Lords Sitting of 1 November 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Baroness Massey of Darwen
Doreen Elizabeth Massey, having been created Baroness Massey of Darwen, of Darwen in the County of Lancashire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Jay of Paddington and the Baroness Castle of Blackburn, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Smith of Leigh
Peter Richard Charles Smith, Esquire, having been created Baron Smith of Leigh, of Wigan in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Donoughue and the Lord Evans of Parkside, and made the solemn Affirmation.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to visit the Land Registry and the Combined Courts Centre and will also deliver the annual Pilgrim Fathers Lecture in Plymouth on Friday, 5th November, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

AS/A-level Examination Reforms
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether sufficient information will be available to schools in time to introduce the new AS/A-level system in September 2000.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): Yes, my Lords. My department and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority have sent schools and colleges a wide range of advice and guidance on implementing the reforms arising from the Government's consultation on our manifesto commitment to,
"support broader A-levels and upgraded vocational qualifications, underpinned by rigorous standards and key skills".
The awarding bodies have now published the new AS/A-level specifications in draft form. The final versions will be available in January.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does she accept that the fact that
558
schools will not receive the new syllabuses until January will leave very little time for staff to prepare to teach pupils eight or nine months later, given that the new teaching will be coupled with a requirement for a complete reorganisation of the sixth form in order to have both the staffing and the necessary skills to teach four or five AS-levels in the first year sixth?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is not a fair criticism of the QCA. It sent out a detailed guidance document on the new qualifications in April and a detailed curriculum guidance suitable for a wide range of schools and colleges in September. Synopses of all the AS and A-level specifications were sent out in mid-October. The draft synopses are similar to the final version; and indeed schools were always told that the final versions would be available in January.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is understandable that the noble Baroness will not accept a criticism from my noble friend Lady Young, as I suspect she will not accept a criticism from me. However, will she accept that there is genuine anxiety on the part of staff on three counts: first, that they will not receive information until well into the new year; secondly, that they do not have the staffing to gear up for the new subject syllabus in the new year; and thirdly, that they do not have the resources to do so because there is an unprecedented top-slicing of money by the Department for Education which is eating into the core funding of our schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am always happy to accept criticisms, even from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when they are valid, but I am afraid that none of these is. To take the three points she mentioned, as I indicated, schools have already received an enormous amount of information about the changes, and the changes have been welcomed. This Government have finally done what had been necessary for a long time; namely, broaden the sixth form curriculum. That has been welcomed not only by schools and FE colleges, but also by employers and the universities. The noble Baroness mentioned staffing. The Government are investing £17 million in development programmes to support staff in developing the new curricula. She also asked about resources. The Further Education Funding Council has put £75 million into—
Baroness Blatch: But, my Lords, that is FE—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, further education and sixth form colleges have more than half the total number of full-time students aged between 16 and 19. If the noble Baroness will wait a moment, I shall move on to talk about schools. FE is receiving a further £75 million, and the schools will have an enormous increase of over 5 per cent in their budget through the local education authority settlement for the year 2000–2001.
Lord Tope: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while we must do all we can to expedite arrangements

559
for AS and A-level examinations in September next year, it is high time we developed a single nationally administered qualification system covering both academic and vocational qualifications?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a big issue. We are taking steps to create a more rational and coherent system, including in these particular reforms aligning the GNVQ system much more closely to the A-level/AS-level system.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us would prefer to scrap A-levels completely and introduce the baccalaureate?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I am aware that there are those who would like to see a radical reform of the curriculum for 16 to 19 year-olds. The Government judged that the right way to proceed was to build on the good qualities of A-levels by defending the academic rigour that is central to them, but at the same time in the hope that, given the new opportunities, far more young people will study a rather wider range of subjects than the very narrow and rather restricted curriculum that they studied previously.

Streetworks: Operations Control
2.55 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to introduce legislation to give local authorities control over the digging up of streets so as to minimise the difficulties caused to both residents and traffic management.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, streetworks operations are governed by the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991. The Government seek to achieve a balance between the need for the utilities to install and access equipment from time to time and minimising the disruption caused. On 13th October, my department published a consultation document on incentives to minimise disruption and improve streetworks co-ordination in England. It proposed that utilities should be charged for occupying sites for longer than necessary.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that somewhat disappointing reply. Is he aware that the chaos caused by utility companies digging up our streets and pavements with uncoordinated plans and uncoordinated management is well known and well documented and that it has become a public disgrace? Is he further aware that local authorities clearly do not have satisfactory statutory powers of control over the many utility companies—there are some 26 of them—that they
560
could have if the Minister implemented powers given to him under the 1991 Act? When, as has happened in one case, a London street has been dug up 30 times in one year, does that not call for firm action rather than dithering delay with yet more consultation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note the noble Earl's concern. Indeed, many others have expressed concern about the degree of disruption. But there are conflicting priorities here. The utilities must have access to their own facilities. The important thing is that we improve co-ordination. There is already a fairly substantial code of practice on co-ordination. However, it is also true, as the noble Earl indicates, that the final sections of the 1991 Act have yet to be triggered. We had hoped, as had the previous administration, that there would have been agreement on proceeding. There has not been that agreement. The consultation document to which I referred offers two options on charging utilities. We hope for feedback on that consultation by January, after which those powers will either be triggered, or powers will be introduced in new legislation.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that when the utilities cause problems on our streets, half the problem is that they do not know where their pipes or cables are? Does my noble friend agree that about 10 years ago there was a plan for all the utilities to be required to map exactly where their pipes and cables were, and that that plan was cancelled by the previous government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the 1991 Act includes the possibility of such powers but, as with the charging elements, they were never triggered by the previous administration. We, like the previous government, have tried to seek agreement on them. However, if those clauses were enacted, I am not entirely sure that they would achieve rapidly what my noble friend requires. They would require the utilities merely to keep a record of newly placed or located facilities. There are a large number of historic facilities under our highways which, I regret to say, are not effectively mapped. A full inventory could be built up over time by the use of those powers, and that is one of the approaches that we are examining. But that would not instantly give us a total picture of the network.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, what is the Minister's attitude towards GIs and the ability to plan services on one integrated computer system, as other countries are doing? It is surely an approach that we, with our high population densities, ought to be able to take.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the present code of practice requires co-ordinated notification which should be capable of translation into an electronic-based system of planning. At the moment we are short of that. One of the matters that we are looking at in the

561
consultation is how to move more rapidly in that direction. However, it requires powers over and above those already in the 1991 Act.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how many trees have been damaged by the digging of so many holes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I can comment on the precise number of trees affected. Clearly, there is a problem here in that the only powers of local authorities relate to reaching agreement on timing and insisting on that only on the basis of traffic disruption. There are some powers related to noise, but local authorities have no general powers to deal with environmental considerations. Once we have the basic system right perhaps that should also be considered.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while many people are annoyed about their roads being dug up, they are even more annoyed to see hobs being left for days, weeks, months and even longer without anyone working on them? What can he do to ensure that once a road is dug up some action follows?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, either of the proposals that we have put in consultation paper would charge utilities and others who dig up the roads on a per day or overstay basis. Clearly, either would be a disincentive to remaining there for longer than needed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm or not that the additional powers that it is common ground are needed should be devolved to the local authorities? Does he agree that, although one accepts that the priority lies with the public utilities—always in the case of an emergency—the situation is now wholly out of control and residents should be given some notice, consideration and a chance to cope with it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, while there are national provisions related to notice and consultation, the powers to which I refer and the charging procedures under the consultation would accrue to local authorities. Local authorities would have the ability to apply those powers or not in particular cases.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Street Works Bill which was a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole? Is he also aware that my honourable friend originally hoped that that Bill, which would have gone a long way to solving the problem, would receive government support which, following a sudden change of mind, was withdrawn? Can the Minister say why that support was withdrawn?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, support in principle for the Fraser Bill was not withdrawn. However, we believed
562
that to enact the Bill in its then form, which effectively adopted only one of the options, would pre-empt the consultation in which we are now engaged.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, the Minister indicated that charges would be levied if a contractor occupied a site for longer than necessary. Who will decide the necessary length of time?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if we take that option the agreement would be, as now, between the local authority and the utility, cable company or whatever as to the length of time the hole would be in the road. There would be a prior agreement. If that time was exceeded penalty charges would accrue.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when road repairs break down shortly after they have been undertaken who is responsible for ensuring that the work is redone to a proper standard, particularly in rural areas where this situation seems to occur on a number of roads?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord refers to the repair of the road rather than the utility facility, which is clearly covered by the utility's responsibility to its customers. As to the road, it is required to return the road to an adequate standard. From time to time in order to avoid traffic disruption the utility must do a makeshift job and then return. Clearly, it is desirable that that second digging up of the road should be avoided wherever possible, but it is even more important that the road is returned to an adequate standard.

Nuclear Warheads
3.4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they or others are taking to secure a reduction in the total number of nuclear warheads, estimated at present to be 40,000.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government continue to press for early progress towards further reductions in nuclear weapons. We hope for early ratification by Russia of START II and a successful outcome to discussions between the United States and Russia on a possible START III treaty. The Government announced significant reductions in Britain's own nuclear deterrent in last year's Strategic Defence Review.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, bearing in mind that a few hundred of these awful weapons would be more than sufficient to devastate the planet, it is profoundly shocking that this huge stockpile should have been with us for so long and there is little prospect of diminishing it? Does she believe that it is time that a new initiative comes out of

563
the White House—there has not been one for a long time—to reduce this stockpile which is of no possible use to anyone but is a source of immense hazard?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is shocking that there are so many of these weapons. Noble Lords will be aware that Her Majesty's Government have been clear in their commitment to nuclear disarmament. In last year's Strategic Defence Review we reduced our capability significantly. We have also committed ourselves, and led the world in terms of transparency, to ensuring that this matter is addressed with vigour. We continue to ask all our partners to join us in this endeavour.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is to be congratulated on raising this important subject? Does she also agree that the matter should not be left as it is now but that public knowledge of the danger in which we live should be increased to the point where the danger can be seriously reduced before a disaster does the alarming for us? Is it not better to take firm action now and for all countries to do the same so that the disaster that most of us fear may happen does not take place?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are already taking firm action. We have a clear internationally agreed way forward towards nuclear disarmament. The next steps are further major reductions in the arsenals of the two major nuclear powers, the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty. We continue to press for early progress in all these areas despite the difficulties that are well known to your Lordships' House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can my noble friend give precise figures for other countries within NATO? For example, can she say what the position is in France and Germany at the present time?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have the precise figures but I can write to the noble Lord in relation to them. We have round figures but not precise ones.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the greatest problems is that there is a large stockpile of these weapons in the former Soviet Union, not just in Russia but also the Ukraine and elsewhere, in deteriorating condition, with lousy security implications? Does the noble Baroness also accept that the United States has done much more to assist in the disposal of that stockpile than the United Kingdom or our West European allies? Will the Government consider whether we and our European Union allies should be doing more?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree that the United States has done a lot to assist Russia, but
564
I do not accept that Her Majesty's Government have not played an equal part. We have been vigorous in this area. We have supported all our allies, particularly our American friends, in this endeavour and shall continue to do so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, regarding the possession of nuclear weapons, what is the view of the noble Baroness of the recent judgment of Greenock sheriff court?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have not yet had the judgment given by the sheriff court; and we await an opportunity to read it in detail. But we are confident that there is no conflict between the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion and the Government's policy of minimum deterrence. When we have had an opportunity to study the formal findings of the sheriff court, we shall be able to take a more informed view.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, given that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is scheduled for review in the fairly near future, does the Minister agree that many of the non-nuclear powers are troubled at the absence of much sign from the nuclear powers that they want to make a move in that direction? Would it not be a major contribution to confidence-building if NATO were to make a declaration of no first use?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I under-stand the noble and learned Lord's sentiment and his anxiety. It is a difficult issue. However, we have made it clear, nationally and in NATO, that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are now extremely remote.
Nevertheless, NATO continues to reserve the right of limited first use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defence to persuade an aggressor to desist if no other means are available. It is clear that there is no prospect of consensus among the allies on a move to a policy of no first use.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should bring home to our friends in the United States the tremendous damage done to the cause of arms control by the recent decision on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? Does my noble friend agree that in his forthright leadership, the President of the United States speaks more convincingly for the people of the United States? Does she agree that if we are to make progress on this front, it is essential to bring home to our friends in America that it is while they have ascendancy that they have a vested interest for their own future in building up convincing international policies and agreements?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have made clear to the Americans our grave disappointment with the US Senate vote. But, as the noble Lord says, that vote does not mean the end of the treaty. We have welcomed the US Administration's

565
expression of continuing support for the treaty. We shall continue to work with them and other key countries to bring the treaty into force as soon as possible.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while discussing American attitudes, will the Minister accept that although the Senate's refusal to counsel assent at this stage to the ratification of the total test ban treaty may be understandable, it is difficult to understand the total inactivity of the President of the United States with regard to the stockpile during his term of office?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. We are extremely disappointed that the Americans have taken the view that they have. It would have been preferable if they could have led by example to encourage others to join us in what is a very important endeavour. We have an indication that the American Administration are seeking to address the issue.

Business of the House: Food Standards Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday next so far as to allow the Food Standards Bill to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Grenfell.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.13 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Greater London Authority Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third lime.
Clause 6 [Failure to attend meetings]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 39, after ("If") insert (", without the consent of the Assembly,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5. The amendments relate to the period of absence without consent. Amendment No. 1 refers to assembly members. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 refer to the mayor. The amendments seek to reduce the period from the six months provided in the Bill to three months.
I make no apologies for returning to this matter again even at this late stage. It is not a matter of great principle. It does not affect the structure of the Bill. But we believe it to be extremely important in terms of practical common sense. I say that with 25 years' experience in local government. As regards assembly members, we are dealing with a situation which will arise sooner or later.
The provision in the Bill which requires assembly members to be deemed to have resigned if they have been absent from meetings for six months is based on local government practice and legislation. We have debated the issue. Why is the assembly different? Why should it be treated differently?
The Government have told us throughout the passage of the Bill that the assembly is not local government. For that reason alone, the provisions for local government need not apply. There are important differences between the Greater London assembly and any local authority. First, the assembly will have only 25 members. That is exactly half the number of the smallest London borough council. Unlike all local authorities, there will be no back-bench assembly members. All 25 assembly members will have individually and collectively important duties and roles to play. Most, if not all, will also be members of the various functional bodies being established. Unlike most, possibly all, councillors, assembly members are expected to be full time. Even more importantly, unlike the vast majority—arguably all—local authority councillors, full-time assembly members are to be paid a full-time salary. We do not yet know what that is to be.
Various objections have been put forward by the Government during the passage of the Bill. Assembly members may be unavoidably absent perhaps through long-term illness. The Minister will recall my pointing out the practice in local government of giving consent for someone to be absent for a longer period if there is good reason—such as long-term illness. The amendment provides for that, to make doubly sure. We are dealing with full-time, paid assembly members who are absent for a period of time without good reason and without the consent that the assembly would normally give.
It is a very different position from that which applies in local government. A single assembly member may be more greatly missed because of the smaller number of members and the greater responsibilities involved than those of a back-bench councillor or a committee chair on a local authority who, if long-term illness prevents him carrying out his duties, can be more easily replaced temporarily by a colleague.
We believe that six months' absence in a four-year term from any meeting—I do not refer just to the full meeting of the assembly, but also its sub-committees, and so on—is much too long. In debate on the issue, the Government have given no good argument why the period should be six months rather than three months. We are dealing with an assembly which will work every day. Full-time members will attend the

567
assembly building every day. They will be paid full-time salaries. We are not dealing with councillors who turn up once a week or fortnight for a meeting.
We think that the appropriate period is three months. If an assembly member is absent without good reason and without prior consent for a longer period than three months, a serious situation will occur. Under such circumstances, that assembly member is unable to carry out his duties and, if necessary, should be removed from office.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 make the same provisions with regard to the mayor who, under the Bill as it stands, is required to attend six consecutive monthly meetings of the assembly. I accept and hope that such circumstances are less likely to arise. If the mayor ignores the assembly for a period as long as six months, or even three months, there are greater difficulties than are provided for in the Bill.
The whole purpose of legislating here is to deal with situations which we hope will not arise, but which may arise. It is better to envisage situations which may arise and provide accordingly at this stage than after the event when there will be all kinds of difficulties.
A mayor needs to have, and I hope will have, a good and positive working relationship with the assembly. The mayor will wish to attend assembly meetings and the assembly will wish the mayor to attend. There may be circumstances in which that is not possible and we make provision for the assembly to consent to absence for a longer period if there is a good reason. That is the custom and practice in local government.
In objecting to the measure on Report, the Minister said that the assembly could possibly collaborate with the mayor to ensure that the mayor never had to attend assembly meetings. I suppose that, theoretically, that is possible, but I suggest that if we ever reach the stage where the assembly wishes to collude with the mayor so as to ensure that the mayor never attends assembly meetings, there is something deeply wrong with the whole process. We all conjecture on unlikely happenings, but on this occasion the Minister strayed into fantasy. Such a situation will not arise.
If a mayor decides that he or she does not wish to attend assembly meetings, a period of six months in a four-year term of office is a long time to provide. We are talking about a mayor who has considerable powers, albeit limited by the Bill, and a high personal profile. The whole purpose of the assembly is to be able to question the mayor and to hold the mayor to account. If the mayor is able to "escape" meetings for a period as long as six months, the mayor is thumbing his nose at the assembly and the assembly is being prevented from carrying out the job that the Government propose it should. There will be a full-time assembly and a full-time mayor of the largest authority in the country and we believe that a three-month period is quite long enough.
There may well be a circumstance in which the mayor is unable to attend meetings for longer than three months. Perhaps for good reasons he will have missed two meetings and then suddenly find that he will have to miss the third. It is reasonable that we should provide, as we do in local government, for the assembly to recognise and understand the mayor's good reason for being unable to attend the third monthly meeting and to give consent. That is the reason for Amendment No. 4.
These are not matters of great principle, but they are matters of practical common sense. With all my experience of local government—others present have as much and possibly more—I know that we are dealing with situations which sooner or later will arise. I do not know why the Government have been unable to consider the matter more carefully. I can assume only that they have been too distracted by the 880-odd amendments which they have presented to your Lordships.
For the practical good running of the Greater London Authority, I beg the Government to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, at the Committee stage, we on the Conservative Benches tabled amendments which were identical to two of the amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 2 and 5—proposed by noble Lords on the Liberal Front Bench today. I recall that after we had made our presentation, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, agreed with our amendments in principle but felt that there might be occasions when more than three absences would be allowable. I replied then that we would consider the matter and I am pleased to tell your Lordships that we now support all four amendments.
It would be improper for me to speak any more; I said what I had to say about the amendments in Committee. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, indicates his agreement. I wish to say only that if the Government are not minded to accept Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 today—I strongly believe that they should because this is not a matter of principle but of sensible good governance—I hope that at the least they will accept Amendments Nos. 1 and 4. It would be unusual and unacceptable for either assembly members or the mayor to be absent for so many meetings without a legitimate reason. As I pointed out in Committee, it would mean that the mayor need attend only eight meetings of the assembly during his term of office. I certainly support the amendments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, accused me of fantasising. It is a little early in the day for that. The circumstance covered in the amendments is extremely unlikely, but nevertheless it is one we should deal with. We have covered this ground at least twice. The situation is not precisely that which occurs in local government, but it uses the same timetable. We are talking about automatic disqualification.

569
As regards assembly members, we propose using the same timescale as that laid down in Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972. In that respect, we see no reason why the GLA should be different from the rest of local government. The position of the mayor is different from the situation in local government. We would not expect the mayor consciously to seek to avoid attending statutory meetings of the assembly. However, we need to ensure that if he or she does so, there is a point at which automatic disqualification cuts in.
As regards the amendment relating to the mayor, it would provide for the assembly to be able to override a three-month absence. However, we are providing for automatic disqualification after six months. I do not believe that reducing the number from six to three consecutive meetings is sensible or workable. In earlier debates, we suggested that due to ill health or a serious accident it may be necessary for the mayor to miss three or more consecutive meetings. In those circumstances, the mayor should not be automatically disqualified.
However, it is our view that should the mayor fail to attend six meetings disqualification should be automatic. The meetings are an essential part of holding the mayor to account. It would be wrong, even with the consent of the assembly, for the mayor to be able to avoid cross-examination for a period exceeding six months. That would be the implication of the noble Lord's amendment if it were applied at the three-month period.
It is conceivable, although unlikely, that in a GLA where the mayor and a majority of the assembly had similar political sympathies they might conspire to frustrate the need for accountability. That is a complete fantasy and I hope it never occurs. I am sure that all political parties will try to ensure that it does not. However, it is a possibility and we believe that automatic disqualification ought to be triggered at some point. We believe that it should be six months for both the mayor and assembly members. Six months is the period which applies in local government. We are not convinced of the reasons for changing that and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am sorry that we have made no progress. I deliberately spent some time explaining why the assembly and its members are unlike any other local authority in the land. The assembly is smaller; it has a higher profile; its members are expected to be full-time; and they are paid to be full-time. That is different from any local authority councillors in the land.
I moved the amendment on the grounds of practical common sense and long experience in local government. We are committed to making the authority work. I am sad that the Government will not recognise this practical common sense, but I feel that the time has come to test the opinion of the House.
3.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Attlee, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Avebury, L.

Lyell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Bellwin, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Morris, L.

Cadman, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Caithness, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Calverley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Carlisle, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Rawlings, B.

Cox, B.

Razzall, L.

Cuckney, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V.

Redesdale, L.

Dholakia, L. [Teller]

Renton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank. L.

Russell, E.

Dundee, E.

Sandberg, L.

Exmouth, V.

Sandford, L.

Ezra, L.

Seccombe, B.

Glentoran, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Swansea, L.

Gray, L.

Swinfen, L.

Greenway, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Thurso, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tope, L.[Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hogg, B.

Waddington, L.

Hood, V.

Wallace of Saltaire, L

Hooper, B.

Wigoder, L.

Hooson, L.

Wilcox, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Ilchester, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Ahmed, L.

Chorley, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Christopher, L.

Alli, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Amos, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bach, L.

Crawley, B.

Barnett, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

David, B.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Blease, L.

Desai, L.

Borrie, L.

Dixon, L.

Bragg, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brett, L

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Brookman, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Burlison, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Filkin, L

571

Gilbert, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Marsh, L.

Glanusk, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Goudie, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Grabiner, L.

Monkswell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Grenfell, L.

Northfield, L.

Hardy of Wath.L.

Norton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Peston, L.

Harrison, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hayman, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Puttnam,L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Richard, L.

Hoyle, L.

Rix, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord

Sawyer, L.

Chancellor)

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Serota, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.(Lord

Shore of Stepney, L.

Privy Seal)

Simon, V.

Jeger, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Slim, V.

Judd, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Kintore, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Laming, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lipsey,L.

Thornton, B.

Lockwood, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Longford, E.

Uddin, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Varley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Warner, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Wharton, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitty, L.

[Teller]

Wilkins, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.39 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—

VACANCY CREATED BY MEMBER RESIGNING PARTY WHIP
(" . Any London member elected as a member of a registered political party who resigns his party Whip shall be deemed to have created a vacancy.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I proposed a similar amendment to this one, with one exception, which I shall mention in a moment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her colleagues proposed an identical amendment to this one, and I am glad to see that their names join ours on what we consider to be a most important matter.
In response to an entirely unsatisfactory reply from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, suggested that on this very important constitutional matter there should be a discussion between the parties. I concurred with that and said so
572
when I withdrew my amendment at that stage. However, nothing happened. No meeting or discussion was offered or took place. The noble Baroness and her colleagues tabled the identical amendment at Report. Because of my absence on holiday and at my party's conference, I was too late to add my name to that amendment. But noble Lords may remember that I spoke in support of it in the renewed debate.
Once again, the Government, in the person of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, gave what we regarded as an unsatisfactory reply, repeating, we believe, irrelevant arguments about a situation that cannot happen under the current and the Report stage version of the amendment. The essential difference between my original amendment and the one which we discussed on Report and are discussing today is this: I originally proposed that a vacancy should be deemed to have occurred not only if a so-called London member resigned his party Whip but also if he were to be deprived of the Whip for disciplinary reasons. I dropped that second ground because noble Lords were worried that that would put far too much power in the hands of the party machines and would be too centralising. On reflection, I confess that I agree with them and believe that that would be so.
However, the noble Baroness used that as a reason to oppose the amendment, saying:
"What would happen is that a dissident member would refuse to toe the party line, or resign the Whip, and yet maintain his position".—[Official Report, 12/10/99; col. 255.]
Indeed, such a member might do that, and I agree that there would be nothing that anyone could do about it in the absence of any other sanction. But to cover that situation is no reason to decline to legislate. The Minister may regard it as entirely hypothetical and unlikely that a London member should fall out with his party and then do the honourable thing of resigning the Whip—not just sitting there, but resigning the Whip. The fact that a dishonourable assembly member, elected on his party's list, might seek to avoid losing his place by the dishonest device that the Minister suggested is no reason to fail to provide a remedy in the case of a London member who acts in an honourable manner.
The other and, I regret to say, totally specious argument which Ministers have raised against this amendment is to draw an analogy with the case of, say, a Member of Parliament or a local councillor elected on a first-past-the-post basis. The fiction is that the successful candidate has been elected solely as an individual rather than because of his party affiliation. In reality, that is what I have described it as—a fiction. These days, a candidate puts his party affiliation on the printed ballot paper. I am willing to bet that if you were to stop the first hundred people you met in any high street, not even a handful of them would be able to tell you the name of their MP. However, they would know for which party they had voted.
In reality and not in a fictional world, Members of Parliament and councillors are elected because they have been nominated by their party and not usually

573
just because of who they are personally. However, let us pretend for the sake of argument that in the case of Members of Parliament and councillors, it is a personal vote and not one for a party. That does not apply in the case of a London member, who has been elected on the basis of his position on his party's list. He has been elected not because of who he is but because the voters had given enough votes to his party. Only 11 London members will be elected as London members. They have been introduced into the system to ensure that the final composition of the assembly includes a proportion of the representatives of various parties without giving total dominance to just one party. With so few London members representing their party, the defection of just one member can destroy totally that balance. Indeed, let us suppose that the "Moon is Made of Blue Cheese Party" succeeds in securing just one member under this system. If that member defects to the "UFO Supporters Party' then the party that elected him will be completely disenfranchised.
The whole function of the elaborate structure of 14 constituency members and 11 London members is designed to try to maintain some kind of balance. If a nominated London member dies, he is replaced by another person from his party's list. He is not replaced by the by-election process. That is why any gap in the slate of party nominees, however it is caused, needs to be filled by another member of that party.
The argument was also advanced that this provision has not been included in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. To that I can only reply: more is the pity. Two wrongs do not make a right. In due course I hope that the electoral systems for those two bodies will be adjusted to follow the lead that I invite your Lordships to approve for the capital city of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this amendment which, as she says, is supported by both the Opposition Front Benches. We proposed this amendment at the last stage.
The situation whereby a member from the list resigns the Whip is one which could possibly happen. One hopes not, but it is certainly a possibility. The legitimacy of party list members in part lies in the internal mechanisms of their respective parties which put them on to the lists in the first place and which, depending on the party, may be more or less democratic. Secondly, it lies in the election of—let us face it—the representatives of the party rather than individuals. This electoral system marries proportionality with a constituency base for 14 of the members. We on these Benches are happy that there is a proportional system, although it is certainly not our system of choice. On a preferential basis, it is perhaps the second or third of our preferences. But we do support it.
However, as I am sure your Lordships would wish, we must ensure that the proportionality is strictly applied. As the noble Baroness said, the assembly is
574
small. A change of party by one of the 11 will have a disproportionately large effect. At the last stage, the Government's response was to say that that approach is impractical. I do not understand that response. I do not see what is not practical about what we propose.
Secondly, the Government's argument was that individual members represent the whole electorate from the moment that they are elected. To take on the mantle of representation is not the same as staying once one has given up the Whip for one's party. I believe that those are two separate issues.
The third argument, which I believe has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, is that such an approach is "dangerously centralising". I wish it were easier to show irony on the pages of Hansard. For the Government to suggest that this approach is dangerously centralising in the context of a highly centralised structure for the whole of London's government is, to my mind, an inappropriate response. As I said, we support the amendment that has been tabled and, indeed, we have added our names to it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I also support the amendment, although I do so with a heavy heart. One has to support it because it is a logical extension of the voting system in the Bill, and the system in the Scottish Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said that he wished that we had thought of this provision when the legislation setting up the Scottish Parliament went through the House. In fact, as we watch the activities of the Scottish Parliament, we can see some of the unfairness that has been created within parties and within constituencies due to the system.
I do not love the system any more than I did when the Scottish Parliament was launched. However, we are creating it again in this Bill. The Liberal Democrats, who like the system, naturally want to extend it by adding this amendment, saying that it is the party that matters and not individuals and that if an individual changes party he or she has to go. That is the logic of the system. It is an unfortunate but completely logical corollary to the system. I feel bound to support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have been round this circle several times. I am utterly unconvinced by any of the arguments that have been put for this case. At least on the previous amendment the noble Lord had half an argument. I do not honestly believe that the parties opposite have an argument at all on this one. I am extremely surprised at the Liberal Democrats pursuing the matter.
I believe that under a proportional system there are still individual members. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, makes my case for me by saying that under the present system one is hardly ever elected except by party label. We have recognised that under first-past-the-post systems, as pertains in the House of Commons or in any council, if one changes one's party—as happens—there is no requirement on one to stand for by-election. We have recognised that in

575
relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is based on STV, and in relation to the European Parliament. That is also recognised in relation to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. There is no requirement under any of those different voting systems for someone who has been elected on a party ticket and who changes party once in office to submit himself to a by-election, although that might be argued to be the most honourable course. It may also be argued that such a situation should be institutionalised. I do not accept that. Why should we do so in this case and not in any others?
One also has to consider the practical point. A dissident member of a registered party who stood to lose his or her seat in changing party might simply not resign the party but act in support of one of the opposition parties. At earlier stages of the Bill the movers of these amendments did not support a situation whereby somebody expelled from a party loses their seat. Therefore, a dishonest member could continue to act under a Labour Party label but actually vote with the Conservative group on every issue. The sanction would apply to an honest member and not to a dishonest member. That does not seem to me a principled way of approaching the matter.
In every other electoral entity and under every other electoral system that we have adopted, for better or worse, in the House, there is no such principle as is proposed in the amendment. I see no reason for there to be such a principle in relation to the London assembly. I had hoped that we had disposed of this argument at an earlier stage and I hope that it is not pursued further today.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's answer.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this is Third Reading and I believe that the mover of the amendment—I apologise to the noble Baroness. I hope she will forgive me.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I shall most certainly accept the genteel and charming apology of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. However, I am extraordinarily disappointed with what the Minister said. Of course, I agree with my noble friend who pointed out that we do not particularly like the system. That is the only part on which we differ from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, although we have both come to the same conclusion that, at the end of the day, if only 11 members are definitely and deliberately elected on a London list in order to create a balance, and if that balance changes, something needs to be done about it.
The argument the Minister gave about someone saying nothing but voting another way repeats what the noble Baroness said last time. We do not feel that that is an appropriate answer. I am disappointed that we have a system in which we want a top-up and a balance, as such a situation could happen and there would be no balance. As the Minister thought it
576
surprising that we should bring back this amendment, and as we have never tested the opinion of the House, we shall do so now.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 125

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Addington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Addison, V.

Luke, L.[Teller]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

McNair, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Mancroft, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

Mar and Kellie, E.

L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Attlee, E.

Mersey, V.

Avebury, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bellwin, L.

Mills, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brentford, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Morris, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cadman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Clancarty, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Clement-Jones, L.

Pender, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Rawlings, B.

Cuckney, L.

Razzall, L.

Davidson, V.

Redesdale, L.

Denham, L.

Renton, L.

Dholakia L

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Eccles, V.

Russell, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Effingham, E.

Sandberg, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandford, L.

Ezra, L.

Seccombe, B.

Falkland, V.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glentoran, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gray, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grey, E.

Taverne, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tope, L.[Teller]

Hooper, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L

Jopling, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Ahmed, L.

Bach, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Barnett, L.

Alli, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Amos, B.

Berkeley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Blease, L.

577

Borrie, L.

Jeger, B.

Bragg, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brett, L.

Judd, L.

Brightman, L.

Kennet, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Laming, L.

Brookman, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E.

Christopher, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

[Teller]

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

David, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thorn ton-le-Fylde, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dixon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Moyne, L.

Elder, L

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Northfield, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Orme, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Filkin, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Puttnam, L.

Glanusk, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goudie, B.

Richard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Grabiner, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gregson, L.

Scodand of Asthal, B.

Grenfell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hacking, L.

Serota, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Harrison, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Tenby, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thornton, B.

Hoyle, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Uddin, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Varley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord

Warner, L.

Chancellor)

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Whitty, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.(Lord

Wilkins, B.

Privy Seal)

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.5 p.m.
Clause 13 [Failure to attend meetings]
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 32, leave out ("be disqualified from being") and insert ("cease to be").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 129.
These are drafting amendments. The Bill as currently drafted leaves scope for uncertainty in relation to the length of the period for which the mayor is disqualified when he or she fails to attend six consecutive meetings with the assembly, or when he or she is disqualified because of a failure to make election expenses returns or declarations. Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 remove that doubt in relation to attendance at meetings by substituting "ceases to be" for "disqualified". Amendment No. 129 makes it clear that the disqualification is for the period of the election to which the disqualification applies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Declaration of vacancy in certain cases]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 40, at end insert—
("(bb) ceases to be the Mayor by reason of failure to attend meetings of the Assembly, or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Date of casual vacancy]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 8, after ("above,") insert ("or

(ii) ceasing to be the Mayor by reason of failure to attend meetings of the Assembly,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Disqualification from being the Mayor or an Assembly member]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("85(2A)") and insert ("85A").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. Amendment No. 9 is a drafting amendment which corrects a typing error in one of the amendments tabled at Report stage. I should like to place on record my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for drawing it to our attention. I apologise for the confusion that this minor error caused at that time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Limits of the general power]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 19, line 32, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, from the Marshalled List Amendment No. 10 appears to be a brief amendment. The Government have already had two occasions when they might have had the good sense to accept this amendment. It was tabled in Committee; it was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on Report, when I tested the Government's thinking in a somewhat different direction in relation to the Local Government Act passed in the summer. We return to the subject again today.
There is not much point in trawling over all the arguments that have already been presented. However, it may be worth while reminding ourselves that Clause 30 gives the Greater London Authority, in the shape of the mayor, a general power to promote economic development, wealth creation, social development and improvement in the environment of

579
London. Clause 31, to which this amendment relates, places limits on that power. Among those limits is the power of the Secretary of State (under Clause 30) to control expenditure. I have no doubt that the Minister will reiterate that, because it is a new power and we do not know how it will work, there should be a power to control it. What a massive vote of confidence in those who have the nerve—because they will need some nerve—to stand for the office of mayor of London!
I say nothing about the selection process in which the party opposite is indulging in order to arrive at a candidate. However, the presence of the subsection indicates an immense vote of no confidence in whoever emerges from that process, whether that person is the ultimate party rebel or the ultimate party hack. The ultimate wrong is that it is also a vote of no confidence in the good sense of the people of London and in the political system in which London will operate.
Those are the reasons why I have retabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support the amendment; indeed, it is one that we moved at an earlier stage. I continue to ask why it is necessary to give the Secretary of State this power to restrict expenditure when the Secretary of State already has wide powers through existing local government legislation. At the last stage I called this clause a "sledgehammer" of a clause, and I still regard it as that.
The Government's reply was that it provides a safeguard against an irresponsible mayor diverting such a large proportion of the authority's resources to discretionary resources that essential services are starved of funds. That begs the questions of what essential services are and who judges whether services are essential. I could not help but think of the term "bogus asylum seekers", which is used a great deal. Asylum seekers are only bogus if you choose so to designate them. This is a similar situation.
The provision in the Bill reveals the degree of control that is to be applied. Much of the spending of the new authority will be capital expenditure. Noble Lords are aware of the complex system of credit approval for capital expenditure, which is also a very constraining system, and of the controls on revenue expenditure.
How will the provision operate? Will a message come to the authority from Whitehall or perhaps Eland Place in the middle of the year, after the budget has been set and the authority has embarked on its spending pattern for that year? There may be practical considerations to take into account.
We are particularly concerned about the principle. The Government stated that the power will control expenditure on discretionary activities, but the provision on which it bites does not provide discretionary powers in the way that a member of the public would understand them. Clause 30(1) states that the authority shall have the power to do anything which it considers will further any one or more of its
580
principal purposes. That is not discretionary; it is a facilitating provision allowing expenditure from the statutory powers.
The Conservative Benches were suspicious about Clause 30(1), thinking that it might be very wide. Noble Lords were reassured by the Government about how narrow that provision is. We have always supported the provision because we recognise that the Government cannot predict and spell out every activity which may be necessary to support the promotion of the principal purposes. Although the deluge of government amendments indicates that they are trying to spell out everything, it is not possible to do so. Clause 30(1) is a very sensible provision. It is made much less useful by the subsection to which we and the Conservative Front Bench object. We support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is not seeking to comment on the internal procedures of the Labour Party, nor do I comment on the internal procedures of the Conservative Party. From whatever party the successful candidate comes, the Secretary of State will require some reserve powers on behalf of Londoners and taxpayers generally.
The amendment is narrowly defined. I am slightly surprised that the point of principle focuses on this point. The clause is not a power to limit the totality of the authority's expenditure; nor is it a power to limit expenditure on specific statutory duties. It is a power that is directed only at the amount of spending on activities other than those which fall within the authority's specific powers or duties.
The Government have made their position clear on this issue. The power to set a financial limit is included in the Bill for two important reasons. First, we have made a commitment to Londoners in our manifesto, in our White Paper and in everything that we have done in regard to the Bill, that staff and costs in the GLA will be streamlined. Secondly, Londoners want the GLA to spend its money on services and they do not want it to squeeze services in order to facilitate extravagant expenditure on itself or on activities that are outside its specific statutory powers and duties.
This power for the Secretary of State is a reserve power to control the ability of any mayor to spend outside those areas. It is not about constraining, in advance or in retrospect, the mayor's freedom to spend money on general power activities, and it is not about how much the authority should spend on each of its specific functions. It is, however, an essential and specific safeguard against expenditure outside those specific functions, and it is therefore a reserve power which I contend is very, very much in the interests of Londoners, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred. I cannot accept the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has revealed that he has never had to produce a local

581
authority budget. That may be thought by noble Lords to be an insignificant matter, but anybody who has to perform that task, which can be a desperate task, knows that a local authority's budget is made up of so many boxes of matches and that 99.9 per cent of those boxes of matches are committed before the process begins.
I entirely accept that this limited power of direction is very specific and that it is not aimed at the generality of expenditure but at very narrow paths. In the context of the Bill, if the idea is acceptable at all, that is the only way it could be done, but I do not see the point of giving those powers and then putting a limitation on them when there is already a power to have overall control of the authority's absolute budget.
The Minister might imply that the mayor would wish to squeeze the generality of the authority's expenditure at the expense of these specific new general power functions. I wonder how long a mayor could expect to last if he were to squeeze the police budget, the fire and emergency planning budget and the budget of Transport for London. In my view, there was an air of unreality to the Minister's reply. I believe that we should test the opinion of the House on the matter.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Eden of Winton, L.

