plan pursuant to this section").

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to earlier. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 239 not moved.]

Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 109 to 111 agreed to.

Clause 112 [Proper financial administration and chief finance officer]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 239A:

Leave out Clause 112 and insert the following new Clause—

PROPER FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND CHIEF FINANCE OFFICERS

(" .—(1) The Authority shall—

1. (a) make arrangements for the proper administration of its financial affairs; and
2. (b) secure that one of its officers (its "chief finance officer") has responsibility for the administration of those affairs and for the oversight of the financial administration of the functional bodies.

(2) Every functional body shall—

1. (a) make arrangements for the proper administration of its financial affairs; and
2. (b) secure that one of its officers (its "chief finance officer") has responsibility for the administration of those affairs.

(3) In subsection (1)(b) and (2)(b) above, the reference to officers includes a reference to employees or members of staff and, in the case of Transport for London and the London Development Agency, includes a reference to members of the relevant Authority.").

The noble Lord said: I rise to move this amendment because it is our opinion that Clause 112 as drafted does not make sufficiently clear the relevant lines of responsibility between the authority and the functional bodies, and the absolute need for the authority's chief finance officer to be a chief finance officer for the whole authority and in control and with oversight of all the finances of the authority, which must include those of the functional bodies.

Our amended Clause 112, in our view, reshuffles parts of existing Clause 112 to make those lines of responsibility and control absolutely clear and not susceptible to any misunderstanding. It is with that in mind that we tabled the new Clause 112 and we hope that the Government feel at the very least that it is worthy of consideration. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, this amendment is intended to alter the arrangements for proper financial administration for the GLA and the four functional bodies. It would provide for the GLA's chief finance officer to be responsible for overseeing the financial administration of the four functional bodies. Put simply, the functional bodies' chief finance officers would be in the position of reporting to the GLA's chief finance officer. In the event of a disagreement, her or his advice would take precedence over theirs. Such an arrangement would be a recipe for confusion and blurred accountability and we cannot agree to it. Perhaps it would help if I were to explain the arrangements for financial administration for which the Bill provides.

The mayor, subject to the assembly's role, will be responsible for setting the budgets of each of the four functional bodies, but will not be accountable for the management of their financial affairs. That responsibility will rest with the bodies and authorities. For that reason, it is essential that the functional bodies, and the GLA itself, each have their own chief finance officer.

In financial management terms, once their budgets have been set, each of the functional bodies will operate independently. Each will be required to make arrangements for the proper administration of its financial affairs, and to appoint a suitably qualified person to oversee those affairs: namely, the chief finance officer. Each of those officers will stand in their own right within the body concerned, carrying out the full functions of their post—in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988—and reporting as necessary to the relevant board or authority. The GLA's chief finance officer will report to the mayor.

Each hoard and authority will be responsible for ensuring probity and regularity in the financial management of its own functional body. Each will be expected to have regard to any reports and recommendations made by its chief finance officer and to ensure action is taken where necessary. Those arrangements will provide a clear line of responsibility from each of those chief finance officers to their relevant boards. As each functional body is responsible for its own financial affairs, it would not be appropriate for the GLA's chief finance officer to have a role in the functional bodies' finances. That would blur accountability by depriving each board and authority of a single source of specialist financial advice and appropriate financial oversight.

To reflect the mayor's interest, we have provided that where a chief finance officer makes a report concerning a functional body, he is required to provide a copy for each member of the relevant body, the mayor and the Chair of the assembly. Responsibility for dealing with the report will rest with the board or authority concerned and it cannot transfer that responsibility to the mayor.

The Bill provides for clear arrangements for financial administration. Unfortunately, the noble Lord's amendment would lead to confusion and blurred accountability. I urge him to withdraw it.

Lord Dixon-Smith

Once again the noble Baroness has eloquently produced arguments to sustain the Government's proposals. She said that the mayor would not be responsible for the activities of the functional bodies in detail. The problem is that the mayor will be responsible for the policies that those bodies are obliged to follow and for the budget that they will have to follow. If the mayor has those responsibilities, I hope that he never disagrees with something that a functional body might do. If he does, under the arrangements in the Bill he will have no authority to do anything because the functional bodies will be free to act independently when the financial year has started.

The noble Baroness may think that my amendment would lead to a certain amount of confusion hut, in practice, the procedures that the Minister enunciated would be equally likely, if there is any divergence of view, to lead to confusion. I will consider carefully the Minister's response but we may return to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 112 agreed to.

Clauses 113 and 114 agreed to.

Clauses 115 (Functions of chief finance officer as regards reports)

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment 240:

Page 63, line 29, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 33 and insert ("Chairman of Transport for London or, in his absence, the Deputy Chairman of Transport for London"")

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this small amendment is to ensure that where reports are being considered, the finance officer is obliged to consult the chairman or, in his absence, the deputy chairman of the functional body, rather than the person who is to be consulted under subsection (3A) above"— which means that consultation could be dealt with by somebody with rather less authority.

The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that where reports under this clause are brought forward they are dealt with at the highest possible level in the functional body. I believe that that would be a proper way of handling the situation. I should add that it seems to me that the amendment has some relevance to the London Development Agency, which was referred to in the previous amendment, but we seem to have missed that one in our trawling through the Bill. No doubt the noble Baroness will be relieved that that is the case. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The chief finance officer of a relevant authority has a duty to ensure that where the authority has incurred, or might be about to incur, unlawful expenditure, he or she should complete a report and present it to the full authority. Before completing the report, the chief finance officer is, so far as it is practicable to do so, required to consult with the head of paid service and the monitoring officer. This requirement on the chief finance officer to consult with other officers of the authority seeks to ensure that there is agreement among the officers of the authority about the legality of the course of action being taken and that all the relevant facts are clear.

Once a report has been completed and passed to an authority, it must be considered at a meeting of the authority within 21 days of the receipt of such a report. The authority must then consider whether it agrees or disagrees with the report. The auditor must be notified of the meeting and, as soon as possible afterwards, informed of the outcome.

The Board of Transport for London will include executive members. The structure of the body may not follow that adopted generally by local government, and it may not choose to appoint a chief executive. However, it is important that it has members or officers specifically designated to fill those posts which have a responsibility for ensuring probity in the running of the body. Provision has been made for the appointment of a member or officer as the chief finance officer, and that officer must be a member of a recognised professional accountancy body. The chief finance officer will carry the full responsibilities attaching to this post in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, including the completion of reports to the body.

While it may not be appropriate for Transport for London to appoint a chief executive or monitoring officer in the same way as a local authority, we nevertheless believe that it should appoint a person, either a member of the board or an officer, to fulfil the role of head of paid service and monitoring officer and with whom the chief finance officer can consult before finalising a report. Accordingly, we have provided that TfL should designate someone to fulfil this role.

Where the chief finance officer does complete a report about the actions of Transport for London, the body must consider it at a full meeting of the board. To require the chairman, and only the chairman (or his deputy), to be consulted before the report is finalised would limit the discretion of TfL to appoint whom it thinks fit to fulfil the consultation role and appointments may change from time to time or from case to case.

I agree that the chairman, or, in his absence, the deputy chairman, will need to be fully informed and be required to consider any report presented by whoever fills the role of the chief finance officer. This need not necessarily be during the preparation of the report. The chairman will accordingly be fully informed in the consideration of the report.

The arrangements that we are proposing will ensure that matters are considered properly and promptly by those with the necessary responsibility for taking action. I do not think that we should seek to limit the discretion of Transport for London to appoint whom it considers is most suitable to undertake these consultation roles. I have answered this amendment in some detail because I am confident that, on reflection, the noble Lord will feel that he may not need to return to the issue.

11 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am confident that at this hour of the night I cannot match the eloquence of the noble Baroness's reply and I do not intend to do so. However, I shall study what she has said with great care and then consider what I wish to do about the matter. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 241:

Page 63, line 43, at end insert— ("(4B) In those cases referred to in subsection (4A)(a) and (b) above, the Mayor of London shall publish the report within 7 days of receiving it."").

The noble Lord said: This amendment requires that where someone has made an adverse report that report should be published. There may be some technical difficulties if a report names a particular individual. However, I believe that the facts of such a case could be reported without names. Again this is a matter of probity and openness. I believe that if an adverse report is made to the authority it is in everyone's interest that the main substance of the report is placed in the public arena as soon as it is practical to do so. At present reports are to be considered at a meeting of the assembly within 21 days. The mayor has to respond to any recommendation of that meeting within 14 days of that meeting. That in itself is a considerable delay. The opportunity for spin doctoring to spin out of control—as has been observed on occasions—would be much reduced if the report was placed in the public arena at the earliest possible opportunity. This amendment seeks to give effect to that. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

We fully support the motive behind this amendment. We believe it is important that the GLA and functional bodies are publicly accountable for their actions and that all relevant reports are made publicly available.

Where a chief finance officer completes a report under the provisions of Section 114 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, the authority or functional body must consider it at a meeting within a period of 21 days, as the noble Lord said. This meeting must be convened in accordance with Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972, which requires that details of the agenda and the reports themselves must be made available three days before the meeting.

Specific provision has been made for Transport for London to be subject to the provisions of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972. It will therefore have to hold a public meeting within 21 days and make the chief finance officer's report available beforehand.

The responsibility for publication rests, as I think it rightly should, with the authority and each functional body. Therefore we believe the amendment to be unnecessary and hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I shall study the words of the noble Baroness with considerable pleasure and consider the matter in the light of what she has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 115 agreed to.

