HL Deb 01 November 1999 vol 606 cc565-71

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 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 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.

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
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 moved Amendment No. 3: After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—