Addington, L.

Elibank, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

Ezra, L.

L.

Falkland, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Fookes, B.

Attlee, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Avebury, L.

Glentoran, L.

Barker. B.

Goodhart, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boardman, L.

Greenway, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grey, E.

Brentford, V.

Hamwee, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry,

Harris of Richmond, B.

D.

Higgins, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hogg, B.

Cadman, L.

Hooper, B.

Caithness, E.

Howe, E.

Carlisle, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jopling, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Leigh, L.

Courtown, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cuckney, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Davidson, V.

McNair, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Denbigh, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mersey, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Eccles, V.

Mills, V.

582

Monro of Langholm, L.

Sandford, L.

Morris, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Mountevans, L.

Shannon, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Sharples, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Pender, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Taverne, L.

Rawlings, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Razzall, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Thurso, V.

Reay, L.

Tope, L.[Teller]

Redesdale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rennard, L

Vivian, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Waddington, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Wilcox, B.

Russell, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

St. Davids, V.

Wise, L.

Sandberg, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ahmed, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Harrison, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hayman, B.

Alli, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Barnett, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Berkeley, L.

Inchyra, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Blease, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Jay of Paddington, B.(Lord

Borrie, L.

Privy Seal)

Bragg, L.

Jeger, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brookman, L.

Judd, L.

Burlison, L.

Kennet, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Kilbracken, L.

Chorley, L.

Kintore, E.

Christopher, L.

Laming, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Crawley, B.

Longford, E.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dixon, L.

[Teller]

Donoughue, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Effingham, E.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Elder, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Molloy, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Filkin, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Northbourne, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Northfield, L.

Goudie, B.

Orme, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Patel, L.

Grabiner, L.

Paul, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grenfell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hacking, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

583

Puttnam, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Richard, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Tenby, V.

Sawyer, L.

Thornton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Uddin, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Varley, L.

Serota, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Shepherd, L.

Whitty, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Wilkins, B.

Simon, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.29 p.m.
Clause 32 [Consultation]:
Viscount Mills Viscount Mills moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 19, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) Statutory bodies whose activities benefit the environment in Greater London.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at the outset I should declare an interest in that I am an employee of the Environment Agency. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that statutory bodies whose activities benefit the environment in Greater London—the Environment Agency is among them— are consulted on all of the mayor's strategies. I am of course aware that in Committee on 21st June the Minister stated:
"The most appropriate consultees are the people whose interests are affected and those representing them. Therefore, in all those contexts, the authority must—I emphasise 'must'—consult, among others, organisations representing the disabled, the elderly, education, training services, the Environment Agency and other statutory bodies in those situations where their interests are affected by the use of the general power or by the use of any strategies which are developed".—[Official Report, 21/6/99; col. 746.]
I am most grateful for that assurance; the Minister has been most helpful. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I press him further. For although the statement is welcome it may be deemed to fall short of a categorical assurance of consultation because of the use of the phrase,
"in those situations where their interests are affected".
Let me explain briefly why I feel the need to go further. The assurance given might be deemed satisfactory if the Environment Agency did not have as one of its principal aims to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development, as set out in the Environment Act 1995. As your Lordships will be aware, the achievement of sustainable development requires the consideration of economic and social as well as environmental factors. Indeed the Government's own statutory guidance on sustainable development requires this integrated approach. That is why, in the agency's view, it is vital that it is consulted on all strategies.
Does the Minister agree that potentially all of the mayor's strategies will impact on the achievement of sustainable development and therefore the agency
584
should be consulted on all and not just some of the strategies? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I hope he will confirm that it is the Government's intention that the mayor will consult the agency on all the strategies. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, this amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend, is similar to an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in Committee. Like my noble friend, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply today to discover whether he can extend the kind assurance he gave on the previous occasion to ensure there is no further need for concern.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I can give the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, the assurance he seeks. Under the provisions of the Bill, the mayor, before exercising the general power provided in Clause 30, must consult those individuals or organisations whose interests would be affected by the exercise of that power. As regards the environment, the Environment Agency has an interest in all the strategies of the mayor. The agency and all statutory bodies whose activities are designed to benefit the environment would be consulted. I have indicated that at previous stages during the progress of the Bill. I have indicated it in writing to the employer of the noble Viscount; that is, the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey. I have indicated it too to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone as regards English Nature. I believe that the interests of all statutory bodies concerned with the environment are therefore covered and that it is not necessary to name such a category of body on the face of the Bill. I am happy to reiterate all those assurances today.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I thank the Minister for reassuring us on those points. I also thank my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon for her assistance in the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Equality of opportunity]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 20, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) After each financial year the Authority shall publish a report containing—

(a) a statement of the arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) above which had effect during that financial year; and

(b) an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 13, and also to Amendment No. 95 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We have had many discussions about the equal opportunities provisions of this Bill. The outcome of those discussions has been in my view to alter the approach of the Government to the matter and to improve the provisions. I am therefore grateful to those noble Lords who contributed to earlier debates. This group of amendments consolidates those improvements.
Amendment No. 12 provides for the authority to publish a report each year explaining the arrangements it has put in place to promote equality of opportunity during that year and making an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity. That fulfils the commitment given by my noble friend at an earlier stage. This will also ensure that the authority cannot ignore any of its responsibilities in relation to equal opportunities.
Amendment No. 13 is a consequential amendment in that sense. It imposes the duty to produce the report. When the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, moved his equivalent amendment at an earlier stage, I indicated that understood the aims of the amendment and that I would consider it further. I was concerned about one particular aspect of it which related to the apparent disapplication of the Race Relations Act to the GLA and its related bodies, as distinct from the rest of local government. I still have a concern about that. It is not, however, impossible to complete an alternative draft to that of the noble Lord which would subsume the bulk of the noble Lord's amendment. With the leave of the House, I indicate to the noble Lord that I am prepared to accept his amendment on the understanding that a minor degree of further amendment may be necessary in another place to cover the anxiety I have mentioned. I hope that on that basis the House will accept the noble Lord's amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I refer to Amendment No. 95 which stands in my name and that of my noble. friend Lord Dholakia. We are grateful to the Government and to those noble Lords from all parts of the House who supported the amendment at the previous stage. In the context of press comment over the past couple of weeks on the work of this House, it is good to see it working so well and to see noble Lords improving the Bill. We shall of course move our amendment when we reach it in the Marshalled List. We understand that some "tweaking" may be necessary to ensure that it works properly. We are glad that we have been able to contribute on such an important issue.
We are happy to see the Government's Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, to which the Minister referred at the previous stage. I am sure that if a mechanism can be found by which the issues have to be debated and the results of the authority's work are made public, that will be an entirely good thing. We support these amendments.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in thanking the Minister who has overseen this process from Second Reading through every stage. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on having been so persistent. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. Together we have fought for this clause. The Minister could not have been more understanding. I am sure that whatever change is imposed in the lower House will be
586
acceptable. In an age when we seem to be tearing each other apart, I offer my thanks for the way he has behaved throughout the whole of this Bill.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I concur with the sentiment expressed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I am indeed grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to my amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister for accepting it. We understand that some alterations will be necessary. I hope that the gist of the amendment will be incorporated in future legislation. I thank the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 20, line 31, after ("conferred") insert ("or imposed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Delegation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 23, line 25, at end insert ("or
(c) in relation to any function under Part X below (in relation to which provision for delegation is made under that Part).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 are technical amendments consequential upon the changes to Part X, which we will be discussing later.
Clause 38 provides the general powers of delegation for the mayor. As it stands, the clause provides that the functions under Part X relating to culture can be delegated to the deputy mayor, GLA staff, local authorities, including the City Corporation, and to Transport for London and the London Development Agency. For example, Transport for London can be given the mayor's powers in respect of culture but the Culture Strategy Group for London cannot. We have previously given notice that we would be introducing an amendment to deal with this.
Amendment No. 14 disapplies Part X from the general power of delegation in Clause 38 and provides that the detailed and more appropriate powers of delegation included in Part X largely override Clause 38. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 provide cross-references in Clause 40, which is concerned with contracting out, to the amendments under Part X. We will discuss later Amendment No. 84, which provides a new clause after Clause 374. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:
Page 24, line 47, after (" 38") insert ("or (Delegation of Authority's functions)").
Page 25, line 6, after (" 38") insert ("or (Delegation of Authority's functions)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 41 [General duties of the Mayor in relation to his strategies]:
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 25, line 29, at end insert (", and
(i) the River Thames strategy prepared and published under section (The River Thames strategy) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17, which stands in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Luke, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 85, 86 and 87.
The amendments are designed to include a River Thames strategy along with the other strategies that are already written on the face of the Bill. This subject has been debated a number of times during the passage of the Bill. However, I make no excuse for returning to the subject; I regard it as very important. There is no need for me to rehearse the arguments that were used before so competently by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
As we all know, the Thames has played a most important part in London's and the nation's history over the years, and it is in a position to play an important part in our future, particularly in regard to transport. When we discussed this matter previously, the debate was poorly attended—it was late at night— and we did not have the chance to give it a proper airing. We have now a last chance to give the mayor an opportunity to play an over-arching role in matters pertaining to the river.
This would avoid the problems that have surfaced when dealing with matters in coastal waters, where it seems too many disparate parties are involved. Such a position would be exacerbated on the River Thames, where many of the people involved lack experience of maritime matters. This does not apply to the Port of London Authority, which has been involved with the Thames for many years, but its influence is waning, especially in the upper reaches of the river. The Environment Agency, the Countryside Agency, the riparian boroughs—of which there are many—and the Common Council in the City of London are all involved with the river. On top of that there are the interests of the users of the river—the freight industry, the tourist industry, the watermen and lightermen.
In these amendments the strategy has been revised to take account of points raised on Report—in particular, safety, bridges and tunnels. They also include a direction that this strategy should not conflict with any other strategy in Clause 41.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about safety. I am cognisant of the fact that the inquiry into the "Marchioness" disaster is ongoing. I would not wish to prejudice that. However, the mayor must have an important role as regards safety on the river. The Port of London Authority and the river police deny responsibility for safety. A few moments ago, the noble Lord from the Opposition Front Bench spoke about squeezing police budgets. The river police has been squeezed considerably over the past years and it
588
is continuing to contract; it has closed down most of its pier stations. If there should be another emergency—God forbid—it is questionable who would be able to take control of matters on the river.
A holistic, coherent and, above all, simple strategy is vital for the good future management of the River Thames. As far as concerns this Bill, we have now a last chance to get matters right. It would be short-sighted of us not to seize that chance. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise to support the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. He has moved the amendment in the hope that he may have more success than I—and who knows! The amendment seeks to underline the important issues affecting the mayor when a strategy is developed.
It cannot be said that the Bill is deficient in terms of detail. I hope that my noble friend will not invoke that particular argument in relation to this multi-faceted amendment. It is extremely important that specific guidelines should be covered in the strategy developed by the mayor during his or her term of office. Every one of these proposals has great relevance in terms of that strategy.
For example, the issue of tourism was raised in a previous debate. It is important that there should be a tourism policy so far as concerns the river. The noble Lord is absolutely right to underline its enormous strategic importance for the life of London as a whole. If there should be any vagueness about what the mayor has to do, that would be a deficiency in the Bill. The matter is covered in considerable detail in the amendments and I do not need to go into it further.
The noble Lord made an important point about consultation. I would give especial emphasis on the need to consult each riparian London borough council. These are issues which will touch the lives of the constituents in each of those London boroughs and it is important that it should be seen that they are being properly consulted; that they can ensure that their voices will be heard in relation to the strategy which will affect their lives.
It is also important that one pays attention to Amendment No. 86, particularly in relation to the conditions set out in subsection (2)—
"that the River Thames strategy or its implementation is likely to be detrimental to any area outside Greater London".
That is obviously a matter of great importance. The phrase,
"the River Thames strategy or its implementation is likely to be detrimental to the operations of the Port of London Authority, or to flood defences".
equally is of the greatest significance. I do not want to over-egg the pudding. I believe that setting out the strategy for the benefit of the mayor is of importance to the citizens of London as a whole, and no less so to the mayor himself or herself.
Lord Luke: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is luckier in regard to the responses he

589
receives than we were earlier. I should like to speak in support of Amendment No. 17 and also of Amendments Nos. 19, 85, 86 and 87, to which I have added my name. I should like to say just a few words, most of which, I must confess, I have said before.
The River Thames is the reason for London being where it is. It brought wealth by commerce in the past and it now brings tourists. There has been a great deal of development in the riparian boroughs, but virtually nothing concerned with the Thames itself. I am most concerned that this great thoroughfare is not used as it could or should be. The mayor could provide a co-ordinated approach to the use of the Thames as it should be used, and I hope that this great opportunity will not be lost.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to this amendment, to indicate support from these Benches. We have given our support to similar amendments at various times, but I think that Amendment No. 85 in particular gives an extremely good picture of what the strategy might contain. It makes it very distinct from the mayor's other strategies, contrary to the arguments that have been used by the noble Lord the Minister in responding to these and similar amendments which were put earlier.
Our honourable friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey in another place has been concerned for many years with the items contained in this amendment. During the earlier part of the Bill amendments were put forward to this effect, which I think were generally regarded as rather complicated. This is a very straightforward way of achieving what he and many of us would like to see achieved. I do not know what the proposers of these amendments will decide to do, but if they should divide the House, we shall join them.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, particularly as I am supporting an amendment which would, if accepted, make this intolerable Bill even larger than it now is. Nevertheless it raises an important area of the responsibilities of anyone who has command of London and its resources. I am persuaded that there is a very strong case for adding to the strategies laid down in the Bill a strategy for the River Thames.
I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to some of the areas which would appear to be not covered by other strategies imposed by the Bill upon the mayor. Obviously he is responsible for transport and the environment: fine, but there are many other purposes. We are talking about many-faceted uses, and I should like to be clear that they are satisfactorily covered.
Let me just mention very quickly two or three of them. One is of course what function the mayor and the GLA have concerning riparian planning. I do not mean in the great strategic sense, but actual planning decisions at present made by local authorities in London about the areas close to and adjacent to the river. I should like to feel that such planning consents
590
would take account of broad interests of the management of the river, and I am not sure that can be done unless the mayor has a specific duty.
Again, what about regulation of the recreational use of the River Thames? It is not just a matter of using it for transport. As we all know, people row on the Thames and do all kinds of things that have a recreational use. There is sailing, there are water sports and multifarious activities. I should like to know how that aspect will be safeguarded. Again, that raises the word "safety". Who is responsible for safety on the river? Nobody can say that that is not a matter of some concern, especially in the light of some very unhappy events a few years ago.
My final point concerns the management of tunnels and bridges. That is tremendously important. Is there a clear GLA/mayoral responsibility for the planning of extensions, repairs and uses of bridges over the River Thames and the tunnels beneath it? I myself represented a constituency which had a riparian interest for over 30 years and I am very conscious myself, as a resident of Putney, of the implications for Putney residents of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge for so long. However, very different priorities are being pursued by the different London authorities in respect of bridges and other cross-river transport. I very much hope that in his reply my noble friend will satisfy me and, I hope, the House as a whole that the present strategies which are to be pursued by the mayor cover satisfactorily—though I fear that they will not—all the anxieties and problems which face those who use the River Thames.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in response to one point raised by my noble friend Lord Shore, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, perhaps I may refer to my Amendment No. 20 which is part of this group and deals with safety. At Report stage an amendment was proposed by noble Lords opposite, and I undertook to look at this again. The effect of my Amendment No. 20 is to introduce the concept of safety as a factor that the mayor must consider in the exercise of his duty to promote and encourage the use of the Thames. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, we do not wish to pre-empt the conclusions of the inquiry into the "Marchioness" tragedy. However, if this amendment is adopted in advance of those conclusions it will flag specifically the need for the mayor to take safety matters into account in exercising his or her functions.
I do not think there is anything between us in principle as regards the importance of the River Thames. The Government have always recognised the importance of the waterway in relation to the economic and environmental development of London. In our own strategic planning guidance we have demonstrated our active efforts to bring life back to the river and to restore it as the focal point of the capital. We have also pointed out, however, that there are clear advantages in having the mayor's policies regarding the Thames enshrined within other strategy documents rather than being abstracted from those documents. That will ensure that the importance of the

591
Thames is recognised across the whole spectrum of the strategies rather than being compartmentalised and possibly marginalised by treating this as a separate policy area.
In all these other strategies, particularly in relation to spatial development, the role of the Thames is absolutely vital in relation to any future strategic view of the development of London. As many other speakers have indicated, the role of the Thames is important, both as a waterway and in respect of various crossing points. In relation to the environment, again the Thames is an absolutely central feature of any environmental strategy.
My noble friend Lord Shore referred to two other dimensions, one of which relates to local authority planning decisions. These decisions will continue to be taken in general by the riparian local authorities, but the mayor will be consulted about strategically important decisions and these will be defined under delegated legislation by the provisions of this Bill. There will be particular emphasis on riverside development with specific criteria for development by the riverside which perhaps has been lacking in the past decade.
In relation to recreation, of course the mayor has some responsibilities within the culture and sport area and also economic development. The role of the LGA subsumes the development of tourism within London, of which the river is clearly a significant part. It is our view that the River Thames will feature large in all such strategies. A new clause to provide for a separate strategy would not improve on that position, and indeed could lead to the strategy becoming compartmentalised. Moreover, the proposed new clauses will not give the mayor any new powers over and above those already provided in the Bill. Implementation would have to be through powers already in the Bill to pursue the other strategies. There is the danger of duplication of policies were we to have a separate strategy for the River Thames, which could cause problems.
I appreciate the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and others, on the matter—
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The Minister has replied to most of the points that have been raised, but can he say a little more on bridges and tunnels? That point has not yet been touched on by my noble friend. It is very important to co-ordinate strategy through a central authority rather than through the different boroughs.
5 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, so far as concerns bridges and crossings which form parts of GLA strategic roads, clearly Transport for London, when it inherits responsibility in those areas from the Highways Agency, will take responsibility for them as they form parts of the throughways. In regard to other
592
arrangements for bridges, they are presently covered by separate arrangements following the demise of the GLC which the Bill will not directly disturb. Nevertheless, a strategic approach to transport is bound to take account of the impact of changes on the traffic flow on crossings or bridges were those changes to be on anything more than a temporary basis. For that reason, I believe that such matters will be covered in the transport strategy.
It is our view that we do not need a separate strategy for the River Thames. However, it is open to the mayor to take a different view if he or she considers that there are advantages to be had by collecting all the different policies together into a single document over and above the strategic planning guidance for the river that we expect to be covered in the spatial development strategy. If the mayor chooses to collect that information into a separate document, there is nothing whatever to stop the mayor from so doing. Those aspects of the matter should be left to the mayor to take a decision.
At the proper time I shall move Amendment No. 20 covering safety. With those reassurances on the importance we attach to the development of the River Thames in all its dimensions, I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendment.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House who have taken part in this debate. The Minister will be in no doubt as to the strength of feeling across the board on the important subject of the future of the River Thames. I take some comfort from the Minister's concessions to safety in Amendment No. 20. That is a welcome step and I thank him for that. However, whatever happens, we shall be faced with a problem that there will be too many different interests involved, and I believe that we would save a lot of time if a separate strategy were put in place for the River Thames. Again, the Minister gives me comfort when he says that the mayor may set up a strategy of his own, which he will be able to do.
Those of us who are interested will continue to press the future mayor to take due cognisance of our feelings. Over and above that, should the mayor choose not to go down that road, we shall take a close interest in any secondary legislation that follows the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 25. line 45. leave out ("with national policies and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 is a reduced form of an amendment I proposed both in Committee and on Report. The amendment then had two branches, one of which I shall not pursue, having considered the Government's arguments, as I said I would. I now accept the validity of their answer. Unfortunately, the Government have not reciprocated by accepting the point I made, despite the

593
fact that I prefaced my remarks to noble Lords on Report with the words:
"I believe that this is one of the most important amendments to be considered on the Bill".
I went on to say that:
"It goes right to the heart of the relationship between local government, particularly London's local government, and national government".—[Official Report, 12/10/99; col. 344.]
The marginal note states that Clause 41 applies to the:
"General duties of the Mayor in relation to his strategies".
Subsection (4) requires the mayor when preparing or revising any strategy to have regard to various matters, including,
"the need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with national policies".
I ask noble Lords to note the imperative nature of those words. The mayor must ensure that his strategies are consistent with national policies. In other words, they must conform to national policies. According to the clause, it is not sufficient that the mayor should take national policies into account and apply them if they are appropriate to London. His strategies must conform to national policies, whether or not they are appropriate. The Bill does not say simply that the mayor shall have regard to national policies. It does not merely require the mayor to take national policies into consideration when formulating his strategies, which would mean that he should follow national policies whenever and wherever possible and should not arbitrarily ignore or reject them. The words of the Bill give the mayor no discretion whatever as to whether he shall comply with so-called "national policies".
That means that the mayor must do more than consider national policies. He must follow them. That is a major and novel constitutional innovation. I made the same remark on the two occasions that the amendment was put before noble Lords. It is significant that the Government have not attempted in any of their responses to repudiate that. I am left with the inescapable conclusion that the Government really do mean the adverse consequences about which I have been warning. Of course it is entirely right that public bodies should have regard to government policy. If they do not, the courts may take national policy into account on a judicial review. However, aside from that, there is no requirement on a local authority to follow any particular policy or to conduct its affairs in a specific manner except when an Act of Parliament specifically so orders. I should like to stress that point. Outside of specific legislation, the law does not require local authorities to obey the wishes or even the orders of government.
Never before has Parliament attempted to oblige local councils to conform to any wish-list of the government under the guise of national policy. The fact that local authorities have a wide discretion outside any specific legislative constraints to act in the interests of their own local populations sets the balance between local and national government. In case any noble Lord thinks that I am exaggerating the
594
consequences of the current wording, I shall remind the House of the words of the Minister when his noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton moved a similar amendment in Committee. He said:
"the mayor must, in preparing any strategy, ensure that it is consistent with national policies".—[Official Report, 23,6/99; col. 925.]
The words used by the Minister on that occasion were the imperative when he said, "must ensure". That allows for no discretion whatever. So much for local government and this Government's belief in devolved government. So much for the strong independent voice for London promised by the Government when the legislation before us was introduced.
I shall add one further point which I have not raised previously. I have been so concerned with the constitutional aspects proposed by the Government that I overlooked another blindingly obvious question. What is the definition of "national policies"? It cannot, for the purposes of this Bill, be something set out in an Act of Parliament, because it is unnecessary for it to say that the mayor shall comply with the law of the land. That goes without saying. "National policies" clearly refers to some government pronouncement; a pronouncement that may or may not be made to, and be approved by, Parliament. Presumably, the Government could announce their policies to the Sunday papers—they seem to do that very often—or to some favoured interviewer on the radio or television. Indeed, as I said, Ministers often do that, as Madam Speaker in the other place has frequently complained. Is the mayor supposed to monitor the "Today" programme on Radio 4, or "Sunday" on Sky News to find out what announcements of government policy have been made, not to either House but to John Humphrys or to Adam Boulton? How binding are such pronouncements of national policy to be regarded?
A government prone to flying kites and then saying that they did not mean what was reported or even that they were misreported will leave the mayor in a state of total confusion. A government whose policies change with the wind cannot surely expect the mayor to conform to whatever is the flavour of the month. Are such pronouncements, or even ones mentioned in either House but not given the force of law, to be treated as binding? I hope that even under the regime of a government who regard parliamentary procedure as an obstacle to their executive control freakery we have not yet reached the point of government by ministerial decree.
At this point, I would normally have liked to comment on the answers given by the Minister in the debates on my amendment, but I regret to say that both times when I read his reply no answers came; so I can make no comment. I immediately and unreservedly acquit him of any discourtesy or of deliberately glossing over what I had described as one of the most important amendments I was moving. If one reads the Minister's speeches on both previous occasions, it will be seen that he deals only with the

595
separate amendment dealing with the obligation of the mayor to have regard to certain international obligations.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am no longer pursuing any amendment regarding consistency with international obligations. I accept what the noble Lord said at the previous stage. However, subsection (5), to which this present modified amendment relates, has two aspects. This amendment relates to the part of subsection (5) which requires the mayor to conform to national policies. The Minister has at no time at any stage given any reason why the mayor should be required to conform to whatever the Government announce in whatever forum they announce them as national policies—"the Government" in this case being any one of the several Secretaries of State whose differing bailiwicks impinge on the various aspects of this monster and wide-ranging Bill. The Minister has not told your Lordships why the mayor must conform to national as distinct from international policies—"conform", that is to obey, submit to or comply with—whatever the Government may choose to announce as national policies. The clause as drawn removes, or at least inhibits, the mayor's ability to decide his own policies and compels him to follow the Government's policy as set out in some undebated ministerial ipse dixit.
The amendment simply ensures that outside of any statutory constraints contained in any primary or secondary legislation the mayor is truly independent and is not merely serving as a rubber stamp whose function is only to obey the orders of the Secretary of State or a possible gaggle of Secretaries of State. This amendment restores the proper balance and allows the mayor to decide what is best for the people of London who elected him or her and allows him or her to get on with the policies for which people voted. I urge the Minister to consider the implications of the Government's ill-drafted wording and to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I have occasionally mentioned to your Lordships my 25 years in local government. I have to say that for 18 of those years in local government there was a Conservative central government. To hear now the Conservative Front Bench railing against central government control leads me to wonder just what happened during those 18 years. One of the reasons we are here today is that the former GLC was not required to follow national policies. It did not follow national policies—probably of any government—but what happened to the GLC should be borne in mind. I feel a little strange. I do not for one moment question the sincerity of the noble Baroness who moved the amendment or indeed of the present Opposition Front Bench. I must just say that no one is so blessed as a sinner who repenteth. That is what has happened now.
Having said that, I think that the noble Baroness is right. Of course the mayor should have regard to national policies; indeed, it is inconceivable that, in
596
drawing up strategies, the mayor would not have regard to national policies—and would probably need to have good reasons if he or she were to depart from national polices and priorities. But he or she should surely have the right to do so if the circumstances are different; if his or her priorities are different; if the platform on which he or she was elected is different; if what Londoners want is different. That is going to happen.
We come to the heart of the present Government's schizophrenia over the whole issue of the devolution. Many of their members have long believed in the devolution of power and, I am sure, still do. The Government are preaching devolution. They are starting cautiously to practise it, but they cannot quite let go. This is another instance of where they cannot quite let go. I can understand a Labour Government believing, I suspect with diminishing belief each day, that they will have a Labour mayor wishing to do this. But perhaps I may suggest to the Government Front Bench that there may come a time, hard though it is for any of us to conceive, when there may be a Conservative government and a Labour mayor. Why should they require a Labour mayor to follow consistently policies laid down by a Conservative government? We always need to remember that. It is fairly easy for noble Lords on these Benches to remember that the present arrangement does not necessarily last for ever. Governments should consider that.
I do not understand—rather, I do understand but I think it is wrong—why the Government should be legislating to require the mayor to follow strategies that are consistent with national polices. It is fair enough to say that he or she should have regard to them but requiring the mayor to follow national policies regardless of the nature of the government in power should not be enshrined in legislation. We shall support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, nothing lasts for ever and we have to legislate for different balances of power in Westminster and in the GLA's headquarters. Whatever government are in power, and whatever party is in power in London, there will have to be a balance. That balance is between the autonomy of the mayor to deliver the improvements for which Londoners have voted and the responsibilities of central government to ensure that policies pursued in London do not undermine important national policies. It is the noble Baroness rather than myself who has used the imperative here. She refers to "conform" and "comply". All we are asking here is that the mayor should not pursue policies which are inconsistent with national policies.
The noble Baroness asked for a definition of "national policies". There is a definition of "national policies" a little later in the Bill. It relates to policies which are pronounced to Parliament or are formally published. It does not relate to pronouncements on the "Today" programme, in which, of course, none of my colleagues ever engages in any case. Nevertheless, it is clear that we are talking about policy pronouncements

597
in a formal sense. It is important not just for the international dimension—at an earlier stage the noble Baroness accepted my arguments on that point—but also for other national policies. In relation to environmental policies, for example, policies pursued in London which affect the rest of the environment in surrounding regions and counties of England would not be appropriate. That does not mean that every dot and comma of the powers would be precisely the same for London as elsewhere. Of course not; but they should not undermine and directly contradict the policies pursued by government nationally.
Surely this is the right approach to take. The mayor will be able to implement his or her policies for London, but they must not be allowed to cut a swathe through national policies. The mayor cannot be expected to prepare strategies in a policy vacuum. National policies are there, and it would not be sensible if we provided for the mayor to be able to undermine them.
At an earlier stage the noble Baroness took a more moderate line. I apologise if I did not respond to her fully at that stage. She was saying that, instead of using the term "consistent", which she regarded as "imperative" or imperious, we should accept the term "have regard to". That was at least a halfway house. However, her proposal in this amendment deletes all reference to the mayor "having regard to". She now appears to want the mayor to be free of any obligation towards national policies.
Even had I accepted the noble Baroness's previous arguments, I should think that she was going somewhat far, even from her own perspective, as regards the effect of this amendment. Whichever party the mayor was from, even if the same party were in government and even if he or she had agreed every dot and comma with central government, the amendment would remove any obligation at all to national policies. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment even achieves what the noble Baroness wants, which is a slightly different balance from what the Government want. We are concerned that London policies should not inconsistently undermine national policies. We do not say that they should conform in every dot and comma, but that there should not be built-in conflict. That is a sensible and balanced approach. With this amendment the noble Baroness is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Therefore, I hope that she will not pursue it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have no intention of throwing out any baby with any bathwater. I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. I am delighted that "national policy" has to be policies as defined later in the Bill, which I did not discover, and that matters are decided in the Houses of Parliament where they should he decided. But I can tell the noble Lord that when we hear Ministers stating a particular policy, whether on Radio 4 or elsewhere, it sounds as though that has become national policy.
To return to the amendment, which is much more important, its intention was to knock out the provision for the mayor to ensure that his strategy is "consistent
598
with" national policies. I certainly had no intention whatever of knocking out the provision that he should "have regard to" national policies. We believe that he certainly should have regard to national policies. We simply do not want him to have to ensure that his strategy is "consistent with" national policies. I believe that that is the import of my amendment. If the Minister is telling me that I have made a mistake in the drafting, I am sorry; I thought that I had been extraordinarily careful over it. My understanding is that what I seek to remove from the Bill are the words in line 45,
"is consistent with national policies".
My understanding is that "have regard" occurs earlier in the clause and that the amendment does not knock that out.
The Minister said that I was making heavy weather of this in using adjectives such as "imperative" to describe the provision. Ensuring that an approach "is consistent with" is exactly the same. The Minister can use different language, but the effect is the same. The provision ensures that the mayor does that. It is not the same as "having regard to" national policies.
Although I understand what the Minister is saying, this provision is sending out a message to every local council throughout the country. Of course, the mayor in London should not do anything that would destroy the environment of those areas around him; nor for that matter should any council leader, or council anywhere in the country. They, too, should have regard to national policies. But I am certain that this will permeate down to councillors right across the country. It will start here in London and, before you can look round, it will apply to local councils everywhere.
The Minister has asked whether I shall withdraw the amendment. I shall withdraw it. I shall do so simply because the noble Lord has suggested—and I do not think that the advice from the Box would be misleading—that there is some flaw in the drafting, and that it would lead to the removal of the idea, "have regard". Apparently this provision is to remain in the Bill. If that is the case, local councils up and down the land will know that it is all very well the Labour Government telling them that they have great regard for local democracy, and indeed for devolved government, but the Government are starting to take power unto themselves in a way that we have not seen before. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 26, line 5, after ("Thames") insert ("safely").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the amendment has been welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and I am sure that the whole House welcomes it. I merely want to suggest that the wording is not very felicitous—indeed, it is ungrammatical. As amended, subsection (5) of Clause 41 would read: "the

599
desirability of promoting and encouraging the use of the River Thames safely". Should it not read: "the safe use of the River Thames"? "Safely" is an adverb, but as "use" is a noun, an adjective is required. I am sorry to be pedantic, but that wording could be misunderstood. The phrase, "the desirability of promoting and encouraging the use of the River Thames safely", could be argued over in court. "Safely" could be referred back to "promoting and encouraging". I suggest that the noble Lord considers that point. It is a very bad sentence.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I experienced the same kind of "hiccup" when I read the clause. I thought that the choice of wording must be deliberate. It seems to suggest greater encouragement to use the Thames than would have been the case had the wording been as the noble Baroness suggests. There is something more urgent in the idea of "using the Thames safely" than there is in the phrase, "safe use"; it is a rather more exhortatory provision.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, "use the Thames safely" would of course be correct: in that phrase "use" is a verb. But the reference is to "the use"; namely, a noun.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am always surprised by the noble Baroness's admonition in regard to grammatical structure. I should have thought that "safe use" might be more limited than "safely". If the House will accept the amendment, it might be possible to tweak its grammar in another place. I am not totally convinced, but I shall re-examine it in that light. I hope that the House can accept the amendment now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [The Mayor's periodic report to the Assembly]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 29, line 3, at end insert—

("(b) a functional body,

(c) a member of a functional body, or

(d) a member of staff of a functional body, except as provided by subsection (6A) below.