Clause 116 [Duties of Authority or functional body as regards reports]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 242:

Page 65, line 27, at end insert— ("(7A) Where any recommendation carries the support of a simple majority of members of the Assembly present and voting on that recommendation at a meeting under subsection (3) above, the Mayor shall comply with that recommendation when making any decision under subsection (6) above.").

The noble Lord said: I am amazed that I am finding my way through these amendments without getting into a greater muddle than I have on past occasions! Amendment No. 242 is designed to ensure that when a financial report on improper activity is submitted any action that is taken is not exclusively within the mayor's discretion. The Bill as currently drafted makes the Greater London Authority unique, in that it is the only local authority in the United Kingdom in which the mayor and not the entire authority decides what action should be taken when financial irregularities are discovered. This is a departure from the spirit and wording of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. I wonder whether it is a justifiable departure.

The assembly will have no powers to oblige the mayor to do anything in such circumstances, whereas an existing local authority can compel council leaders to take a particular course of action. The Bill merely states that the mayor has to take account of the assembly's views when coming to his decision. Once again, this is reducing the assembly to the position of a powerless talking shop.

We have heard evidence that that is what the Government think it should be. Despite that, we think it should be rather mote. We do not want the assembly to be incapable of bringing real scrutiny and supervision to bear on either the mayor's or the functional bodies' financial activities.

The mayor might decide to do nothing about one of those reports. That is a technical term for wasting the public's money. It could be through incompetence; it could be through something worse; but whatever the cause, it is not in the interests of the people of London. If the mayor takes a decision to do nothing, that is the end of the matter—and that cannot be right.

The amendment restores to the assembly the accountability which the Government have effectively left out of the legislation and puts the GLA on to the same basis as every other local authority in the country. That is essential given the size and scope of its budget. If this amendment is accepted, it will demonstrate that the assembly is a truly representative body and enable it to have some check on a small aspect of the mayor's activities.

I can anticipate what the noble Baroness may say in response to the amendment. I almost feel like inviting her to say that she will give me the expected reply, cut short the proceedings by saving her the necessity of giving it, and saying that I shall consider it in absentia. I am confident that I know what her answer will be. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

For the same reasons that I mentioned when we were discussing my noble friend's amendment about accountability to the assembly for the capital spending plan, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The assembly is the right body to hold the mayor to account.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

The amendment would require the mayor to comply with any recommendations supported by a majority of the assembly in respect of any report published by the chief finance officer of the GLA and in deciding what action to take in consequence of the report. The amendment would, in effect, give the assembly the role of deciding what action to take following a report by the GLA's chief finance officer. We have rightly returned to the respective roles of the mayor and the assembly many times. It is plain that noble Lords opposite simply want a different sort of city-wide governance from the one proposed and the one endorsed by Londoners in the referendum.

Earlier in the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Young—who is not in her place—appeared surprised that we should produce a proposal for a separation of powers. It is common in the United States, in Canada, for example, in Toronto, and in Europe, for example, in Rome and in Barcelona, to have systems which involve this sort of separation of powers. I do not want to go over all those arguments again. I would, however, emphasise that under the model for London set out in the Bill the mayor is responsible for the strategic direction of the GLA and the functional bodies. The mayor must consider the report. If nothing is done, this could lead to the CFO producing another report at a later date. Therefore the mayor must consider the report and decide what action, if any, to take in respect of it.

Under our proposals, provision has been made specifically to require the mayor to attend the meeting at which the assembly considers the report. Furthermore, the mayor must have regard to any views or any recommendations of the assembly at that meeting. The assembly will therefore have influence in the matter but ultimately the mayor must retain the final responsibility for deciding how to respond to the report. In the light of this reply, I feel I should ask the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to withdraw the amendment and to read what I have said at leisure.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am fascinated that the noble Baroness did not accept my invitation to curtail her eloquence and say, "Yes, the reply is what you expected it to be." Instead she has tempted me, just marginally, by giving a longer reply. Without wishing to detain the Committee for more than a few moments, I would remind your Lordships that in a Question to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor last Thursday the subject of the separation of powers was under discussion. He had some views on that and on the way we do things in this country that were slightly at variance with what is in this Bill. While there are some aspects of the American system that are good, not the least of the problems we face with establishing an authority such as the GLA is that we are borrowing some parts of the American system, but only some. We are not borrowing all of them. The difficulty arises when you pick and choose between parts of a system to which the community is accustomed and try to translate them to somewhere else, to a community that is not accustomed to them.

I shall study the noble Baroness's remarks with care. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 116 agreed to.

Clauses 117 and 118 agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Amendments of the Audit Commission Act 1998]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 243:

Page 205, line 22, at end insert ("; and () the Assembly, the London borough councils, the Common Council and such other bodies as appear to him to be appropriate").

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a situation in Schedule 7 where the mayor is requesting the Audit Commission to undertake a study of one of the functional bodies. It is interesting that, before making a request under subsection (1) to make such a study, the Mayor of London shall consult … the functional body concerned"— that is a sine qua non; it has to happen— and … such associations of employees as appear to him to be appropriate".

I have some difficulty in understanding why associations of employees should be the only people who are consulted before the mayor invites the Audit Commission to make a particular study. It seems to me that there may well be many groups, possibly user groups, people who are affected directly by the particular service, who would have a view. They may also have a perspective on the study which should be taken into account by the mayor before making a request for a particular study.

It would be possible—I put it no higher than that—to argue that that wording was included as a sop to the trade unions. I do not think that that is what should be intended in a Bill of this nature. We should play these matters absolutely straight. We have widened out the list of consultees in this situation. That is reasonable. Although the proposal may not be totally effective to undertake the purposes that I have enunciated, I beg to move.

11.15 p.m.

Lord Whitty

Without wishing to engage in a degree of controversy at this stage, I am always slightly resentful when a sensible requirement to consult the trade unions is regarded as a sop. In regard to Audit Commission reports, it is sensible to engage employees in this matter. The noble Lord suggests that certain other people should, by statute, be consulted as well. I do not see a need to place a statutory duty on the mayor to consult bodies that are already included in the general list of bodies which the mayor has to consider whether it is appropriate to consult in this and other contexts. It is not necessarily right that the mayor should be required to consult the London boroughs and the Common Council in this particular context.

However, I accept that it would be sensible to consult the assembly before requesting a study. It may therefore be that some greater clarification and a possible extension of the areas of required consultation are required. Having started on an antagonistic note, I shall give the noble Lord some comfort that we shall consider his amendment and consider whether in this context any amendments are required at a later stage.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for the conciliation at the end of his remarks. I accept, almost with equal pleasure since this is the last of my amendments that we shall debate for some time, the smack over the head that he has duly administered. I shall study the Minister's remarks with care and I look forward to his response. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clauses 119 to 121 agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 243A:

After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—

NO DISCRETIONARY RATE RELIEF FOR FUNCTIONAL BODIES

(" .—(1) Section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (discretionary relief) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (9) (which provides that a hereditament is an excepted hereditament, and accordingly not eligible for relief, if all or part of it is occupied by any body there mentioned) at the end of paragraph (b) (which relates to precepting authorities) there shall be added "; or

(c) a functional body, within the meaning of the Greater London Authority Act 1999".

The noble Lord said: This new clause amends Section 47 of the Local Government Act to ensure that properties occupied by the functional bodies cannot be granted discretionary rate relief by billing authorities.

The situation at present is that Clause 47 will allow billing authorities to grant rate relief to organisations such as charities and so on. That provision will explicitly exclude the precepting authorities. But it needs also to exclude the functional bodies. The GLA itself therefore already falls within the scope of the exception, but the functional authorities do not. That needs clarification. I hope the Committee will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 243B:

After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—

LOCAL LOANS

(" .—(1) In Schedule 4 to the National Loans Act 1968 (which specifies the bodies to which local loans may be made) in paragraph 1, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority", the word "and" immediately preceding sub-paragraph (iii) shall be omitted and after that sub-paragraph there shall be added "; and

(iv) a functional body, within the meaning of the Greater London Authority Act 1999".

(2) In section 2 of the Public Works Loans Act 1965 (new form of local loan and automatic charge for securing it) in sub-paragraph (1) (which includes a definition of "relevant authority") in paragraph (a), the word "and" immediately preceding sub-paragraph (iii) shall be omitted and after that sub-paragraph there shall be added ";and

(iv) a functional body, within the meaning of the Greater London Authority Act 1999".").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 243B. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 455F to 455H. A range of bodies, including local authorities, whose capital finances are regulated by the Local Government Acts, borrow from the Public Works Loans Commissioners. The GLA and the functional bodies will be among those local authorities. These amendments are necessary to give the commissioners a complementary power to lend money to the functional authorities. This means that amendments need to be made to the National Loans Act 1968 and the Public Works Loans Act 1965, which refer back to the Public Works Loans Act 1875. Such loans are secured by a charge on the revenues of the authority concerned. The GLA is already a local authority for this purpose, but the amendment is needed to make a functional body a local authority for these purposes. The other amendments are consequential repeals in parallel with the words omitted by these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 122 agreed to.

Clause 123 [General transport duty]

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 243C:

Page 67, line 18, after ("within") insert ("and across").

