VACANCY CREATED BY MEMBER RESIGNING PARTY WHIP

HL Deb 01 November 1999 vol 606 cc571-614

(" . 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 8: Page 9, line 8, after ("above,") insert ("or

1. (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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 12: Page 20, line 30, at end insert— ("( ) After each financial year the Authority shall publish a report containing—

1. (a) a statement of the arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) above which had effect during that financial year; and
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 21: Page 29, line 3, at end insert—

• ("(b) a functional body,

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

(6A) Where—

1. (a) the Mayor receives advice from a person falling within paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (6) above, and
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (b) in a document which has been open to inspection by members of the public by virtue of that Part of that Act.

(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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) a member of a functional body, or
2. (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. (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—

1. (a) the Metropolitan Police Authority, or
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) each of the functional bodies; and
2. (b) the London Pensions Fund Authority.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 142 [The Mayor's transport strategy]:

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.

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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 39: Page 98, line 4, at end insert ("or

1. (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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 42: After Clause 168, insert the following new clause—