(6A) Where—

(a) the Mayor receives advice from a person falling within paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (6) above, and

(b) the functional body mentioned in that paragraph is the Metropolitan Police Authority or the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

the Mayor is not relieved by subsection (6) above from any requirement to disclose the advice, if or to the extent that the advice falls within subsection (6B) below.
(6B) Advice given to the Mayor by a functional body falls within this subsection if it has been disclosed—

(a) at a meeting of, or of a committee or sub-committee of, the functional body at a time when the meeting was open to members of the public by virtue of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents); or

(b) in a document which has been open to inspection by members of the public by virtue of that Part of that Act.

600
(6C) Any reference in this section to a member of staff of a functional body includes a reference to an officer or employee of that body.).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was debated at an earlier stage. The group of amendments led to some queries from noble Lords opposite. I withdrew, I thought, part of the group. In practice, owing to an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in the event I withdrew all of them for clarity's sake.
We debated the amendments at some length. They covered advice to the mayor from functional bodies, their members and their staff. During that debate, I made it clear that the principle of the privacy of advice to the mayor was not being reopened. We have always made it clear that the mayor's position is not the same as that of a local authority. In that sense, we may consider his position to be equivalent to that of a Minister. Any advice that he or she receives should be treated in the same way as the advice given by civil servants to Ministers.
However, I undertook to take the amendments away and to consider two aspects that had caused concern. The first and most important was an express definition of the term "advice". That term has been in the Bill since its introduction and has been accepted both in this House and in another place. I confirm that this new group of amendments does not include the defining definition about which the noble Baroness was so concerned. In particular, in the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that extended the concept of advice beyond what had hitherto been assumed within the Bill. That was not the intention, and therefore it does not appear.
The second issue was the provision which made clear that functional bodies, their members and staff could not be required to provide to the assembly evidence or documents which "relate to" advice to the mayor. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was particularly concerned that that formulation could prevent the disclosure of an extremely wide range of information which was not, in normally accepted terminology, advice to the mayor. That was never the intention. The amendments in this group make it clear that the only evidence and documents which the assembly cannot require from functional bodies and their staff are those which disclose advice to the mayor. The Bill as drafted already includes a provision which prevents disclosure of evidence or documents relating to advice to the mayor by GLA staff. Amendment No. 24 replaces the words "relate to" with "disclose" in that provision as well and therefore rationalises that position.
The group of amendments addresses the matters raised during Report. We have always made clear that advice in the strict sense will be confidential. It is important that the mayor is able to receive such advice from functional bodies as well as GLA staff. This has no effect on the accountability of the mayor to the assembly. He or she will be obliged to report every significant decision to the assembly with reasons and will be obliged to answer assembly members' questions at monthly meetings. The principle of privacy of advice to Ministers, which does not

601
extend to other matters about which noble Lords were concerned, is therefore reproduced here in terms of privacy of advice to the mayor. That is a long-established principle in relation to Ministers. I hope that these amendments take account of the concerns expressed and will complete the arrangements to give effect to that intention. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 which address some of our serious concerns.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 58 [Openness]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 37, line 15, leave out ("(3)(e)") and insert ("(3)(a)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 corrects a typographical error in Clause 58(7). As drafted the subsection refers to subsection (3)(e) of Section 100E of the Local Government Act 1972. The reference should be to subsection (3)(a) of Section 100E. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Power to require attendance at Assembly meetings]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 38, line 17, at end insert ("; and
(c) any person who has within the three years prior to the date of the requirement to be imposed under subsection (1) above been the chairman of, or a member of, any functional body").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 clarifies that the assembly has the power to summons persons who in the previous three years from the date on which the summons is issued have been chairmen or members of functional bodies. It responds directly to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who moved a similar amendment on Report. I said then that we did not believe the amendment to be necessary and that former members were already covered. However, on reflection we have decided that the noble Lord has raised an issue that it is worth putting beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her acceptance of the fact that there is an element of concern which she has now properly answered. I am delighted to see this on the face of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 24 and 25:
Page 39, line 29, leave out ("relate to") and insert ("disclose").
Page 39, line 29, at end insert—
("(10A) Nothing in this section shall require a person who is—

(a) a member of a functional body, or

(b) a member of staff of a functional body,

to give any evidence, or produce any document, which discloses advice given to the Mayor by that person or, except as provided by subsection (10B) below, by that functional body.
602
(10B) Subsection (10A) above does not relieve a person from a requirement to give any evidence, or produce any document, which discloses advice given to the Mayor by—

(a) the Metropolitan Police Authority, or

(b) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

if or to the extent that the advice falls within subsection (10C) below.
(10C) Advice given to the Mayor by a functional body falls within this subsection if it has been disclosed—

(a) at a meeting of, or of a committee or sub-committee of, the functional body at a time when the meeting was open to members of the public by virtue of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents); or

(b) in a document which has been open to inspection by members of the public by virtue of that Part of that Act.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 67 [Appointment]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 42, line 41, at end insert ("or such numbers of staff as shall not exceed in aggregate ten full time equivalent employees").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26 I return to a familiar subject, certainly to all three Front Benches. At each stage of this Bill in your Lordships' House we have made a little progress in trying to unravel this matter. At Committee stage we stumbled, admittedly accidentally, across the fact that the provision in the Bill for two political advisers and 10 other staff meant two and 10 individuals in number, not two and 10 full-time equivalents, as all three Front Benches believed at that stage should be the case. That was what we achieved at Committee stage more by accident than design.
At Report stage the Minister explained that the provision of a specific number was to prevent the mayor bringing in,
"a large number of political appointments which would unbalance the professional staff whom he or she appoints".—(Official Report, 14/ 10/99; col. 621.]
I find it a little hard to understand how 10 such appointments would cause an unbalancing effect. Nevertheless, that is the view of the Government. I can perhaps understand the argument in relation to the two political advisers. Therefore, we leave that to one side. If the Government want to restrict the mayor to two political advisers regardless of the hours worked, so be it. However, this amendment is related simply to the 10 other staff whom the mayor is permitted to appoint as her or his personal staff.
At Report stage the Minister confirmed in answer to my questions that the normal equal opportunities recruitment procedure would apply to those 10 posts; in other words, a proper person specification and job description would be drawn up, the posts would be publicly advertised, they would be open to competition and appointments would be made on merit in a proper procedural way based on equal opportunities. Accepting that that is the case—certainly it should be—I am even more baffled as to how the appointment of more than 10 individuals, some working part-time but still only equivalent to

603
10 full-time people, can possibly unbalance the professional staff of the authority, small in number though they may be.
I made much, and shall do so again, of family-friendly working practices. We are still making progress. At Committee stage we discussed this matter at 11.30 at night; at Report stage we debated it at 10 o'clock; and today we are considering it before tea time. We are talking about a government who promote, sincerely I believe, family-friendly working practices, flexible working hours and so on. Yet by this fairly simple, and in my view entirely unnecessary, provision the Government will ensure that in practice the mayor will not be able to espouse such flexible working arrangements; or, if he or she does, will be penalised for so doing because only 10 individuals can be appointed. For example, if one has 10 individuals who work half time, the work capacity will be half that of 10 individuals who work full time. I do not understand why in this fairly simple matter the Government are unable to accept that it is important to have 10 full-time equivalents. That was what the Minister thought it meant in the first place, and it is what any sensible and reasonable person expects it to mean. However, that is not what the Bill as drafted does mean.
If the Government are concerned that the mayor should not be able to swamp the professional staff with all these political apparatchiks, about which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, admitted he knew more than I did, surely 10 full-time equivalents is a sufficient limit. It is arguable that part-timers will be less likely to unbalance professional staff than those who are there all the time. I do not know that that necessarily follows, but it is an argument.
I believe it is entirely reasonable and rational that we should here talk about 10 full-time equivalent staff. As I am sure that this is the last occasion in this Bill on which we shall return to the matter I hope that the Minister will either stand up and accept such a reasonable amendment or explain to us clearly what is wrong with 10 full-time equivalent staff rather than 10 individuals, and how the latter would be less likely to swamp the professional staff than 10 full-time equivalents. I look forward to that clear explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot resist speaking. I so rarely have the opportunity to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope. He makes an enormously important point. I hope that over time the Government will seek to move towards more family-friendly working practices, not only for women but for men. It is difficult for men who want to spend some time at home with their children to find employment. It is not the norm in industry. It is not yet the norm in government. It is difficult to see how industry's working practices can be changed until employees demand that they should be.
604
It is incumbent on Government to take the lead and to make it possible for people to work in a family-friendly way by being flexible in their working practices and in those provided for in legislation.
I concede that 10 is a small number of such people for the mayor to appoint. But it should be a matter of principle that the Government promote at every opportunity the sort of world they wish to see. I support the noble Lord and hope that the Government will think again.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have been round this circle once again. We are convinced that it is necessary to assure the electors of London and the professional staff of the GlA that there will not be significant numbers of political or personal appointees brought in to run the GLA on behalf of the mayor. In order to reassure them, one needs a limit on the number of such appointments. Every one of those appointments could be filled with a part-timer or on a job-share basis; but the total number requires some limit and some reassurance.
The staff concerned will be the staff of the authority, but unlike the other staff of the authority they will be appointed by the mayor. They will go through the processes of appointment by the mayor. There will be the option of appointing on a more flexible basis, but the total number of people on the payroll appointed under this system should not be more than 10 plus two.
We require that reassurance. It does not cut across any approach by the mayor to make appointments on a more flexible basis. But it means that the total number of such people on the payroll should not be more than 10. At the extreme, if one did not have a limit, a rich person who became mayor could appoint people at virtually no salary who allegedly were working part time; and even if one had people working for a quarter of a week one could have 40 people who made up 10 full time equivalents. Forty people would be a quite significant imbalancing of the total staff of the GLA. We want to guard against that. We have chosen the figure 10. The noble Lord clearly does not agree with it. However, he does not agree with any other figure.
We shall stick with the limit. The mayor is completely free within that limit to appoint whom he or she wishes. If we do not have a limit, many anxieties will be raised about the nature of the authority and the way in which appointments at a relatively important level will be made.
I am sorry that I cannot go further to meet the noble Lord's view. I am sure that he and I would want to have a greater accommodation. However, I fear that it is not possible given the constraint that we believe necessary in this context.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will clarify one point. The noble Lord has spoken of these as personal appointments. He suggested that if the mayor was wealthy he or she could appoint large numbers of people for small parts

605
of the day. Are these not employees of the authority? The Minister seemed to speak of them as though it was a separate group of people. We had understood that the normal appointment procedures, including the application of equal opportunities policies, would apply to these appointments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, they are the employees of the authority, but they will be appointed uniquely by the mayor. Therefore, at the key point, the decision lies with the mayor rather than with the normal appointment system in the authority. Crucially, the mayor will decide terms and conditions. That lays the situation open to the possible proliferation of such persons were, effectively, a subterfuge to be operated to bring allegedly part-time employees on to the payroll for these purposes, however open the procedure had been up to that point. It would be the mayor's personal appointment on the mayor's terms and conditions.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House—I recognise that I am somewhat straining the procedures—does the Minister suggest that the mayor can make a personal contribution to the salaries of these people? That seems to be the logical conclusion of what he is saying when he speaks of the situation depending on the mayor's affluence or otherwise.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the formal salaries will undoubtedly be paid for out of the resources of the assembly. We are guarding against very non-British possibilities of the way in which people actually get paid in this context. We need a limit in order to guard against them. Noble Lords may be familiar with what happens in certain other jurisdictions where such matters may not be so above board.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the issue becomes more absurd each time we debate it. It is a nonsense to specify in primary legislation the number of staff that the mayor may appoint so that it requires an Act of Parliament if the mayor decides he wants 11 people rather than 10. We dealt with that nonsense at an earlier stage. In Committee we suggested that, if there needs to be a limit, it should be a budgetary limit. Expenditure on such posts is more important than the number involved. We did not persuade the Government. The amendment was withdrawn; and that issue has gone.
At this last stage of the Bill, we have accepted that the Government believe it necessary, and will provide, therefore, in the Bill a limit of 10 other staff to be appointed by the mayor. We may think that that is a nonsense, but I accept that the provision is there. Our amendment accepts that it is there. Our amendment seeks to reflect all that we have debated. It is a rare pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in agreement with me. In order to demonstrate the flexible working that we all advocate, there should be 10 full time equivalent staff. The Minister has not told us why there cannot be 10 full time equivalent staff. The cost would not be significantly more. The Minister made clear that it is an issue of numbers, not costs.
606
It is true that the mayor can employ people on a job-share or part-time basis, but in so doing he limits the paid working capacity available to him. Why do the Government insist on imposing such a tight restriction? We are not talking about hundreds of people, but of 10. In theory the mayor could employ a large number for one hour a week, but that is becoming absurd. The normal arrangement is as described: a job share, perhaps roughly of two-thirds, one-third, or whatever. I shall never understand why we have to inhibit the mayor in this way. However, ultimately this will be an issue for a very surprised mayor to come to terms with on his first day in office when he discovers that an Act of Parliament tells him that he may have only 10 staff regardless of the number of hours per week each member of staff works.
It is an absurdity, but it lies on the Government's shoulders and I am content to leave it as the Government's responsibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 [Authority's consent to inclusion of certain provisions in local Bills]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 52, line 28, after ("of") insert ("statutory").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 130 to 133, 153 to 156 and 168 to 171. These are technical adjustments which merely seek to standardise references to the exercise of statutory functions in provisions relating to local Bills. At present, the provisions in Clause 79, which deal with London local authority Bills affecting the GLA refer to the need to consent. Where the exercise of functions is affected, other provisions refer to the "exercise of statutory functions" or simply "statutory functions".
In order to ensure that no unwarranted inference may be drawn subsequently from the variation in terminology, we are talking about the exercise of statutory functions, and these amendments standardise that. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the Minister has been kind enough to recognise that my Amendment No. 28 can be discussed in this group. It raises a short but important point as regards the Common Council of the City of London and I am seeking clarification.
The clause requires the London borough councils and the Common Council to obtain the consent of the GLA in the circumstances set out in the clause before promoting parliamentary Bills. I can understand that the London boroughs are entirely happy with that arrangement because any Bill a council promotes will be attributable to its functions as a local authority. However, the City of London is different. Its functions fall into two separate categories. The promotion of Bills might be undertaken by the Common Council either as part of its functions as a local authority for the City or as agent for the City Corporation acting in other capacities.

607
In another place I introduced a number of Bills, and carried them through, dealing with Epping Forest. The management of Epping Forest is not a local authority statutory function of the City Corporation. The City was appointed as conservator of Epping Forest under the Epping Forest Act 1878, but in no sense as part of its local authority functions. The money came from what is called the "City's cash" and was not part of public expenditure.
It is therefore right that when one is dealing with such an important function as the promotion of a Bill in Parliament, it should be clear that the only circumstance in which the City Corporation needs to have the consent of the mayor is in relation to its statutory functions as a local authority.
The context may suggest that that is already the position. However, I thought it right to table Amendment No. 28 to add the extra words to put it beyond all doubt. I do not want to take up more time, but there is good statutory precedent for that and for these words. I hope that if the Minister is unable to give a categorical assurance that the position is as I have stated it ought to be, he will be prepared to accept the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the reference is intended to be to the Common Council acting solely in its capacity as local authority. The noble Lord may be aware that we have been in correspondence with the City at official level, and the legal advice is that the meaning is clear in the context to which the reference is placed. However, if the noble Lord requires further reassurance, I reiterate the point that the interpretation relates to the role of the Common Council as local authority and in no other capacity.
I hope that on the basis of that advice given to me and to the City authorities, and with that reassurance, the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 128 [Application of Part VIII of Local Government Finance Act 1988]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No 29:
Page 82, line 12, at end insert—
("(bd) the London Pensions Fund Authority;"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29 I shall refer to the other amendments in the group. This group of amendments is consequential to Clauses 395 and 396 of the Bill. They fulfil our White Paper commitment to bring the London Pensions Fund Authority under the democratic control of the GLA. During Report stage, we informed the House that we would need to bring forward further minor and consequential amendments in relation to the auditing and accounts of the LPFA and these amendments complete the detail of the framework of financial administration.
Amendment No. 29 applies to the LPFA requirements. Amendment No. 30 deals with the making and auditing of annual accounts. Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 provide respectively for the mayor to receive copies of reports and of an auditor's recommendations in respect of the LPFA.
Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 provide for public access to meetings on matters raised by the auditor. Amendments Nos. 138, 139 and 140 enable the mayor to request the Audit Commission to undertake value for money studies in relation to the LPFA.
The other amendments include the LPFA in the summary of statements of account produced by the GLA and enable the mayor to request the LPFA to provide the GLA with such information. I believe that these amendments are relatively straightforward. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister because I should have given him notice of my question. It would be of interest to the House if he could inform us of the scale of the funds for which the London Pensions Fund Authority will be responsible and perhaps the number of pensioners and staff who will be covered. It could be a massive fund or a small one, depending on what is included.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the London Pensions Fund Authority will be taking on the responsibilities of a number of different pension schemes brought together under the GLA and this Bill, we are talking about a substantial amount of interest. The approximate figure would be £2.5 billion. The approximate number of people covered would be 67,000.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133 [Applications of the Audit Commission Act 1998]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 85, line 11, at end insert—
("(bd) the London Pensions Fund Authority;"").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 134 [Summary statement of accounts of Authority and functional bodies]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 34:
Page 85, line 17, leave out ("and").
Page 85, line 17, at end insert ("and the London Pensions Fund Authority").
Page 85, line 19, leave out ("or of').
Page 85, line 19, after ("body") insert ("or the London Pensions Fund Authority").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 135 [Information for purposes of section 134]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 85, line 34, leave out ("functional body") and insert ("body to which this section applies").
Page 85, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The bodies to which this section applies are—

(a) each of the functional bodies; and

(b) the London Pensions Fund Authority.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 142 [The Mayor's transport strategy]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 87, line 23, at end insert—

("( ) shall, for highways, be based on the needs of persons (including pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport) rather than vehicles,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled the amendment in an attempt to tighten up the wording in the clause relating to transport strategy and it probes whether the Bill means that the mayor must comply with national policies. It appears that some local authorities are s till resisting change and the new policies which the Government introduced after the election.
Perhaps I may give the House an example. Many noble Lords will have seen the roadworks at Hyde Park Corner. They were the creation of a cycle crossing, a pedestrian crossing and a crossing for horses. The crossing connects Hyde Park with Constitution Hill. The lovely crossing opened last week and I used it when on my bicycle. It is wonderful, except that one has to wait for one minute and 30 seconds between green lights. If there is a green light at one end of the crossing, one has to wait for one minute and 30 seconds at the other end, because the lights are synchronised for cars and not for pedestrians, cycles or horses.
The road is being widened at the top end of Constitution Hill, which seems to me to be against government policies. In spite of all the wonderful millions of pounds being spent, there are still no cycle lanes on Constitution Hill, or anywhere else in the Royal Parks. To cap it all, last Thursday—this event prompted me to table the amendment—at 8.30 in the evening, having left your Lordships' House, I made my way halfway across to the middle of the crossing to discover that the next part was closed. I expected that the contractors would perhaps have put up some temporary lights, because one cannot cross from the middle to the outside of the crossing without traffic lights, but of course there were no temporary lights. Eventually there was a gap in the traffic and one was able to cross.
That is no mere trite joke. It happens all over Westminster in my opinion, and in one or two other boroughs in London. Many of us have spoken before about the lack, of bus lanes and the lack of consideration for pedestrians and cyclists. My amendment is designed to probe a little further the Government's intentions in this particular clause.
Having congratulated the Minister on the amendments on Report requiring the Royal Parks Agency to take into account the policies of the mayor and to consult on transport matters, perhaps I may also commend to the House PPG 13, which was issued in draft form a few weeks ago. It seems to me a very good espousal of the new transport policy of this Government with regard to integrating planning and transport, promoting more sustainable transport choices and reducing the need to travel, especially by car.
One of the main planning policies is to give priority to people over traffic in town centres. That is quite a good policy to pursue. Much further on, when it comes to cycling, the PPG states that the plans should seek the provision of cycle routes and cycle priority measures in new developments and ensure that cycle routes are isolated from other activities. I could go on, but I shall not because there is much other work to be done here tonight.
However, I ask my noble friend whether the Bill, as drafted, enables the mayor to force local authorities, such as Westminster or Wandsworth, to do what they obviously have not as yet realised they must do. PPG 13 has just been published, but the policies have been around for some time. I should like my noble friend to give the House some assurance that the mayor would force local authorities, if they did not want to do so, to adopt policies more friendly to public transport, buses, pedestrians and cyclists. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I sympathise greatly with the general trend of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is desirable that the mayor's transport strategy should take account of national policies and ensure that local boroughs do so also. Furthermore, the amendment would highlight in the Bill some of the concerns expressed on a number of occasions by myself and many noble Lords. It is a rather neatly worded amendment and I hope that it will be well received by Ministers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this amendment would require the highway element of the mayor's transport strategy to be based on the needs of persons rather than vehicles. It would mean that the interests of people, including pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport, would have priority over vehicles. I understand the concerns of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that highways are not just for vehicles, and that the mayor's policies need to reflect that. We believe that our approach in this Bill already does just that.
Clause 141 makes it clear that the mayor's general transport duty relates to the encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services. It applies to all modes of transport and it is most definitely not skewed towards motor vehicles.
My noble friend referred to PPG 13 on transport and planning, a draft revision of which was, as he said, published for consultation by the department recently. As my noble friend rightly pointed out, that guidance is about securing more sustainable transport policies through local authorities' planning policies. One of the principles which it supports is to encourage local authorities to give priority to people over traffic in certain areas. It also contains policies to promote the provision of cycle routes and many other policies which my noble friend and the noble Baroness will welcome.

611
Clause 41 requires the mayor, in producing his spatial development strategy, to take account of the need for consistency with national policies. The SDS will certainly include the PPG notes. I reassure noble Lords that we shall be making specific reference to PPG 13 in the guidance that we shall shortly be publishing for consultation on the mayor's planning functions.
My noble friend also asked about the boroughs' local implementation plans for the mayor's strategy. We believe that a co-operative relationship is important and we are discussing framing the Bill in that context. However, at the end of the day there are powers for the mayor to implement his strategy. My noble friend mentioned Hyde Park Corner, which will of course be on a GLA road. Transport for London will control the traffic signals and the timings, although it will have to consult the boroughs on the matter of signals on borough roads. I hope that that answers my noble friend's question.
In the course of the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House, we have discussed on a number of occasions how the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users should be met. The mayor's duty already makes specific reference to pedestrians, and both I and my noble friend Lord Whitty have made it clear that cycling is within the term, "transport facilities and services", and therefore needs no specific mention on the face of the Bill.
It must be for the mayor to balance the interests of all road users in his transport strategy, taking account of national policies. The Bill's provisions already make that absolutely clear and we should not seek to override that. I hope therefore that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I know that she has said some of it many times before, but the way in which she has encapsulated her argument brings me a good deal of comfort. I hope that these provisions will be implemented in the shortest possible time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 158 [Power of Mayor to transfer functions]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 96, line 30, after ("above") insert ("or by a transport subsidiary's agreement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. I mentioned on Report that we might need to make some further minor amendments to TfL's detailed operational powers, and this group of amendments seeks those provisions which will ensure that certain agreements entered into by TfL subsidiaries will have the same status as agreements entered into by TfL itself, which are covered by subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 156.
Agreements made by TfL itself for the carrying on by other persons of activities which it has the power to carry on, such as, for example, the running of a bus
612
service, will have a special status by virtue of being made under Clause 156. For example, if a Clause 156 agreement is made with a bus operator, the bus service becomes part of the London network. It does not need a special licence and automatically falls within the London free travel scheme. However, most agreements of this kind will not be made with TfL as such, but will be made by TfL subsidiaries. Therefore, it is necessary to give the agreements by those subsidiaries an equivalent status. The combined effect of these amendments does just that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 160 [Guarantees]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 98, line 4, at end insert ("or

(c) any person (other than such a subsidiary) with whom such a subsidiary has entered into a transport subsidiary's agreement, where the guarantee is given for the purpose of enabling that person to carry out the agreement.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 162 [Provision of information]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 99, line 19, after ("persons") insert ("under any transport subsidiary's agreement or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 163 [Restrictions on disposal of land]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 99. line 38, leave out ("different") and insert ("larger").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I apologise for the fact that the word "longer", which is what we intended, has been substituted—no doubt due to a "typo"—by the word "larger", which does not make sense in the context of the amendment. However, given the number of times that the Government have had to correct their own amendments, I hope that they will be tolerant of this mistake. I believe that the purpose of the amendment is quite clear.
Clause 163 deals with the restrictions on disposal of land by Transport for London or the authority. In brief it provides that the consent of the Secretary of State is required for sales of land which are now or have been operational within the previous five years
On Report I moved a series of amendments dealing with this question of transfer of operational land. In his response to those amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he believed that five years was a reasonable time for operational land to fall out of the category of "operational" and into the category of "non-operational". However, the noble Lord said,
"the noble Baroness may have a point with Amendment No. 389 which provides that the Secretary of State can only lengthen the five-year period. I am therefore prepared to consider this point and, it is to be hoped, return to it at Third Reading".—[Official Report, 19/10/99; col. 1010.]
We are at Third Reading and we tabled this amendment in case the Minister should not have tabled a similar amendment. I do not believe that he has. For that reason, I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct to say that in the previous debate on these amendments in this clause I undertook to consider further her amendment. I believed that it had certain merit. However, since then I have discovered that my sympathy for that amendment was perhaps misplaced. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept her amendment.
The key reason is that it would deprive the Secretary of State of some flexibility, not necessarily for any obvious benefit. For example, it would mean that once the five-year period had been increased to seven years it could not thereafter be reduced back to five years. While that ratchet effect might not be seen to have much effect in the immediate circumstances, it does not fit in well with the principle to which we tried to adhere in this context; that is, while restating the principle that operational land must not be permanently disposed of without Parliament having an opportunity to consider it, we have attempted to give TfL some flexibility over the money spent on its property holdings. As part of that flexible approach, we have given the Secretary of State a number of mechanisms whereby he can assist TfL while at the same time ensuring that operational land is protected.
Even if the noble Baroness's amendment were agreed to and the five-year period lengthened, it would still be open to the Secretary of State to issue a consent to the sale of land which had ceased to be operational less than five years ago, or whatever longer period had been specified by the Secretary of State.
In practice there are other ways round this problem. However, on the face of it, it would decrease the flexibility and not add a great deal to the protection of operational land. I did not see fit to accept the noble Baroness's earlier amendment and I am afraid that I cannot accept this one.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am bound to say that I rather sympathise with the noble Lord. I suspect that he was given one set of briefs prior to the debate and another set subsequent to it. Also, I am disappointed because I believe that, following the privatisation of the railways, we have had a good example of the extent to which sales of operational land or land which could become useful for transport purposes have been allowed to take place. Indeed, until very recently they were allowed to take place without any let or hindrance. The five-year limit which is introduced into this Bill as far as concerns land belonging to Transport for London is some measure of protection, but it is only a minor one. We all know that land which has remained idle and then sold is irreplaceable. One cannot create a transport corridor or recreate a transport corridor, particularly one with fixed rails on it, once that corridor has been removed.
Therefore, I deeply regret the Government's attitude. I hope that it will not cause the mayor and the assembly further difficulties in the implementation of the mayor's transport strategy. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 168, insert the following new clause—

MEANING OF TRANSPORT SUBSIDIARY'S AGREEMENT
(" .—(1) In this Act "transport subsidiary's agreement" means an agreement with a person ("the contractor")—

(a) which is entered into by, or transferred to, a subsidiary of Transport for London, and

(b) which falls within subsection (2) or (3) below.

(2) An agreement falls within this subsection if it includes provision for the carrying on by the contractor, whether as agent for the subsidiary or otherwise, of any activities which Transport for London has power to carry on; and such an agreement may include provision with respect to the provision or financing of any public passenger transport services.
(3) An agreement falls within this subsection if it includes provision for the carrying on by the contractor of any activities which Transport for London does not have power to carry on and also provision for one or more of the following, namely—

(a) the carrying on by the contractor of such activities as are mentioned in subsection (2) above;

(b) the provision by the contractor to the subsidiary of services ancillary to the provision of public passenger transport services; and

(c) the use by the contractor of land or other property owned by Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London, or transferred to the contractor by Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London, for the purposes of the agreement.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 173 [Structure of fares and services]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 104, line 22, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 104, line 27, at end insert—
("(3) In exercising his powers under subsection (1) above to determine the matters specified in subsection (2)(a) above, the Mayor shall be under a duty to ensure that the general level of fares to be charged for public passenger transport services by a Tube operator at any time after this Act comes into force is no more than the general level twelve months previous to that time increased by a percentage equal to the control rate.
(4) In subsection (3) above the control rate shall be at any time the number of percentage points by which the most recently available figure for the retail prices index has increased on the retail prices index for the month twelve months previous to that figure, less the factor X.
(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act the Mayor shall have the duty to ensure, as part of his general duty under section 141 above, that Tube operators charge only fair fares.
(6) In this section—

"the retail prices index" is the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics, and if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the provisions of this section then this section shall be construed as referring to any substitute index or index figures published by that Office;

"the factor X" shall, prior to 1st April 2002, be equivalent to two percentage points, and on or after 1st April 2002 shall be equivalent to four percentage points; and

"a Tube operator" is London Underground Limited or any successor body or bodies, whatever their ownership, which subsequently come to operate all or part of the

615
undertaking operated by that body at the date of Royal Assent to this Act, including any extensions to that undertaking subsequent to that date.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to place an annual ceiling on the general level of fares charged by London Underground and to ensure that this level falls year on year.
The London Underground traveller, of which most days I am one and no doubt many noble Lords are as well, nowadays is almost the only user of a monopoly service or utility not to be protected by a regulator in the amount of fares charged. London Underground clearly is a public utility and in the future may well become a privatised, or part-privatised, utility, not least judged by the miserly government provision which appears to be forcing the Tube that way.
It is now established that significant utilities, whether public or private, should be subject to a regulator, one of whose functions is to protect the interests of the consumer by ensuring efficiency through a ceiling on costs. No one doubts that a major incentive to the vastly improved provision of utilities which began in the 1980s was the use of that price ceiling. One only has to look at airports, gas, electricity and telecommunications to see that, in all those cases, prices to the consumer have fallen considerably and that there has been an enormous incentive for efficiency.
On the railways—perhaps the nearest parallel to London Underground—fares have not risen by more than RPI since privatisation. When this amendment was last debated, it was mentioned that London Underground had a great need for investment. Indeed, it has. But in each of the cases I have mentioned, including and in particular the railways, the amount of investment has increased considerably, despite the fact that fares or prices charged have been capped. Therefore, the argument that you cannot have investment as well as efficiency and price control simply does not work.
In this Bill the mayor stands in ultimate relation to the Underground as its regulator. Why then, when the Government would not dare to remove the consumer's price ceiling in other utilities, should the Tube not be subject to regulation on the same basis? For that reason the clause would still hold good against a privatised Tube system, following the precedent set in the 1980s.
This amendment seeks to cap only the general fare level overall. The Bill, as drafted, refers to "general level of fares". We adopt that principle. Clearly it is right that premium services should be able to cross-subsidise other services. We have no argument with that. We merely talk about the general level of fares and putting a cap on that.
I believe that this amendment would be a popular one, certainly for all Tube users. It is about time that Tube users had the same benefits as the users of all the other privatised utilities or railway companies. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe that the parallel drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, between the prices charged by privatised utilities for their products and services are equivalent to those charged by TfL. An independent price regulation applies in such areas, but not to TfL fares.
The privatised utilities are not the subject of democratic control in the way in which the mayor will have control over the operations of TfL. The noble Lord has referred to the popularity of pronouncements on fares. It is fairly obvious that plans for fares will feature somewhat large in the manifestos of candidates for the mayoralty. We already have some general indications. Londoners will be able to endorse or otherwise those plans at the ballot box. Therefore, there is a democratic control, whereas there is not, in that direct sense, in relation to the fares or charging policies of the public utilities.
I thought that in earlier stages of the Bill it was generally accepted that an amendment that effectively capped fares by the Secretary of State or by the will of Parliament would restrict the mayor's ability to control and direct the balance of fares on TfL's public transport services.
In addition to the democratic argument that the mayor will be in the same position as regulators in other areas, the mayor's general transport duties will require him or her to develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services. In that context he or she will clearly develop a fares policy which will relate both to the need to encourage traffic on the Tube and other parts of London Transport and to the investment and other requirements of TfL.
If the proposal by the noble Lord were adopted, it could have serious effects in limiting the amount of revenue that could be raised through the fare box for re-investment in a modernised Underground because, under his formula, revenues would reduce over time in real terms and the mayor could find it increasingly difficult to keep the movement of fares in line with costs, investment needs and market demand.
The amendment is also flawed in that from April 2002 it would require the mayor to limit fares increases to RPI minus four per cent. I believe that there is a logical and statistical absurdity at the end of the amendment. If inflation were to remain around current levels, the mayor would thus be obliged to make reductions in the real level of fares. Taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean that in a sustained period of low inflation the formula would have the effect of reducing fares year after year without regard to the effect of those fares on the overall transport budget.
I do not believe that it is sensible to tie the mayor's hands in that respect in a situation where clearly some of the fares revenue will be needed for long-term investment in our transport infrastructure in London. We believe that it is right for the mayor to have direct responsibility for fares and not that he or she should be subject to rigid constraints and formulae as these amendments propose.