The noble Baroness said: The Committee now moves into the exciting world of transport, where it may remain for some time in logjams of various kinds. This is a very simple amendment. In addition to the mayor having to consider travel to, from and within London, he or she should also consider travel across London. I am aware that in another place the Minister argued that journeys in and out of and within London subsumed journeys across London so that the amendment was unnecessary. However, there are some very important routes involved in northern, southern, eastern and western journeys, which is what is meant by "across London" as opposed to the in and out radial routes with which we are all very familiar. That is the pattern of travel in and out of London. Those routes are particularly important, for example for access to and from the airports. They are also controversial because they will require additional space on existing lines or those that are about to be built or improved. We believe that the transport duty should cover a range of new transport possibilities as well as existing ones. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

I support my noble friend in moving this amendment. I should like to ask another question relating to Clause 123(1), which requires the mayor to develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services". Members of the Committee will be familiar with the terminology "efficient and economic" in the context of requirements on local authorities as to the provision of services. They are repeated in the Local Government Bill which is currently going through the House. Those terms are normally coupled—although I am not sure that it is correct to use that word when there are three of them—with "effective". It seems to me it is a requirement that the transport facilities and services to, from, within and across London should be effective—for example, trains should not stop in tube tunnels for half an hour at a time and so on. I use that as one example. I hope that the Minister can explain the adjectives in answering my noble friend's amendment.

As this is the first amendment on this part of the Bill, perhaps I may say how sorry I am—it is understandable that the Government want to get on with this long and complicated Bill—that they choose to start the debate on such a major part so late at night. Major issues are raised in the first chapter on transport. I am sure that the Government will realise that there are some gaps on the Benches, and that voices they had expected to contribute to this part of the Bill will not be heard. Points which might appropriately have been made at this point in the Bill will be made later. That may not be very convenient. Alternatively, they will be made on Report. It is the Government's decision. But I think that these issues deserve rather more prime time.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I had not intended to speak to this amendment, but I endorse entirely what the noble Baroness says. We start this section on transport at a late hour. I think that it is regrettable that we start so late. Nevertheless, the agreement has been reached that we should go a little way into it.

The Government have tabled an enormous number of amendments to this part of the Bill. They gave notice that they were going to do so, and have been helpful in writing to us explaining the purpose of the amendments. Nevertheless, large sections of the Bill are being almost completely rewritten in Committee. That will not help our considerations. It will mean that we have to do more work at the next stage. I give the Government warning that it will require more time at Report stage as a consequence.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

I, too, am concerned that we are starting this section at this time of the evening, although I am quite bright and raring to go as I said nothing earlier. However, the Minister must be getting tired.

As regards the amendment, it is possible that "within" includes "across". If so, that is satisfactory. But one requires a comprehensive responsibility for the whole of London. Passengers have been inconvenienced with the chopped up, short bus routes which now exist. Many women, in particular if they have small children or heavy shopping, would rather wait longer for a bus that takes them their entire journey than wait in the rain and cold for a connection. Consideration should be given to improving the connection of transport throughout London.

Lord Berkeley

I had not intended to speak to this amendment. However, following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when I first read the Bill it struck me also that there were few government amendments. Now that we have them, I welcome them as contributing to improving the Bill. I believe that the amendments have been tabled after listening to comments made by Members of all parties, and I welcome them. I do not necessarily agree with them all, but they contribute to the Bill's improvement. I look forward to some interesting, short and sweet debates on them.

11.30 p.m.

Lord Whitty

I thank my noble friend for those remarks. We consider that the amendments we tabled to this part of the Bill are appropriate and to a large extent address technical deficiencies or concerns expressed in another place and here informally. This is not a case of rewriting the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, suggested. It is a case of turning the Bill into an effective document which meets a number of concerns.

As regards starting the subject at this hour of the night, as we proceed with the Bill it may be regarded as somewhat early. We must complete our consideration of the remaining nine parts; we have hitherto covered three parts.

As regards the amendment, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that "to", "from" and "within" cover "across". I also agree with her about the problems of connection which must be addressed by the mayor of London. Most of those are "within" in the normal sense. As regards adding "across", I do not want to be too pedantic, but if one is travelling from Manchester to Brighton one will travel "to", "within" and "from" in the course of the journey. To add "across" merely adds an additional word. If one travels across London, entering and emerging in the same journey, that is covered by "to", "from" and "within".

Again, I do not want to be too pedantic, but I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the adjective when she meant the adverb. I believe that the adverbs meet the point and additional adverbs will not necessarily improve matters. I hope that, with that understanding, the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

I believe that my noble friend was referring to the adjectives "safe" and "efficient". Those are adjectives. I am sure that her grammar is impeccable. She is, after all, a lawyer and she must know how her language operates. She cannot afford to make mistakes of that kind.

I hear what the Minister says in reply. I am sorry that he will not add "across", which seems to me to give a slightly different dimension. However, at this point I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 243D:

Page 67, line 18, at end insert ("with the minimum adverse environmental impact").

The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment which provides that whatever is done in the transport strategy by the council authority should have, minimum adverse environmental impact". That requires an ability, a wish and an intention to balance "goods" and "bads" against each other. For example, one can reduce traffic speed by rumble strips, but they will not have a minimum adverse environmental impact. On the contrary, in built-up areas they have a bad environmental impact.

We propose an additional encouragement to the mayor to ensure that she always bears in mind the balance which must be struck between benefits in this area. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I understand the concern which lies behind the amendment. I appreciate that not only the noble Baroness but others are concerned that it should be explicit. However, we argue that the Bill already provides for a regard to environmental duties within the transport strategy. The reason it is not explicit at every point is that in the interests of keeping this extremely large Bill within reasonable bounds and ensuring integration between environmental and transport issues we have covered that only in Clause 33.

That clause requires the mayor to do a number of things in drawing up or revising the transport strategy. First, he or she must have regard to the principal purposes of the authority, which include promoting the improvement of the environment in Greater London. Secondly, he or she must pay regard to the effects on health and the achievement of sustainable development. Thirdly, the mayor must ensure that all his or her strategies are consistent. This means making sure that the transport strategy and the various environmental strategies—on air quality, municipal waste management, bio-diversity and noise—all pull in the same direction. Fourthly, the mayor must ensure that the strategy is consistent with national policies and with any international obligations of which he or she has been notified. This means, therefore, that the mayor must take account of the national integrated transport strategy and national air quality and waste strategies in preparing his or her transport strategy for London.

The mayoral strategies will, of course, be the key vehicle through which the mayor will work. That is why Clause 33 expressly made clear the need for integration between transport and the environment. Therefore, we do not regard a repetition in this clause, which the amendment would provide, as necessary.

I hope that the noble Baronesses and those outside the Chamber who are concerned with this issue will accept those assurances and accept that Clause 33 meets the point.

Baroness Hamwee

As the Minister said, there are many outside this Chamber who have expressed concern about this issue. While I accept the intellectual argument that reading the Bill as a whole takes one back to the earlier clauses and the various matters raised there, it is a pity that the Government, who have not been short on words in the Bill, do not put down the important marker at the beginning of Part IV that those who are concerned with transport should look back and remind themselves of the environmental issues and duties.

I accept that the earlier provisions of the Bill will apply, but it would have been welcomed by those who wish to see improved transport if it had specifically been provided that regard should be had to environmental considerations, and a marker had been put down at the start of the biggest part of the Bill.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My noble friend has made the point well that we, and others, are trying to put important considerations up front so that they do not have to be constantly repeated in this part of the Bill. That is the object of some of the amendments. I do not know what people outside the Chamber will say about this, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 243E:

Page 67, line 18, at end insert— ("() These policies shall achieve road traffic reduction targets set by the Mayor pursuant to this Part. () The Mayor shall set road traffic targets for Greater London provided that any such targets shall not be less than those set by the London Planning Advisory Committee.").

The noble Baroness said: Here we come to a very different set of amendments. With Amendment No. 243E we are taking Amendment No. 245, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. He is not in his place, but, with the leave of the Committee, I propose to make some comments about that amendment.

In our amendment we suggest that the mayor should include in his transport policies traffic reduction targets. The targets should be at least as ambitious as the current targets under the LPAC. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, would add a requirement for the transport strategy to contain progressive targets to reduce traffic volume. The two obviously go hand in hand.

When this was debated in another place, the response was that the mayor's policies had to be consistent with national policies and that because of government policy on road traffic reduction, it was not necessary. The Government's policy on road traffic reduction is that local authorities shall have road traffic reduction targets. The Government have not set a target for road traffic reduction. Therefore, it is not satisfactory to say that the matter is completely dealt with by national policy.

The question of the necessity for targets has been applied. The advantage is that, first, it gives the policy a direction. Secondly, it aids in the selection of the best tools to implement the policy. If there is a target which says that X must be achieved by Y, it is possible to assess the methods to be adopted as to their relative effectiveness in achieving that objective. Thirdly, it provides a method by which to test and measure progress.

Elsewhere in the early part of the transport section, there is a great deal about what is to happen if the local borough implementation plans are not successful. But unless targets are set to measure the success, it is difficult to know the level of success. That is why those targets are set.

I have had some experience of that. We set targets in the Surrey transport plan which is now many years old. It was one of the first in the country. I shall not say that the plan was brilliantly successful because we were experimenting in a world in which it was difficult to carry out such experiments. But certainly, the targets assisted us in measuring what we had achieved. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

The requirement to have targets for reductions is not really the issue here. The issue is whether the amendments are appropriate to that when we have a national policy, with which the mayor's strategy must be consistent, which will lead us to road traffic targets.

