Lords Sitting of 12 October 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Lord Carlile of Berriew
Alexander Charles Carlile, QC, having been created Baron Carlile of Berriew, of Berriew in the County of Powys, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hooson and the Lord Geraint.

Lord Oxburgh
Sir Ernest Ronald Oxburgh, Knight, having been created Baron Oxburgh, of Liverpool in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Flowers and the Lord Porter of Luddenham.
Earl Cathcart Earl Cathcart—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Penrhyn Lord Penrhyn—Took the Oath.

Directors' Remuneration: DTI Consultative Document
2.50 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to introduce proposals to change company law following consultation on the Department of Trade and Industry consultation document Directors' Remuneration.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry, (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultative document on directors' remuneration on 30th July, which set out the Government's proposals for strengthening the current regulatory and best practice frameworks in this area. The consultation period ends on 29th October. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made clear, we regard this as a key issue, and we will consider implementation of the proposals in the light of the results of the consultation.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on producing the consultative document. However, does my noble friend recall that it has taken the work of three major committees and four years to reach the present stage? Is he aware that there is widespread support for at least some of the proposals contained in the document and
202
a need for urgent implementation of some of them? Will my noble friend be rather more specific about the implementation of legislation? I realise that it is not his responsibility, but perhaps he will say what priority his department places on the matter.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I have made clear, the Secretary of State regards this as a key issue and, furthermore, he is determined to tackle it without waiting for the major review of company law which is taking place. We have set out the proposals clearly in the document. Depending on which ones we select, they will require different combinations of primary and secondary legislation or best practice. When we have decided on those proposals, we shall move forward with the appropriate measures.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister recollect the statement by Margaret Beckett, when she was the first of the three Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, that unless the corporate sector did something voluntarily to curb excesses in directors' remuneration the Government would intervene? Does that remain the Government's policy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I recall the statement. It remains our policy, but we shall take the required action on the basis of the proposals that we believe to be right following consultation. If legislation is required, we shall take legislative action.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is it not the case that the remuneration of directors should be left to companies and that the Government should not interfere—just as I presume they have no intention of interfering in regard to the extraordinarily high salaries that are paid to people such as footballers and pop stars?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, while it is true that many footballers are paid very well, as a whole they do not set their own salaries. It is an important point. Also, even in the case of someone such as David Beckham, there is a rather clear link between performance and payment. The Government have said that it is not the responsibility of government to determine or say what directors' salaries should be. But it is the responsibility of government to set out clearly the framework in which shareholders can responsibly exercise their rights in that connection.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister indicate whether, since the Greenbury Committee Report in 1995, matters have got better or worse, in terms of there being remuneration committees and proper procedures for independent directors to determine remuneration? Are they better or worse?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there has been some progress in setting up remuneration committees, and some other steps have been taken in terms of making them independent. Nevertheless,

203
progress has not been as quick as it should have been. The Department of Trade and Industry commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers in May 1999 to monitor compliance. It found, for example, that, for the financial year December 1998–99, only seven out of 270 quoted companies put the remuneration report forward for shareholder approval. So while progress has been made, there is still some considerable way to go.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will deal with the final point that I made. I acknowledged that it is not the task of his department to arrange legislative business. However, I asked what priority his department, or indeed he himself, places on the matter. For many people, for a Labour Government to tolerate some of the obscene payments that have been made when there is still so much poverty in the country takes some believing.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government believe that this is a key issue. As soon as we have decided which of the proposals in the document are the right ones, we shall move forward with the utmost priority. But we cannot say how we shall handle the matter until we have decided on those proposals.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, can we be told who are the shareholders in the BBC when it comes to settling salaries?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are dealing with the question of quoted companies. Clearly, there are many other bodies in this country which have different arrangements for settling salaries, including those of Members of both Houses.