617
Therefore, I believe that the whole approach adopted by the noble Lord is based on a wrong analogy in the first instance, and would lead to serious constraints on the mayor's ability to deliver an effective transport system for London. I hope that he will not pursue the matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the reply of the Minister. On the question of revenue needed for modernisation, I dwelt on that in my opening remarks. In all the other cases that I mentioned fares or the equivalent of charges have gone down, but investment has gone up. There is no reason why that should not happen in the case of the Underground if we obtain the incentives for efficiency and so on available to the other industries to which I referred.
On democratic control, yes indeed there will be democratic control in the form of the mayor and the assembly. The amendment refers to fair fares and I thought I may be doing the Minister a favour by putting this proposal forward. We remember what happened to the last fair fares proposal in the days of the GLC. Although the noble Lord may describe that as democratic control, I seem to remember that it was thrown out by the courts on the basis that it may have been democratic in certain parts of London, but it was not democratic in other areas that did not have a London Underground service.
I have listened with interest to what the Minister has said. I do not propose to test the opinion of the House on this issue tonight. I hope that the London travelling public will be able to have the benefit that has flowed to the consumers of other utilities and to travellers on the main railway system, which is a combination of lower fares and higher investment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 175 [Co-operation with other persons]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
Page 105. line 10, leave out from ("provided") to ("either") in line 13 and insert ("under—

(a) an agreement entered into by Transport for London under section 156(2) or (3)(a) above, or

(b) a transport subsidiary's agreement,

by a person other than a subsidiary of Transport for London, it shall be the duty of that person and the other party to the agreement in question,").
Page 105, line 22, after ("above") insert ("or to a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 177 [Information and publicity about plans as to services and fares]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 105, line 47, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 180 [The London bus network]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 107, line 10, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 181 [London local service agreements]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 107, line 15, after ("above") insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 206, insert the following new clause—

DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY
(" .—(1) Section 3 of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act 1993 (transfer of functions relating to the Docklands Light Railway) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (7) below.
(2) In subsection (1) (which confers a power on the Secretary of State to make orders transferring functions relating to the Docklands Light Railway) for "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "Mayor of London".
(3) Subsection (3) (which confers a power to specify in a transfer order circumstances in which the order shall cease to have effect) shall cease to have effect.
(4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) The power to make a transfer order under subsection (1) above includes a power to revoke, amend or re-enact any transfer order made under that subsection.
(3B) Without prejudice to subsection (3A) above, a transfer order may specify circumstances in which the order shall cease to have effect before the expiry of any period specified in any such order."
(5) In subsection (4) (which confers a power to include in a transfer order supplementary etc provision) for "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "Mayor of London."
(6) Subsection (6) (which provides that the power to make a transfer order is to be exercisable by statutory instrument) shall cease to have effect.
(7) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
"(7) The Mayor of London shall secure that any transfer order made under subsection (1) above (and any order revoking, amending or re-enacting any such order) is printed and published.
(8) A fee may be charged for the sale of an order printed and published under subsection (7) above."
(8) Any transfer order—

(a) made by the Secretary of State under section 3(1) of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act 1993, and

(b) in force immediately before the coming into force of subsection (3) above,

shall have effect as from the coming into force of that subsection as if it were a transfer order made by the Mayor of London.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 50 and speak to Amendments Nos. 51, 125, 127, 160 and 182. On Report my noble friend Lord Macdonald indicated that we would need to bring forward some technical amendments in relation to the Docklands Light Railway and the Croydon Tramlink. These amendments are designed to ensure that certain powers of the Secretary of State and responsibilities of London Regional Transport (LRT) pass to the mayor and to Transport for London. They do not significantly affect the current arrangements for construction and operation of the Docklands Light Railway and Tramlink.
Amendment No. 50 passes to the mayor the power of the Secretary of State to transfer functions of Docklands Light Railway Limited to another person for the purposes of the construction and maintenance of the DLR Lewisham extension.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 125 provide for the mayor and TfL to inherit certain functions of the Secretary of State and the responsibilities of London Regional Transport in respect of Croydon Tramlink. They amend the Croydon Tramlink Act 1994 so that the mayor assumes the role of the Secretary of State in transferring functions to the Tramlink concessionaire. They also give the mayor the role of the Secretary of State in determining any differences arising from proposals to alter the level of a street in relation to the tram, and they place a duty on the London Transport Users' Committee to consider representations in respect of Tramlink.
The amendments also provide for the continuation of the terms of agreements entered into by LRT dealing with the performance of LRT's statutory duties, notwithstanding that certain statutory duties of London Regional Transport are to be re-enacted and held by the mayor and Transport for London. The Tramlink agreement is such an agreement.
Amendments Nos. 127 and 160 make provision for the continuation of penalty fare arrangements which fall outside those for bus and Tube, such as Tramlink, with the mayor assuming the role of Secretary of State, in respect of the making of orders modifying the penalty fare procedures. Amendment No. 182 makes the necessary repeals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 237 [Travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 143, line 44, at end insert ("or, if the Secretary of State by order so directs. who have attained 60 years of age").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 52 returns to the issue of concessionary fares and in particular the equality of age between men and women for concessionary fares. My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood moved an amendment at the last stage, giving an opportunity to the Government to put right one matter of inequality between the sexes in what she reminded noble Lords was to be "a unique and modern authority", to quote the Government. The Minister did not take the opportunity at that point to put a modern or indeed a post-modern stamp on the authority. He said that the link between eligibility for travel concessions and the state pension age is long-standing and clearly understood and that any changes should follow the 1995 Pensions Act and any alterations that it may introduce.
The amendment, which will allow for regulation by the Secretary of State, rather than attempting to change the provision at this point, differs from the one
620
moved at the last stage for two reasons. The first is a reason of principle. The Government at the last stage accepted our amendment which stated that the new authority should promote equality. We have returned to that matter this afternoon. That amendment will be in the Bill and it will be adjusted when it goes back to another place. We welcome that situation and would like to see promotion of equality in this area as well as in others.
The second reason is more technical. I understand that the Minister has received correspondence from solicitors instructed by the organisation Parity, which campaigns for equal state pension ages and equal rights for men and women. The correspondence mentions a possible problem in this area in relation to the decision of the European Court of Justice in Atkins, but distinguishes that case, and alerts the Minister to having been instructed to commence proceedings on behalf of a 62 year-old man to establish his right to travel concessions under the London Regional Transport Act 1984. The case of Atkins was brought under the Transport Act 1985. It raises the question of whether the legislation that we are now considering will breach the European Union equal treatment directive.
I do not at this stage ask noble Lords to look at the detail of that directive; nor do I wish to enter into a long debate about the criteria to be applied in this situation. However, having been alerted that there may be a problem, we should allow for alteration through the mechanism of regulation by an order made by the Secretary of State in order to correct the difficulty and to ensure that the legislation is capable of meeting the relevant criteria. This is not something that I would normally recommend.
The amendment would allow for reflection at a later stage, after the passage of the Bill. We hope that there will be action, but the amendment would allow the right steps to be taken by the Government to meet the point. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the prospect of redrafting this piece of legislation so that it is capable of taking into account any possible variations of any possible legislation rather threw me, and I was a little daunted by that prospect. I can confirm that we have received representations from Parity and we are considering points raised in that letter. I am not in a position to go further than that at this stage.
The amendment would give the Secretary of State a power by order to make all London residents eligible for travel concessions at the age of 60. The London concessionary fare scheme, like schemes in the rest of the country, provides concessionary travel on public transport to men and women of pensionable age: men at 65 and over, women at 60 and over. Perhaps at this stage I should declare a rather unwelcome, looming interest for myself in June next year.
One of the reasons for settling on the state pension age for eligibility was that the link was clearly understood. A person's eligibility for a state pension means that he or she is also eligible for travel concessions. It could be argued

621
that the state pension age represents, very broadly, recognition by the state of the lack of earning power and thus the financial disadvantage of older people. In the Government's view, it is reasonable that the age of eligibility for travel concessions should be in line with society's broader view of the age at which financial assistance should be given.
The issue of an equal age of eligibility for travel concessions has already been addressed in the Pensions Act 1995. This Act provides for women's eligibility for travel concessions to be raised from 60 to 65 (in line with their eligibility for the state pension) over a long transitional period from 2010 to 2020. This maintains the link between concessionary travel and the state pension age and will, in time, eliminate any discrimination against men. The Government have no plans to accelerate this transition, given all the other calls on public funds.
Were the amendment to be implemented, there would be unwelcome anomalies. Setting an equal age of 60 would allow men still in full-time employment to take advantage of travel concessions. The anomaly would be compounded when the state pension age is equalised at 65. At that time, both men and women would be able to enjoy concessionary travel while they were still working.
There is also the issue of the local authority bearing the cost. In London, the boroughs currently choose to provide a free fare concession on London Transport and London rail services for their eligible residents. The current cost of the scheme to the boroughs is £142 million. We estimate that were the noble Baroness's intentions to be implemented, it could cost the boroughs at least an extra £20 million per annum. If that were extended across the whole country, it could cost local authorities in the region of £65 million.
After there has been more time to consider the correspondence to which the noble Baroness referred, I shall continue to keep her fully informed. In the mean time, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this is a technical matter and I shall rot pursue it at this stage. I have often seen on the faces of government Ministers a look of extreme cynicism when members of opposition parties suggest that they are trying to be helpful to the Government. I understand that cynicism, but this was a genuine attempt to be helpful. I am not in the habit of suggesting that any Secretary of State should obtain additional powers which are not clear on the face of primary legislation.
It may be that this is one of the subjects that has to be dealt with in a "Greater London Authority (Amendment) Bill", which may come down the track at some point. The amendment was a genuine attempt to leave the door open to make a change which may be required. I have not been suggesting to the House that it should tonight make such a major alteration in policy. I heard what the Minister said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 144, line 25, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 239 [Requirements as to scope]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 145, line 33, at end insert ("or under a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 244 [The London Transport Users' Committee]:
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Clause 245 [Representations to the Committee]:
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 148, line 35, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 253 [Provision of facilities to benefit users of waterways"]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 152, line 3, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 145 and 146.
This group of amendments seeks to address concerns expressed by the Port of London Authority and British Waterways over Transport for London's powers in respect of landing places in Clause 253 and Schedule 11. However, in the light of representations and for the avoidance of doubt we brought forward Amendments Nos. 59 and 61. These make it clear that TfL must obtain a licence or consent in respect of any works if that is required by any enactment. Where there is no such requirement, TfL must obtain the consent of the person who is under a duty to maintain the waterway.
At Report stage on 19th October, in relation to an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, I said that I would look at the issue of potential conflict between Transport for London by-laws and those of the navigation authority. As I explained then, I envisaged that any conflict would be resolved at the time of confirmation. I should like to amplify that by reassuring noble Lords that in considering the confirmation of any by-laws under paragraph 27 of Schedule 11, the department will take full account of the concerns of the relevant navigation authority. This will include British Waterways as well as the Port of London Authority.
Again, for the avoidance of doubt we brought forward some specific amendments to Schedule 11 with regard to the Port of London Authority. This is because such a situation is most likely to arise with respect to landing places on the tidal Thames. Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 ensure that TfL cannot make by-laws for landing places where the PLA has

623
power to make by-laws and would ensure that no TfL by-law shall conflict with by-laws made by the PLA under the Port of London Act 1968. These are clarifying amendments tabled for the avoidance of doubt. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 60 and 62 come within this grouping and it is therefore appropriate that I speak to them now. The amendments relate to the concerns of tourist services on the River Thames.
It probably has not escaped notice when looking out of the Library window over the past few years that things have been changing on the river—and I am not referring to that giant bicycle wheel down the road. Some years back the tourist services on the Thames were provided by a motley collection of craft, some of which dated back to the First World War and others which had come from various estuaries around the south coast. They offered services which were at best sporadic and generally of poor quality.
More recently, one cannot fail to have noticed that much larger and more sophisticated craft are being used to take tourist passengers up and down the Thames. Moreover, those craft operate all year round whereas the earlier ones were generally laid up during the winter. The Thames currently draws over 2 million sightseeing passengers and restaurant cruise passengers a year—a figure which will no doubt rise in view of the millennium celebrations. In addition, around 500 people are directly employed in the river services—also a figure which is likely to rise.
I tabled these amendments in response to the government amendments which inserted Clauses 253 and 255 into the Bill at Report stage. Their purpose is to clarify the uncertainty created by those clauses regarding access for tourist boat services to piers and jetties on the River Thames. This is a subject that was broached at an earlier stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood.
Clauses 253 and 255 authorise Transport for London to provide facilities such as piers and jetties on the Thames, and to transfer to London Regional Transport (and ultimately to Transport for London) existing contracts for access to existing piers and jetties on the Thames made between boat operators and the Port of London Authority, or River Services Limited which is a London Regional Transport subsidiary. That transfer will occur without the consent of the boat operators by operation of the law.
Transport for London will be the new transport executive for London and as such its primary focus is likely to be the development and maintenance of passenger transport services, particularly those for commuters. Although the development of such services on the Thames will be welcomed, that should not be at the expense of the London tourist industry. Yet there is a danger that Transport for London, unless directed to do so, will not understand or adequately cater for the special needs of this important
624
part of London's economy. It should be noted, for example, that London Regional Transport, to which Transport for London will be the successor body, is currently responsible for passenger bus services in London but is not responsible for tourist bus services—the open-topped buses which take tourists on circular routes around London.
At this stage I should say that history relates that past attempts to establish water bus services on the Thames failed, despite considerable subsidy. Nevertheless, they had a considerable impact on those providing leisure tourist services on the river, who lost around 20 per cent of their revenue as a result.
The amendments seek to address my concerns, first, by imposing an obligation on Transport for London when providing facilities on the Thames to take account of the needs of tourists and to ensure that tourist boat operators have adequate access to such facilities; secondly, by requiring London Regional Transport and Transport for London to interpret and apply transferred agreements consistently with a policy document previously issued and adhered to by the existing owners of transferred piers and jetties—notably, the Port of London Authority's document Partners in Progress. I seek a level playing field for those who operate tourist services on the river.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I support the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in respect of Amendments Nos. 60 and 62, to which I added my name. These amendments would improve Clauses 253 and 255 which were inserted in the Bill by the Government at Report stage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, explained, the Government's new clauses created an uncertainty regarding access for tourist boat services to piers and jetties on the River Thames. Over the past week I and other noble Lords were contacted by those who are involved in the tourism and leisure industry. They expressed concern about the future of that industry on the Thames and its management by London River Services.
These amendments seek to address that concern: first, by imposing an obligation on TfL when providing facilities on the Thames to take account of the needs of tourists and to ensure that tourist boat operators have adequate access to such facilities; and secondly, by requiring LRT and TfL to interpret and apply transferred agreements consistently with policy documents previously issued, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and adhered to by the existing owners of transferred piers and jetties, notably the PLA document Partners in Progress.
The operator, Catamaran Cruisers Ltd, has pointed out that there are two key points on which it is important to seek assurances from the Minister. The needs of tourism and leisure service operators must be given equal weight to transport matters by LRS, perhaps through the appointment of a director within LRS with experience of, and responsibility for, tourism. Further, there must be an independent assessment of the current impact of the introduction of

625
transport services on the existing tourism and leisure industries, so that both perspectives can be understood and viewed in a more balanced way. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances to the House on these matters.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the observations made by the two noble Lords who have already spoken in this debate. Although I am doubtful as to whether the over-used term "a level playing field" is the right one in the circumstances, I understand the point that they are trying to make. In fact, as the Bill stands, I believe that a degree of prejudice is imported into the vital industry of tourism—indeed, it is vital for London, vital for attracting foreign revenue to London and vital for ensuring that London retains its significant position on the world stage as a city of great tourist interest.
I find it extraordinary that there is no reference to tourism in the proposed guidelines. I ask my noble friend specifically: why has that omission occurred? There is a real need for a balance between transport and tourism. I am not convinced that this balanced approach is being applied at present, or, indeed, that it is even being indicated. It is very important, as justified by the history of the situation, that the tourist industry should be given some substantial benefits as a result of the work that it does in providing such services. To obtain significant investment in leisure and tourism, Thames operators were granted sole access to specific routes on the river for fixed periods under contractual licences granted by the PLA.
It seems to me that the approach of LRS at the present time is in breach of those agreements. Again, I ask my noble friend the Minister specifically how that situation can be tolerated. I understand that LRS seeks to justify its position because of statutory obligations, which have been placed upon it by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to implement transport on the Thames. One must pay regard to what is fair in the circumstances. Clearly, the development of these services and of tourism on the Thames is of great importance. I believe that this has been recognised by those who provide such services. But how can anyone justify a breach of sole operating licences when one thinks of the investment which has taken place in order to provide those services?
I believe this to be an issue which ought to be looked at most carefully. I do not propose to enter into the Division Lobby on the issue, and I say so very specifically at this stage because this is a matter which can be worked out. I should like my noble friend to tell the House tonight that the Government are looking very carefully at the issue and that they have no intention of participating in any scheme which would seriously disadvantage those engaged in the tourist industry. There will be time to reconsider the matter while the scheme is being developed. It is not perhaps necessary to put it in the Bill. Although the two noble Lords who have already spoken did not say so specifically. my interpretation of their remarks is that they would like an assurance that this is a matter which will not be passed over.
626
I am particularly worried that tourist services could be put in an even more disadvantaged position in the future by subsidy and by unfair competition being practised by other transport vis-à-vis those services. Therefore, the licences which were granted by the PLA to boat operators in 1993 should be honoured. It is not as though one can just write off this investment; indeed, it is something of considerable importance. The future of such operators will be in jeopardy if this investment is simply to be written off by those who will be undertaking the management of the scheme.
I do not propose to say anything more, save to end on this note. I believe that it is extremely important to recognise that tourism is of critical importance to this city—one only has to observe to recognise what is happening on the river, especially in the summer months or in the spring—and that it will go on being so after the passage of this Bill. I do not think that a deterrent or a discouragement should arise by virtue of current steps being taken which could be averted.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am mindful of the time but, as someone who raised these matters on Report, I should like to add a few words to the debate. Broadly, as other noble Lords have said, the problem is that operators of tourism boats are worried that LRS will disregard existing legally-binding agreements with the PLA and seek to impose unilaterally new conditions, which would seriously prejudice the operators' ability to continue to operate in a financially viable manner. That is the overall problem.
Following my interventions and those of other noble Lords on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was kind enough to write to me. After a consultation with one of his officials, I passed his letter on to one of the parties who had been lobbying Members of this House. That party has now written to me and I shall get back to the noble Lord via the correct procedure in that respect. However, as regards the present position in our proceedings on the Bill, I should like to point out that those concerned would like to see LRS working within the partnership spirit of previous agreements, rather than with the new arrangement. As noble Lords have already said, they are looking for reassurance that the agreements which already cover tourist boats will not be disrupted in a way which will be disadvantageous to the tourist industry.
If I may say so, it is very difficult on the river to make a clear distinction between transport and tourism; for example, I have in mind those boats which. I hope, will go to serve the Millennium Dome. Will they make a significant contribution to the transport of people to the dome? I think not. I believe that they will be largely tourist in their objective—and a very pleasant trip I expect it to be. I very much hope that I and my family will take part in that. But we shall do so not as a means of getting to the Millennium Dome, as I think the Tube will provide a better means of doing that, but because it will be a delightful trip which will enable us to see much of London en route.

627
I believe that transport in the sense of rush hour transport is unlikely ever to comprise a major part of London's river transport. I think that tourism will continue to comprise the major part of that. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure those who are responsible for that tourist traffic.
7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as no one has opposed my amendments I welcome the implicit endorsement of them by the House and will comment on Amendments Nos. 60 and 62! I wish to make it absolutely clear to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and to others that the Government recognise the importance of tourism in London and tourism on the Thames in particular. We value highly the investment that has been made by operators in improving the quality of facilities and services that are available on the Thames. We want to see improvements sustained.
My noble friend asked why tourism had not been included in this provision. I assume that he asks why it has not been included in the guidelines issued by London River Services. As I understand it, tourism is mentioned in that context. I shall check that reference. Certainly the spirit of the whole approach is that tourism and functional transport are covered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, insofar as there is a distinction between tourism and transport services, the delineation is not at all clear cut. We do not see the objectives of tourism and of transport as being exclusive. Nor do we see the role of London River Services as being to promote transport, for example, at the expense of tourism. Indeed I am absolutely confident that London River Services shares that view.
However, as significant anxieties have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and others, I want to place it on record that we do not believe that there is a conflict here. We shall write to the chair of London River Services accordingly and, in doing so, we shall reiterate the importance of considering the wellbeing of the existing services, especially the high quality of current services. I hope that that meets the point that has been raised in relation to existing service providers. In addition I understand that LRS is committed to considering the impact of existing services when it grants licences for new services, if any. I believe that that is primarily a matter for LRS rather than the Bill. It becomes a matter of detailed operational and commercial negotiations. Nevertheless I make it absolutely clear here that our aim to increase the use of the river includes tourist use as well as more functional transport use. We wish to see new attractions all along the river, new investment in piers, boats and transport linkages, and better marketing and information on all of these.
We believe that the size of the tourist and transport markets will grow. We wish to open new routes. Nevertheless we would not wish to see the interests of existing operators who have made an investment in this service jeopardised. We shall make it clear to London River Services that that is our intention. I do not,
628
however, think that it is appropriate to amend the face of the Bill to that effect. I hope that noble Lords will accept my assurances on that matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 60:
Page 152, line 5, at end insert ("and, in the exercise of this power shall ensure that—

(a) the needs of tourists are taken into account; and

(b) adequate access to any such amenities or facilities is provided for vessels used wholly or mainly for carrying tourists").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would just like to say how grateful I am to the Minister for the assurance he has given and for the promise to write to the chief executive of London River Services. That shows that he has taken on board the strength of feeling in all quarters of the House. I express my thanks to those noble Lords who have supported me in this matter. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved. ]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 152, line 5, at end insert—
("(2) Before commencing any works for the purposes of exercising the powers under subsection (1) above, Transport for London shall—

(a) comply with any requirement in an enactment to obtain a licence or consent in respect of the works, or

(b) if there is no such requirement, obtain the consent to the works of any person who is under a duty to maintain the waterway to which they relate.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 255 [Landing places: transfer of certain rights and obligations]:
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 260 [Supplementary provisions]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 156, line 22, at end insert (", and

(ii) for "and 124" there shall be substituted ". 124 and 266B";").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 63 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64 to 67. This group of amendments provides a mechanism for the transfer of property and liabilities associated with a road which becomes or ceases to be a GLA road by order of the mayor provided elsewhere in the Bill. These provisions are necessary because the transfer provisions elsewhere in the Bill do not provide for these kinds of transfer and we need to rectify that. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation but I have a slight anxiety. The proposed new Section 266A(3) in Amendment No. 66 provides that,
"any right or liability in respect of—work done, services rendered, goods delivered"
is not transferred by the proposed new clause. What would happen if a road had recently been resurfaced

629
and the work was substandard? It seems to me that the benefit or otherwise of the work that is done would not be transferred to the new authority. What would happen if the road surface was damaged by a statutory undertaker? It does not seem to me that the right to have it repaired would be transferred. If the Minister cannot answer that question straight away perhaps he will write to me and relieve my anxieties.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that I shall have to write to the noble Earl to satisfy him completely. If a substandard road is transferred, that will have been taken into account in making the order and the liability would be transferred. I am not sure that I understand the noble Earl's reference to statutory undertakers unless he refers to utilities and others who may dig up a road. I think that is a rather different point which we discussed earlier today. That situation is not affected by the ability to transfer a road in future. However, I shall give the noble Earl a fuller answer in due course.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 67:
Page 156. line 28, at end insert (", and

(ii) for "or 124" there shall be substituted "124 or 266B";").

Page 156, line 30, at end insert (", and

(ii) for "or 124" there shall be substituted ", 124 or 266B";").

After Clause 260, insert the following new clause—

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AND LIABILITIES UPON A HIGHWAY BECOMING OR CEASING TO BE A GLA ROAD
(" . After section 266 of the Highways Act 1980 there shall be inserted—
"Transfer of property and liabilities upon a highway becoming or ceasing to be a GLA road.
266A.—(1) This section applies where, by virtue of an order made by the Greater London Authority under section 14B(2) above, a highway or proposed highway becomes, or ceases to be, a GLA road.
(2) As from the operative date there are transferred to the new highway authority by virtue of this section—

(a)the property mentioned in subsection (4) below, in so far as, immediately before the operative date, it was vested in the former highway authority for the purposes of their functions in relation to the transferred highway, and

(b) all liabilities incurred by any such authority for the purposes of its functions in relation to the transferred highway and not discharged before the operative date, other than loans and loan charges,

and the property and liabilities so transferred vest, by virtue of this section, in the new highway authority.
(3) There is not transferred to the new highway authority by virtue of this section any right or liability in respect of—

(a) work done, services rendered, goods delivered, or money due for payment, before the operative date, or

(b) damages or compensation for any act or omission before that date, or

(c) the price of, or compensation for, any land purchased, or for which a contract to purchase has been concluded, before that date.

(4) The property referred to in subsection (2)(a) above is—

(a) land, other than land—

630

(i) vested in the former highway authority for the purpose of being used for the storage of materials required wholly or mainly for the maintenance and improvement of other highways, or

(ii) acquired for the improvement or development of frontages to the highway, or of land adjoining or adjacent to the highway, and

(b) all other property (including unexpended balances of any grants paid by the Minister to the former highway authority), other than—

(i) materials to be used for the maintenance or improvement of the highway, and

(ii) the unexpended balances of any loans raised by the former highway authority.

(5) Any property vested in the new highway authority by virtue of this section shall be held by it subject to all covenants, conditions and restrictions subject to which the property was held by the former highway authority and to all liabilities affecting the property, except liabilities referred to in subsection (3) above.
(6) The new highway authority and the former highway authority may agree, on such terms as they think fit—

(a) that any property or liabilities (except loans and loan charges) acquired or incurred by the former highway authority for the purposes of their functions in relation to the transferred highway, other than property or liabilities transferred to the new highway authority by virtue of this section, shall be transferred to the new highway authority, or

(b) that any property or liabilities transferred to the new highway authority by virtue of this section shall be re-transferred to the former highway authority.

(7) Any dispute between the new highway authority and any other person as to the property or liabilities transferred by virtue of this section shall be determined by arbitration.
(8) Paragraphs 1 and 3 to 8 of Schedule 21 to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of providing for transitional matters arising where a highway or proposed highway becomes, or ceases to be, a GLA road as it applies where a highway becomes, or ceases to he. a trunk road; but in having such effect those paragraphs shall he treated as if—

(a) for the references to a trunk road there were substituted references to a GLA road, and

(b) for the references to the Minister there were substituted references to the new highway authority (within the meaning of this section).

(9) For the purposes of this section—

"former highway authority" means the highway authority for the transferred highway immediately before the operative date;

"new highway authority" means the highway authority for the transferred highway immediately after the operative date;

"operative date" means the date on which the highway or proposed highway becomes, or ceases to he, a GLA road;

"property" includes property, rights and powers of every description; and

"transferred highway" means the highway or proposed highway which is the subject of the order under section 14B(2) above.".").

After Clause 260, insert the following new clause—

TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES UPON A HIGHWAY BECOMING OR CEASING TO BE A GLA ROAD
(" . After section 266A of the Highways Act 1980 there shall be inserted—
TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES UPON A HIGHWAY BECOMING OR CEASING TO BE A GLA ROAD

  Transfer of employees upon a highway becoming or ceasing to be a GLA road.
  266B.—(1) This section applies where, by virtue of an order made by the Greater London Authority under section 14B(2) above, a highway or proposed highway becomes, or ceases to be, a GLA road.
  (2) The Greater London Authority may, if it is necessary in connection with the highway becoming, or ceasing to be, a GLA road, by order make schemes containing provision for or in connection with the transfer from the former highway authority to the new highway authority of rights and liabilities under contracts of employment.
  (3) The rights and liabilities which may be transferred by such a scheme include rights and liabilities which would not otherwise be capable of being transferred or assigned.
  (4) Subsections (5) to (7) below apply where any rights or liabilities under a contract of employment are transferred by virtue of this Act.
  (5) Anything done by or in relation to the former highway authority in respect of the employee before the day on which the transfer of the rights and liabilities takes effect shall be treated on and after that day as done by or in relation to the new highway authority.
  (6) For the purposes of Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (redundancy payments etc) the employee shall not be regarded as having been dismissed by virtue of the transfer.
  (7) For the purposes of that Act, the employee's period of employment with the former highway authority shall count as a period of employment with the new highway authority, and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.
  (8) An order under this section shall be of no effect unless—

  (a) it is made with the consent of the relevant highway authority; or

  (b) if that consent is refused, it is confirmed (with or without modification) by the Secretary of State.

  (9) For the purposes of subsection (8) above, the relevant highway authority is—

  (a) in a case where the order under section 14B above directs that a highway or proposed highway shall become a GLA road, the former highway authority; and

  (b) in a case where the order directs that a GLA road shall cease to be such a road, the new highway authority."

  (10) Section 266A(9) above also applies for the purposes of this section.".").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 267 [GLA side roads]:
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 68:
  Page 162, line 16, after second ("roads") insert ("or part or parts thereof")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68 I suggest that the House discusses also Amendments Nos. 69 to 71. This group of amendments follows the considerable new clauses that were added to the Bill at the Report stage and had originally been sparked off by the suggestion that there was confusion between what would be GLA roads and what would remain borough, or, in the case of the City, City Corporation roads. Particular reference was made at the time to the so-called "ring of steel".
  When I saw the amendments that were accepted by the House at the Report stage I thought that they were ingenious. The problem is how to deal with the side roads and the junctions. The anxiety of the boroughs and of the City Corporation had been that the short
  632
  lengths of all the side roads adjacent to GLA roads would become the responsibility of Transport for London. The question was raised as to whether Transport for London would be the body, for instance, to deal with loose kerbstones or broken paving stones. That is a function of a highway authority whereas Transport for London is concerned with traffic.
  The solution was chosen—I thought that it was sensible—that for those lengths of the side roads the boroughs and the City Corporation would remain the traffic authority (which is what TfL is primarily concerned with) while leaving the boroughs and the City as the highway authority. However, since those amendments were tabled and agreed by the House at Report stage the City of Westminster has taken legal advice about the drafting of the new clauses. It was intended that the Bill should affect short lengths of the side roads adjacent to the GLA roads but, as drafted, the clauses now appear to transfer the traffic authority for the whole of each side road to Transport for London. If this is intended—I do not believe it is—the effect would be to hand control to TfL of a great many local authority roads, particularly in central London where the GLA road network is already expected to be more dense than elsewhere in London.
  Westminster City Council has been advised by the Minister's department that it is intended that the division should mirror the current powers of the traffic director in relation to red route returns, as the side roads to red routes are called. However, that is not a valid parallel; the legislation is quite different. The traffic director currently is neither the traffic nor the highway authority for red routes or their returns.
  Section 50 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 allows the Secretary of State to designate any road in London as a priority or red route. He did this in a 1992 statutory instrument without any reference being made to side roads or red route returns. Section 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 requires the traffic director to produce a network plan of what he wishes to see on red routes. The traffic director's network plan states that he expects red lines to be extended into the junctions with red routes by 10 or 20 metres. I recollect that at earlier stages of the Bill those were the numbers mentioned as the extent of TfL's interest in the side roads.
  To legislate for a standard pattern such as that is not very sensible. Westminster now has a good many red routes in its area. The council has put round some extremely informative leaflets and other information to residents in dwellings adjacent to red routes. The length of the red route returns varies. In each case it has been decided on an individual basis after discussions with consultants and with the traffic director. Westminster City Council is concerned that the clauses added on Report will potentially give the mayor and Transport for London much more power in their role as traffic authority than the city council would want to see or than the Government have informally indicated they intend.
  This issue was not raised fully on Report because by that time the amendments came so thick and fast—we have just had several more pages added—that it was difficult for the authorities to keep up with it. However, having looked at the issue and discussed it with officials in the Minister's department, Westminster City Council feels anxious that the Bill does not fulfil the Government's intention. The department suggested that it could not be put right; that it was too difficult to amend. Westminster City Council has sought to do so, and I have tabled these four amendments. They seek to implement what the Government really intend; namely, that the division of functions should apply only to short lengths of side roads adjacent to GLA roads. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding explained the issue far better than I ever could. It would be advisable to have a definite limit as to the extent to which a GLA road goes down a side road. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, are interesting. I am speaking from memory but I remember that we were reassured by the Minister when he introduced these clauses—which it is suggested should now be subject to amendment—that they had been put together as a result of consultation with the London boroughs and the Common Council. We now hear that one of those is alarmed about the clauses. Many people will wish to be reassured that these clauses will not result in conflict between the GLA and the London boroughs. At the time of the GLC, one of the major sources of conflict between it and the London boroughs was on precisely this issue of side roads, about where they began and where they ended. That was one of the most common causes of conflict. We would like to be reassured that Clause 267 meets the concerns of the London boroughs, which I know were expressed at an early stage of the Bill.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the amendments are not necessary. Some of the anxieties to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred are misplaced. Clause 267 is designed to allow the Secretary of State to designate the kind of roads which are currently subject to red route controls, including red route returns in red routes and in other GLA roads.
  It is true that some of those roads do not directly join the main road. They have none the less been included in the red route return arrangements because they allow effective management of traffic and parking on the main roads. That is the established position. It is not therefore limited necessarily to junctions and a few yards down from the junction. Although this legislation is slightly different, we are seeking to give the mayor and TfL the red routes for traffic purposes and to leave the Highway Authority structure as it is. There is no intention under this clause or Clause 265 to designate vast new swathes of side roads as GLA
  634
  roads. We will use it to replicate as far as possible the current boundaries of the red route network and those few other cases to which I have referred.
  The intention behind this is that the GLA, the boroughs and the City will discuss areas of dispute. At the end of the day, the Secretary of State will have the final say on designation.
  I regret to say that I fully expected the noble Lord to raise as an example the City of London. I therefore do not have the precise figures for the City of Westminster. But the noble Lord is interested in both cases and perhaps I may use the City of London to illustrate my point. The lengths of side roads that are subject to red route controls at the moment—and this will continue to be the case in existing red routes—vary from nil at Spital Square to 56.3 metres in Threadneedle Street. We are therefore talking about relatively short amounts of road within the City. There are some roads in the City which are not currently red routes but which will become GLA roads. I think the noble Lord is familiar with those. We do not envisage any significantly different pattern from the existing red route roads. We shall be discussing with the City corporation what should be the boundaries for traffic authority purposes.
  I can assure the House that this matter will be approached on the same basis as the red routes and that a similar pattern will emerge. The extent of a side road so designated will be limited; disputes about future designation will be subject to conciliation between the boroughs, the City, the GLA and TfL; and the Secretary of State will have the final say. In no sense are we attempting a major grab of borough or City roads. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendments.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has taken some pains to explain the position of the Government and what they intend to do. It seems to me at this stage that is what is most important. The noble Lord indicated that he would be discussing with the City Corporation the application of these clauses to its roads. Having heard what has been said, I am sure that discussions with Westminster will be continued. That council now has a number of red routes and will also have GLA roads in its area. Of course, if amendments are found to be necessary, there is an opportunity for them to be added in another place because this is an amendment to the main clause and amendments have been added in this House. In the circumstances, it would be quite inappropriate for me to press these amendments and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 68.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 69 to 71 not moved.]
  Clause 290 [Road user charging]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 72
  Page 181, line 44, at end insert—
  ("(4) Subject to subsection (6) below, any charging scheme established pursuant to this section shall cease to take effect and may not be revived if at any time after 12 months from the commencement of the charging scheme there is not in existence a

  635
  scheme to improve transport arrangements (including schemes to assist the movement of pedestrians) within Greater London ("an improvement scheme") in the operation or establishment of which the net proceeds of the charging scheme (within the meaning given it in Schedule 22) are applied.
  (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), an improvement scheme shall be regarded as coming into existence on the commencement of works to give effect to the improvement scheme and shall be regarded as terminating when the improved arrangements in question first become available for use by the public.
  (6) Subsection (4) above shall not apply at any time if, in the preceding four years ended on the day in question, a ballot of the residents of the area to which the charging scheme applies resulted in a vote in favour of the continuation of the charging scheme by a majority notwithstanding that there might be no improvement scheme in place.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, just as Clauses 290 and 291 are different although they both deal with the same thing, so Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 differ. They differ in respect of one word. The first deals with the issue of charges—congestion charging—and the other deals with the question of licences: that is, licences for workplace parking.
  We have discussed these issues fairly fully at previous stages, but it is worth noting two things. First, although I suspect that the noble Lord the Minister may not be prepared to listen to me tonight and accept the amendments, I hope that he will agree that in drafting the amendments we at least have listened to his remarks made at Report stage. He said then that we had not given either the mayor or Londoners the opportunity to consider the future of these two charging schemes. They are two putative charging schemes, because they do not come into effect until the mayor decides to introduce them.
  It is important to remember that, together with the fact that the terms upon which they are introduced include restrictions which appear in Schedules 22 and 23, which say that they can be introduced only if they are used to further the mayor's transport aims and strategies. That is the way the Bill stands so far as the introduction of the schemes is concerned. These are local schemes, but it is worth noting in parenthesis that one hears that they are beginning to attract some note in other parts of the country outside London. Indeed, it is understood that one or two leaders of other authorities are beginning to speculate on what they might or might not do if they were given the opportunity to consider similar schemes. The leader of Birmingham City Council was speculating this morning that he might have some difficulty with a workplace licensing scheme until he had managed to improve public transport quite considerably. That is a perfectly valid position for him to take. I say nothing about the politics of the situation.
  I do not expect the noble Lord the Minister to comment on this. After all, he cannot comment on provisions that might be introduced in legislation at some point in the future. We have to accept that. However, it looks as though there may be national legislation which may result in this sort of scheme being adopted on a wider basis. If that were to happen, what has been decided in relation to London could be taken into account at that point and, if need be, amended as a consequence of that national situation.
  However, I come back to the main point that I was seeking to enunciate at Report stage, which is that this Bill is a Bill for London. It is a Bill about London and for Londoners. If the mayor in due time introduces schemes either for congestion charging or for workplace licensing he will be doing that for and on behalf of Londoners, because he is satisfied that he can persuade Londoners that this is a worthwhile thing to do. I think all that is perfectly reasonable. The question he will have to ask himself when he comes to make that decision is whether the limited time for which he has certainty of revenue is sufficient.
  As the Bill is drafted, he has certainty only for 10 years, or at least that is what it appears that the Government intend. After that, it is a lottery. You can see the sticky fingers of the Treasury itching already, almost going red with rubbing, at the thought that they might be able to get hold of these sums of money. I have to say that this will be a considerable disincentive to anyone who actually has to take the odium of deciding to introduce these charges.
  I am absolutely clear in my own mind—I have the support of noble friends behind me—that we are discussing a Bill about London and for Londoners. As I have said already, if that is the case, we should accept these amendments. They actually take into account the points which were raised about the possible long-term future of such schemes and the possibility that the mayor, on behalf of London, or, as the noble Lord the Minister was hinting at Report stage and as we have put it ourselves, the people of London themselves should have the opportunity to decide to continue with such schemes so that the revenue is available to Londoners and for London even if there is not a scheme of transport improvement immediately available on which to spend the money.
  This is provided for on the basis of a motion, which could be put on to a ballot paper within the area of the scheme or indeed across the whole of London if that was required, at an election prior to there being no future schemes available on which to spend the money within the original terms of reference set out in the schedule. There would be no particular extra cost involved in that, because the four-year time-scale permits a London election to come within that time and any mayor worth his salt will be able to see this situation coming and therefore provide for it at a normal election.
  I think that has answered the criticism of the amendments that were put forward at Report stage. We have listened to that criticism, and I think these present amendments are such that the Government really ought to accept them. I say that in the knowledge that a national scheme may come along at some point in the future. If it does, and if these schemes have to be altered in the light of such a national scheme, that is fair enough; that is the way the system works. However, at the moment we are talking about

  637
  London. In that context, these amendments are good and I am pleased to propose them in the interests of London and Londoners at large. I beg to move.
  7.30 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we have grave doubts about these amendments. One of the implications of the second part of the noble Lord's proposed additional text will be to limit the length of time during which an improvement scheme may be paid for by a system of charging. That seems a strange idea, particularly when one considers how consistently we have argued that that timespan should be lengthened and not shortened.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord has listened to a number of arguments that I put at the previous stage. However, his solution to the points I made has been to table an even more complicated system whereby he has set down what could be rather subjective criteria to decide whether to fund further value-for-money transport schemes and then to provide an override so that the whole of London would have the chance to end such schemes.
  We have put in place a far simpler approach. The schemes will be totally hypothecated for 10 years. While I note the noble Lord's graphic description of the Treasury, I should say that the Treasury has been imaginative and forthcoming in its support of this novel approach. Furthermore, I have the full support of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A system has been put in place that will review the schemes after 10 years. Whether further value-for-money transport schemes will be made available will be one criterion; indeed the total financing situation of the GLA may be a criterion. We are looking for a review in financial and transport situations that we cannot fully envisage at this point. It seems sensible to review for the reasons I have argued at previous stages of the Bill. However, it is not sensible to set down on the face of the Bill the criteria against which that review will take place.
  I believe we all agree that after 10 years there are almost certain to be additional value-for-money transport infrastructure projects in London. We accept that; nevertheless, there should be a review of the process, and 10 years seems a sensible period for that. However, we do not wish to set down in concrete terms the details of that review. When the mayor enters office, he or she will have the assurance that any scheme introduced under these clauses either on workplace parking or on road user charges will run for 10 years and that the money will be hypothecated for 10 years. It may be that after the review in 10 years' time that situation will continue, or that, if the review should so indicate, the situation could continue on a different financing basis.
  However, it is necessary not to be so prescriptive on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord has admonished the Government for being too prescriptive about what will happen next year and therefore I ask him not to be
  638
  prescriptive about what will happen in 10 years' time. Clearly my remarks relate to London and nowhere else, but it may be the case that experience gained elsewhere may influence London in 10 years' time. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendments.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, perhaps I may deal, first, with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. The second part of my amendment does not place any form of time limit on anything. It defines only the time for which an individual scheme may run. However, there is no limit to the number of schemes, and those individual schemes could run for a very long time indeed.
  The Minister expressed concern that I am being over-prescriptive. We have debated this issue before and the truth of the matter is that this whole Bill is one huge great prescription. It is getting bigger all the time. When we have finished with the Bill tonight, it will be an even bigger prescription. The thought that I am being over-prescriptive by adding something like 25 lines does not make sense.
  The Minister has stated that there will be a review after 10 years. That review may go extremely well. However, the mayor is to have the opportunity to establish major infrastructure projects and those are financed over very long periods. Of course the Minister may say that such schemes will need to be funded for as long as is needed. However, if I were the mayor, I would come up with two or three schemes with 40 to 60-year payback periods and ensure that London benefited from them for a long period of time in that way. That course is open to the mayor.
  I am afraid that I disagree with the Minister on this issue. We have debated the matter before and he has been kind enough to say that I am consistent in my views. I believe that we should test the opinion of the House.
  7.35 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 134.