We indicated in the White Paper that we are considering how national targets can help in dealing with congestion and pollution. We are seeking advice from the new Commission for Integrated Transport on this matter. As the noble Baroness said, it is already our policy that local traffic authorities are required to consider traffic reduction in accordance with local circumstances and therefore to set local targets. We have tabled Amendment No. 297G which relates to the traffic chapter of the transport part of the Bill. Our proposed new clause, which will amend the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997, will explicitly link the work of the boroughs formally to the mayor's transport strategy. Taken with the Bill's existing provisions, that gives a clear message on road traffic reduction.

In view of the requirement on the mayor with regard to the policy of the GLA and TfL in this area and the amendment which we have tabled, it is not appropriate that, on the face of the Bill, we should agree to targets which relate to those set by the London Planning Advisory Committee, which will cease to exist when the GLA is established. Nor is it necessarily appropriate to agree to "progressive targets", as specified in the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, because they may apply differently in different parts of London, as the mayor comes to develop his strategy with the London boroughs.

It is therefore important that the mayor and the London boroughs, in the light of developing national policy, are allowed to develop their own targets, rather than have them pre-set, as these amendments would provide. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

I thank the Minister for that answer. I shall read it with care and I shall also refer to Amendment No. 297G, which I must confess I have not yet mastered. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 244:

Page 67, line 23, after ("pedestrians") insert ("and cyclists").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 244 stands in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Miller and Lord Dixon-Smith. It is a simple amendment. Clause 123(3) makes specific provision for transport facilities and services to include pedestrians but it does not include cyclists, and this amendment does. The expression "transport facilities and services" would not normally be held to include cyclists who, like pedestrians, are self-transporting. Although specific provision is rightly made that such facilities and services include facilities and services for pedestrians, no mention is made of facilities and services for cyclists.

Cycling is a means of transport that is environmentally friendly and healthy—certainly to the cyclists if not always to pedestrians—and in inner London it is reasonably fast. However, despite encouragement which successive governments have tried to give to cycling, it has declined in recent years and deserves to be further encouraged. Provision of facilities and services for cyclists can play a part in doing so. It should be made clear in the context of the general transport duty to which this clause refers that such facilities and services must be included.

The noble Lord may be surprised to see that I am moving the amendment. I have not always been a friend of the cyclist, certainly in London. I was delighted to read in the newspaper only yesterday that the Government intend to increase penalties for cyclists who ride on the pavement. That is an extremely good move. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm it.

Any facilities and services that are made to improve the lot of cyclists would, I hope, encourage them at the same time not to ride on pavements and ignore pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, one-way streets and various other rules which motorists have to obey.

Amendment No. 245A, in the name of the noble Baronesses on the Liberal Benches, is grouped with this amendment. It is right that that should be so. I cannot quite see the logic of including Amendment No. 246A in the group. That seems to relate to consultation, which is a slightly different issue. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

I must confess to a certain envy that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who, as he says, has not been noted in your Lordships' House as a promoter and defender of cycling should have nevertheless got in the word "cyclists" before I did. They certainly appear in the list of amendments we wish to discuss. However, the noble Lord has made an excellent introduction to the amendment.

What is striking about cycling in central London is how incredibly dangerous it is for everyone. It is dangerous for pedestrians, as we have often discussed in your Lordships' House. It is dangerous for cyclists; it is even dangerous for motorists. The reason is that cyclists are mixed up with motorists in a way which makes it virtually impossible for the two types of transport to avoid coming literally into collision with each other.

I do not know how many Members of the Committee have driven in any form of transport around Trafalgar Square at, let us say, half past eight in the morning. I am absolutely astounded that cyclists are not killed every day in that very dense stream of traffic. Certainly my taxi driver was furious the other day because the previous day he had had the whole of one side of his taxi scraped by part of a cycle. That was extremely expensive for him and, as he said, he could not chase the cyclist.

Everybody is angry with everybody else because there is no provision for cyclists. I remind the Committee that we are talking of "cyclists", not "bicycling" or "cycling"; it is the cyclist or vulnerable road user we ought to be considering. We can see how different the situation has been for pedestrians. For over 100 years, they have had footways to walk on; in more recent years, crossings and lights have been provided. Those facilities are simply not available for cyclists. That is one of the reasons why everybody on the roads in London is at loggerheads and why cyclists turn to pavements as being a freer and safer place to travel, and therefore come up against pedestrians.

This is an important element to include in the Bill at an early stage. Two amendments are grouped with Amendment No. 244. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said, they require the mayor to obey the national cycling strategy and to consult cycling groups. The two elements are not the same, but if we are interested in producing good policies for cyclists, it is natural to consult cycling groups. I am happy to leave the amendments grouped as they are. I support Amendment No. 244.

Viscount Craigavon

I support all three amendments in my own way. At Second Reading, I said that I hoped that we could persuade the Government that it was not unreasonable to declare on the face of the Bill slightly more sympathy for cycling and cyclists. I also said that the cycling fraternity of this House might assist me in doing that. But, as was explained earlier, I hope the Committee understands that at this time of night it is not unreasonable to let people lead a more peaceful life. We hope to have more cyclists here at a later stage; quite a few are Members of your Lordships' House.

For those reasons I did not table amendments of my own, but I support the amendments grouped before us. Because of the lateness of the hour, I shall not launch off on a general encomium on the benefits of cycling. I support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and was pleasantly surprised to have the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, praising the merits and benefits of cycling. I hope that he continues to do so. I assume also that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is basically sympathetic to cycling. I hope that we can take that as read in regard to cycling amendments.

Amendment No. 244 was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. It is an important amendment. I had the benefit of reading the mini-debate on cycling in the other place and this issue was not resolved. It is a serious issue; it is almost a legal or technical issue. Whether or not to include it in the Bill is almost not a matter of choice. Reading the speech of the Minister in the other place, Miss Glenda Jackson, I noted that she twice used the phrase, "I am advised"; first, that the amendment was unnecessary; and, secondly, that the phrase "transport facilities and services" legally includes cyclists. But when she was questioned by various Members of the Committee, she concluded by saying that she would go away and investigate and in some way report back the result of her inquiries.

I have a copy of the letter that the Minister wrote to the person advising the Cyclists Public Affairs Group—and I have the benefit, as do some others, of its invaluable advice on the Bill. The Minister, in that letter, used the same phrase—which did not take the matter any further. When a Minister precedes his or her remarks with the words, "I am advised that", one wonders whether the Minister fully believes what he or she is saying. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will omit that preamble when he responds to the amendment. I hope that he will give a substantive answer. If not, we should try to get to the bottom of the legal position.

I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, on Amendment No. 245A. It would be desirable to include the national cycling strategy within London separately in this part of the Bill. I wish to ask the Minister a question on a related matter—the London cycle network, which I mentioned on Second Reading. Is the Minister satisfied that the London cycle network is likely to be completed by the target date of 2005 without further encouragement in the Bill?

The London cycle network is a mammoth project and we do not want any slippage. A lot of money has already been spent, and more spending is expected. I would like the Minister's opinion on the subject.

Baroness Hanwee

I am not at all surprised to see amendments referring to cycling and cyclists, given that there is reference to pedestrians in Clause 123(3). Can the Minister explain why it is necessary to refer specifically to pedestrians'? I understand that those who consider the transport needs of Londoners and academics regard walking as a mode of transport.

Most journeys in London are made on foot. Those journeys may be short but, numerically, walking is the most frequent choice. I do not for one moment suggest that facilities and services for pedestrians should be ignored, but I would be glad of clarification as to why it is necessary to make specific reference to pedestrians. We have debated not adding unnecessarily to the Bill If one starts on what might be regarded as a list, it is almost inevitable that noble Lords will add to it their genuine concerns.

Lord Whitty

I warmly welcome the slightly unusual support for cyclists. When this Chamber is somewhat fuller, one gets a different impression of the general view. I particularly welcome the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon—although he could not finish his remarks without taking a slight sideswipe at cyclists. I accept in part that there is a problem.

The Government have indicated a significant degree of support for cycling as a mode of transport. We have put substantial additional resources into the London cycling network, increasing the figure from £3.5 million to £5.5 million. We presume that the mayor will take on the major responsibility for developing that network and providing facilities for cyclists. 'The balance of allocations by the mayor will be for him or her but the mayor is required to have regard to the national policy on cycling. The purpose of the national cycling strategy is to increase the level of cycling in this country. In passing, I should add that 2 per cent of people cycle to work in this country. The usual comparison cited is that 30 per cent do so in Holland. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, just said that it is a lot flatter in Holland, but it also true to say that in Switzerland 10 per cent of the people travel to work on cycles. In comparison, despite the relative flatness of London, only a very small proportion of people travel to work on cycles.

I cannot understate the Government's commitment to supporting an increase in cycling as a mode of transport, for all sorts of reasons. My honourable friend Glenda Jackson has made her commitment clear in many contexts. Our concern about this amendment is legalistic and linguistic. There is a problem here. We have sought further clarification on the matter and we have been strongly advised that the term "transport facilities and such services" subsumes a reference to cycling. The word "transport" means that you are carried. Pedestrians are not carried. "Transport facilities" does not include pedestrians. Therefore, an explicit reference to pedestrians must be added.

Cycling is already included under the term "transport facilities and services" both here and elsewhere in the Bill and in other legislation. If we were to include a reference to cycling as an additional matter, as distinct from all other modes of transport, it would cast doubt on whether the term "transport facilities- elsewhere in the Bill included cycling. It clearly does include cycling and must do so. Whether or not there are other ways of doing so apart from the commitment that I have reiterated today and which my honourable friend Glenda Jackson has made quite clear in another place—namely, that cycling is expected to be a major part of the mayor's approach to integrated transport in London—it is not appropriate to do that in the form proposed by the amendment. Indeed, if we were to include it here, it could be counter-productive.

That is the advice I have received. I can only inform Members of the Committee of that advice. There may be a natural reaction, which is certainly mine and that of my colleagues, to that advice, but it has to be taken into account when drafting Bills. The noble Baroness said earlier that lawyers such as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have to use such words continuously, but that is our clear legal advice and we are sticking to it. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness not to pursue this amendment and to accept our reassurance to all concerned with cycling that it is a major priority for the mayor. We would expect the mayor to pursue it in line with the national commitments.

Midnight

Baroness Hamwee

Whatever the legal position, I hope that the Minister will understand that it is quite hard for Members of the Committee to consider that advice. The noble Lord has told us that he has been advised as to what words should or should not be included in the Bill, but he has not explained why he is so advised. It would be helpful to my noble friend and to me—and, indeed, to the rest of the Committee—to know the precise basis of that advice. I do not impugn what the Minister is saying as to the legal requirements, but I hope that he will understand that noble Lords would appreciate some knowledge as to the underlying argument which is the basis for the Minister's response.

Of course, the noble Lord may not be able to put that information into Hansard now. However, I am sure from the comments that have been made from all sides of the Committee that this is an issue which will attract attention at a later stage. Indeed, that may provide the opportunity for placing such points on the record. If that is not practicable, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to write to Members of the Committee setting out the basis of the argument.

Lord Whitty

I am certainly prepared to write to the noble Baroness but the advice is simple; namely, that we have to include pedestrians in the measure because they do not constitute transport, whereas cycling does. To differentiate cycling from other modes of transport would be detrimental to assuming that transport elsewhere in the Bill includes cycling. The letter will be short but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness and to other interested noble Lords.

Baroness Hamwee

I may not have made myself clear. Given the way that we build up law in this country using legislation and case law, I would have expected references to comparable decisions or legislative provisions which would have illustrated the issue. I am sorry to continue to be "picky" at this time of night but this is an important point.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I remind the Minister that we are discussing my amendment. As the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have said, this matter hinges on a legal interpretation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a good suggestion; namely, that we should get some clarification from the Minister between now and the next stage of the Bill which will allow us to decide how to proceed with this issue. As I understand the position, this legal process can be taken into account in court. I believe that is what the Minister meant when he discussed this part of the Bill. Perhaps he would like to add that point to his letter.

I would not want the Committee to believe that I had been completely converted, as the Minister appeared to suggest. My point is straightforward; namely, I am in favour in cycling but I am not in favour of a great many cyclists, for the reasons which I gave. However, if this amendment helps make provision for cyclists then it is a good thing. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 244A:

Page 67, line 26, at end insert ("and waste").

The noble Baroness said: We have discussed this amendment at length on a previous occasion. I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 244A not moved.]

Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 244B:

Page 67, line 26, at end insert (", and (c) the needs of all road users, assessed in relation to the efficient movement of people and, in particular, the needs and safety of pedestrians and cyclists").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to amend Clause 123(3)(b). We have discussed this subsection at some length. I am pleased and surprised to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is a convert to cycling. I did not see him on the parliamentary cycle race a couple of weeks ago. Several other colleagues were present, including my noble friend the Minister. However, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, must have made a late conversion.

With regard to Clause 123(3)(a) and (b), I get the impression that the transport facilities and services for public transport are covered by paragraph (a), whereas paragraph (b) covers freight, which I of course welcome. However, I felt that something was missing. My amendment seeks to address the question of space allocation on the road. We have heard much—in the White Paper and elsewhere—about encouraging local authorities to consider the needs of all road users. In the discussion on the previous amendment, several Members of the Committee said how important it was to give cyclists road space. One could argue that pedestrians also need such space. However, it appears that many local authority road engineers still measure their success in terms of numbers of road vehicles rather than in terms of numbers of people. I suggest the following wording, protecting from congestion the priority categories of traffic including emergency and other essential services, public transport, pedestrians, cyclists, disabled travellers and deliveries". I wonder whether such a wording might not be more appropriate.

Many things can be done by these engineers. A pedestrian can press the button on traffic lights and the lights go green immediately rather than 30 seconds elapsing, as happens in many locations—certainly in Westminster. We have talked about priority bus and cycle lanes—to some extent ad nausea. We have heard of pedestrianisation. The underlying logic is that if there is not enough road space for unrestricted use by everyone, then certain classes of traffic must have priority in order to protect essential commercial, social and strategic interests.

Many techniques are now available for achieving this aim quite cheaply. One can see the logic of according greater priority to a bus carrying 50 or 60 people rather than a car with two or three people in it. The natural reaction of many people—including, I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Brabaton—will be that if you give one group of people, say those in buses, greater priority, that causes more congestion for other people. Professor Phil Goodwin, of University College London, chairman of the advisory group used in preparing the transport White Paper, carried out research and collected international evidence which showed that although there is more congestion it is not as serious as has been suggested. The reason is that a certain proportion of the displaced traffic disappears from the system. It is not a very large proportion—the estimate is between 10 to 20 per cent in most cases—but it creates quite significant results. It needs courage to restrict certain types of traffic and promote others.

There are many examples one could give. At this time of night, I shall not do so. I give the example of a new idea by the Highways Agency to create a bus lane between Witney and Oxford on the A40. That road was built for three lanes; it was subsequently reduced by white paint to two. The agency wants to build another lane for buses only, which is commendable. But why not turn the road back into three lanes and make one of them a bus lane? That would save probably £10 million of capital costs.

A signal needs to go out to local authority engineers that people must be counted in the allocation of road space rather than traffic. My amendment is a short, not very good, attempt to draft something which I hope can be developed into instructions, guidance and all the other codes of practice which may follow on from it. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned my name twice in moving the amendment. I do not propose to respond. He appears to me to have made a speech which bears absolutely no relation whatever to the amendment. It was more applicable to a general transport debate, which we could have at a more suitable hour.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

I shall not speak at any length because of the time. The noble Lord has included in his amendment the words "in particular"; I could suggest to him places such as Hyde Park, where a cycle track across the bridge has restricted all other traffic to one lane. 'The park is now full of stationary, polluting traffic. There are all sorts of arguments, but I cannot support his amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My name is joined with that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in the amendment. I regard it as an extremely interesting amendment. From the way the noble Lord introduced it, it is clear that he considers it a probing amendment to see whether this important matter can be incorporated into the Bill.

We are not in a situation in London—and never will be—where we can create more road space. We have all the road space we are ever going to have, with very minor amendments to that statement. As a result, if we are to have efficient movement of people through the streets of London we have to have regard to the allocation of road space in the most efficient way as between different uses. That is what the amendment is about. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on having brought it to the attention of this Committee. I very much hope that the Minister in responding will deal with it in the serious way in which it was proposed, because these are ideas which could be extremely fruitful in terms of the mayor's transport strategy.

12.15 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I agree with my noble friend, but I could not disagree more with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, about the amendment not being relevant. If we were a little younger, we would know that there is yet another group of potential road users who are neither pedestrians nor cyclists. I wonder where roller-bladers fit into the definition. Roller-blading is a growing method of transport and it is not as strange as people may think. You get from A to B more quickly than if you walk, and blades are more transportable than a bicycle. That is the sort of group that I think is addressed by this amendment, which is useful in widening our minds with regard to the groups of people who may be able to use the roads safely if they were not quite so much taken up with motor vehicles.

Lord Whitty

This has been an unexpectedly wide-ranging debate. I do not come suitably briefed on a national strategy for roller-blading, but I recognise that it is a particular form of transport which we have failed completely to register in our integrated transport policy so far. Nevertheless, I take the point

My noble friend Lord Berkeley raised a lot of issues, many of which I have some sympathy with; but the terms of his amendment run up against the same objections as I raised earlier in relation to specifying cyclists as if they were not subsumed by "transport". It also runs up against some of the problems raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. Whether or not one agrees with her, it is clear that not in all circumstances will one wish to give preference to a particular modality. It must be part of the mayor's broader decisions on a strategic transport policy not to have the word "particularly" written into the Bill in one context when clearly in other contexts it may give some priority to particular modes and not to others. We have therefore couched the clause in a non-modal form so as to give the mayor responsibility for considering an integrated approach. I appreciate some of the points raised in our discussion but I do not think that the drafting of this amendment is helpful. I therefore hope that my noble friend may feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

I am more and more regretting this negative and legalistic attitude to the suggestions that have been made. This whole series of amendments seeks an inclusive approach to a transport policy up-front, so that we do not have to keep coming back over and over again to a series of arguments about whether a certain set of road-users should be mentioned in this or another context. There may be deficiencies in the drafting of the amendment, but it is an important one and, in my view, deserving of a more serious answer.

Lord Berkeley

I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comments. This was a probing amendment, as has been pointed out. I shall read very carefully what he said and perhaps revisit the amendment in a different form at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 123 agreed to.

Clause 124 [The Mayor's transport strategy]:

[Amendments Nos. 245 and 245A not moved.]

Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 245B:

Page 67, line 36, at end insert— ("() In preparing the transport strategy, the Mayor shall take into consideration—

1. (a) the government's policy for integrated transport;
2. (b) the needs of those who do not have access to a motor vehicle;
3. (c) the availability of strategic routes, water, rail and road; and
4. (d) the needs of commerce and environmental protection.