  Division No. 4

  CONTENTS

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Cross, V.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Denham, L.

  Astor of Hever,L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Dundee, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Biddulph, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Glentoran, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Hooper, B.

  Carnegy of Lour, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Chadlington, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

  639

  Mancroft, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Patten, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Mills, V.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Norrie, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Northbrook. L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Northesk, E.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Wise, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Addington, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Hollick, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Alli, L.

  Howie of Troon. L,

  Amos, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Islwyn, L.

  Bach, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Barker, B.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

  Berkeley, L.

  Privy Seal)

  Blackstone, B.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Blease, L.

  Judd, L.

  Brett, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Kintore, E.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Crawley, B.

  [Teller]

  Dahrendorf, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  David. B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  McNair, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Desai, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Orme, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Patel, L.

  Elder, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Puttnam, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Fitt, L.

  Rennard, L

  Gale, B.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Glanusk, L.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Shepherd, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Simon, V.

  Grey, E.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Strange, B.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Harrison, L.

  Tope, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  640

  Varley, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the House does not return to this business before 8.45 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Chinook Helicopter ZD576
7.45 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the issues raised in the Computer Weekly report RAF Justice are serious enough to justify re-opening the RAF board of inquiry into the crash of Chinook helicopter ZD576 on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the fourth time that I have brought up this subject in your Lordships' House. I do not apologise for doing so because I believe it to be a matter of the greatest importance. I want to emphasise once again that in raising this matter I am not in any way attacking the Government. This is a matter which has been the concern of successive governments, and the previous administration indeed, when they were in office, took the same line as the present one. Nor do I make any criticism of the Royal Air Force, whose regulations governing accidents of this kind are clear and comprehensive.
The background will be familiar to most of your Lordships and I shall not go over it again in great detail. I would only say that on 2nd June 1994 a Chinook helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre killing four Royal Air Force crew and 25 passengers from the Northern Ireland intelligence community. The subsequent Royal Air Force board of inquiry decided that the two dead pilots of the aircraft, Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook, were guilty of gross negligence. I believe that verdict was unjust and unjustified. It has brought disgrace upon the names of two young Royal Air Force officers and caused lasting distress to their families. And not only to their families, my Lords. As an ex-soldier I still find myself sometimes lying awake at night thinking of two bright and brave young men whose reputations have been destroyed by one of the worst accusations that can be levelled at a professional officer.
Let me first say briefly why I believe that the verdict was unjust and then I shall comment, also briefly, on two developments which have taken place since I last brought up this matter in your Lordships' House. The Queen's Regulations for the Royal Air Force state

641
specifically that deceased air crew may be found guilty of negligence only if,
"there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever",
about the cause of the accident. My contention is that the circumstances surrounding this accident are riddled with doubt in almost every aspect.
It is worth mentioning at this point that the initial findings of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry, presided over by a Royal Air Force officer, found no reason to attribute human failing to either of the pilots. This opinion was supported by the Royal Air Force station commander who was next to review the findings. It was only when those findings reached two senior officers in the Ministry of Defence, who had the duty of reviewing the proceedings of the board of inquiry, that the two dead pilots were found guilty of gross negligence. No other authority or inquiry, including the fatal accident inquiry held in Scotland and presided over by a distinguished judge, has supported this verdict.
At this point I should tell the House that I received a comprehensive briefing from officials of the Ministry of Defence who have been dealing with the matter. The briefing was arranged by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, when he was the Minister in this House dealing with defence matters. The officials concerned gave me a full, frank and comprehensive briefing. They explained the reasons why the verdict of gross negligence had been reached and told me that I was free to use the information they gave me in any proceedings in this House.
There was one element in the briefing that seemed to me to be of vital significance. I was told that the verdict of gross negligence had been arrived at when all other possible causes for the accident, such as mechanical malfunction or computer failure, had been eliminated and that therefore the only possible conclusion was negligence on the part of the air crew.
Even if all other possible causes could safely be eliminated, that seems a most bizarre method of arriving at the conclusion that two young men were guilty of gross negligence. In any case, other possible causes cannot be eliminated. The claim that there was no evidence of technical or computer malfunction does not mean that there was no malfunction; it means only that there was no evidence.
I should like to mention the two important developments that have taken place since we last discussed the matter in this House. The first is specified in the terms of my Question. It is a long, technical and comprehensive report produced by the magazine Computer Weekly entitled RAF Justice. The subtitle is:
"How the Royal Air Force covered up software problems while blaming the two pilots in the 1994 crash of the Chinook helicopter".
I do not propose to blame software or any other equipment problems for the accident. My quite simple point is that the report demonstrates conclusively that there might have been other causes for the accident than pilot error. It is a serious and detailed report. It indicates, among other things, that the Chinook's computer system, known as FADEC, might have
642
contributed to the crash. Without going further into the matter, it is my contention that the report underlines my proposition that in no circumstances could anyone honestly say that there is "no possible doubt whatsoever" as to the cause of the accident.
The second and more recent development is the interview that was broadcast on Channel 4 News on 13th October in which Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was Secretary of State for Defence at the time of the crash, said that he believed that he had not been in full possession of the all the facts when he endorsed the verdict of gross negligence and that,
"information in its entirety was not made available … to either of the inquiries";
namely, the Royal Air Force board of inquiry or the fatal accident inquiry. Sir Jeremy Hanley, who was Minister for the Armed Forces at the time of the crash, has also called for a new inquiry. He visited the other Special Forces Chinook crews and pilots at Aldergrove after the accident and gained the impression that software failure was a possible cause of the accident.
In the course of his interview, Sir Malcolm Rifkind said:
"The simplest solution would be for the Royal Air Force and the Ministry of Defence to say, 'No, there is no need for any further inquiry. We are prepared to acknowledge that in retrospect and, particularly, seeing as we no longer allow or would even contemplate finding negligence against pilots, we should set aside that previous decision. Remove it completely'".
Noble Lords will note that Sir Malcolm Rifkind refers to another important aspect of this whole debate. Since the Chinook accident and inquiry, Ministry of Defence regulations have been changed to provide that boards of inquiry should no longer apportion blame in the case of aircraft accidents. It seems that an important lesson has been learnt, but apparently too late for Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook.
I am coming to the end of my time, although there is much more that could be said about this whole saga. The clear implication of a verdict of gross negligence against these two young men is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said in this House on 2nd June 1998, that the two dead pilots have been convicted of manslaughter without being able to offer any defence.
It is precisely for that reason that the Queen's Regulations rightly demand that no deceased air crew should be found guilty of negligence unless there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the cause of the accident.
So I should like to ask the Minister one simple question to which I should like to have an unequivocal answer. It is this. Can she state categorically in this House that she, in possession of all the facts, is convinced that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the cause of this accident? That is an important question. If she answers that she cannot say that there is no doubt whatsoever, or declines to answer the question, the inferences are obvious. It is my contention that the causes of this accident are clouded by doubt from beginning to end.
Although in my original Question I asked whether the Government were prepared to review the findings of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry, I now say, as Sir Malcolm Rifkind said, that there is no need for any ponderous procedural machinery to be set in motion. All that Her Majesty's Government need to do—and they could do it tonight—is to say that in the light of all the facts now known, and bearing in mind that no future board of inquiry will ever be able to apportion blame again, the verdict of gross negligence should be quietly set aside on the simple basis that the cause of the accident is unknown, as indeed it is.
No one knows what caused the accident. To say that it was pilot error or, even worse, gross negligence is totally incomprehensible. I do not suggest that anything disreputable lies behind this tragic story. But unless the Government are now prepared to put the matter right, others, perhaps less gullible than I, might suspect that someone, somewhere, is hiding something.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we owe this debate to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I begin by reminding the Minister that in our debate of 22nd May 1997 (at col. 557 of the Official Report) the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, confirmed in answer to my representations that flight recorders were being installed in all Chinooks. Will the Minister assure the House that all now have them?
I now turn to the new evidence, which became available only four years after the crash and squares with the statement by the RAF board of inquiry that,
"An unforeseen technical malfunction of the type being experienced on the Chinook HD2 which would not necessarily have left any physical evidence remained a possibility and could not be discounted".
The fatal crash of a US Army helicopter in 1996, at first blamed on the pilots because no evidence was found of technical malfunction, was subsequently traced to an inherent design flaw which could also have affected ZD576. Other new evidence concerns contamination of hydraulic equipment. But most relevant is the experience of a US Chinook crew in 1998, when uncommanded flight movement and simultaneous control jams nearly caused a fatal crash. On that occasion, the crew survived to tell the tale. Had they died, there would have been no evidence of a technical malfunction causing a crash. Those pilots survived; our two did not. Surely that argues for a review in the light of these new factors.
I should like also to ask why the MoD has consistently refused to use its own experts—Malcolm Perks, its expert witness on FADEC, or the senior RAF test pilot, or, most of all, Boscombe Down, which exists to test aircraft? Why was the Government's own accident investigation team, and the Scottish inquiry, not told that the Government were at that moment litigating against Textron Lycoming, the supplier of the FADEC engine control system, after a series of FADEC-related incidents
644
involving Chinooks? Boscombe Down had just grounded all Chinooks after pronouncing the FADEC software unacceptable. The investigator was not told about that, and quoted only the views of Textron, the contractor, in his report. Not Malcolm Perks, but Textron, was asked to help the investigators, who knew nothing about FADEC, to decide whether its equipment was faulty. When fault codes were found, the contractors said that they were insignificant. Well, they would, wouldn't they? E5, described by Textron as a typical nuisance code, was the very one which had contributed to the severe damage suffered by a Chinook in 1989 when the pilot could not control the aircraft. The investigators did not know about that, nor that only a few weeks before the crash the assistant director of helicopter projects had said that the FADEC software needed to be revised to resolve safety case issues.
We owe it to the painstaking and professional research carried out by Computer Weekly that much valuable evidence has been assembled. I greatly admire and value the RAF and recognise that we are not qualified to reach operational decisions; but I have two serious concerns. First, should judgment be made not on evidence but on the apparent lack of evidence, especially since with the passage of time many indicators which were unclear can now be understood? My second concern arises when I read in an answer to a question the words,
"The RAF, in conjunction with the Procurement Executive".
We are looking at a world that is increasingly dominated by market forces. I very much hope that any fresh inquiry will be driven not by management and contractual priorities within the MoD, but by the prime need both to do justice to the pilots and to give proper weight to the professional judgment of the Government's own experts who have not yet been heard.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, throughout my career as a Royal Air Force pilot and qualified flying instructor one point was emphasised time after time. Confronted with an emergency, first ensure that your aircraft is safely under control before you respond to the warning. If clear of cloud, stay there. It is safer to fly visually than to have to concentrate on the aircraft's instruments to maintain altitude.
Emergencies are frequently practised in flight simulators, so that pilots learn to handle them in a safe, professional way. The emphasis is always that one should not become distracted by the emergency and risk losing control of the aircraft or flying into danger. As a flying instructor I would introduce in-flight emergencies for my students to tackle. I might flame out one of the two engines on a Meteor jet during the climb out after take off. The student's first reaction had to be to control his aircraft and check the sharp yaw and drop in airspeed before going through the drills to deal with engine failure. All of that must sound like commonsense, but the risk of doing the wrong

645
thing, or the right things in the wrong order, is always there. Hence, much stress is placed on proper training and situation awareness.
How does that read across to this tragic accident? The Chinook was seen in clear weather conditions over the sea south of the Mull of Kintyre. Technical evidence reveals that the Chinook remained straight and level, advancing at cruising speed until the final four seconds before the crash when a steep climb was initiated. It impacted the side of the Mull below 1,000 feet. We shall never know for certain why the crew flew into the overcast so far below safety height. But what was expected of them was to fly safely, not hazard their passengers or aircraft, and therefore either to climb above the safety height for their route or remain clear of cloud. With two pilots, one to fly and the other to deal with any emergency—if there was one—the expectation must be that the aircraft should have stayed in the clear. It did not, even though helicopters have greater manoeuvrability than fixed-wing aircraft.
Was there a reason for not following the safe option? Was there some event, or combination of events, which so distracted two highly experienced pilots that they were forced to neglect all their training and responsibilities for the safety of their passengers and aircraft? Given the very clear evidence of the AIB that the Chinook was flying under control right up to the moment of impact, what was it that led to the failure to observe flying orders? Professional, expert opinion is that no event, or combination of technical or other problems, could have so overwhelmed the responsibility and acknowledged skill of the two pilots to prevent them from manoeuvring the helicopter either clear of cloud or above the requisite safety height for the route.
Unless there is relevant new evidence the finding is right. But if the extensive publicity succeeds in saving another crew from failing to get their priorities right when faced with bad weather or some emergency, an essential requirement of a board of inquiry—to learn lessons for the future—will have been achieved. The distress of those who lost loved ones has, sadly, been rekindled by tonight's debate, I believe to no good purpose. I hope that we have no more such questions on this tragic event. In my view, five years on there is no need for any review.
8.5 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I too do not seek to blame anyone, but in considering this inquiry I note some general points. The report abounds with "maybe", "impossible to rule out", uncertainties and doubts. It is a report that is full of doubt. As the noble Baroness said, in the middle of it a bunch of civil servants was active in taking on the manufacturers for flaws in certain aspects of the systems on the aircraft.
It has come to my notice that at one stage a senior Chinook project manager gave the opinion that these aircraft should not be used operationally. I do not know whether the MoD should always decide what is relevant evidence for the purposes of an inquiry. As the
646
noble Baroness said, many operators, based on statements by and conversations with air crew, were unhappy with the aircraft. There were—call it what you will—faults.
The noble and gallant Lord is right. First, one must ensure that one has the aircraft under control. However, this particular FADEC has no manual override if it goes wrong. In layman's terms, it has no accelerator to enable the pilot to work the aircraft with his feet (so to speak). Pilots appear to have no command over the system, which is dangerous. This Chinook is perhaps still not safety critical.
We have heard about black boxes and cockpit voice procedures. Hardly any such devices are fitted to these aircraft. An honourable Member of another place received a rather damp letter to say that such systems would not be installed until the end of 2000. Only about half a dozen have black boxes. That is not good news. In view of all the problems with this aircraft, it is not consistent with safety.
As to the crew, I have had the great pleasure of being flown by men like this on far more extraordinary journeys than a simple one across the North Sea to Scotland. These men do not fly into hills or through cloud when they have sensitive passengers on hoard; they turn left or right or go up or down. I believe that this is one area of great doubt. These pilots have been held to be culpable of gross negligence. I agree with my noble friend Lord Chalfont. I believe that such a finding is pretty close to manslaughter, which in turn is pretty close to murder. I do not know what the civil courts or noble and learned judges in your Lordships' House would say about that. What happens to two men who cannot answer back?
I should like to put two questions to the noble Baroness. How many Chinooks today are grounded, not flying, out of the total Chinook force? What about the widows? I recall, I hope wrongly, that in my day if gross negligence came up widows did not receive a proper pension, or received no pension. I hope that the Minister can give me comfort that that is not so.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, much of this debate is and will be no doubt focused on the technical issues, in particular the FADEC system which was so rigorously investigated in the recent Computer Weekly report.
I would rather focus on some of the eye witness reports of the behaviour of that Chinook helicopter as it flew over the North Antrim countryside on that clear and bright June evening in 1994—which I think raises further doubts to those raised by my noble friend Lord Slim. I live in that part of North Antrim and can see the Mull of Kintyre with extraordinary clarity on some days. I often go boating in the North Channel between Garron Point and the Mull of Kintyre which on other days, as on that fateful evening, is hidden by sea fog or cloud.
Most of us in Northern Ireland are used to the familiar throb of the double rotor Chinooks as they cruise across the countryside usually at a height of 5,000 feet. But no one who was near the flight path of

647
this Chinook as it flew down the Glens of Antrim and out to sea will ever forget that particular evening. It appeared to be flying at a height of 100 feet, at which it makes a huge noise and vibrations on the ground. In the small seaside village of Carnlough, the milkman, Ambrose McSparren, remembers how it rattled windows and shook buildings. He could even see the faces of the passengers looking out of the port windows, a woman in the front window.
The Chinook gained height a little as it followed the coast beyond Carnlough harbour towards the cliff-top Catholic college of Garron Tower where priests at a conference ran out to see it fly just below them and turn out to sea, aiming slightly to the left, as they thought, of the Mull, only five or 10 minutes before it crashed into those cliffs. Higher up the glens it had hedgehopped over farmlands, terrifying animals. Horses at Glenravel belonging to a dentist, Hugh McCann, panicked and had to be taken in.
From all accounts it might have been on an unlikely sightseeing trip. It did not appear to have any regular or determined flight path during those several minutes. Evidence suggests that it took a number of low turns. Some witnesses thought that it might have been trying to slow down and land before heading out to sea.
I raise these issues because I am not aware that any investigators took evidence from the many eye witnesses. I have referred to a couple of witnesses in detail as an example of the memories that still exist. It should be possible to identify more clearly the irregular flight path the Chinook took before a yachtsman saw it heading out, low over the sea.
Why did the earlier investigations not take evidence from those who saw the Chinook flying so close that they could see the faces of its unfortunate passengers? If the board of inquiry is to be reopened, it should look seriously at what appears to have been evidence previously ignored or overlooked, which raises further doubts about the previous conclusions.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont is bringing forward this important debate during the dinner hour, time is scarce, and I should like to make only one subliminal contribution in order to leave more time for other noble Lords.
The RAF AP3207 states clearly that:
"Unless there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, deceased aircrew may not be found negligent".
In this case there clearly is doubt. The two young pilots are dead. The contagion of the world's slow stain affects them not at all. But their families are alive. This verdict can only add to and prolong their grief.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Chalfont is to be congratulated on his persistence in raising this matter. I have presumed to say anything on this sad matter only because, with others who have heard or read the earlier debates, I have had a
648
continuing feeling of unease about whether the finding of gross negligence was justified given the quality and quantity of evidence available then and now.
Expert accident reconstruction, however skilled and sophisticated, is not a precise science. It is bound to have limitations when there are no survivors of the accident and only few eye witnesses. In this case, as we have heard, there was the further limitation of no recorders on the Chinook.
If a finding of gross negligence depended on there being absolutely no doubt whatsoever, it required proof to a standard even more stringent than the high standard required in criminal cases in our courts. At least in those cases the accused is alive with an opportunity to speak in his or her defence.
Even in civil cases, the established principle is that the more serious, or inherently improbable, the allegation the more convincing the evidence has to be. It is inherently improbable that pilots would act so contrary to their instincts and training. That is not just legalism; it is elementary fairness.
One cannot help feeling that what has been applied here is the Sherlock Holmes approach: when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. That deductive process simply will not do outside detective fiction. The RAF inquiry investigation found no evidence of structural or technical malfunction. But it is a truism that absence of proof is not necessarily proof of absence.
In the real world, even when several possible explanations can be discounted, there can sometimes still be insufficiently strong pointers remaining to enable a definite conclusion to be reached. That was what the sheriff decided in the Scottish fatal accident inquiry in this case. That was not an abnegation of his duty. It was a proper decision on the evidence as it appeared to him. It may well still be a proper conscientious decision to be substituted for the finding of gross negligence. It will not prevent lessons being learned for the future. I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Norton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on his persistence in raising this important subject yet again in order to try to reverse the injustice that seems to be so obvious.
The whole problem with this unusual case stems from the fact that the judge and jury are also the defendants. It is a situation that the civilian world of flying would not tolerate. The charge is that the MoD released into service an aircraft whose engines were controlled by flight safety critical software that was flawed. It was so flawed that the Ministry's own airworthiness specialists at the Aeroplane and Armaments Experimental Establishment described the software as unacceptable in a memo dated 3rd June, one day after the crash. The software was described by it as "unfit for purpose" and it declined the aircraft's release into service without a rewrite of the software.

649
However, after taking their own independent advice, the MoD and the RAF decided in effect to overrule the A&AEE. Then came the horrific incident on the Mull. This raised questions about the software. But many of the problems did not come to light in any of the accident inquiries. The crash investigators at Farnborough were not aware of all the facts about the FADEC engine control system when they wrote their report.
In its 140 page report, the magazine Computer Weekly also reported that the investigators were unaware of an accident in 1989 when a Chinook helicopter was almost destroyed by a FADEC design flaw.
The MoD has sought to dismiss the 1989 accident as irrelevant to the accident inquiries because it says that the accident was not caused by a FADEC problem. This is incorrect as the MoD's own paperwork shows when it was pleading its legal case in America. The paperwork shows that the Ministry believed that a FADEC design flaw caused the accident and it was awarded 3 million dollars.
The Ministry has said that of course there were changes in the software design between 1989 and 1994. But despite those changes, the Chinook project manager wrote in a memo dated January 1995 that there were system integration and software problems between February and July 1994. I am not saying that the FADEC control system caused the accident—nobody knows that—but it is just as speculative to say that there is absolutely no doubt that it was pilot error.
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, this is an important debate because two pilots are carrying the blame for the loss of a Chinook and several lives purely on the basis that no technical fault has been discovered.
The aircraft was carrying a very important load, being carried for operational purposes by an experienced and operational crew outwith the Northern Ireland theatre. The weather on the whole was reported good and there was no reason for flying in the location where the helicopter crashed. Indeed, the flight programme should have kept the aircraft on a course offshore. In the words of the article in Computer Weekly, the pilots had every intention of changing course before reaching the peninsula.
Military aircraft do crash, as has recently been demonstrated, with a subsequent sad loss of life. Where I live, military low flying is normal. I pay tribute to every single member of the Armed Forces who is involved is this extremely skilled operation. I do not hold with the current view of some that since the end of the Cold War there is no longer a requirement for aircraft covertly to approach the target.
The Computer Weekly article, while not perhaps an official document, has appeared to investigate this tragedy in some detail and has raised interesting questions. I disagree with the recent comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, the Lord
650
Advocate, and do not believe that the matter should be closed while there is still doubt as to the cause of this crash.
It is clear that many facts were not presented to either the Minister or the inquiry. Indeed, there is also doubt between the RAF investigating officers and the upper echelons of the service, as has been said by other noble Lords. The fact that no "technical malfunction" was discovered may well be a correct assumption of pilot error in some situations. However, this modified aircraft type is still having problems. The pilots who sadly died had considerable doubts about the serviceability of this specific aircraft before the crash occurred.
Every example stated in the article points towards a variety of serious fault warnings either showing in the cockpit of the Chinook or physically affecting the performance of the aircraft by creating an inability to use controls to maintain the flight integrity of the aircraft. This would appear to happen with unexplained and untraceable jamming controls.
According to the report, at least 18 seconds before impact the pilots were busy inserting the new course into the flight computer. If the system malfunctioned when they attempted to change course, I would suggest that 18 seconds of fighting to regain control of a faulty aircraft which cannot or would not respond to controls is not very long.
Having considered the report, and bearing in mind that some five years on problems, although luckily not fatal, are still being encountered, there is in my mind a clear case for reopening this investigation, particularly as this recurring system fault has resulted in a slur on the reputations of two otherwise excellent pilots.
The Chinook is an extremely robust aircraft with a tremendous world-wide reputation as a tough workhorse. I personally experienced this in the Falklands war when, with virtually no time for major services, the only surviving aircraft from the sinking of the "Atlantic Conveyor" was apparently still flying with only two of its seven essential instruments working.
I do not believe that the aircraft type is at fault. I have already spoken about the pilots involved. I do believe that in the light of subsequent problems reinvestigation is required.
I apologise to the Minister for not giving adequate notice, but I want to ask two questions. First, how many other British military helicopters in service currently rely on this or similar FADEC? Secondly, a Chinook on Exercise Gryphons Flight between 22nd March and 1st April 1999 developed major faults which rendered it unairworthy. Were these faults in fact due to problems with FADAC?
8.25 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, three weeks ago I went to the Mull of Kintyre and visited the sight of this terrible tragedy. I spoke to scores of people, in particular to the lighthouse man who was driving down the hill with his wife when the crash occurred. He told me in vivid

651
terms that before the crash took place he knew there was something wrong either with the pilots or the aircraft.
I met scores of people and no one—not a single one—is prepared to blame the pilots. Not a single widow of the 28 men killed is prepared to place the blame on the pilots. The fact is that there is no proof that the pilots were guilty of negligence. There is no certainty of a misdirection of their activities.
I believe that rather than have an inquiry we should allay the grief of all the victims' families and that this verdict should be set aside.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not know what happened to the RAF helicopter which is the subject of tonight's Question. However, I do know that the RAF inquiry procedures, which were in place in the late 1980s when I had some responsibilities for these matters, were less than wholly satisfactory. At that time, an inquiry was caused to be made into those procedures by Mr Tench, the lately retired inspector of civil aircraft accidents, and he was, frankly, very critical of the RAF inspection investigation procedures. I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who was in a senior RAF position at that time, does not agree and I apologise for disagreeing with him now. However, the fact is that at that time the procedures were heavily criticised.
Those self-same procedures were applied, with only few modifications, to the investigation of this accident. Therefore, I must agree with my noble friend Lord Chalfont that a further inquiry ought to be made. I believe that the present conclusions are unsound.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing forward the debate. I am of a cynical disposition and two years in this House has not changed that. The idea of persuading a department of government, or the Government themselves, to go back on a decision fills me with foreboding. However, in this case, I cannot believe that, if the Minister were given time to read the majority of the report, rather than the informed briefings she has no doubt received, she could not fail to recognise the imperative for reopening the inquiry in the cause of justice.
Helicopters are not like aeroplanes, ships or trains. The risk profile of helicopters is very high. The commercial judgment of insurance companies gives the game away. To insure a £1 million value of an aeroplane might cost £10,000 a year. To insure a £1 million value of a helicopter might cost as much as £120,000 a year. That says a lot about the lack of reliability of helicopters generally.
The Chinooks had neither a cockpit voice recorder nor a flight data recorder. The Ministry of Defence has been criticised for such omissions. The MoD was committed to fitting FDRs by 1995 following a report made in the late 1980s. Yet, surprisingly, by 1994 they were still not fitted.
652
There is a desperate human need to find a cause for every accident. The absence of any evidence of technical malfunction presents a serious problem. But in the UK there were nine serious accidents involving RAF Chinooks between 1984 and 1994—nine! In five of them, the pilots lived to explain what happened and in none of the cases was any blame attributed to the air crew. The same could not be said of the remaining four accidents, all of which were fatal. Three of the four were put down to air crew error. Clearly, if one wants to maintain one's reputation one must survive.
What if there is little or no evidence? I understand that those with a legal background have taken an interest in this matter, and that there is a strong body of opinion that the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the high standard of proof which the RAF's own regulations require before a finding of negligence can be made. I believe that in this inquiry an honest mistake was made.
The best reason for reopening the inquiry is new evidence. There is indeed serious new evidence. Four years after the accident, a Chinook helicopter came tumbling out of the sky. The air crew tried desperately to turn it the right way up, but failed to do so and could find no evidence of any malfunction of the instruments. Miraculously, 250 feet above the ground, the Chinook aircraft turned around and the crew and everyone on board were saved. Obviously, the Chinook was examined in great detail afterwards, and it must be stated that no fault was found with the helicopter.
Therefore that is proof conclusive that a helicopter of this particular manufacture can develop faults which cause it virtually to crash and subsequently no fault is found with the helicopter. In this case, that may well have happened. On the evidence available, one cannot but conclude that there is no proof that the pilots were negligent.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, at the time of the crash, visibility over the Mull of Kintyre was less than a mile. If visibility is less than five miles, the regulations state that aircraft must fly under instrument flight rules, which means that they must be a thousand feet above the nearest obstacle. In this case, that would have meant 2,500 feet. The pilots were clearly not doing so, and it is to be assumed that the finding of the RAF court of inquiry was based on those facts.
The merest yachtsman—of which I am one, but much more to the point, so too is the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan—who has sailed round the Mull knows how treacherous the conditions are and how bad the visibility is liable to be. The noble Lord raised a number of interesting points. I have a feeling that his remarks to your Lordships tonight in themselves justify a reopening of the inquiry because there is a lot there.
In a debate in May 1997 in your Lordships' House, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out that the civil air accident investigation branch had

653
been able to rule out categorically a structural or technical malfunction and that engine and navigational equipment was functioning normally up to the point of impact. That needs looking at in the light of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, about other Chinooks.
In his reply to that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said that the question was why the aircraft was being flown in that way at that time. The failure to answer that question has been the basis of the negligence verdict. The problem with the negligence verdict is how one determines negligence. That is of course an RAF inquiry definition and not a legal one. It is:
"The doing of something which, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would not do or would do differently";
or,
"a breach of duty to take care or, in other words, carelessness in a matter where care is demanded".
The Secretary of State at the time, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, has recently raised a number of points which throw doubt on the behaviour of the aircraft and of its pilots. The Minister may be able to answer those points today, but it would be more satisfactory for the inquiry to be reopened in order that they and their relevance to the crash may be fully studied.
I shall make briefly one or two points. One of the FADECs survived. Does it show any malfunction in either of its engines? A number of noble Lords have said that at the time the Ministry was suing Textron Lycoming for the failure of the FADEC, in 1989. Will the Minister explain the reason why the case was brought? Was it a failure in test procedures or did the engines go into override as a result of test procedures not being properly carried out?
Another point relates to the stand taken by Squadron Leader Burke, a Chinook pilot to whom I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, referred, at Boscombe Down. What was his position and expertise and what was the value of his allegations?
The trouble is that all those points must now be taken into consideration when the verdict on the two pilots, so distressing to the service and to their families, is evaluated. Do they make any difference and does the verdict stand up'' The reopening of the inquiry will tell us.
8.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and I pay tribute to his assiduous pressing of both this Government and the previous government on the circumstances of this tragic accident. The noble Lord has of course been utterly consistent in his wish to ensure that no injustice has been done in this case. I hope that he and this House will accept that that has also been the objective of Ministers, not only in this Government but also, I believe, in the previous administration.
654
I want to cover as many of the issues raised as possible, but I fear that in the time available to me it may be that I shall have to write to a number of noble Lords to deal with the details of the points that they have raised.
On 2nd June 1994, Chinook ZD576 departed from RAF Aldergrove on a flight to Fort George, Inverness. The aircraft had a crew of four and carried 25 military and civilian passengers who were to attend a conference in Inverness. It took off from RAF Aldergrove at 1742 and at approximately 1800 crashed on the Mull of Kintyre. All on board were killed.
Before departing RAF Aldergrove the pilots obtained an accurate weather forecast for their flight. They elected to carry out the flight under visual, rather than instrument, flight rules. Under visual rules air crew must remain clear of cloud and are required to keep in sight of the surface. The weather forecast was suitable for a flight under these rules, but it did warn of poor conditions affecting the Mull of Kintyre, as is often the case. For this a bad weather contingency plan would have been required. The highest point of the Mull of Kintyre is 1463 feet above sea level. Instrument flight rules stipulate that an aircraft must be at least 1000 feet above the height of the highest obstacle along the intended track if the crew is not in visual contact with the ground.
The transit across the Irish Sea was uneventful and conducted in clear conditions but, as forecast, there was very low cloud and poor visibility around the Mull. A witness reported that at a distance of about two nautical miles from the Mull, or about 40 seconds or so from impact, the aircraft was flying at a height estimated at between 200 and 400 feet. The witness estimated visibility at about one mile and noted that the Mull was covered in cloud and fog. Other witness statements from those present on the Mull at the time, including the lighthouse keeper, also remark on the fog and lack of visibility.
The first way-point, or land mark, that the pilots had entered on their on-board navigational computer for this flight was the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse. At 0.95 miles, or about 20 seconds before impact, the crew released the computer from its fix on the Mull of Kintyre and set it to indicate the bearing and distance to the next way-point selected at Corran, 87 miles to the north. At that point the pilots knew how close they were to the Mull and given the deteriorating weather and the strict visibility requirements under visual flight rules, they should by that time already have chosen an alternative course. Given that they had not done so, they could and should under the rules immediately have either turned away from the Mull or slowed down and climbed to a safe altitude.
At 15 to 18 seconds before impact, the aircraft's height was only 468 feet as recorded on its tactical air navigation system. The pilots would have seen the same information on their radio altimeter, but even so at that point the aircraft was still climbing only gently. At four-and-a-half seconds before impact the crew exercised an emergency manoeuvre and climbed about