() In preparing the transport strategy, the mayor shall consult—

1. (a) the Strategic Rail Authority;
2. (b) London borough councils;
3. (c) local authorities covering areas within the responsibility of Transport for London;
4. (d) representatives of users of transport, including train, bus. underground, cyclists, pedestrians, as well as road, rail and air freight;
5. (e) any other person or body whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.").

The noble Lord said: I shall be brief. This is entirely a probing amendment. It seeks to ensure a nice, long list of those who should be consulted in preparing the transport strategy. I felt initially that there was a great deal of consultation at the next level down, but not much in regard to a particular transport strategy.

The whole business of consultation was discussed on an earlier Committee day. It is important that the mayor consults with those listed. However, I expect that I shall be told that it is not necessary to put this list on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

It is very late. I shall do no more than register my support for the amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

We had amendments very similar to this in regard to the national health Bill, where everyone set out pretty well everything. No matter what is set out, someone will be left out. Therefore, it is far better not to have such a list.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I hope that I can convince my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that the amendment is unnecessary.

Looking first at the matters which it is suggested the mayor should take into consideration, the transport strategy will be subject to Clauses 33 to 36 of the Bill. Those clauses lay down the process by which the mayor's strategies will have to be prepared. He or she will have to ensure that all strategies are consistent. That means that the mayor will need to integrate transport policies with environmental, economic development and planning policies.

The mayor will also need to ensure that the transport strategy is consistent with transport policy; in other words, with the Government's policy for integrated transport. He or she will need to have regard to how the strategy furthers the principal purposes of the authority, one of which is promoting social development in Greater London. Under Clause 124, the strategy must also include proposals for accessible transport for people with mobility problems.

I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness can therefore agree that the Bill as drafted will require the mayor in drawing up the strategy to take into account the matters listed in this amendment.

The matter of consultation occupied us for some time in our earlier consideration of the Bill. Under Clause 34, in preparing a strategy, the mayor must consult each London borough council and any other body that he or she considers appropriate. In deciding which other bodies are appropriate, the mayor must consider the list of bodies in Clause 27. That list includes voluntary bodies, and bodies which represent businesses.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, indicated the difficulty in drawing up lists. This list is not intended to be exclusive. It is simply impractical to list every single body which the mayor should consider consulting. The fact that the noble Lord has included on his list a body which does not yet exist—the strategic rail authority—shows the difficulty of the task facing anyone seeking to do so.

The provisions in the Bill as it stands mean that, where the mayor fails to give proper consideration as to whom he or she should consult, or fails to consult bodies representing groups with legitimate interests which would be affected, he or she could be challenged by the interested parties, the assembly or, ultimately, the courts. I hope that, with that comprehensive reassurance, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

Before the noble Lord responds, he is entirely right in hoping that we shall see a strategic rail authority before too long. The Government have, after all, tabled amendments, and indeed have included provisions in the Bill, which anticipate legislation that is not yet in effect. So the noble Lord is not entirely out of kilter—a term that seems to have come into favour this evening—in proposing a body that does not yet exist.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I did not imply in any way that that body was not important or that it would not come into being. The thought that crossed my mind was how many other bodies might come into being in future which noble Lords would consider appropriate to add to the list.

Lord Berkeley

I am grateful to my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her contribution. This is a probing amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 124 agreed to.

Clause 125 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:

Baroness Ham wee moved Amendment No. 245C:

Page 68, line 5, leave out ("direct") and insert ("request").

The noble Bareness said: In moving Amendment No. 245C, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 245D to 245F. Grouped with these amendments is Amendment No. 246 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and his noble friends. Clause 125 provides for further significant powers of direction on the part of the Secretary of State. They provide another pie out of which the Secretary of State is clearly not prepared to keep his finger.

The clause provides that if the Secretary of State considers that the transport strategy is inconsistent with national policies, and that the inconsistency is detrimental to an area outside London, he can direct the mayor to revise it. Why are these provisions necessary? With regard to national policies, Clause 33 provides that regard must be had to them. Conversely, why is that reference necessary in Clause 33 if we come upon it in the present context? Is it really appropriate to provide for directions on the part of the Secretary of State? The mayor may well have regard to national policies but have very good reasons for doing something slightly different in London.

As to detriment to an area outside London, I believe that it is up to the mayor to negotiate with such an area. I do not believe that counties are so directly restricted from doing things that are detrimental to their neighbours, including London. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. I do not suggest that they should set out to do things that are detrimental to their neighbours; I simply inquire whether they are subject to a legislative prohibition in that context.

In our view, the structure that the Government create under this Bill will increase the risk of conflict. The authority will always be in the shadow of nanny who is ready to sort things out. The Secretary of State is apparently not prepared to nurture self-reliance on the part of the mayor and assembly and leave them to grow up a bit and understand how to foster good relations.

We agree with the Conservatives. By indicating their opposition to the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill, they indicate that the Bill would be improved without the clause. But if it is to remain in the Bill, we propose that the direction should be a request so that there is the implicit requirement that there should be discussion and debate, and that the direction or request should be to the mayor and the assembly. The assembly will have views, embracing no doubt the effects outside London since by definition many members of the assembly will represent areas on the boundaries of London. Assembly members are likely to have the expertise to act as some moderating force on the mayor. Judging by the amendment in the name of the Conservatives, I believe that they may have a similar notion of the role of the assembly.

Finally, Amendment No. 245F proposes to leave out subsection (2). We find the "jump to it" spirit of the provision rather distasteful and inappropriate. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in moving the amendment. I speak to Amendment No. 246, and to the Question whether Clause 125 shall stand part of the Bill, because the two issues go together. My opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill is at the extreme end of the equation. I am glad that the noble Baroness indicates support. We believe that if one sets up this body with the mayor and the assembly, they should be allowed to get on with their job in this instance and the Secretary of State should leave them alone for all the reasons that the noble Baroness gave.

Amendment No. 246 is a compromise. It states: No direction by the Secretary of State shall come into force if it is rejected by a resolution of the Assembly".

In other words, if the mayor and the assembly agree with one another, as we hope they will, and the assembly votes on it, that will overrule the Secretary of State. Otherwise I agree with the amendment of the noble Baroness.

Lord Whitty

I am slightly astonished at the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, given the history of his government in Parliament, that we should set up the GLA and let them get on with it without the power of intervention by the Secretary of State.

I believe that in some circumstances the Secretary of State has to have the power of intervention. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated, the powers of intervention in Clause 125 are limited. They relate to a situation where a strategy is inconsistent with the national transport policy and at the same time has demonstrably adverse effects outside Greater London. In those circumstances, there is a responsibility on central government to act on behalf of the nation as a whole and the neighbouring or other part of the United Kingdom affected adversely by the policy.

Amendments Nos. 245C and 245D remove the reserve power insurance policy for the rest of the country by downgrading it to a request. Amendment No. 245F would remove the duty on the mayor to respond by changing the strategy in accordance with the direction. The circumstances in which that would arise would be rare; and the circumstances in which the power of a direction would be used probably rarer still. A deliberately high hurdle must be crossed before the Secretary of State can act. However, there may be circumstances where it is necessary to act to avoid detriment to the national policy. Amendment No. 245D in effect makes the Secretary of State's direction subject to the assembly. That seems to me an odd constitutional position which I cannot accept.

Amendment No. 246 would mean that if the assembly voted to reject it, any direction by the Secretary of State would not come into force. That raises a constitutional objection. It would not be an appropriate role for the London assembly which is there to scrutinise the actions of the mayor. The responsibility of the Secretary of State is, as always, to Parliament. There would be a serious confusion of roles. I do not believe that it is an overweening power. It would be used to protect the rest of the country as a reserve power and we would wish to see it retained on the face of the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

I accept that on this occasion, in contradistinction to intervention powers in another Bill which the House is considering, the basis for the exercise of the reserve powers is spelt out in the Bill. That much I welcome. Other than that, we disagree. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 245D to 246 not moved.]

Clause 125 agreed to.

Clause 126 agreed to.

Clause 127 [Preparation of the plan]:

[Amendments Nos. 246A and 247 not moved.]

Clause 127 agreed to.

Clause 128 [Approval of plans by the Mayor]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 247A:

Page 69, line 22, at end insert— ("() The Mayor shall approve a local implementation plan if he considers that it meets the criteria set out in subsection (3).").

The noble Baroness said: Clause 128 puts constraints on the approval of a local implementation plan. Under subsection (3) the mayor is not to approve an implementation plan unless in his view it meets certain criteria which are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I do not believe that the clause provides that the plan should be approved if it does meet those criteria. That is not implicit, especially as in subsection (2) the wording is that the mayor "may" approve a local implementation plan. Can the Minister clarify the position? I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

The amendment would reduce the mayor's discretion over whether or not to approve the local implementation plan. The amendment would mean that, provided the three conditions were met, the mayor would have no option but to approve the plan. That would mean that he or she would be unable to consider any other factors. While it may be true that the criteria are fairly wide and it is therefore unlikely that the mayor would wish to reject the plan on other factors, there are issues of whether, for example, the plan is unsatisfactory compared with the other plans submitted by other councils or would have a detrimental effect on their achievement.

Local implementation plans will be key to the successful implementation of the mayor's overall transport strategy and the mayor must have power to ensure that the plans contain all that is necessary. The boroughs must be consulted about the transport strategy, so they will already have had their chance to express their views about its nature and how it might affect their responsibilities. When they come forward with their own plans, there must be some flexibility with the mayor on whether he or she accepts them and whether he or she engages in a process of discussion with the local authorities to approve the plans and make them more compatible with the overall strategy. That is the intention of the clause.

I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness may see fit to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

Before my noble friend comes back, I should like to say that I find the reply of the noble Lord the Minister somewhat disappointing, given the difficulties that will inevitably arise from working in this two-tier way. I found the clause very negative in the first place. We are given a list of reasons why the mayor will not approve the strategy "unless". It would have been more positive if the clause had been drafted to say that he will approve it "if". The spirit of our amendment would be likely to provide a much better dialogue between the mayor and those boroughs drawing up the local implementation plan. Therefore, I think that we shall return to this subject, especially when we see the length of the Government's Amendment No. 248D, for example, which anticipates that there will be many problems and that life will not be easy.

Our amendment would make much clearer for those boroughs that are working on their plans exactly the spirit in which the mayor shall approach such matters. It would make it clear that the criteria are very important and that he is definite about them, so that both parties approach things in a positive spirit. The clause as it stands without our amendment is negative in spirit and will inhibit that.

Baroness Hamwee

My noble friend is absolutely right. If we are to have the negatives, would not it have been better simply to provide that, as subsection (1) says, Each London borough council shall submit its local implementation plan to the Mayor for his approval"? That says all that is required. But I have made that point a number of times, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 128 agreed to.

Clause 129 [Power of the Mayor to prepare a plan]:

[Amendment No. 248 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 248A:

Page 69, line 36, leave out from ("refuses") to ("unless") in line 39, and insert ("under subsection (2) of section 128 above to approve a local implementation plan, the London borough council which submitted the plan shall prepare a new local implementation plan and submit it to the Mayor under subsection (1) of that section")

The noble Lord said: I shall also speak to the rest of the amendments in this group: Amendments Nos. 248B to 248P and 249A to 249F. These amendments, which relate to the local implementation plans, are here because when we discussed those plans in another place we were pressed on why we had not included any provisions for review of the plans. There were other questions, including why the mayor could claim only reasonable administrative expenses, rather than all reasonable expenses, from the boroughs if he or she had to intervene to implement a plan. Other issues were also raised.

We agreed to go away and reflect on these matters, and the amendments in this group are largely the fruits of those reflections. Rather a large number of amendments are required, but it is necessary to ensure that the same process is followed for a revised plan as for the original.

The amendments have three main purposes. First, they make it clear that the boroughs have a duty to revise their local implementation plans when the transport strategy is revised, unless they notify the mayor that this is unnecessary. Secondly, they enable the boroughs to propose revisions of their own to local implementation plans if they see fit, even in the absence of a revised mayoral strategy. Thirdly, they enable the mayor to recover any "reasonable expenses" from the boroughs when he or she has had to prepare or implement a local implementation plan on their behalf, rather than, as under the previous provisions, being limited to "reasonable administrative expenses".

The rest of the amendments are consequential on those three main purposes. They apply the procedure for preparing and submitting local implementation plans under the existing clauses to revised implementation plans under these clauses.

Amendment No. 248E, a new clause, allows revisions to be made to a local implementation plan either when a borough wants to propose changes to its own implementation plan, or when the transport strategy has been revised. In the latter case, a borough may notify the mayor that it doe; not think any revisions to its LIP are necessary.

Amendment No. 248E specifies what a revised LIP should contain and whom the borough should consult in preparing it. Subsection (3) applies Clause 128 to a revised LIP. Those procedures replicate those for the initial LIP.

Amendment No. 248F allows the mayor to intervene if a borough's revised LIP does not fully implement the strategy as it applies to its area or if a borough has not prepared revisions when those are necessary. This clause therefore replicates the mayor's powers in Clauses 128 and 129 which were in relation to the initial plan. It extends them to apply to a revised implementation plan.

Although this seems to be a complicated set of amendments, it squares the process of revision of LIPS, as we were requested to do in another place. I hope that Members of the Committee will understand the need for the amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

12.45 a.m.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 248B:

Page 69, line 40, leave out ("in writing").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 248BA not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 248C:

Page 70, line 19, leave out ("administrative").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 248D to 248F:

After Clause 129, insert the following new clause—

REVISION

(" .—(1) A London borough council may at any time prepare such revisions as it considers appropriate to the council's local implementation plan.

(2) Where the Mayor revises the transport strategy under section 33(2) above, each London borough council shall as soon as reasonably practicable after the Mayor has published the transport strategy as revised prepare such revisions to the council's local implementation plan as it considers are necessary in order to implement that strategy in its area.

(3) Where a London borough council considers that no revisions are required to be prepared under subsection (2) above the council shall notify the Mayor.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the "local implementation plan", in relation to any London borough council, means whichever of the following has been most recently approved, or as the case may be, prepared, by the Mayor, namely—

1. (a) a local implementation plan prepared by the council and approved by the Mayor under section 128 above;
2. (b) a local implementation plan, as proposed by the council to be revised, approved by the Mayor under that section; and
3. (c) a local implementation plan or revised local implementation plan prepared by the Mayor on behalf of the council.").

After Clause 129, insert the following new clause—

PROCEDURE FOR REVISION

(" .—(1) In preparing any revisions under section (Revision) above a London borough council shall consult the bodies and persons required to be consulted under subsection (2) of section 127 above, taking the references in paragraph (d) of that subsection and in subsection (5) of that section to the local implementation plan as references to revisions under section (Revision) above.

(2) Each local implementation plan as proposed to be revised shall include the matters specified in section 127(1) and (3) above.

(3) The provisions of section 128 above shall apply to a London borough council's local implementation plan as proposed to be revised as they apply to the council's local implementation plan.").

After Clause 129, insert the following new clause—

POWER OF THE MAYOR TO PREPARE A REVISED PLAN

(" .—(1) Where the Mayor has published the transport strategy as revised but it appears to the Mayor that a London borough council has failed—

1. (a) to prepare such revisions to the council's local implementation plan, or
2. (b) to submit to him for approval such a local implementation plan as proposed to be revised,

as the Mayor considers necessary in order to implement in the council's area the transport strategy as revised, the Mayor may issue to the council a direction under section 132 below requiring the council to do so within such period as the Mayor shall specify in the direction.

(2) Where the Mayor has issued a direction of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) above but the council has not complied with the direction within a reasonable time, the Mayor may prepare a revised local implementation plan on behalf of the council.

(3) Where the Mayor refuses to approve under subsection (2) of section 128 above a local implementation plan as proposed to be revised, the London borough council which submitted the plan shall prepare new revisions and submit to the Mayor under subsection (1) of that section a new local implementation plan as proposed to be revised, unless the Mayor notifies the council that he intends to exercise his powers under subsection (4) below.

(4) Where the Mayor—

1. (a) refuses to approve under subsection (2) of section 128 above a local implementation plan as proposed to be revised, and
2. (b) has served on the London borough council who submitted the plan a notice under subsection (3) above,

the Mayor may prepare a revised local implementation plan on behalf of the council.

(5) In preparing a revised local implementation plan the Mayor shall consult the bodies and persons required to be consulted under subsection (5) of section 129 above, taking the references in paragraphs (a) and (e) of that subsection and in subsection (8) of that section to a local implementation plan prepared on behalf of a London borough council as references to a revised local implementation plan prepared on behalf of such a council.

(6) A revised local implementation plan prepared by the Mayor under this section shall include the matters specified in section 127(1) and (3) above.

(7) Where the Mayor prepares a revised local implementation plan on behalf of a London borough council, he may recover from the council as a civil debt any reasonable expenses incurred by him in preparing the plan.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 130 [Implementation by a London borough council]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 248G to 248N:

Page 70, line 27, at end insert (", or a local implementation plan as proposed to be revised,").

Page 70, line 29, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("submitted").

Page 70, line 31, after ("above") insert ("or, as the case may be, section (Procedure for revision) (2) above").

Page 70, line 33, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, section (Procedure for revision) (2) above").

Page 70, line 34, after ("plan") insert ("or a revised local implementation plan").

Page 70, line 35, after first ("above") insert ("or, as the case may be, section (Power of the Mayor to prepare a revised plan) above").

Page 70, leave out line 38 and insert ("approved by the Mayor under section 128 above or, as the case may be, a local implementation plan as proposed to be revised, approved by the Mayor under that section.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 131 [Implementation by the Mayor]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 248P:

Page 71, line 2, at end insert— ("() Subsection (1) above applies in relation to a local implementation plan, as proposed to be revised, approved by the Mayor under section 128 above as it applies to a local implementation plan approved by the Mayor under that section.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 249 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 249A:

Page 71, line 15, leave out ("administrative").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 132 [Directions by the Mayor]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 249AA:

Page 71, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 249BA, 249EA, 249EB, 249G and 249H. Under Clause 132 the mayor has considerable powers of direction over the boroughs with regard to the manner in which they are to exercise their functions regarding local implementation plans.

I can understand the mayor's interest in the outcome, but should the mayor be concerned with the process, say, for the time by which the local implementation plans will have been created and put into effect, Clause 132(2) includes the timetable as one of a list of six matters, and they are not, in themselves, exclusive.

Amendment No. 249AA deletes from Clause 132(1)(b) the mayor's power of specific direction as to the manner in which a London borough council is to exercise the functions. Amendment No. 249BA deletes Clause 132(2)(b), which contains directions as to the bodies or persons who must be consulted about a local implementation plan. Consultation by a borough is a matter for the borough; it is a local matter.