655
150 feet in those final four-and-a-half seconds. The aircraft crashed at a height of 812 feet at a ground speed of 151 knots, or 174 mph.
I turn now to the speculation that there may have been some other reason for the crash, and I shall try to answer some of the questions raised by noble Lords this evening. I believe that the points raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and indeed some of the points from the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, went directly to the heart of the matter. The evidence of the eye-witness about 40 seconds before the crash, and of the crew themselves in re-setting their navigational computer about 20 seconds before the crash, are telling indicators that at that time the pilots were not grappling with an in-flight emergency. Yet they were flying on, contrary to both instrument and visual flight rules. The evidence is that they were already too close to the cloud-covered mass of the Mull, travelling too low and too fast.
I turn now to the issues raised in the Computer Weekly report. On 26th May the magazine published a lengthy report about the crash on the Internet. I hope that noble Lords will understand if I concentrate on some of the main points because the whole report was some 50,000 words long. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has made clear, this and other articles published by Computer Weekly sought to cast doubt on the RAF's finding of negligence and to advance instead a scenario in which the technical causes, particularly of the Chinook's Full Authority Digital Electronic Control System—that is, the FADEC to which so many noble Lords have referred—may have been responsible for a catastrophic failure.
The RAF's Chinook fleet was fitted with a FADEC system as part of an upgrade from the Mk 1 to the Mk 2. Its purpose is to regulate the power output of each of the Chinook's two engines. Each engine has a FADEC unit and each unit is designed under a failsafe principle, with both primary and back-up control channels. Should one unit fail then the other will regulate power on the good engine to compensate. The probability of both primary and back-up channels on both engines failing at the same time is infinitesimal.
As part of the board of inquiry, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the DETR conducted an independent technical investigation. It has always been acknowledged that there were some problems with the FADEC software during its development, and the AAIB report to the inquiry states that:
"In view of reports into a number of ongoing service difficulties experienced with the operation of FADEC, the engine change units and FADEC were examined in some detail".
Here I answer one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, because the report goes on to say of the engines:
"strip examination indicated that both were running at high speed with turbines hot at time of impact, and revealed no sign of pre-impact failure or malfunction that could have affected the operation of either engine".
The noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Burnham, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, have also drawn our
656
attention to the so-called "Wilmington incident", and the legal case between the MoD and Boeing and Textron Lycoming. Let me explain that the incident which gave rise to this litigation occurred in 1989—some five years before the crash on the Mull. It involved a pre-production version of FADEC software which was comprehensively redesigned prior to the introduction into service of the Chinook Mk 2 in 1993. The Wilmington claim arose because of damage caused to a helicopter during testing and because procedures had not been put in place to deal with such a failure, which could have been anticipated.
It has also been alleged that the board of inquiry was unaware of the Wilmington incident. It is true that no reference to Wilmington is included in the board of inquiry report for the reason that FADEC had already been ruled out as a possible cause at an early stage in the investigation.
Computer Weekly has also asserted that Boscombe Down thought that FADEC was unsafe. In this case, Boscombe Down indicated a wish to assess the design of the FADEC software using a static code analysis— a methodology used by the nuclear industry. However, FADEC software was not amenable to the automated software tools available to Boscombe. It could not therefore verify the software design to its satisfaction. It did not say that FADEC was unsafe.
The Ministry of Defence has looked at all the new evidence. For example, in May 1998 Mr Robert Key, MP, forwarded us papers setting out alternative theories offered by a computer software expert and the retired RAF pilot, Squadron Leader Burke, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred. Those were assessed in considerable detail over the summer of 1998, and a full appraisal of all the points was offered in September of that year. I understand that we have not heard further on those points from Mr Robert Key.
Secondly, when Computer Weekly published its report, the MoD collected all the material it had posted on the Internet, examined it in detail and responded to the magazine on 21st July, giving it the opportunity to send us any other relevant material which it might have. At its request, we also sent the magazine a more detailed analysis of its report on 23rd September. I appreciate that it is only a matter of a month since that date but we still wait to hear from Computer Weekly.
Finally, the Defence Committee of another place has inquired into the lessons of the crash and published a report which concluded that it had found no compelling evidence to support the claims that there were fundamental flaws in the design of the Chinook Mk 2 or its components. We also wrote to the committee on 21st July offering comments on the Computer Weekly report, and that letter was also released to the press.
I pick up the second major point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, about the doubts raised by Sir Malcolm Rifkind. I imagine that those doubts have had a compelling effect on a number of your Lordships. Sir Malcolm has raised questions about

657
what he was told about the Chinook accident when he was Defence Secretary. As this regarded advice to Ministers of the previous administration, the MoD Permanent Secretary looked into this and wrote to Sir Malcolm on 6th January 1998. The Permanent Secretary invited Sir Malcolm to visit the Ministry if he wished to refresh his memory. Both the invitation to refresh his memory and, indeed, to discuss the matter further stand and I reiterate them to your Lordships this evening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked me about the fitting of the black boxes to the Chinook fleet. It is a matter of regret that that programme is somewhat behind, but I understand that it is under way and I hope to be able to write to the noble Baroness telling her when we hope it will be completed.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, raised questions about other witnesses and the evidence that they might have given. The board took evidence from people who saw the Chinook flying at low level over Northern Ireland, not just around the Mull of Kintyre. There was no suggestion that the aircraft was in trouble. Indeed, if it was, the question arises as to why the crew did not make an emergency radio call. They made routine calls and therefore we know that their radio was working at the time.
The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, asked me about Chinooks grounded at the moment. The Chinooks are operating as normal. Individual aircraft can of course be grounded temporarily for different reasons and I am unable to tell the noble Viscount exactly how many are flying today. However, I shall write to him on that point.
The noble Earl. Lord Stair, has also raised questions about the helicopters fitted with FADEC on Exercise Gryphons Flight. I shall write to the noble Earl on the points that he raises.
I emphasise that the MoD has been willing consistently not only to examine any new material but to respond with an appraisal of it, fully and publicly. We remain more than ready to examine any further material that might be thought to offer new insights into the crash. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked me a very direct question. At a philosophical level, I am bound to say that the question he asked is quite impossible for any Minister to answer. The noble Lord knows that we are briefed honestly as Ministers and we give honest answers to the questions that we are asked. However, I say to the noble Lord that if he feels that there are points still outstanding after the briefings which I know he has had—and I address this point also to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, who speaks from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—I invite them not to another briefing but to discuss with me the outstanding issues that still concern them following the briefings that they have had.
My noble friend Lord Gilbert said in May 1997 that negligence is not a word that the RAF uses lightly. That is true, but it was the duty of the Air Marshals to give an honest decision based upon the evidence.
658
I believe that that is what they did. The evidence produced by Computer Weekly does not persuade them or the MoD to reopen the inquiry.
Finally, I feel it is important to add my own personal sympathy to all of those who lost family, friends and colleagues in that tragic crash. So far as it is possible to do so, I try to understand the anguish that must be felt, in particular by the families of the dead pilots. I am very conscious that little of what I have said to your Lordships this evening will bring them any comfort. I remember also the families of the other victims who once again will have their memories stirred by reports of our discussions this evening. I am grateful to all your Lordships for the constructive way in which you have approached the debate. I undertake carefully to study all the remarks made. I reiterate the invitation that I made to noble Lords who remain unhappy after the briefings that your Lordships have heard to come and discuss those briefings with me.

Greater London Authority Bill
8.49 p.m.
Consideration of amendments after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 291 [Workplace parking levy]:
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 339 [Amendments of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 74
Page 206, line 10. leave out subsection (9).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 74 deals with the planning part of the Bill. Clause 339 amends the Town and Country Planning Act to allow the mayor to direct boroughs to refuse planning applications. It is proposed by the Government that that power should apply only to applications raising matters of strategic importance to London.
It is perfectly proper that the mayor should be consulted on strategic issues. He has the responsibility of dealing with the special development strategy which is directed to those matters. It is right that his views should be taken into account by the boroughs or the Common Council of the City of London when they come to consider particular applications.
It is also within the power of the borough council to refuse an application which can be appealed to the Minister. We propose leaving out subsection (9) because we believe that there is a confusion between the powers of the mayor and the powers of the Minister. If the mayor cannot persuade either the borough council or the Common Council to refuse an application because he would have the power to make representations to them, or subsequently to persuade the Minister to call in the application, he would be operating on pretty thin ground. We believe that that would mean that his case was not justified. We believe there is confusion in the Bill as drafted and the removal of the power to direct refusal would make the system more streamlined and more straightforward. Those

659
seeking to make applications would know better where they were. The boroughs or the Common Council would know where they stood and I believe that the mayor would be in a clearer situation. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not consider that we are being unfair in this regard. I am slightly surprised at the way in which the noble Lord has moved this amendment because he is seeking to take powers from London and give them back to the Secretary of State. That is somewhat contrary to the argument that he has pursued in many parts of the Bill.
We have made it clear throughout that the mayor of London will have strategic responsibilities. Those responsibilities will include an overall look at the planning system in London. We have also made it clear that the vast majority of planning decisions will be undertaken by the London boroughs, with no intervention from the mayor, and that where those decisions are of genuine strategic importance the mayor should be notified and have the ability to intervene. That is why we propose to give the mayor power to be consulted, and as a last resort he can directly refuse a small number of strategically important planning applications.
My colleague Nick Raynsford has just spelt out the thresholds on which most of these will be judged. We expect the total number of applications notified to the mayor to be small—between 150 and 250 a year, out of a total of 70,000 planning decisions. The key word is notified. The mayor will not necessarily intervene in all of those. I expect the mayor will use the power of direct refusal as a last resort.
Within the Bill we also provide some safeguards against misuse. The mayor will only be able to use the power where there are genuine strategic planning reasons, and will have to give a detailed explanation of such. Where the mayor is proved wrong he will be liable to pay the costs of holding an appeal inquiry and the cost of other parties where it is found that he or she has abused those powers unreasonably.
All those factors help to ensure that the decisions of the mayor will be taken reasonably and that the number of decisions on which the mayor will intervene will be relatively small, but it will give the mayor the power to make a strategic intervention where he or she considers it necessary. I do not believe that deleting the mayor and referring such decisions directly to the Secretary of State fits in with the spirit of the structure of the new authority. On reflection, I believe that the noble Lord will believe so too.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Like me, he is an optimist. Of course, if one happens to be a pessimist at some time in the future the mayor will direct a refusal which will subsequently be appealed to the Minister and granted. At that point some interesting words will be said among the parties to the situation. If that happens that may impose unreasonable delay in a system that is already capable of producing delay in
660
any event. None the less, I have heard what the Minister has said. He relieves me slightly, but not completely. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 365 [The London ambient noise strategy]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 220, line 28, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Noise falls within this subsection if it is—

(a) noise emitted from works falling within section 60(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (construction works etc. which may be controlled by a local authority);

(b) noise caused by the operation of a loud-speaker in a street, whether or not the operation would be a contravention of section 62(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (loud-speaker not to be operated in the street during certain hours);

(c) noise at work which, under or by virtue of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, it is the duty of an employer to control; or

(d) noise emitted from premises or emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street, except noise caused by aircraft other than model aircraft or noise made by traffic;

but noise does not fall within this subsection if it is noise from a fixed industrial source.
(4A) Expressions used in paragraph (d) of subsection (4) above and in section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 have the same meaning in that paragraph as they have in that section.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 75. On Report I promised to bring back this amendment, which when first tabled included a typographical error. As your Lordships will recall, Clause 365 requires the mayor to prepare and publish a London ambient noise strategy.
In Committee we agreed to look at the noise provisions again, and the House amended them on Report with the exception of this amendment, which was not moved. Specifically, the amendment deletes existing subsection (4) of Clause 365 and replaces it with a new form of words detailing the types of noise excluded from the mayor's strategy. These are those matters dealt with by local authorities using powers in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and by local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
The amendment removes the reference to statutory nuisance so that if a local authority, on investigation, does not consider noise from premises to be a statutory nuisance, it will not come within the remit of the ambient noise strategy of the mayor. There is provision ensuring that noise caused by aircraft, noise made by traffic and noise from a fixed industrial source are not excluded from the strategy.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, Amendment No. 76 is an amendment to Amendment No. 75.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 75, Amendment No. 76:
Line 3, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 76 and I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. This is not an attempt at a late stage to undermine what the Government are attempting to provide in Clause 365 in relation to the ambient noise strategy. However, I pin my question on three of the four paragraphs in the subsection. Is it appropriate to exclude from the strategy types of noise, simply because another entity has powers to deal with them?
I have looked again at Clause 365. The strategy would involve co-ordination, creating priorities and working with other partners in dealing with ambient noise. The clause does not give the mayor powers to deal with particular sources of noise; it requires him to prepare a strategy using information about ambient noise levels and the impact on those living and working in London, an assessment of the impact of his or her strategies on noise levels and a summary of action taken or proposed by the mayor in order to promote measures to reduce ambient noise levels.
No statutory powers are given to the mayor to tackle the noise directly, and therefore it would be appropriate for the mayor to work in partnership with the boroughs in considering the types of noise, the subject of these paragraphs, above which the boroughs can take direct action. I am not seeking to add to the authority's powers in the amendment, but at the same time I am not convinced that the mayor's powers to consider such sources of noise should be restricted. I have tabled the amendments to give the Government an opportunity of explaining why the mayor and the authority should be excluded from a public debate about how to tackle something that can be a very real source of concern to Londoners and in which they may play a role in addition to the local authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have already explained why we have brought forward our own amendment to Clause 365. The key to this issue is that the function and role of the mayor is a strategic role. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised the very important issue of the ability to work in partnership. We expect that to occur, but we believe that it is very important to avoid duplication of responsibility in the Bill. That is a point that the noble Baroness has recognised.
If we were to accept further amendments, we would be in a position where the only exclusion from the mayor's strategy would be noise at work by virtue of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Following the principle of subsidiarity and not creating the problem of duplication of direct responsibility, we do not think it is appropriate that the mayor should have power to intervene directly because the action should properly be taken by local authorities. However, I strongly emphasise the point raised by the noble Baroness, that
662
this is part of what we all, I am sure, hope will be an ongoing and developing partnership to enable the mayor to fulfil the strategic purpose.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, I am not entirely convinced by that reply. For example, it would become a matter of concern if people's lives in London are affected by the way construction is dealt with. That is only one example.
I will simply take comfort in the general point that has been made during the debates, that although the mayor may have particular responsibility, the fact that other responsibilities are not spelt out may not preclude the mayor from taking account of them. The noble Baroness has nodded in agreement. To allow the mayor to include consideration of this type of noise within a strategy would not be duplication; it would merely be a sensible way of ensuring that the matter is covered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No.76, as an amendment to Amendment No. 75, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 79, as amendments to Amendment No.75, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No.75 agreed to.
9 p.m.
Clause 372 [Financial Assistance by the Mayor for museums, galleries, etc.]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.80.
Page 223, line 15, leave out ("financial").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 to 83. This follows a point that I queried at the last stage of the Bill when the Government moved an amendment to allow assistance in kind as well as by way of grant, in the circumstances referred to in these clauses, to museums, galleries, and so on. I asked why a similar amendment had not been made to the provisions allowing conditions to be imposed at the time when assistance is given. The amendments would allow conditions to be attached to any type of assistance given by the authority. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendments. When she raised the issue at Report stage, I promised to write to her.
It is desirable that the provisions for giving assistance to cultural institutions in Amendments Nos.80 and 81 should be the same as those for tourism in Amendments Nos.82 and 83. I agree that her amendments, which would allow conditions to be applied to non-financial assistance as well as to grants, are an improvement. There may be occasions when it would be a good idea for the mayor to impose such conditions, for example if a member of staff were to be seconded to provide assistance in kind.
We are happy to accept the amendments. I hope that the noble Baroness will release me from the obligation to write to her about them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 223, line 21. leave out second ("the").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 373 [Duty of the Authority to promote tourism]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendments Nos. 82 and 83:
Page 224, line 17, leave out ("financial").
Page 224, line 23, leave out second ("the").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 84:
After Clause 374, insert the following new clause—

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY'S FUNCTIONS
(" .—(1) Any function exercisable on behalf of the Authority by the Mayor under or by virtue of this Part shall also be exercisable on behalf of the Authority by any of the bodies or persons specified in subsection (2) below, if or to the extent that the Mayor so authorises, whether generally or specially, and subject to any conditions imposed by the Mayor.
(2) Those bodies and persons are—

(a) the Deputy Mayor;

(b) any member of staff of the Authority;

(c) the Cultural Strategy Group for London;

(d) the London Development Agency;

(e) the Common Council;

(f) any local authority.

(3) In the case of the Common Council or a local authority, an authorisation under this section—

(a) may only be granted or varied with its written consent; and

(b) shall cease to have effect if notice of the withdrawal of that consent is given to the Mayor.

(4) Where, by virtue of an authorisation under subsection (1) above, a duty is exercisable by any of the bodies or persons specified in subsection (2) above, that body or person shall discharge the duty in accordance with the authorisation and any conditions imposed by the Mayor under subsection (1) above.
(5) Subsection (4) above is without prejudice to the exercise by the body or person concerned of any power to arrange for the discharge of functions by—

(a) a committee or sub-committee, or a member, officer or employee, of the body or person, or

(b) a joint committee on which the person or body is represented,

except to the extent that the terms of the authorisation or any conditions imposed by the Mayor under subsection (1) above otherwise provide.
(6) Subsection (1) above does not apply—

(a) in relation to functions under this section; or

(b) in relation to any function of making by-laws under section 379(1) below.

(7) An authorisation under subsection (1) above which relates to—

(a) any function under section 371 above; or

(b) the exercise of any function under or by virtue of section 377(1) or 378(3) below to the extent that it involves a determination as to whether to permit a public demonstration to take place in Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square Garden;

may only be given to the Deputy Mayor or a member of staff of the Authority.
(8) An authorisation under subsection (1) above which relates to any function of enforcing any by-laws made under section 379(1) below may only be given—

(a) to the Deputy Mayor,

(b) to any member of staff of the Authority,

(c) to the Common Council.

(d) to any local authority.

(9) Each of the following bodies, namely—

(a) the Cultural Strategy Group for London,

(b) the London Development Agency,

(c) the Common Council,

(d) any local authority,

shall have power to exercise functions on behalf of the Authority in accordance with this section, whether or not they would have power to do so apart from this subsection and irrespective of the nature of the function.
(10) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (delegation of functions to committees, officers etc, and continued exercise by local authority concerned) shall apply in relation to any authorisation under subsection (1) above given by the Mayor—

(a) to a local authority,

(b) to the Cultural Strategy Group for London, or

(c) to the London Development Agency,

as they apply to arrangements under that section between one local authority and another.
(11) An authorisation under this section may be varied or revoked at any time by the Mayor.
(12) Any authorisation under this section, and any variation or revocation of such an authorisation, must be in writing.
(13) In this section—

"Trafalgar Square" has the same meaning as in the Trafalgar Square Act 1844;

"Parliament Square Garden" means the central garden of Parliament Square. within the meaning of section 378 below.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 84, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 88 to 92. This is a complex group of amendments but it is easier to take together the clauses on delegation in Part X and the amendments affecting Trafalgar and Parliament Squares because the two are interwoven.
Perhaps I may say right away that these amendments meet commitments I gave last week on Report. First, I promised a technical amendment to allow the mayor to delegate to the Cultural Strategy Group for London. That commitment is met by Amendment No. 84—I acknowledge straight away that it has become a lot more complicated than I thought it would be—but in the event it proved more effective to combine this with other provisions about the mayor's powers of delegation in respect of culture under Part X. I shall return to that subject later.
Secondly, I promised amendments to complete the provisions for the transfer of day-to-day responsibility for Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the GLA. Last week we agreed amendments that give the mayor responsibility for the care and management of both squares together with the power to make by-laws in respect of their management (Clauses 377 to 379). I gave notice at that time of further amendments that would elaborate on the general power, filling in the

665
detail—indeed, there was some discussion of our intentions. I am therefore pleased to have tabled the remaining amendments, Amendments Nos. 88 to 92, to fulfil that commitment.
As I said then, the mayor will be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the fabric of the squares—that is to say, cleaning, lighting and repairs to statues—and for controlling and licensing use; for example, giving permission for rallies and events, advertising and filming on Trafalgar Square.
Amendment No. 91 provides the missing enforcement power for the mayor to control street trading. The House agreed last week that it is essential that the mayor should have this power to protect us against the rogue traders to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred. Experience shows that the only effective deterrent is a power of seizure which may lead to forfeiture by a court order. Without these powers traders simply return with their apparatus and continue trading, factoring the cost of the fines into their operating costs. We see that happen in the Royal Parks.
By providing an explicit statutory reference, Amendment No. 91 will give the mayor a power that the Government do not have and will allow the mayor to exercise powers in line with those exercised by Westminster City Council in the surrounding streets. I am sure to be teased about the fact that I said last week that the level of fine would be level 1 under the by-laws. That is the same as under the departmental regulations. I have since been advised that this is lower than the level fixed under Westminster City Council's legislation. That would be a worse anomaly than having them different from department regulations and we therefore intend to increase the level to level 3 in relation to trading offences. I trust that noble Lords will agree that that is a sensible and justifiable change.
Amendment No. 89 is a purely technical amendment correcting a grammatical error.
Amendment No. 92 concerns our intention to provide guidelines that will pass on the accumulated wisdom of the DCMS in relation to the management of the squares, including, of course, policy with regard to public demonstrations in Trafalgar Square. The mayor must have regard to such guidelines, but he or she will remain the ultimate arbiter. We do not expect the mayor to carry out the majority of those functions in person, so I come back to Amendment No. 84 which provides the detailed provisions that will allow the mayor to delegate functions within carefully considered limits.
Earlier today I moved the amendment to Clause 38 which allows Amendment No. 84 to substitute for the general power of delegation in respect of Part X. The new clause makes Part X largely self-contained in this respect. The mayor will be able to delegate his functions under Part X to the deputy mayor and GLA staff, to another local authority including the City Corporation, and to the Cultural Strategy Group for London or the London Development Agency. The London Development Agency is included because of the tourism functions.
However, in relation to the making of by-laws, the mayor's decisions on the cultural strategy and the holding of public demonstrations in Trafalgar or Parliament Squares are reserved for the GLA itself, and delegation of the policing of the squares is restricted. That is to make sure that the important function of allowing demonstrations, against the Government if necessary, should be a political decision and not a decision for officialdom. The mayor cannot, of course, delegate the power to delegate.
This is a long clause. It includes special provisions that require delegation to be in writing and, in the case of a local authority, with its written consent. There are various other technical subsections which I can explain if necessary. It is fundamental that we regard the mayor as the appropriate person to take responsibility for Trafalgar and Parliament Squares, which are of national importance.
It was suggested last week that some of these powers should be given direct to Westminster City Council, but to divide the function between the mayor and Westminster could be confusing. It is more important to leave it to the mayor to decide exactly how much should be delegated or put out to contract and to set the context within which the functions are carried out. That is consistent with the rest of the Bill. The GLA is a strategic authority and the mayor will no doubt want to minimise the amount of day-to-day management retained. He will certainly want to make arrangements with Westminster City Council to carry out some of these functions.
I know that I have spoken for long enough, but I must take this opportunity to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House when I said that the mayor will have to retain control of the statues. In fact, he will be able to delegate responsibilities for the care and maintenance of the existing statues in both squares. I have in mind the Public Statues (Metropolis) Act 1854, which relates to the erection of new statues. The mayor could promote proposals for new statues, but it is the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who cannot delegate his responsibilities under that Act.
The GLA will also retain responsibility for decisions about the cultural strategy and the making of by-laws. The mayor will not have the power to engage private persons or organisations, such as private security firms, to undertake policing functions. Westminster City Council, or any other local authority can act as delegates for the enforcement of the by-laws, including the new trading by-laws.
I apologise again for these amendments being put forward in two bites. However, with the explanation that I have given, I hope that noble Lords will agree that, in the end, this is a coherent group of amendments. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, as the Minister said, Amendment No. 84 refers to the delegation of the functions of the authority. I am relieved to see this amendment in the list; indeed, it was promised at Committee stage in July and we have had a long wait for its arrival.

667
I turn to the remainder of the amendments in this group. The Government gave notice on Report on 25th October that they would bring in further amendments regarding the transfer of the management of Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square. My noble friend Lady Anelay did not oppose that but asked several questions about the impact of the transfer—a significant step which deserved more time for reflection before a verdict was given.
My noble friend expressed her dismay at that time (cols. 129 and 133 of Hansard) with regard to the late tabling of the amendments and the fact that they had been tabled in a half-finished form. She asked the Minister to withdraw the amendments and bring them back on Third Reading, so that they could be seen in their complete form. The Minister declined to do so and stated that the amendments were not in themselves defective. He said that he would press the amendments on the basis that they were themselves complete and perfect. However, we now find that the Government were mistaken: the amendments were not all complete and perfect and the Government now ask the House to amend them. We have received a most generous apology from the Minster, which we certainly accept on these Benches.
In particular, I should like to mention Amendment No. 90, which changes the level of fine for breach of by-laws,
"if the byelaw is a trading byelaw,
to level 3 from level 1. I understand that the maximum fine at level 1 is £200 and that at level 3 the maximum is £1,000. We are delighted to hear that that is now accepted. We are told that the amendment is required to bring the fine into line with the trading offences legislation operated by Westminster City Council and thereby avoid an anomaly. Perhaps I may make it clear that we on these Benches support measures intended to protect consumers from unlicensed vendors of food in the squares. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Anelay made that support clear on Report. It is the one aspect of the transfer of the management of the squares to which we felt then, as now, able to give our complete support.
On Report my noble friend queried the level of fine in the amendment then before the House. As we know, the Minister replied by saying that it seemed sensible to change to level 3 because that would act as a proper deterrent to people abusing the use of the squares. However, can we be quite sure that the Government's amendments are now correct? I am sure that they are, but I shall leave that to the Minister.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I can only repeat our apologies for the late tabling of these amendments. However, I contest the noble Lord's argument that we are significantly amending our own amendments. We are completing the package of amendments rather than further amending them, except in the sense of the level of the fine. It is not a matter of that level being wrong: we simply thought again on the matter and thought better. I do not believe that anyone can complain about that.
668
I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord on the amendments on unlicensed traders. I agree very much with what he said. If he has any influence with his right honourable friends in another place, Eric Forth and David Maclean, could he discover why it was that the comparable provision in a Private Member's Bill introduced by the right honourable Peter Brooke which would have provided the same powers in the royal parks was blocked by cries of 'Object!' from Opposition Members? Maybe we could get something through next year if there were not the same opposition from the Conservative Party. Having made that totally unjustified jibe, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 85 to 87 not moved.]
Clause 379 [Byelaws]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 88 to 92:
Page 226, line 28, at end insert—
("(1 A) Byelaws under this section may designate specified provisions of the byelaws as trading byelaws.").
Page 226, line 29, leave out ("byelaws") and insert ("byelaw").
Page 226, line 30, after ("conviction") insert—

("(a) if the byelaw is a trading byelaw, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or

(b) in any other case,").

Page 226, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) The provision that may be made in byelaws under this section includes provision for or in connection with—

(a) the licensing of any trading; and

(b) the seizure, retention or disposal of any property in connection with any contravention of or failure to comply with a trading byelaw.").

After Clause 379, insert the following new clause—

GUIDANCE
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the Mayor concerning the exercise of any function under or by virtue of section 377(1), 378(3) or (4) or 379(1) above by him or any body or person authorised to exercise the function under section (Delegation of Authority's functions) above.
(2) In deciding whether or how to exercise that function, the Mayor, or body or person, shall have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1) above.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 382 [The Superannuation Act 1972]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 228, line 15, at end insert—
("(5) A determination under subsection (4) above shall be without prejudice to—

(a) paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 10 to this Act, in the case of Transport for London;

(b) paragraph 2 of Schedule 18 to this Act, in the case of the London Transport Users' Committee; or

(c) paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, in the case of the London Development Agency.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 93 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 94 and 105 to 113, 167 and 180. This group of amendments deals with the rather complex arrangements for pensions. In particular this group of

669
amendments fulfils the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to London Transport staff in relation to protecting the pension rights of employees who might transfer to the private sector as a result of the PPP or other PFI deals.
More broadly, Amendments Nos. 106 to 110 provide general powers relating to pension transfer arrangements into the GLA. Our general policy on GLA staff pensions remains that existing staff will transfer their current pension arrangements into the GLA and its associated bodies. These amendments and the existing provisions on Clause 402 are designed to allow us to make the necessary arrangements. In the case of the London Regional Passengers' Committee Superannuation Scheme—the LRPCSS—the intention is that the scheme will be closed and its members transferred to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. There are fewer than 20 existing employees within this scheme.
As regards the PPP, last March when the Deputy Prime Minister announced in another place his plans for a Public Private Partnership, he also wrote to every member of staff of London Transport assuring them that they would,
"have the right to remain in the LRT pension fund, as contributing members".
In response to a request for clarification he subsequently said,
"I can confirm that the pension arrangements also apply to any current LU staff who subsequently transfer to a sub-contractor, provided they remain in Tube work… The LRT Pension Fund will be structured to guarantee your rights to remain within the Fund, while retaining a single board of trustees and a common governance."
The new schedule, introduced by Amendments Nos. 111 and 180, sets the framework for that assurance. Staff who transfer to the private sector will have the statutory right to remain as contributing members of their pension fund, the London Regional Transport Pension Fund. This right continues to apply, under paragraph 3(3)(a) of the schedule, even if these staff are subsequently subcontracted, so long as they remain employed in the "London Underground railway industry".
Staff who transfer to the private sector but who then transfer out of Tube work will not be able as of right to remain members of the LRTPF. The structure we propose for the fund will mean that in principle they could remain members of it, but that would be a matter between their employer and the trustees of the fund. However, all employees in this position who remain in continuous employment will have the statutory right to a pension scheme providing benefits which overall are materially at least as good as those which applied at the time they transferred from London Transport. These rights will apply not only to those staff who transfer to the private sector as a result of the PPP—that will be about 6000 people—but also to the smaller number, a few hundreds, transferred to the various private finance deals concluded by LT since the Deputy Prime Minister gave his assurances to staff.
The schedule also provides for the Secretary of State to make orders restructuring the LRT Pension Fund, to deliver the protections I have outlined. Your Lordships
670
will have seen that there is a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the fund's existing trustees—which is only proper. I can assure you that the trustees have been, and will continue to be, kept in close touch with the development of this policy.
I explained the position in relation to the PPP at some length. It is important that your Lordships understand these provisions. However, they are in essence relatively straightforward. I apologise again for the late tabling of the amendments. We had to get them right and that required consultation with the trustees, as I have mentioned. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 228, line 15, at end insert—
("(6) In consequence of the inclusion, by virtue of subsection (2) above, of an entry relating to the London Development Agency in Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972, in the entry in that Schedule relating to a development agency established under section 1 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, there shall be added at the end "(other than the London Development Agency (for which there is a separate entry))".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 384 [The Race Relations Act 1976]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 95:
Leave out Clause 384 and insert the following new Clause—

DISCRIMINATION
(" . It shall be the duty of—

(a) the Greater London Authority,

(b) the Metropolitan Police Authority, and

(c) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

to exercise their various functions with due regard to the need—

(i) to promote and secure equality of opportunity for all persons irrespective of their race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, or religion;

(ii) to eliminate all forms of unlawful discrimination; and

(iii) to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups, religious beliefs and sexual orientation.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we debated the amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 96:
Before Clause 397, insert the following new clause—

AMENDMENT COMMISSION
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of this Act coming into force, appoint a commission of independent lawyers of suitable standing to report to him with proposals for amendments required to this Act.
(2) The report in subsection (1) shall specify such amendments to this Act in order that the institutions established by this Act shall function as effectively as possible in accordance with the purposes for which they were established.
(3) On receiving such a report, the Secretary of State must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament in order that Parliament shall have an opportunity to consider these amendments.
(4) Any amending Act shall come into force within two years of this Act coming into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 96. We now come to the very final part of the Bill, Part XII headed Supplementary Provisions.
The Government can hardly be proud of this Bill. Its original 330 clauses have already grown to 413 clauses; five schedules have been added; and today we face approximately another 180 amendments at Third Reading. I have a simple question for the Government: have they withheld any amendments which, in an ideal world, they would have laid for Third Reading? Has any instruction been given to call a halt to the rewriting process? Or are the Government now relying on time being found for a Greater London Authority (Amendment) Bill in the new Session? I challenge the Government to state that the GLA legislation is now complete.
Do the Government deny that, even though this Bill will have been amended some 880 times in this House, it will none the less require extensive additions and revisions? I put it to the Government that the Bill will require extensive modifications at an early stage in order for the GLA to function as intended.
The amendment standing in my name would require the Secretary of State to establish a commission for independent review of the operation of the Act within a year of the Act coming into force. The changes it proposed would then be implemented, hopefully, via fast-track.
I am sure that all noble Lords will be interested to learn that there is a precedent for this type of amendment. Section 25 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 requires the Secretary of State to establish an independent review body to investigate the success or otherwise of the fourth-year fee arrangements for students from England and Wales attending Scottish universities. The Government then acknowledged the problems with that particular issue and accepted an amendment that allowed them to monitor and investigate what necessary changes were to be made.
This is the spirit of Amendment No. 96. It lays down the procedure for the Government to put in place: the additional legislation that I and many others believe will be necessary. The Government have legislated—indeed, over-legislated—in haste. They have moved amendments that were not always perhaps understood by the Ministers who moved them, let alone by other noble Lords. The Government must accept that this marathon Bill cannot be the last word on London governance.
We on this side of the House wish to see the GLA and its functional bodies work effectively and efficiently. This common-sense amendment would put in place a mechanism to spot where this sub-standard Bill was letting Londoners down and give the government of the day an easy procedure for putting necessary changes onto the statute book. It must be quite clear to the Minister that the amendment is intended to be helpful to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure that we were not the first to think of it, but it was from these Benches
672
that we first articulated the notion of a Greater London Authority (Amendment) Bill—since when I have discovered that others have been advocating a Greater London Authority (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
I understand the thinking that underlies the amendment. I have one major criticism of it. I do not believe that it should be for a commission of independent lawyers to review the workings of the Act. Reviewing university fees is an entirely different matter. Many of the problems with this Bill have come from the Government's under-resourcing of people to work on it.
I have said before that is no criticism at all of any of the individuals who have found themselves caught up in this morass of words with which we all now find ourselves dealing. We have the utmost sympathy for the Ministers and for the officials involved, but there simply have not been sufficient resources devoted to this in terms of parliamentary counsel for the Government to embark on a Bill which, inevitably given the prescriptive approach, was going to grow in the way this Bill has grown. I hope at the least that it will give pause when the next big Bill—which I suspect will be the transport Bill—is drafted. No doubt it is being drafted now. It is an experience which none of your Lordships and no one in the other place would wish to undergo again. It is an experience with which our citizens should not see their Parliament wrestling in this very undignified fashion.
Having said that, although I fully support many of the points put by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, my noble friends and I would not support the amendment as tabled.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not know whether this amendment is the proper way to sort out the problem, but there certainly is a problem and it is not simply the difficulties caused by the Bill in Parliament as it has grown larger and larger "on the hoof" and as it is still growing, it seems. One's mind goes forward to the poor people who are going to have to operate the system when it comes into being. Looking up what you can do and what you cannot do under the Act is going to be a major activity. I do not know how many extra lawyers will be required to operate the provisions of the Bill once it becomes law, but it is going to be a real nightmare for those who try to put the plan into action.
I personally voted for the mayor and for the assembly, as a London resident. It seemed a simple idea. One realised there would be many problems in the interaction with local government and local authorities and with central government, but one imagined that the Government had thought it through and thought that it was possible to do it in a simple way. That has proved not to be the case.
I do not think it is something that the Government are proud of and I hope there will be ample opportunity as time goes on to amend the Act so that it really does work. All of us who reside in London hope very much that the system will work. It is very important that the

673
authority should be a great advantage to London, but if all the problems take over once the system comes into operation, there will be no pleasure or advantage to the citizens. I hope that the Government will find a way of amending the Act as time goes on, whether by the way my noble friend is proposing or by some other means.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, when I first read this amendment I was flabbergasted that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and his colleagues could even contemplate a trigger that would almost certainly cause us to have yet another Bill on Greater London and no doubt go through the same process as we have been going through for the past few months. I had not realised that they had enjoyed it so much!
We have been through countless amendments, many of them proposed by the Government. Others have been triggered by considerations that were raised at earlier stages here and in another place by interested parties inside and outside this House. We have scrutinised the Bill pretty fully in this House. I am not going to put my hand on my heart and say that everything is absolutely right with the Bill and that we shall not have to legislate within the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, even if the Bill is near perfect, there is no surer way of finding something wrong with it than setting up a commission of independent lawyers. I therefore feel that the noble Lord's amendment, even within his own terms, is seriously flawed. Furthermore, at least potentially, the amendment would bind future parliaments, something normally eschewed in this House. However, that will depend on when the noble Lord or I think the next general election will take place.
The amendment does not sensibly address the understandable anxieties that even now the Bill may not be absolutely right. It would not be right to institutionalise further scrutiny within the current legislation or indeed elsewhere. The Bill has received serious consideration by those Members of this House who have participated and many technical amendments have been produced. Noble Lords opposite have stated that they feel sorry for Ministers, but it is not Ministers who have to do most of the work on Bills of this kind. A great deal of serious, professional time has been spent on getting the provisions right. We are creating an entirely new structure of government in the Bill and it is necessarily large, long and complex. However, the last thing needed as we move towards the election of the mayor and the assembly is a built-in clause saying that everything will be changed again next year. For that reason, despite the good intentions of the noble Lord, the implication of the provision would lead many to assume that that will be the case. That is not a sensible way forward and I ask the noble Lord not to pursue his amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I am also grateful for the interventions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I moved the amendment purely as a probing provision because I certainly would not wish upon this House or another
674
place another examination of these countless clauses. However, the noble Lord has admitted that not everything in the Bill is absolutely right. I am afraid that I had already come to that conclusion when I found that government amendments were tabled as late as last Friday, after the Bill had been in Parliament for 10 months or more.
Nevertheless, as I said in my opening speech, I hope that this will be a success for London. The Minister said that if my amendment was passed, the lawyers would have a field day. I venture to suggest that the lawyers may well have a field day with the Bill as it is presently drafted, with or without my amendment. For that reason, in order that the lawyers do not have too much of a field day, it is with pleasure that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 97:
After Clause 398, insert the following new clause—

APPPOINTMENTS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(" .—(1) Any functions under or by virtue of this Act which will become exercisable by a person or body other than the Secretary of State may, before they become so exercisable, be exercised by the Secretary of State for the purpose of appointing such persons as he considers necessary to secure that any provision made by or under this Act operates satisfactorily when it comes into force.
(2) The Secretary of State may defray any costs which are incurred in the exercise of the functions mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(3) In exercising the functions mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may appoint a person on such terms and conditions (including conditions as to remuneration) as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(4) Any such terms and conditions may include provision to the effect that the person concerned—

(a) is, or is not, to be or become a member of a particular pension scheme, or

(b) is, or is not, to be treated as employed in the civil service of the State.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is required to make it clear that the Secretary of State has powers to appoint such persons as he considers necessary to ensure that provisions by or under the Bill operate satisfactorily when they come into force. Such persons may be appointed on terms and conditions which differ from standard Civil Service ones, pending the establishment of the GLA and associated bodies.
The amendment is necessary specifically to allow the Secretary of State to become the interim employer of staff in the London Research Centre, the London Planning Advisory Committee and the London Ecology Unit for the period between 1st April and 8th May 2000; to appoint any new staff who will be subsequently transferred to the GLA; and to appoint transitional staff for the Metropolitan Police Authority. In the case of both new and existing staff, their terms and conditions are expected to differ from those of the Civil Service.
Some anxiety has been expressed about this clause and I should make it clear that, as a matter of policy, the Secretary of State will not make permanent appointments to the most senior positions in the GLA. The positions will be occupied by people on short-term,

675
temporary contracts to allow the GLA maximum freedom to make its own appointments. However, in order to get the GLA up and running it is necessary to employ staff to set up the finance and IT systems and so forth so that the authority will be able to operate effectively. I assure the House that these are transitional arrangements and will be interpreted only in that sense. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, when earlier today I spoke to Amendment No. 18, I said that it was probably the most important amendment to the Bill. I wrote that note over the weekend, before I had had the benefit of looking at the Marshalled List this morning, when I found Amendment No. 97. It states:
"Insert the following new Clause".
It sounds very reasonable indeed that the Secretary of State should have the ability, the opportunity and the power to put in place some temporary arrangements until such time as the mayor and the assembly come into being. That sounds sensible. But this type of amendment at Third Reading is beyond belief.
If it is necessary for the Secretary of State to appoint such people to carry out these duties for the mayor and the assembly, it was necessary when the Bill went through all its stages in the House of Commons; it was necessary when the Bill came to your Lordships' House; it was necessary when the Bill had its Committee stage and it was necessary when the Bill had its Report stage. I am appalled that the new clause should come before the House at this stage.
Furthermore, the Minister presented the amendment in an elegant way. He said that the provision is short-term and temporary and that it seeks to deal only with this short-fall. Where does it say that in the new clause? The amendment states:
"Any functions under or by virtue of this Act which will become exercisable by a person or body other than the Secretary of State may, before they become so exercisable, be exercised by the Secretary of State for the purpose of appointing such persons as he considers necessary to secure that any provision made by or under this Act operates satisfactorily when it comes into force".
The new clause allows the Secretary of State to make all the appointments that the mayor and the assembly should make when they take office. As the Minister said, it would allow the Secretary of State to make appointments to the authority, to Transport for London, to the London Development Agency, to the Cultural Strategy Group and so on, before the mayor takes over. But where does the new clause say, as the Minister said, that there will be a limit on the terms of these appointments and that they will last only until the mayor takes office?
As the amendment is drafted, the appointments could last for the whole term of the mayor. I have never seen anything quite like this before. Would it be possible for the mayor to sack any of those appointed with minimal notice or compensation? It is all left to the Secretary of State to decide. As it stands, this is an appalling new clause. It should have come before us at the Committee stage when we would have had the opportunity to discuss it properly with the Minister and
676
when colleagues on all sides of the House could have dealt with it. This is not a suitable clause to arrive at Third Reading. Unless the Minister is able to give us an extremely satisfactory response, we on this side of the House cannot possibly accept the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on one point. It is a pity that the clause comes to us at such a late stage. It is symptomatic of the Government's anxious approach that they feel that everything needs to be spelt out in such a way. As I understand from the Minister's introduction of the amendment, the new clause is required to implement the provisions which the Government have aired in their fairly recent consultation paper on transitional provisions. That asked among other things whether people should be appointed on the basis of competencies rather than for particular policy areas in order for them to be in place so that the financial arrangements are operating, the computer systems are in place and so on. Reading between the lines of those questions, I saw some indication that the Government thought: "What the hell do we do about all this? It is a fairly awful situation to have to cope with". I agree with them on that. It is my hope that the clause is not to be read in the anxious and sinister way suggested by the noble Baroness on the Conservative Benches.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am bound to support my noble friend. The wording of the provision, which is all that we have to go on in this House today, is completely open and unqualified. I heard what the Minister said in introducing the amendment. However, it drives a coach and horses through what I regard as the normal establishment— which is what I thought was going to happen—of the new authority. Under the new clause, the Secretary of State can appoint,
"such persons as he considers necessary to secure that any provision made by or under this Act operates satisfactorily"—
that is, from his point of view—
"when it comes into force".
The Secretary of State,
"may defray any costs which are incurred".
and so forth. The clause as drafted provides a carte blanche power.
It is very late in a difficult stage of a difficult Bill. I have tried hard to think of an assurance that the Minister could give which would make it absolutely clear that this open power is in fact a very restricted power. But as the amendment stands, the provision is open. That may not be the Government's intention. But their intention has to be what is on the paper in front of us, not what is in their mind. We cannot read their mind. I am afraid that the amendment should be withdrawn, and matters should be allowed to take their course. That would be better than having this deeply flawed amendment on the statute.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I had not planned to intervene, but the statement by the noble Lord opposite that the amendment should possibly be

677
withdrawn raises the possibility of all kinds of complicated and horrifying consequences. For example, is the noble Lord suggesting that, for the period from 1st April to 4th May, or to 3rd July, depending on which date one chooses to take, separate budgets should be set for each of the predecessor organisations that will go into the new authority? I refer, for example, to the London Planning Advisory Committee and the London Research Centre. Should the committees be convened to set a budget to draw a subscription for those periods? Is that what is suggested in the absence of the amendment?
The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Whitty enables a sensible transitional arrangement to operate. It would allow a proper transition. I am sure that the assurances sought by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, are those that I heard my noble friend give; namely, that these are transitional arrangements and appointments will be made on a temporary basis to enable the mayor and the assembly, once they are elected, to take office in a smooth and seamless fashion, and to ensure that there is no dreadful hiatus from 1st April because budgets have not been set and arrangements have not been made for the smooth transition of staff.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, I am absolutely sure that a smooth transition is necessary. But the provisions for a smooth transition should be in the Bill as it now falls. The amendment is deeply flawed.
Lord Tope: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I had also not intended to intervene. I do so largely to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He is obviously right. We probably all share the concern expressed. I merely want to raise two questions. The first is: why on earth is such an amendment being moved at the last possible stage of the Bill? Surely something as obvious as this should have been spotted. Perhaps we should have spotted it, but, frankly, it is the Government's responsibility to spot these points, not that of the Opposition. So, why are we dealing with it now? We have only just seen it. Because there is no termination date it is open-ended. Clearly, these provisions are needed.
I hear what the Minister says and do not doubt for a moment that he means what he says. However, that is not in the amendment and therefore it will not be in the Act as it will become. I believe that we shall agree to this amendment tonight; we need to do so. However, I should be much happier if the Minister could give an assurance that, in the process that follows, this particular shortcoming in the amendment will be corrected in the other place so that a termination date is inserted.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although I had an indication that this matter caused difficulty I did not expect the degree of concern that has been expressed in relation to this clause. It is not unusual in legislation in this House for transitional arrangements to appear quite late in the stages of a Bill. I recall various other pieces of legislation
678
emanating from both parties where that has happened. I shall not engage in banter with the noble Baroness. Nevertheless, were she to examine some of the legislation promoted by her party no doubt she would see similar arrangements.
Although I agree in general terms with the criticism about the tabling of late amendments, in this case that is not so. Transitional arrangements are, after all, put in as the last part of the jigsaw. I believe that people misread this new clause. It refers to appointments for which the Secretary of State does not currently have powers although he will need those powers under the interim arrangements in order to do the preparatory works to which my noble friend and the noble Baroness referred, such as setting up the finance, IT and property management systems, the personnel function and so on. Those appointments would need to be made. At present, neither the Secretary of State nor any other body has power to do that.
Clearly, there is a termination date in subsection (1), which states:
"the Secretary of State may, before they become so exercisable":
in other words, at the point where the GLA and other authorities take on these functions, the powers cease. There is a clear termination date in this clause which is related to the transitional period. I do not see how subsection (1) can be read as meaning anything else.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. We accept that before those powers become exercisable the Secretary of State will require such powers, but they continue. The Bill does not say that those powers will end. The appointments will continue. The point I sought to make was that when the mayor appeared these appointments might continue half-way through or during his term. This provision does not in any way indicate a limit.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, can the Minister confirm that in many cases appointments would be made of those who are currently employees of the bodies to be subsumed by the new authority, and that if there were to be a hiatus in their employment not only would they lose their employment rights but they would suffer at that time because of a gap in their employment? If the Minister could give an assurance about limiting the appointments to, say, employees of the London Planning Advisory Committee, the London Research Centre and so on many Members of this House would feel a good deal more comfortable.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps that clarifies the position. Clearly, the mayor will take on employees of all kinds in the predecessor bodies. All this provision does is to say: first, that in the hiatus period when nobody would otherwise be the employer these people are effectively employed by the Secretary of State; and, secondly, that if there are additional appointments they will be made by the Secretary of State in that period. What happens to those employees thereafter, as with all other employees whom the mayor inherits, is a matter for the mayor and the personnel practices of the Greater

679
London Authority. Appointments will therefore continue unless and until they are terminated by the new authority, but in any case those concerned are in no different position from appointees of the predecessor bodies.
I gave the assurance earlier that any such appointments made in this hiatus period would be short term so far as concerns the senior staff. To illustrate the point raised by the noble Baroness, the staff of the London Research Unit would be among the appointments. I believe that we are reading too much into the clause—or not enough. We are reading too much in the suggestion that we are conjuring up the phantom of the Secretary of State appointing the whole of the staff of the GLA before the mayor has his foot in the door. It is fairly clear that this is a much more limited and short-term function. Subsection (1) simply gives the Secretary of State the powers to cover the hiatus period.
There is a clear termination date; and there is a clear continuity implied as a result of the insertion of this clause. Without this clause, there would be no continuity of employment for a number of people. London Transport is not affected by the clause. The preparation time which the transitional committee and the consultation document referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would not be able to occur. Were noble Lords not prepared to accept the clause, we should be in a serious limbo for the period immediately before the GLA comes into operation. That would be a pretty damaging thing for this House to do. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not pursue her opposition to the new clause.
9.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 97) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 36.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Crawley, B.

Addington, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ahmed, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Alli, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Amos, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Desai, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Dixon, L.

Bach, L.

Donoughue, L.

Barker, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dubs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Eatwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Elder, L.

Blease, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brett, L.

Falkland, V.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Burlison, L.

Filkin, L.

Carlisle, E.

Gale, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gilbert, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Goldsmith, L.

Chandos, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Grabiner, L.

680

Grenfell, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Grey, E.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Hacking, L.

McNair, L.

Hamwee, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Monkswell, L.

Harrison, L.

Nicol, B.

Hayman, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Rennard,L

Hoyle, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Islwyn, L.

Simon, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Judd, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Kennet, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lipsey, L.

Thornton, B.

Lockwood, B.

Tope, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Tordoff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitty, L.

[Teller]

Wilkins, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V.

Annaly, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Astor of Hever,L.

Higgins, L.

Attlee, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Biddulph, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Northbrook, L

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E.

Crathorne, L.

Palmer, L.

Cross, V.

Rowallan, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Dundee, E.

Trenchard, V.

Fookes, B.

Weir,V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.6 p.m.
Clause 399 [Transfers of property, rights or liabilities]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 237, line 18, at end insert—

("( ) London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of London Regional Transport;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments relating to Clause 399 which clarify and amend the provisions which may be included in, and relate to the effect of, transfer or pension instruments relating to the establishment of the new bodies. Transfer of assets, rights and liabilities to the GLA will be a major exercise. In preparing these amendments we have worked closely with LRT and other bodies which will be involved in the transfer process. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 99 to 102:
Page 237, line 31, at end insert—

("( ) any company all the shares in which are held by a Minister of the Crown;").

Page 237. line 35, at end insert—

("( ) the Commission for the New Towns;").

Page 238, line 16, leave out ("the creation of rights or liabilities") and insert—

("(a) the grant or creation of an estate or interest in, or right over, any land or other property,

(b) the grant or creation of any other rights, or

(c) the imposition of liabilities,

in favour of, or on, any body or person falling within subsection (2) above or any body or person falling within subsection (3) above").
Page 238, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (1) above may make provision for transfers to take effect at such time of day as may be specified in the order.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 400 [Transfer schemes]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 239, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) A scheme under subsection (1) or (2) above may make any provision that may be made by order under subsection (1) of section 399 above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 401 [Contracts of employment etc.]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 239, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) In this section—

(a) any reference to anything made or done by or in relation to the transferor includes a reference to anything which is treated by virtue of any enactment as having been made or done by or in relation to the transferor; and

(b) any reference to an employee's period of employment with the transferor shall be construed accordingly.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 402 [Pensions]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 105 to 113:
Page 239, line 44, leave out ("employees, or persons who") and insert ("persons who are or").
Page 240, line 22, at end insert—

("( ) the alteration or winding up of any pension scheme or pension fund, whether in whole or in part;

( ) the variation of any trust;

( ) the transfer of the whole or any part of any pension fund or of any rights, obligations or liabilities under a pension scheme;

( ) the persons by whom any function under or relating to the scheme is to be exercisable;").

Page 240, line 31, at end insert—

("(the amendment of a pension scheme;").

Page 240, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (1) above may amend—

(a) the trust deed of any pension scheme;

(b) the rules of any such scheme; or

(c) any other instrument relating to the constitution, management or operation of any such scheme;

682
and any reference in this section to the amendment of a pension scheme includes a reference to the amendment of any such trust deed, rules or other instrument.").
Page 240, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) An order under this section may only be made after consultation with the trustees or managers, or the administrators, of any pension fund or pension scheme to which the order relates.").
Page 240, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) An order under this section may be made so as to have effect from a date prior to the making of the order.").
Page 241, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Schedule (London Regional Transport pension etc schemes) to this Act (which makes provision in relation to schemes for the provision of pensions or other benefits for or in respect of employees etc of London Regional Transport and its subsidiaries) shall have effect.").
Page 241, line 4, at end insert—

(""instrument" includes an enactment or any subordinate legislation;").

Page 241, line 14, at end insert—

(""pension scheme" means an occupational pension scheme, as defined in section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 403 [Transfer and pension instruments: common provisions]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 114 to 122:
Page 241, line 17, at end insert ("; and

(b) rights and liabilities under enactments.").

Page 241, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) No right to terminate or vary a contract or instrument shall operate or become exercisable, and no provision of a contract or relevant document, shall operate or become exercisable or be contravened by reason of any transfer by virtue of a transfer or pension instrument.").
Page 241, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) For purposes connected with any transfers made by virtue of a transfer or pension instrument (including the transfer of rights and liabilities under an enactment) a body or person to which anything is transferred by virtue of the instrument is to be treated as the same person in law as the body or person from which it is transferred, except as otherwise provided in the instrument.").
Page 241, line 36, leave out subsection (6).
Page 242, line 36, leave out subsections (13) and (14).
Page 242, line 44, after ("subsection") insert ("(2) or").
Page 242, line 44, after ("above") insert (", and

(b) of the trustees or managers, or administrators, of any pension scheme,").

Page 242, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) Where any person is entitled, in consequence of any transfer made by virtue of a transfer or pension instrument, to possession of a document relating in part to the title to, or to the management of, any land or other property in England and Wales—

(a) the instrument may contain provision for treating that person as having given another person an acknowledgment in writing of the right of that other person to the production of the document and to delivery of copies thereof; and

(b) section 64 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (production and safe custody of documents) shall have effect accordingly, and on the basis that the acknowledgment did not contain any such expression of contrary intention as is mentioned in that section.").

683
Page 243, line 1, after ("section") insert—

(""relevant document" means—

(a) any enactment, other than an enactment contained in this Act;

(b) any subordinate legislation made otherwise than under this Act; or

(c) any deed or other instrument;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 123 and 124:
After Clause 403, insert the following new clause—

MODIFICATION OF TRANSFER OR PENSION INSTRUMENTS
(" .—(1) If, at any time after a transfer or pension instrument has come into force, a Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate to do so, he may by order provide that the instrument shall for all purposes be deemed to have come into force with such modifications as may be specified in the order.
(2) An order under subsection (1) above may make such provision as could have been made by the transfer or pension instrument.
(3) An order under subsection (1) above may only be made after the requisite consultation.
(4) If, at any time after a scheme under section 400 above has come into force, a Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate to do so, he may by directions require a body or person falling within subsection (2) of section 399 above to prepare modifications to the scheme of such a description as may be specified in the directions.
(5) Where a body or person is required to prepare any modifications under subsection (4) above, the body or person shall submit the modifications to the Minister for his approval before such date as he may direct.
(6) Where any modifications are submitted under subsection (5) above, the Minister may approve them with or without amendment.
(7) Approval under subsection (5) above shall only be given after the requisite consultation.
(8) An approval under subsection (5) above shall take effect on such date as the Minister may specify in giving the approval.
(9) Where any modifications are made and approved under the preceding provisions of this section, whether with or without amendment, the scheme shall for all purposes be deemed to have come into force with those modifications, subject to any such amendment.
(10) For the purposes of this section, "the requisite consultation"—

(a) if or to the extent that the transfer or pension instrument concerned makes provision by virtue of the pension powers of this Part, is consultation with the trustees or managers, or the administrators, of any pension scheme affected; and

(b) if or to the extent that the transfer or pension instrument concerned makes provision otherwise than by virtue of the pension powers of this Part, is consultation with any body which, or person who, the Minister considers may be affected.

(11) In this section—

"approval" means approval in writing;

"the pension powers of this Part" means—

(a) in the case of a scheme, section 400(6) above; and

(b) in the case of an order, section 402 above;

"transfer or pension instrument" has the same meaning as in section 403 above.").

After Clause 403, insert the following new clause—

FOREIGN PROPERTY, RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES: PERFECTION OF VESTING
(" .—(1) This section applies in any case where a transfer or pension instrument provides for the transfer of any foreign property, rights or liabilities.
(2) It shall be the duty of the transferor and the transferee to take, as and when the transferee considers appropriate, all such steps as may be requisite to secure that the vesting in the transferee by virtue of the transfer or pension instrument of any foreign property, right or liability is effective under the relevant foreign law.
(3) Until the vesting in the transferee, by virtue of the transfer or pension instrument, of any foreign property, right or liability is effective under the relevant foreign law, it shall be the duty of the transferor to hold that property or right for the benefit of, or to discharge that liability on behalf of, the transferee.
(4) Nothing in subsections (2) and (3) above shall be taken as prejudicing the effect under the law of any part of the United Kingdom of the vesting in the transferee by virtue of a transfer or pension instrument of any foreign property, right or liability.
(5) The transferor shall have all such powers as may be requisite for the performance of his duty under this section, but it shall be the duty of the transferee to act on behalf of the transferor (so far as possible) in performing the duty imposed on the transferor by this section.
(6) References in this section to any foreign property, right or liability are references to any property, right or liability as respects which any issue arising in any proceedings would have been determined (in accordance with the rules of private international law) by reference to the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
(7) Duties imposed on the transferor or the transferee by this section shall be enforceable in the same way as if the duties were imposed by a contract between the transferor and the transferee.
(8) Any expenses incurred by the transferor under this section shall be met by the transferee.
(9) In this section "transfer or pension instrument" has the same meaning as in section 403 above").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 125:
After Clause 404, insert the following new clause—

REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
(".—(1) Where—

(a) provision is made by or under this Act for the repeal and re-enactment (with or without modifications) of any provision of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, and

(b) the provision as re-enacted ("the new provision") comes into force before the repeal of the provision of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 ("the old provision"),

subsection (2) below shall apply.
(2) Where this subsection applies, the provision that may be made by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of any power to make transitional provision by order under any provision of this Part includes power to make provision—

(a) for any reference to the old provision in any relevant document to be construed as, or as including, a reference to the new provision, or

(b) for anything made or done, or having effect as if made or done, under or by virtue of the old provision, to have effect, to the extent that it could have been made or done under or by virtue of the new provision, as if made or done under or by virtue of the new provision,

notwithstanding that the repeal of the old provision has not come into force.
(3) In subsection (2) above "relevant document" means—

(a) any enactment;

(b) any instrument made under an enactment;

(c) any deed or other instrument;

(d) any agreement;

(e) any document not falling within the other paragraphs of this subsection.

(4) An order under subsection (2) above may make provision—

(a) in relation to all provisions falling within subsection (1)(b) above or such of those provisions as may be specified or described in the order; and

(b) generally or in relation to such cases or circumstances, or such relevant documents or descriptions of relevant documents, as may be so specified or described.

(5) Subsections (6) to (8) below have effect in relation to any agreement made by London Regional Transport under or by virtue of paragraph (a) of section 3(2A) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (whether or not the agreement is a transport subsidiary's agreement or has effect as if made under or by virtue of section 156(3) of this Act by Transport for London).
(6) In the case of any such agreement—

(a) no provision of the agreement shall operate or cease to have effect, and

(b) no rights under the agreement shall operate or become exercisable,

by reason only that a statutory duty exercisable by any body or person ("the predecessor") becomes exercisable instead by another body or person ("the transferee") in consequence of any provision made by or under this Act for the repeal and re-enactment (with or without modifications) of the provision imposing the statutory duty.
(7) Accordingly, any such agreement shall continue in force and have effect as if the predecessor and the transferee were in law the same person and as if there had been no change in the body or person by whom the statutory duty is exercisable.
(8) In any such agreement, or any agreement made in connection with such an agreement, any reference to London Regional Transport's duties under the London Regional Transport Act 1984 shall be taken as including a reference to the corresponding duties of Transport for London or the Authority (whether acting by the Mayor, the Assembly or the Mayor and Assembly acting jointly) under this Act.
(9) This section is without prejudice to—

(a) any power conferred by any other provision of this Act; and

(b) sections 15 to 17 of the Interpretation Act 1978.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 408 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 126 and 127:
Page 247, line 12, at end insert—

("section (Modification of transfer or pension instruments);").

Page 247, line 13, at end insert—

("paragraph 8A(1)(b) of Schedule 17;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 412 [Interpretation]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 249, line 10, at end insert—

(""transport subsidiary's agreement" has the meaning given by section (Meaning of transport subsidiary's agreement)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendments of the Representation of the People Acts]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 129:
686
Page 267, line 37, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 39 and insert (", as respects that election, be disqualified from being elected or being the Mayor of London").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Promotion of Bills in Parliament by the Authority]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 133:
Page 279, line 14, after ("the") insert ("exercise of").
Page 279, line 14, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
Page 279, line 17, after ("the") insert ("exercise of").
Page 279, line 18, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Amendments of the Audit Commission Act 1998]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 134 to 140:
Page 286, line 8, after ("body") insert ("or the London Pensions Fund Authority)").
Page 286, line 28, after ("body") insert ("or the London Pensions Fund Authority").
Page 286, line 34, leave out from ("of) to ("Part") in line 35 and insert ("each of the following bodies, namely—

(a) Transport for London,

(b) the London Development Agency,

(c) the London Pensions Fund Authority,").

Page 286, line 36, leave out ("authority") and insert ("body").
Page 289, line 4, at end insert ("or the London Pensions Fund Authority").
Page 289, line 7, leave out ("functional").
Page 289, line 15, after ("body") insert ("or the London Pensions Fund Authority").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Miscellaneous powers of Transport for London]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 141 to 147:
Page 297, line 10, after ("Act") insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
Page 299, line 47, at end insert ("or of any transport subsidiary's agreement").
Page 300, line 28, after ("Act") insert ("or under a transport subsidiary's agreement").
Page 300, line 33, after ("Act") insert ("or of a transport subsidiary's agreement falling within section (Meaning of transport subsidiary's agreement) (3) above").
Page 302, line 20, at beginning insert ("Subject to subparagraphs (1A) and (1B) below,").
Page 302, line 22, at end insert—
("(1A) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to any landing place for which the Port of London Authority have power to make byelaws under section 161 of the Port of London Act 1968 (byelaws for port premises).
(1B) No byelaw made by Transport for London under sub-paragraph (1) above shall conflict or interfere with the operation of any byelaw made by the Port of London Authority under section 162(1)(b) or (e) of the Port of London Act 1968 (Thames byelaws).").
Page 303, line 38, at end insert ("or of any transport subsidiary's agreement").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Transport for London transfer schemes]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 304, line 18, leave out (", and no right to terminate or vary a contract,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to the amendments grouped with it. These amendments do the parallel job in relation to post-establishment transfers to the previous block of amendments. They seek to amend Schedule 12 in order to ensure that the transfers respect contractual and other arrangements that are in place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 149 to 152:
Page 304, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) No right to terminate or vary a contract or instrument shall operate or become exercisable, and no provision of a contract or relevant document shall operate or become exercisable or be contravened, by reason of any transfer by virtue of a transfer scheme or by virtue of an instrument or agreement made in connection with a transfer scheme.").
Page 304, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
("(3) For purposes connected with any transfers (including transfers of rights and liabilities under an enactment) made by virtue of a transfer scheme, or by virtue of an instrument or agreement made in connection with a transfer scheme, a body or person to which anything is transferred by any such transfer is to be treated as the same person in law as the body or person from which that thing is transferred, except as otherwise provided in the transfer scheme, instrument or agreement.").
Page 304, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
Page 304, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) In this paragraph, "relevant document" means—

(a) any enactment, other than an enactment contained in this Act;

(b) any subordinate legislation made otherwise than under this Act; or

(c) any deed or other instrument.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Promotion of Bills in Parliament by Transport for London]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 153 to 156:
Page 309, line 17, after ("the") insert ("exercise of").
Page 309, line 17, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
Page 309, line 20, after ("the") insert ("exercise of").
Page 309, line 21, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 16 [The free travel scheme]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 322, line 51, at end insert ("or who has entered into a transport subsidiary's agreement)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Penalty fares]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 158 and 159:
Page 324, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
688
Page 325, line 31, after ("Act") insert (", or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 329, line 18, at end insert—
("Power to apply Schedule to certain other train services
8A.—(1) This paragraph applies to any services for the carriage of passengers by railway which do not fall within paragraph 2(1) above but which—

(a) are provided wholly within Greater London; and

(b) are services, or services of a class or description, designated in an order made by the Secretary of State as services in relation to which this paragraph is to apply;

and in the following provisions of this paragraph any such services are referred to as "qualifying train services".
(2) The Mayor may, on the application of a person who provides qualifying train services, by order provide that this Schedule shall apply, from such date and with such modifications as may be specified in the order, to qualifying train services provided by that person.
(3) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (2) above includes power, exercisable in the same manner and subject to the same conditions and limitations, to revoke, amend or re-enact any such order.
(4) Without prejudice to sub-paragraph (3) above, an order under sub-paragraph (2) above may specify circumstances in which the order shall cease to have effect before the expiry of any period specified in such an order.
(5) An order under sub-paragraph (2) above, and any order revoking, amending or re-enacting such an order, may contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as may appear to the Mayor to be necessary or expedient.
(6) Where a person makes an application for an order under sub-paragraph (2) above, or for an order revoking, amending or re-enacting such an order, the Mayor may recover from that person payments in respect of the administrative costs reasonably incurred in connection with—

(a) the application, and

(b) if an order is made as a result of the application, the making of the order,

not exceeding £5,000 in the aggregate.
(7) The Mayor shall secure that any order under sub-paragraph (2) above, and any order revoking, amending or re-enacting any such order, is printed and published.
(8) A fee may be charged for the sale of an order printed and published under sub-paragraph (7) above.
(9) Where any services become qualifying services by virtue of an order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, any order which—

(a) is contained in a statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State,

(b) makes provision for or in connection with the imposition of penalty fares on passengers travelling on those services, and

(c) is in force immediately before this paragraph begins to apply to the services by virtue of the order under sub-paragraph (1)(b) above,

may, so far as relating to those services, be revoked under this paragraph as if it were an order under sub-paragraph (2) above.
(10) This paragraph applies in relation to a tramway as it applies in relation to a railway.
(11) In this paragraph "railway" and "tramway" have the meaning given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 161:
After Schedule 21, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE STOPPING UP ORDERS BY LONDON COUNCILS

  Highways Act 1980
  1.—(1) Section 125 of the Highways Act 1980 (further powers to stop up private access to premises) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) after "Minister" there shall be inserted "or London Borough".
  (3) In subsection (4) after "Minister" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of a London borough".

  2. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 shall be amended as follows.

  Highways affected by development: orders
  3.—(1) Section 247 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (Secretary of State's power to authorise stopping up or diversion of highway) after "highway" there shall be inserted "outside Greater London".
  (3) In subsection (2) (Secretary of State's power to provide or improve other highways) after "highway" there shall be inserted "outside Greater London".
  (4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) The council of a London borough may by order authorise the stopping up or diversion of any highway within the borough, or within another London borough if the council of that borough consents, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to enable development to be carried out—

  (a) in accordance with planning permission granted under Part III, or

  (b) by a government department.

  (2B) Such an order may make such provision as appears to the council to be necessary or expedient for the provision or improvement of any other highway within the borough.".
  (5) In subsection (3) (orders directing that highway to be maintainable at public expense etc) for "Such an order" there shall be substituted "An order under subsection (1) or (2A)".
  (6) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
  "(3A) An order under subsection (2A) may not provide that—

  (a) the Secretary of State

  (b) Transport for London, or

  (c) a London borough other than the one whose council is making the order,

  shall be the highway authority for a highway unless the Secretary of State, Transport for London or the council, as the case may be, so consents.".
  (7) In subsection (4) (incidental provision in an order) after "Secretary of State" in both places where it occurs there shall be inserted "or the council of the London borough".
  (8) In subsection (6)(a) (order making power to be without prejudice other similar powers) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or a London borough".

  Highways crossing or entering route of proposed new highway
  4.—(1) Section 248 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (Secretary of State's power to stop up or divert a highway affected by construction or improvement of another highway) after ''applies" there shall be inserted "and the place where the other highway crosses or enters the route of the main highway or is otherwise affected is outside Greater London".
  (3) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) Where this section applies and the place where the other highway crosses or enters the route of the main highway or is otherwise affected is within a London borough, if it appears to the council of that borough expedient to do so—

  (a) in the interests of the safety of users of the main highway; or

  (b) to facilitate the movement of traffic on the main highway,

  it may by order authorise the stopping up or diversion of the other highway.".
  (4) In subsection (3) (application of section 247 to orders under section 248)—

  (a) after "Subsections (2)" there shall be inserted "and (2B)",

  (b) for "subsection (2)" there shall be substituted "subsections (2) and (2B)".

  Order extinguishing right to use vehicles on highway
  5.—(1) Section 249 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)(b) (cases where section 249 applies) after "trunk road" there shall be inserted ", a GLA road".
  (3) At the beginning of subsection (2) (Secretary of State's power to extinguish rights to use a highway affected by improvement of amenity of area) there shall be inserted "Where the public is to cease to have such a right of way at a place outside Greater London,".
  (4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) Where—

  (a) the public is to cease to have such a right of way at a place within a London borough, and

  (b) the conditions mentioned in subsection (2B)(a) or (b) are satisfied,

  the council of that borough may by order provide for the extinguishment of any right which persons may have to use vehicles on that highway.
  (2B) The conditions are that—

  (a) the council is a local planning authority for the place where the right of way is to cease and it resolves that the right should be extinguished, or

  (b) another authority is a local planning authority for that place and, having resolved to do so, it applies to the council of the borough for the right to be extinguished.".

  (5) In subsection (3) (power to provide for continuance of specified rights on highway where general right of use is extinguished)—

  (a) after "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted "or (2A)", and

  (b) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough".

  (6) In subsection (5) (order under section 249 not to be prejudiced by any other enactment) after "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted "or (2A)".
  (7) In subsection (6) (revocation of order under section 249 upon application by local planning authority)—

  (a) after "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted "or (2A)",

  (b) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the borough",

  (c) for "he" in the first place where it occurs there shall be substituted "the Secretary of State or council", and

  (d) for "he does so" there shall be substituted "the order is revoked".

  (8) In subsection (8) (requirement for local planning authority to consult before applying for order to be revoked) after "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted ", (2A)".
  (9) In subsection (9) (application of section 247 to order made under section 249) after "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted (2B)".

  Compensation for orders under section 249
  6.—(1) Section 250 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (right to compensation for those with an interest in land affected by an order under section 249) after "section 249(2)" there shall be inserted "or (2A)".

  Procedure for making of orders
  7.—(1) Section 252 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (requirement to publicise proposals in certain newspapers)—

  (a) after "Secretary of State" in the first place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of a London borough", and

  (b) after "Secretary of State" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough".".

  (3) In subsection (2) (requirement to serve details of proposals on certain local and other authorities) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough".
  (4) In subsection (3) (requirement to display details of proposals at highway concerned) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough".
  (5) In subsection (4) (requirement to hold local inquiry if objection made)—

  (a) after "Secretary of State" in the first place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough,

  (b) for "him" there shall be substituted "to the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the council", and

  (c) for "unless subsection (5) applies the Secretary of State shall cause a local inquiry to be held" there shall be substituted—

  "(a) in a case where the Secretary of State is proposing to make an order, he shall cause a local inquiry to be held unless subsection (5) applies, or

  (b) in a case where the council of a London borough is proposing to make an order, it shall notify the Mayor of London of the objections and shall cause a local inquiry to be held unless subsection (5A) applies.".