Amendment No. 249EA deletes Clause 132(2)(e), which sets out directions as to how the borough is to implement the proposals contained in the local implementation plan. The action to be taken by the borough seems again to be a matter for the borough since the mayor is concerned with overall strategic matters which will include important local details but should not, in our view, allow the mayor to become involved unduly in detail at local level.

Amendment No. 249EB deletes Clause 132(2)(f) which provides for directions as to the steps required to be taken to remove the effects of action which is incompatible with local implementation plan proposals. That seems to us to be very wide. Whose action is the mayor able to direct the London borough council to agree with? One hopes that borough action will have been determined with consultation with residents and neighbouring boroughs. This seems to be a particularly wide provision.

Amendment No 249G provides that direction should be given only with the agreement of the assembly. As I have said, these are wide powers. Even if we are told, as we may be, that these are again reserved powers, we believe that the scrutiny role of the assembly would appropriately give it a role in this exercise.

Amendment No. 249H requires prior consultation with the borough in question before these powers of direction may be exercised. The Committee may gather from this that we do not much like Clause 132. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I have tabled a Motion that Clause 132 does not stand part of the Bill. I may as well speak to that now. I shall be brief because the noble Baroness has pretty well deleted the clause with the amendments she has just moved.

This amendment is a boost for subsidiarity. The mayor should not have untrammelled rights to dictate to councils how they perform their transport functions. Councils are close to the local people affected and more knowledgeable about local circumstances. Councils are responsible and better able to ensure that the local implementation plan interfaces with the other policies and functions of the council. Councils should be accountable to their electorate and not to the mayor for the implementation of policy. Therefore, I agree with the amendments moved by the noble Baroness.

Lord Whitty

This clause provides the mayor with the ability to give legally binding instructions to councils on the manner in which they perform any of their duties under this clause or the previous four clauses. It is vital that the mayor has sufficient powers to ensure that the strategy is properly implemented. Our intention is that the mayor's strategy should cover high-level areas with the detail left to the boroughs, as the noble Lord implied in his general approach to this clause.

Nevertheless, there will be specific areas where, in order for the overall strategy to work and for the co-operation to exist between the boroughs, the GLA and the London boroughs, there will need to be specific powers; for example, if local boroughs' policies cause problems on a GLA road, then the mayor needs to have powers to intervene. If, as was alluded to at an earlier stage in the consideration of this Bill, there are problems where one borough has given parking priority to residents on one side of the road and the other borough has given parking priority to residents on the other side of the road to the detriment of cyclists and through traffic, then the mayor has to have powers to intervene specifically.

I hope that these general powers will be used on only limited occasions. The wide range of traffic and transport responsibilities which the mayor has will only he implemented if a positive and constructive relationship is built between the boroughs and the GLA. It is important, therefore, that we do not rely on reserve powers to deliver the strategy. The kind of instances to which I have referred will arise from time to time and there will be difficulties in resolving them unless the mayor is given reserve powers.

It is important to recognise that the boroughs will already have been fully involved in the development of the mayor's strategy in the first place; that the requirements of that strategy are well communicated to the boroughs prior to them drawing up their own local implementation plans; and that in the same way that local transport plans in the rest of the country will be scrutinised and accepted or otherwise amended by the Secretary of State, within London those powers are there for the mayor. The mayor will have powers of direction should the overall policy or co-operation across London be jeopardised by the failure of the local implementation plan to operate in a way which delivers that strategy.

It is not the intention that the mayor should have the responsibility for dealing with every individual item within the boroughs' strategy; that must be for the boroughs. But there will be exceptions where the mayor will need to intervene. To remove these powers entirely, as would happen with the removal of Clause 132 and as suggested by the combination of measures put forward by the noble Baroness, would leave the mayor in a very much weakened position.

The specific requirement that the mayor should seek the agreement of the assembly, which is covered by Amendment No. 249G, is again a confusion of the powers of the assembly and the executive powers of the mayor. A direction is a matter for the mayor. It may be sensible to discuss this with the assembly, but at the end of the day, the decision should be the mayor's to issue a directive.

These are reserve powers. They would not be used very frequently but, in order to make a reality of the strategy, they have to exist and, unfortunately, on occasion situations will arise where they will need to be invoked. I hope therefore that noble Lords will not press these amendments which drastically reduce that power.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

Can the noble Lord tell the Committee, in relation to this and some of the previous amendments relating to the relationship between the mayor and the London boroughs, what importance he lays upon a system which will encourage good relations between the boroughs and the mayor as compared with a series of provisions which are almost bound to put the mayor in conflict with the boroughs? That is at the root of the objections to the clauses by members of both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches.

Having lived in a two-tier authority area and worked as part of a two-tier system, I know that one has to work hard to secure agreement between the two levels. Simply putting in the hands of the chairman of Surrey county council a requirement that the local borough or district council should do such and such would have contributed nothing to the creation of good relations between the two tiers in that county.

1 a.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My noble friend is right. I return to something that the Minister said earlier—that the mayor is elected to do a job and how would the electorate feel if he does not do that job? The converse applies in this case. London borough councils have been elected to do a job and some of the new powers will take away the jobs that they were elected to do. The Minister's contention is that in some cases, the councils will be performing the job poorly. Surely that is for the electorate.

If the Government intend that, as soon as a council does not perform well, someone else should take over and run matters, that is yet another disincentive to the public to turn out and vote through the ballot box for a more efficiently run council. I accept that there is a fine balance in letting inefficiency continue but it is not the mayor's job to interfere in what is clearly a local issue.

Clause 132(2)(b) refers to the people who should be consulted. The borough council may have consulted a number of bodies and persons and produced a set of issues and a way forward that is acceptable locally. The mayor may not find that way easy to work with. He may not like it. But it is not reasonable for him then to ask a different group of people to come up with a different question. It is a matter of subsidiarity. I do not think that writing into the Bill something that takes that away will add to the wish of local people to contribute to the implementation plans—which is important if they are to work—or strengthen the role of the mayor.

There is confusion in the drafting of the clause between what is truly strategic and what is operational. If the mayor were involved in such detail in several London boroughs, he would not have time to pursue much of his strategic role.

Lord Whitty

Most of what the noble Baroness said indicates that we are not absolutely agreed that a strategic authority is needed. There is a clear commitment in the Bill to produce a transport strategy. I thought we were all agreed that the mayor should be the major instrument for drawing up that strategy, entering into consultation and ensuring that involvement takes place at all levels—with the boroughs as one of the key elements in delivering the strategy.

If we all accept that London has been lacking an overall approach to planning different modes of transport—as I believe we do—we cannot also say that the mayor shall have no powers over the boroughs and the other elements, in terms of the functional bodies and so on, in delivering the strategy. Clearly we want that to be done with an ethos of partnership, understanding and give-and-take between the various planning levels. At the end of the day, the person and institution responsible for the strategy must have the tools to carry it out.

Sometimes it will come down to a particular issue. For example, there may be a conflict about a road that is a strategic road. If there is a conflict where a borough takes a decision which distorts the modalities of the rest of the strategy, then that may appear to be a very particular decision to the borough but it will have wider strategic implications. Therefore, the mayor requires these reserve powers.

I am sure that the noble Baroness and all concerned will accept on one level that that is the case, but the working through of the strategy means that where there is a problem which cannot be overcome by negotiation or by a joint approach, then one party or the other has to have the decision-making process. In our view, it must be the mayor because, at the end of the day, he or she will be responsible for the delivery of that strategy. I therefore hope that noble Lords' opposition to this clause will be reduced by what I have said and that they will not pursue their amendments.

Baroness Hamwee

As I said when I moved the amendment and spoke to the rest of the group, our concerns relate to the mayor's prospective involvement in the process and not just in the outcome as regards ensuring that his strategy is implemented. Of the examples given of possible difficulties, I have to say that, arguably, one of them is not strategic, while the other suggests that the mayor's views must override those of the borough. That is exactly the self-fulfilling recipe for conflict to which my noble friends so correctly alluded.

We believe that there should be a strategic authority: indeed, we have been quite clear about that. However, we have also been quite clear that the boroughs need to be allowed to work in partnership. Although the Minister used that terminology, we do no see that the clause assists that partnership. With regard to the role of the assembly, we are not confused about it. We acknowledge that we take a different view from the Government. However, that will not deter us from continuing to make points which we believe are apposite.

I am not sure how much longer we shall continue tonight, but I shall leave room for further debate in this respect. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 249B:

Page 71, line 26, after ("plan") insert ("or revisions to such a plan").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 249BA not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 249C to 249E:

Page 71, line 28, at end insert ("or revisions to such a plan").

Page 71, line 29, after (" 127(3)(a)") insert (", (Procedure for revision) (2) or (Power of the Mayor to prepare a revised plan) (6)").

Page 71, line 30, after (" 127(3)(b)") insert (", (Procedure for revision) (2) or (Power of the Mayor to prepare a revised plan) (6)").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 249EA and 249EB not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 249F:

Page 71, line 35, at end insert— ("() The reference in subsection (2)(e) above to the local implementation plan includes a reference to—

1. (a) a local implementation plan, as proposed by a London borough council to be revised, approved by the Mayor under section 128 above; and
2. (b) a local implementation plan or revised local implementation plan prepared by the Mayor on behalf of a London borough council.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 249G and 249H not turned.]

Clause 132, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

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

House adjourned at eight minutes past one o'clock.