  (6) In subsection (5) (power to dispense with local inquiry in certain circumstances) after "where" there shall be inserted "the Secretary of State is proposing to make an order and".
  (7) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
  "(5A) In a case where—

  (a) the council of a London borough is proposing to make the order,

  (b) the council has under subsection (4)(b) notified the Mayor of London of the objections, and

  (c) none of the objections notified is made by such a local authority or undertakers or transporter as are mentioned in that subsection,

  the Mayor of London shall decide whether, in the special circumstances of the case, the holding of such an inquiry is unnecessary, and if he decides that it is unnecessary he shall so notify the council which may dispense with the inquiry."
  (8) In subsection (6) (application of other statutory provisions to local inquiry held under section 252) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the council of a London borough".
  (9) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
  "(6A) In their application to an inquiry caused to be held by the council of a London borough—
  692

  (a) subsection (4) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall be treated as if—

  (i) for the reference to a Minister there were substituted a reference to the council of a London borough,

  (ii) for the reference to him there were substituted a reference to the council,

  (iii) for the reference to he there were substituted a reference to the council acting with the consent of the Mayor of London, and

  (iv) for the references to the Minister there were substituted references to the council of the London borough, and

  (b) subsection (5) of that section shall be treated as if—

  (i) for the reference to the Minister there were substituted a reference to the council of a London borough, and

  (ii) the power to make to make an order as to the costs of parties were subject to a requirement to act with the consent of the Mayor of London.

  (10) In subsection (8) (making of order) before "After" there shall be inserted "Where the Secretary of State is proposing to make an order,".
  (11) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
  "(8A) Where the council of a London borough is proposing to make an order, after—

  (a) considering any objections to the order which are not withdrawn, and

  (b) where a local inquiry is held—

  (i) considering the report of the person who held the inquiry, and

  (ii) obtaining the consent of the Mayor of London to the making of the order,

  the council may, subject to subsection (9), make the order either without modification or subject to such modification as it thinks fit.".
  (12) In subsection (10) (requirement to publicise making of order) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough".
  (13) After subsection (10) there shall be inserted—
  "(10A) Nothing in subsection (2) shall require the council of a London borough to serve anything on itself."

  Procedure in anticipation of planning permission
  8.—(1) Section 253 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (power to publish certain orders in draft before planning permissions making the orders necessary are granted)—

  (a) after "Secretary of State" in the first place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or the council of a London borough", and

  (b) after "Secretary of State" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, the council of the London borough".

  (3) In subsection (5) (saving of restriction on power to make order until planning permission granted) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the council of a London borough".

  Temporary highway orders: mineral workings
  9.—(1) Section 261 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (Secretary of State's power to order stopping up or diversion of highway for working of minerals)—

  (a) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the council of a London borough", and

  693

  (b) after "him" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be. the council".

  (3) In subsection (3) (additional provision in order under section 261)—

  (a) for "or, as the case may be," there shall be substituted ", the council of the London borough or", and

  (b) after "authority" there shall be inserted "(as the case may be)".")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in response to a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, with regard to a new schedule which would provide for the devolution of stopping-up order powers to London boroughs. I undertook to clarify the situation and to return to the matter at Third Reading. I am grateful to the noble Earl for identifying a potential defect in the schedule.
  Having considered carefully the points raised by the noble Earl, we have agreed that two of them—namely, those related to costs at inquiries and confirmation by the mayor—require the wording to be revised. I have written to the noble Earl explaining why we do not consider that the other matters require changes to the text. Copies of that letter have been placed in the Library and the Printed Paper Office. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for two things. First, I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to take away the amendment on Report. Secondly, and perhaps more important, I am grateful to him for recognising that the drafting may have been defective because I should not wish to develop a reputation for falsely making such claims. I have residual concerns but I think we need to move on and I am content.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 22 [Road user charging]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 162:
  Page 349, line 21, at end insert—
  ("(5) In applying the net proceeds of charging schemes, the Authority, Transport for London or London borough councils, as the case may be, shall have regard to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 163, 164 and 165. They are two pairs of amendments to Schedules 22 and 23, the schedules which deal with the congestion charging and workplace parking charges.
  I have given the Minister notice of my concerns which have led to the tabling of the amendments. The amendments seek to delete from the paragraphs in the schedules dealing with the applications of the proceeds of the schemes that they may be applied only for purposes which provide value for money. That is not because we on these Benches are against value for money; far from it. But we are concerned that as there is no definition of "value for money", to provide such a requirement seems to open up the possibilities of challenges to the schemes on a fairly subjective basis. We should not wish to see schemes which should be supported threatened in, perhaps, a rather mischievous fashion.
  I have tabled amendments to provide alternatives; namely, that the bodies concerned should have regard to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999. As your Lordships will recall, that is the Act which requires local authorities to achieve best value. "Best value" is, of course, defined and dealt with at some length within that legislation. It seemed to me that that is perhaps a better way in which to approach the matter rather than having an unspecific requirement in relation to value for money.
  Perhaps the Minister will explain to the House how value for money will be assessed in the context of the Bill; what discretion the authority, Transport for London and the boroughs will have, given that they must achieve value for money, as undefined; and also, and importantly, what steps are open to a member of the public who does not believe that value for money is being achieved by the scheme in question; and if there is such a challenge, what effect that may have on a scheme generating income.
  As I said, we are not at all against value for money. But we believe that the matter needs to be dealt with in a way which is certain. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand the point which the noble Baroness makes but I do not consider that her amendments advance that argument. On the one hand, the deletion of references to "value for money" would mean that there were no criteria, even in the broad brush terms which "value for money" suggests, against which those schemes could be judged. Clearly, the setting of financial performance targets and recording achievement against those targets through an independent audit process ensures that local residents receive information and quality services as a result. Therefore, we need to keep some reference to that.
  The duty of best value already applies to all the authorities under the Local Government Act 1999. The wording in that Act is more stringent than that proposed by the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. The GLA, Transport for London, the borough councils and so forth are already subject to the best value regime and do not simply have to have regard to that regime.
  The present position, with reference to the Local Government Act, is a clearer and a more consistent position than the combination of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my question about what steps are open to a member of the public who challenges a scheme on best value for money. Perhaps the Minister can help me further.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, in terms of making challenges, it is a question of what information is available to a member of the public or anybody else to check whether the local authority is performing against the criteria which may well be set by an independent audit process. The remedies to that are, by and large. through the ballot box, unless we are talking about an actual breach of fiduciary duty, or something of that nature. That is covered by existing legislation.

  695
  Of course, there are powers available to the Secretary of State, of which the noble Baroness is well aware, to give a member of the public such information and, therefore, the ability to judge objectively the performance of the council in the light of that information. That is important.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, of course I accept that targets, performance indicators, proper auditing and so on are important matters. I do not challenge any of those. I suspect that the best value duty would apply whether we said this or not. I am still left with the fact that I do not understand what "value for money" means if there is a best value duty. I fear there may be an inconsistency as a result of including the provision. I hope that I am not proved right. I fear a problem. However, I have heard the assurances of the Minister, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
  10.15 p.m.
  Schedule 23 [Workplace parking levy]:
  [Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 not moved.]
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 166, I have to inform the House that on Division No. 4, on Amendment No. 72, the numbers who voted Not Content were 133 and not 134 as previously announced.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for that correction.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 166:
  Page 368, line 7, at end insert—

  Evidence
  . Regulations may make provision for or in connection with permitting evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence under this Schedule, or proceedings in respect of a failure to comply with the provisions of a licensing scheme, to be given by the production of—

  (a) a record produced by a prescribed device; and

  (b) a certificate (whether in the same or another document) as to the circumstances in which the record was produced signed by a prescribed person.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 166 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to determine what will be admissible as evidence in civil and criminal proceedings where workplace parking charges have not been complied with, on the assumption that the mayor would proceed with such a scheme.
  An identical provision is already included in relation to road-user charging and this amendment continues the provision across to workplace parking levies. It will ensure that the evidence that can be presented in a court of law is well-founded. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 24 [Further amendments of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 167:
  Page 374. line 29, at end insert—
  ("(7) In paragraph 5(1) (section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 to apply to employees of regional development agencies) at the end there shall be added "other than the London Development Agency (for whose employees corresponding provision is made by section 382(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999)".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton) moved Amendments Nos.168–171:
  Page 375, line 40, after ("the") insert ("exercise of").
  Page 375, line 40, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
  Page 375, line 43, after ("the") insert ("exercise of").
  Page 375, line 44, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 25 [The Metropolitan Police Authority: Schedule 2A to the Police Act 1996]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 172.
  Page 377, line 24, leave out ("3(1)") and insert ("3(1A)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hesitate to say so, following our earlier debates on transition, but this and Amendment No. 177 are two very minor amendments.
  Amendment No. 172 corrects a cross-reference in Schedule 25 to the Bill that needs updating following the consequential amendment passed at Report. The consequential amendment in question, Amendment No.538D, added a new sub-paragraph (1A) to paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the 1996 Police Act, which made specific provision for the MPA independent member selection panel. In particular, it removed the age limit of 70 for membership of that panel, following our removal of age limits for membership of the MPA itself. This new subparagraph (1A) is referred to in what is now paragraph 106(6) of Schedule 26.
  Paragraph 3 of Schedule 25 makes provision for the appointment of independent members of the MPA. In sub-paragraph (6) there is a cross-reference to the independent member selection panel provisions in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the 1996 Act. At present the reference is to paragraph 3(1), but, following the amendment that has been made to that paragraph, the cross-reference should now be to paragraph 3(1A) rather than to paragraph 3(1). Amendment No. 172 rectifies that mistake.
  Amendment No. 177 is a very tiny drafting change to paragraph 104 of Schedule 26 to the Bill, which covers the national and international functions of the Met. In new Section 96B(1), inserted into the Police Act 1996 by that paragraph, there is a repetitious reference to Section 6(1) of the 1996 Act. Amendment No.177 removes that extra reference, which is unnecessary. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No.173.
  Page 384, line 3. lease out ("follows") and insert ("set out in sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) below").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Report stage a number of government amendments were agreed that made changes to the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967. That Act governs the payment of pensions and other benefits to staff who are in the Metropolitan Civil Staffs' Superannuation Scheme (MCSSS).
  In moving those amendments I said that our policy was clear: first, that everyone who had entitlements to benefits under that scheme should retain those entitlements when the Metropolitan Police Authority was established and it took on the employment of the Metropolitan Police civil staff from the Metropolitan Commissioner and Receiver; and, secondly, that the MPA should have the power to continue operation of that scheme.
  I also explained that the amendments were complex and that we might wish to make some changes to them at Third Reading. We have concluded that the wording could be improved upon and we are accordingly moving this group of four related amendments, Amendments Nos.l73–176.
  Before I explain what the amendments do, I should like to emphasise that they simply give better effect to the above-stated policy. They do not alter that policy. No one will lose benefits as a result of these changes.
  In making amendments to the 1967 Act to reflect the creation of the MPA, we need to ensure that all individuals who are currently employed or have been employed either under the Commissioner or Receiver or as an Inner London justices' clerk, but who are not so employed on 3rd July 2000, do not lose any benefits to which they have become entitled under the MCSSS scheme.
  The amendments passed at Report attempted to achieve this by including such staff as well as staff who on 3rd July 2000 are Inner London justices' clerks or who become MPA employees within the definition of a "member of the metropolitan civil staffs". Those are the people to whom benefits become payable under the MCSSS.
  The difficulty with this approach is that it makes for a confusing definition of who is a,
  "member of the metropolitan civil staffs".
  In particular, it combines both the present and past tenses whereas the definition in the existing Section 15 of the 1967 Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act uses only the present tense. This mixture of tenses could have had unwanted side effects. We therefore decided on a slightly different approach. This approach is to have a new definition of,
  "member of the metropolitan civil staffs",
  which relates solely to current employees. It is confined to MPA employees and serving Inner London magistrates' courts staff. This is achieved by Amendment No. 174.
  The entitlement to benefits accrued under the MCSSS by staff who are not current employees on 3rd July 2000 and who are not therefore within this definition will instead be preserved by savings provided for in this group of amendments. These savings are set out in Amendment No. 176, which adds four new sub-paragraphs to paragraph 20 of Schedule 26. New sub-paragraph (10) defines the set of staff who will benefit from these savings provisions; namely, persons who cease to be members of the metropolitan civil staffs before what will be Section 305 of the Greater London Authority Act comes into force. That provision is the one which establishes the MPA. Any such staff who have entitlements to benefits under the MCSSS will, by virtue of new sub-paragraph (7), continue to receive their benefits as if the changes made to Section 15 of the 1967 Act had not taken place.
  Sub-paragraph (8) simply provides that any benefits paid to that category of staff will be paid by the MPA, not by the receiver. Sub-paragraph (9) provides for the limited circumstances under which this category of staff might be moved off the MCSSS. Those circumstances are if they are transferred under powers in the Access to Justice Act or the Greater London Authority Act, which would most likely happen if they were to be transferred to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. As the MCSSS is by-analogy to the PCSPS, this would not result in any loss of benefits.
  Amendment No. 173 is purely consequential upon Amendment No. 176. The final amendment in this group is Amendment No. 175. This plugs a minor gap in new subsection (2D) of Section 15 of the 1967 Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, as inserted by the amendments passed on Report. That subsection sets out the limited circumstances under which staff might be moved off the MCSSS. One of those circumstances is if powers in the Access to Justice Act are exercised to transfer Inner London justices' clerks on to a new pension scheme. As presently drafted, subsection (2D) identifies one power which could be used to effect such a transfer—paragraph 36 of Schedule 14. However, it is also possible that an order-making power contained in the new Section 50 of the 1997 Justices of the Peace Act, as inserted by paragraph 13 of Schedule 12 to the Access to Justice Act, might be used. Amendment No. 175 therefore adds this reference.
  I hope that the above provides a reasonably clear explanation of what these amendments achieve. I know your Lordships followed every word. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the Minister's explanation. These are important issues. We are discussing people's pensions and we are grateful for the effort the Minister made in explaining the need for the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 174 to 177:
  Page 384, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("for sub-paragraph (i) there shall be substituted—

  "(i) who is employed by the Metropolitan Police Authority;".").

  Page 384, line 39, after ("1972,") insert ("section 50 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997,").
  Page 384, line 52, at end insert—
  ("(7) Nothing in sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) above shall affect the application of section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 in relation to any person falling within subparagraph (10) below.
  (8) A pension or other benefit granted or continued to be paid to or in respect of a person by virtue of sub-paragraph (7) above shall be granted or paid by the Metropolitan Police Authority, and accordingly section 15(2)(a) of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 shall not apply in relation to such a person.
  (9) Section 15(2)(b) of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 shall apply in relation to a person falling within sub-paragraph (10) below as if for the words from the beginning to "in respect of members of the metropolitan civil staffs" there were substituted—

  "(b) unless the powers conferred by paragraph 36 of Schedule 14 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 or Part XII of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 are exercised for the purpose of making provision with respect to the provision of pensions for or in respect of members of the metropolitan civil staffs, the civil service provisions shall have effect (subject to any regulations for the time being in force under subsection (3) of this section) for the purposes of the grant of pensions and other benefits under this section to or in respect of such a member".

  (10) A person falls within this sub-paragraph if he ceased to be a member of the metropolitan civil staffs for the purposes of section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 before the day on which section 305 above comes into force.").
  Page 399, line 28, leave out ("6(1)") and insert ("6").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  10.30 p.m.
  Schedule 30 [Transfer schemes]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 178 and 179:
  Page 420, line 17, at end insert—
  ("( ) A transfer scheme may make provision for transfers to take effect at such time of day as may be specified in the scheme.").
  Page 421, line 41, at end insert—
  ("( ) A transfer scheme may make different provision for different purposes.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 180:
  After Schedule 30, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT PENSION ETC SCHEMES

  Interpretation
  1.—(1) In this Schedule—

  "employment" means employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) and related expressions shall be construed accordingly;

  700

  "LRT pension scheme" means any occupational pension scheme for the provision of pensions for or in respect of persons with service in the employment of London Regional Transport or a subsidiary of London Regional Transport (whether or not pensions may also be provided under the scheme for or in respect of persons without such service);

  "LRT welfare scheme" means a scheme (other than a pension scheme) for the provision, whether directly or indirectly, of benefits for or in respect of persons with service in the employment of London Regional Transport or a subsidiary of London Regional Transport (whether or not benefits may also be provided under the scheme for or in respect of persons without such service);

  "occupational pension scheme" has the meaning given in section I of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;

  "order" means an order made by the Secretary of State under section 402(1) of this Act;

  "prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, an order.

  (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above, expressions used in this Schedule and in section 402 of this Act have the same meaning in this Schedule as they have in that section.
  Amendment of LRT pension schemes
  2.—(1) In the case of any LRT pension scheme, the provision that may be made by order under section 402(1) of this Act includes provision for or in connection with—

  (a) the allocation of assets, rights, liabilities or obligations between different sections of the scheme;

  (b) securing that the scheme continues to be approved for the purposes of the relevant enactments, notwithstanding any transfers made by or under this Act.

  (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "the relevant enactments" means—

  (a) Chapter I of Part XIV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (retirement benefit schemes); and

  (b) Part III of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, so far as relating to occupational pension schemes.

  Protection of pension arrangements of transferred employees
  3.—(1) For the purposes of this paragraph. a "protected person" is a person—

  (a) who, as a result of any prescribed relevant transaction. becomes, or since 20th March 1998 has become, an employee of a private sector company; and

  (b) who, immediately before becoming such an employee, was an employee of London Regional Transport or a subsidiary of London Regional Transport.

  (2) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the purpose of securing that no protected person (and, accordingly, no person who is or may become entitled to a pension in respect of a protected person) ceases to be overall in materially at least as good a position, as respects pension arrangements, as a result of—

  (a) the relevant transaction by reason of which the protected person is such a person; or

  (b) any pensions order made in connection with that relevant transaction.

  (3) The provision that may be made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above is provision for the purpose of securing that a protected person has the right—

  (a) for so long as the appropriate conditions are satisfied, to continue to participate as a contributing member in any prescribed LRT pension scheme in which he was participating as such a member immediately before the relevant transaction, and

  (b) for so long as his period of continuous employment is not broken, to participate as a contributing member in a pension scheme under which the benefits to be provided to or in respect of him are overall materially at least as

  701
  good as those provided under any prescribed LRT scheme in which he was participating as a contributing member immediately before the relevant transaction,

  subject to any provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (6) below.
  (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(a) above, "the appropriate conditions" are—

  (a) that the protected person continues to be a person employed in the London underground railway industry (whether or not with the same employer); and

  (b) that any prescribed conditions with respect to continuity of employment are satisfied in his case.

  (5) The provision that may be made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above includes provision for or in connection with the level of funding which is to be maintained in the case of any pension scheme of a prescribed description so far as relating to protected persons.
  (6) An order made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above may make provision for such orders to cease to have effect in the case of any protected person if—

  (a) he voluntarily withdraws from an occupational pension scheme, or

  (b) he requests that his pension rights be transferred from an occupational pension scheme,

  except in such circumstances or to such extent as may be prescribed.
  (7) Circumstances may be prescribed in which—

  (a) a break in the continuity of a person's period of employment,

  (b) a person's ceasing to be a person employed in the London underground railway industry, or

  (c) a person's voluntary withdrawal from an occupational pension scheme,

  shall be disregarded for prescribed purposes of this paragraph.
  (8) Chapter I of Part XIV of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (continuous employment) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that Act.
  (9) For the purposes of this paragraph—

  (a) the persons who are to be regarded as "employed in the London underground railway industry" are those who are employed to carry on activities of a class or description specified for the purposes of this subparagraph in an order made by the Secretary of State; and

  (b) the Secretary of State may so specify any class or description of activity which, in his opinion, falls within, or is related to or connected with, the London underground railway industry.

  (10) In this paragraph—

  "contributing member", in the case of any pension scheme, means a member who makes, and whose employer makes in respect of him, contributions under the scheme;

  "pensions order" means an order made otherwise than by virtue of this paragraph;

  "private sector company" means any company other than a public sector operator, within the meaning of Chapter VII of Part IV of this Act;

  "relevant transaction" means—

  (a) a transfer of shares in a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to a private sector company; or

  (b) a transfer of rights and liabilities under a contract of employment.

  Power to dispense with consent of trustees
  4. If the Secretary of State makes provision under this Act for or in connection with—

  (a) enabling employees of Transport for London, or of a subsidiary of Transport for London, to participate in an LRT pension scheme, or

  (b) enabling Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London to participate as an employer in such a scheme,

  he may by order make provision requiring the trustees of the scheme or any other person whose approval or consent is necessary in connection with the doing of anything required to be done by virtue of the order to give that approval or consent.
  LRT welfare schemes
  5.—(1) The provision that may be made by order under section 402(1) of this Act includes provision with respect to the provision, under an LRT welfare scheme, of benefits for or in respect of persons who are or have been employees of—

  (a) London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of London Regional Transport; or

  (b) Transport for London or any subsidiary of Transport for London.

  (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, the provisions of section 402 of this Act, and of the other paragraphs of this Schedule, shall apply in relation to an LRT welfare scheme as they apply in relation to a pension scheme, but taking references in those provisions to pensions as references to benefits and construing references to pension rights accordingly.
  (3) The Secretary of State may by order amend the memorandum and articles of any company which is the trustee of an LRT welfare scheme for or in connection with permitting directors or shareholders of the company to be persons who are officers or servants of Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London.
  In this sub-paragraph "company", "memorandum" and "articles" have the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985.
  (4) Any powers—

  (a) which were vested in the London Transport Board in relation to an LRT welfare scheme, and

  (b) which have not become vested in London Regional Transport by virtue of a transfer under section 16(1) of the Transport (London) Act 1969 or otherwise,

  shall be deemed to be vested in London Regional Transport by virtue of such a transfer.
  (5) Anything done at any time by or in relation to London Regional Transport—

  (a) before the coming into force of sub-paragraph (4) above, and

  (b) in reliance on any power deemed by that sub-paragraph to be vested in London Regional Transport,

  shall be as valid and effective as if the power had at that time been vested in London Regional Transport.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 31 [Taxation provisions]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 181:
  Page 429, line 20, after ("body,") insert ("or

  (b) to such other body or person as a relevant body may specify in accordance with the PPP agreement,").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 32 [Enactments repealed]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 182:
  Page 431, line 16, at end insert—

  PART IIA

    RAILWAYS
    Chapter

    Short title

    Extent of repeal

    1993 c. viii.

    The London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act 1993.

    Section 3(3) and (6).

    1994 c. xi.

    The Croydon Tramlink Act 1994.

    In section 50, subsection (3), in subsection (7), the words from "and to such person" onwards and subsection (9).")

    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    10.32 p.m.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
    Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Whitty.)
    Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends who have brought their considerable expertise in dealing with this huge Bill to this Dispatch Box, as well as on my own behalf, I should like to thank all of our colleagues who have given us their very welcome support from the Back Benches. I should also like to thank our colleagues outside the House who have given us their invaluable help with research and with the drafting of amendments. Although we and noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have not seen eye to eye over some issues, between us we have succeeded in persuading the Government to make a number of important alterations to a Bill which arrived in your Lordships' House in a completely unsatisfactory state—to use a neutral phrase. I also thank them for the occasions when we were able on to co-operate and support each other.
    I should also like to express my appreciation for the very courteous manner in which the two Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, have handled the brief that the Secretary of State landed them with; and, indeed, for the co-operation of the Government Chief Whip in the timing of the Bill, the stages of which were punctuated by one government Statement after another. We would like to thank all the Ministers who moved various parts of the Bill for the way that they handled the task.
    However, those last few sentences are just about as far as I can go in honesty in congratulating the Government on any aspect of this Bill. The Bill began life on its First Reading in the other place on 2nd December 1998–11 months ago. Five months later, it emerged from the other place swollen, positively bloated, by no fewer than 53 new clauses and six schedules contained in 75 extra pages. I repeat: 75
    704
    extra pages. Very few Bills are 75 pages long, but here we had 75 pages of amendments before this Bill had even left the other place.
    The Bill reached your Lordships' House twice the size of the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act combined. In describing the Bill on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave us a health warning. He said:
    "No doubt there will be other amendments to clarify and elaborate our policy … many of the amendments we bring forward could be detailed".—[Official Report, 20/5/99; col. 447.]
    That was a masterpiece of understatement. According to our researchers, this Bill is by far the largest Bill ever to come before Parliament. The number of government amendments, which I shall also mention elsewhere, is an absolute record.
    Between the Second Reading in your Lordships' House and the end of the Committee stage, a further 32 clauses contained in 26 pages were added to the Bill, apart from the innumerable modifications to other existing clauses. I am afraid that I do not have the research resources to enable me to count how many of the new amendments were government amendments to their own Bill. It is sufficient to say that we have been faced at every stage with a shower—indeed, a positive blizzard—of further government amendments.
    Over the Summer Recess, the Government introduced some 218 amendments to be dealt with on Report. Despite the fact that Ministers did their very best by faxing them to Opposition Peers before the House resumed, we and the Liberal Democrat spokesman had only a day or two to consider quite lengthy and very complex amendments. Indeed it did not even end there. More amendments piled in during the five sittings spread over the 13 days that the Report stage took. By the end of the Report stage we had added a further 51 clauses and five new schedules contained in yet another 85 pages.
    Even that is not the end of it because about 120 more last-minute government amendments had to be introduced at Third Reading, including about 20 new clauses and two more schedules. Over 860 government amendments have been added to this Bill since it left the other place. That is not merely legislating on the hoof; we believe that it is even the Government making some of it up as they go along. I have to say—I said this before earlier this evening—that some of the matters that came before us at Third Reading were an absolute disgrace. Some amendments for the Report stage arrived so late and were so complex that even the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who had the unenviable task of presenting them to your Lordships, was unable to get himself properly briefed so as to be able to explain them to noble Lords, particularly to my noble friend Lord Lucas, who questioned him about their meaning. The poor noble Lord, Lord Whitty, had to suffer the indignity of having to promise to write to absolutely everyone with an explanation. I suspect that a whole tree has had to be felled somewhere to comply with that promise!

    705
    We are all aware that the phrase, "I shall write to you", is a euphemism for, "I do not have the foggiest idea of the answer". That is no position for a Minister conducting an important Bill through the House to have the misfortune to find himself in. However, the effect was that the House was asked to pass amendments which it did not understand and which at the same time the Minister could not explain.
    Your Lordships' House is not a place where whatever ill drafted, ill conceived and often undebated legislation that the other place may churn out is just rubber stamped here. Nor is it, or will it be, even after the passing of the House of Lords Bill, the poodle of the government of the day, whatever its political complexion. The Minister had to suffer the further embarrassment of having to withdraw amendments with a view to bringing them back at Third Reading when they could be dealt with in an adequate manner.
    I say at once that I accept that many of the amendments introduced on Report and at Third Reading were perfectly proper ones where the Government were honouring pledges to deal with problems revealed by noble Lords on both sides of the House, and others were the normal "housekeeping" ones consequential on earlier ones. When we reached the Third Reading today, as I have just mentioned, two whole new schedules dealing with the important but complex matters of highways and pensions for London Regional Transport had to be introduced for the very first time, as well as pages of complicated amendments on other transport aspects.
    The Government were unable to complete the drafting of these important provisions until the end of last week and we received them only on Friday. It is obvious how important and elementary matters such as these could have been overlooked until the 59th minute of the 11th hour of a Bill that had all but passed through all its stages in both Houses. It is obvious because there have been no fewer than four transport Ministers in the life of this Government. They last an average of just over four months each, barely enough time to read themselves into their jobs.
    The explanation for the way that this mammoth Bill has been botched is quite clear: the Bill itself is far too large. It is clear from my reading of debates in Committee in another place that, as so often occurs, large parts of the Bill were merely nodded through. The Bill should have been divided into more appropriate bites—separate Bills, that is. Matters involving too many different departments were included so that one by one, when they eventually discovered that their interests were affected, they jumped in to get their particular concerns covered. Why were they not involved earlier, before the Bill thudded down onto the table in the first place? Clearly the Department of the Environment is not aware of the six P's principle: proper prior planning prevents poor performance. The result was that we were left trying to
    706
    manufacture a large, crazy patchwork quilt where all the pieces of fabric came from different sources while some parts were left out altogether leaving holes which may not have been filled, even at this last stage.
    There are inconsistencies in the tenor of the Bill. Some parts were so vague as to be meaningless. For example, Clause 47 provides for what is called in luvvy speak "the annual state of the London debate", open to all members of the public. Unfortunately, the Government forgot—until we reminded them—to provide for members of the public to be allowed to attend to speak, or even to require the mayor to attend. On the other side, as a result of a minute piece of detail, the mayor is required to reply to letters from members of the assembly within three days.
    There is a saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee; this Bill has not been designed by anyone. There is a Chinese dish called, in Cantonese, "chop suey". It means "bits and pieces". Who is responsible for the dish of chop suey that Parliament has just had to digest?
    There has been absolutely no co-ordination of all of its different aspects from the lead Minister, who we assume to be Mr Nick Raynsford. One of his tasks was to prepare the job specification and provide for the powers of the mayor—a position for which he later briefly sought his party's nomination. That would have been a serious case of conflict of interests had he not suddenly been usurped as the Prime Minister's anointed one by Mr Frank Dobson. Mr Raynsford had to content himself with being Mr Dobson's campaign manager.
    Here there is another possible conflict of interests—not merely in formulating the contents of the Bill but also, in the unlikely event of Mr Dobson winning, where will be the arm's distance between the mayor and the Government? How independent will Mayor Dobson be from the Government, and vice versa?
    A finger in the pie was provided also by Transport Minister Glenda Jackson, who resigned ahead of an imminent Cabinet reshuffle to spend more time with her candidacy. She was but one of the four Transport Ministers since the Government came into power, and the best they have been able to do for London Transport is to preside over the 43 per cent fares increase which was announced last week.
    It is no use for the Government to follow their usual course of blaming their officials for the mess that this Bill has turned out to be. I understand that the parliamentary draftsmen have been working flat out in trying to cope with the afterthoughts and omissions, and demands for amendments, new clauses and new schedules from their political masters.
    President Truman had a plaque on his desk saying "The buck stops here". In this case the buck not only stops but starts with Mr Secretary Prescott, who proudly had his name at the top of the list when the Bill

    707
    was presented to the other place all those months ago. He has taken unto his ample bosom the portfolios of Environment, Transport and the Regions, a group of individually large responsibilities far beyond his personal capability. It is a perfect example of the Peter principle. He is also the Deputy Prime Minister, which I sincerely trust is merely a sinecure; otherwise I shall be compelled to pray daily for the well-being of the Prime Minister in case, heaven forbid, Mr Prescott should have to take over his responsibilities, even temporarily.
    The Bill is an attempt to reform local government but with the practical needs of London shackled by all kinds of politically motivated obstacles, which have led the Government to insist on some of the bizarre anomalies that we have pointed out through the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I have to confess that we on this side of the House are starting a sweepstake from this evening as to the date on which the Government will have to come back to Parliament with an amending Bill or perhaps amendments slipped into other Bills.
    This is not the only Bill where the Government have got into similar trouble. During the Report stage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, had to apologise for,
    "the number of amendments which have come so late".
    He gave three explanations and had the very good grace—which is characteristic of his personal integrity—to admit,
    "they do not explain the huge volume of amendments which came late".—[Official Report, 18/10/99; col. 750.]
    He wished that they had come earlier and he apologised to your Lordships.
    Despite its many defects and everything that I have now said, we shall not oppose the passing of the Bill. However, I do hope that in reply the Minister, who is equally as gracious as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will follow his colleague's example and offer a full and unequivocal apology—not personally, because he has no need to apologise personally—on behalf of the Government for the disgraceful and inept way that this Bill has been dealt with and will undertake that this will not be repeated in the mountain of Bills with which I understand we are threatened in the forthcoming Session.
    10.45 p.m.
    Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have written down that I should thank colleagues, and by that I mean colleagues on all sides of the House, including the officials, because I feel that we are something akin to comrades-in-arms, having got through the various stages of this Bill. I will only spend a moment or two on this. I do not suffer from the disadvantage under
    708
    which the noble Baroness started, because I think there were four minutes on the clock before she began her speech, which was perhaps a little unfair.
    On these Benches we are looking forward to London having its own strategic government. We would not have chosen this structure in the first place, and I think we feel even more strongly now than when we started on the course of this Bill that there are real flaws in the structure. We are worried about the "personality politics" that are being imposed on London—inevitably encouraged by the press—and we are worried about the centralising hand of central government, which we think could stifle London's own government.
    Our greatest concern—at any rate the one that I shall express tonight—relates to the way in which we have had to handle the legislation: highly prescriptive legislation. However, I must say that I remain baffled by the rejection of some of the amendments that have been tabled. This is a Bill which is over-written, too large and too detailed. It is a Bill for which, as I said earlier today and on a previous occasion, the Government have been unable to devote anything like adequate resources.
    Our parliamentary procedures simply cannot cope with the sort of Bill, now in two volumes, with which we have been faced. It is customary to say that we believe the Bill leaves this House a better Bill than when it arrived. I think that that is probably so: certainly it is on two major points with which these Benches have been particularly concerned. As regards the equality provisions, we claim credit on our side for pushing those, but we were not alone and the alterations to the Bill could not have been achieved without support from all quarters of the House. On the issue of holding the mayor to account by way of a vote of no confidence and the consequences that that will have, we believe that is important.
    I do not know what the Government intend to do when the Bill goes back to another place, but I do know that this is an important matter which really does need attention. As I have said, we would not have designed the new London authority with this structure, but we believe that it has the capacity to be what its members make of it. From these Benches we wish all of them well.
    Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, the last thing you want at this point is more speeches, but, in supporting the Motion That this Bill do now pass, I should like to say that this is a Bill of great constitutional significance, as important as the debates we had about devolution in the case of Scotland and Wales.
    I believe that at this stage we should recognise the true import of the Bill which is put before us. It does mean that this great metropolis will in future have a government which is directly elected by the people and which combines an elected mayor with an authority in a way which I believe will give London the kind of future which London deserves. I, for one, am very pleased that the Government have insisted in putting

    709
    through a Bill which makes both these points forcefully and clearly.
    One can debate at length the fact that the mayor will not only have a telephone directory but will have a telephone directory-sized Act of Parliament to obey and look at at all points. However, in my view we are giving a crucial part of this great country—the metropolis of London—the government that it deserves. For that reason, I find it very easy indeed to support the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, for the second and, I hope, the last time, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. Normally I am under an injunction not to say too much at this stage, so I shall confine myself to making two points, one personal and one political.
    First, we have spent many hours on the Bill. We listened to the arguments and we have improved its provisions. I regret the lateness of some of the procedures and I recognise that at various points that has inconvenienced several Members of the House. I thank all noble Lords for their patience and forbearance during the passage of the Bill. Had there not been such a spirit of co-operation between the parties, we might have encountered severe difficulties. In that respect, I give particular thanks to the spokespersons for the Opposition parties.
    Secondly, my political point echoes very much the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The passage of the Bill may at times have been a tedious and pernickety exercise, because the provisions are extremely complex. However, for the first time we have brought together in this city, a city in which I, along with the noble Baroness, have spent most of my life, powers over the police authority, transport, strategic planning and culture, building on a whole range of different law. Inevitably that has been a complex process. However, we have achieved it in a way that gives London a new start. The sharp political point to be made here is that we have done this a decade and a half after an act of sheer political vandalism robbed London of its strategic centre, an act which I believe we have all had cause to regret. The Bill represents a new start with a fairly broad base of political support, despite any reservations about the Bill.
    Whoever wins the mayoralty of London, I believe that they now have a good base on which to build. This city deserves to have a good job done for it. The Bill lays strong foundations for the future of London government. Let us look to the future with the May 2000 elections when once again we shall have an authority that all Londoners deserve.
    On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

  Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Bill [H.L.]
  A message was brought from the Commons, that they have made the following orders:
  That the Promoters of the Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session; That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That, no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited during the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

  Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill
  A message was brought from the Commons that they have considered the Lords message of 28th October and have made the following Orders:
  That the Promoters of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
  House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.