The Countryside: Policy
2.56 p.m.
Lord Patten Lord Patten asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their policies to promote a better understanding by the urban majority of the minority of people who live in the countryside.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, while recognising acute problems in some of our rural areas, the Government do not rigidly and artificially divide the people of this country into urban and rural. People move between town and country or live in one and work in another. Our policies are designed to benefit all our people wherever they live. Increased mobility, domestic tourism, the mass media, and our programmes to improve education will all promote a better understanding of society by people in both town and country.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, it does not clearly demonstrate that
204
the Government appreciate the growing gulf—and it is not merely a matter of field sports—between people who live in the town, the overwhelming majority, and folk who live in the countryside. Will the Minister recognise that many country people fear that the Government's plans for the countryside will turn it into a theme park for urban people, and will not help to preserve the rural way of life, agriculture and all historic countryside pursuits? If those pursuits were threatened in other parts of the world, I daresay that the Government would be up in arms in protest. What are the Government's plans for the one democratic institution to which some country people feel they can genuinely relate; namely, the parish council? Is it, or is it not, the Government's intention to abolish parish councils in England, Wales and Scotland?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the last point, not. The Government have been discussing rural governance. However, the implications in the media last week that we have plans for abolishing parish councils are complete nonsense. I should like to place that on record. As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, I do not recognise a substantial amount of it. I understand that a certain amount of feeling has been generated and to an extent irresponsibly fanned up regarding this Government and the countryside. We have done more for rural England than any previous government in terms of rural transport and help for agriculture and rural businesses. Any objective assessment of what we have done for rural areas can lead only to the conclusion that we care just as much for our rural population as we do for the population in our towns.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, as regards help for rural businesses, will the noble Lord explain the Government's policy towards small and medium-sized abattoirs, dairy farmers, indeed any farmers, when all these people find their businesses collapsing left, right and centre—and not only the farmers directly but all those who support them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this Government and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture have recognised that there are serious problems within the agricultural sector. Some were brought about by the BSE crisis and its knock-on effects, for which responsibility lies elsewhere than with the present administration. Some of them relate to the international situation. The Government have recognised the problems, particularly of small farmers, and have done much to provide additional income. We recognise that in rural areas, far beyond the numbers employed, agriculture is an important sector. We are seized of the problems and have done our best, in difficult international circumstances and following upon the effects of BSE, to try to support the agriculture industry. I wish that that were widely recognised in the House.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I recognise that, as my noble friend suggested, the present Government provide a high priority for rural areas. Would he care

205
to remind the House that, in the 20 years before this Government were elected, we saw large numbers of village schools and village shops closed and many threats to village post offices? We saw the denudation of public transport in rural areas and a dramatic reduction in the number or proportion of rented houses in rural areas which compelled many poor people from the villages of Britain to move to the towns.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend effectively reminds the House of that position. I underline that this Government have taken steps to reverse the trends.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Darner: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a problem with the different government departments? Does he think that the creation of a rural ministry will mean that other departments, such as the DTI and the Treasury, will have a more substantial understanding of rural issues than has been evident through the past several years? Some of those failings were pointed out by the noble Countess, Lady Mar.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that in the area of rural policy my department and the Ministry of Agriculture, with other departments, have established a better degree of joined-up government than has been the case in the past. As for the structure of government departments, I am advised that that is a matter for the Prime Minister.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, following the Minister's comment to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, perhaps I may agree with him that this Government have given extra help to farmers, for which they are grateful. However, it is a matter of publicising it. Of the £150 million recently allocated, only £1 million goes to farmers. The remaining £149 million goes in paying charges introduced by this Government, accompanied by all the other red tape and extra restrictions with which farmers have to comply.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not completely recognise the figures, but it is true that some of the extra help offsets charges which were in the pipeline. Nevertheless, £150 million of additional help has recently been given, particularly to beef and sheep farmers. I believe it is widely recognised within agriculture that that is a step in the right direction.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that, if a better understanding is to be fostered, it is assuredly not by a policy of overt-attrition to the interests of the countryside, not only the economic and agricultural interests but also the sporting interests?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is leading us into a whole new minefield. We are concerned about the whole range of interests of country people, their employment, quality of life, transport systems and the
206
prosperity of their businesses. I do not believe that the issue of field sports, for example, is central to the concerns of many country people. It is one on which a few people have over-excited views, but not one that defines the problems of the countryside. We believe that our policies will provide jobs, prosperity and a better infrastructure for what have often been neglected parts of our country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the Government are unable to do much to prevent the gulf increasing between the urban and the rural sectors, can the Minister do something to make it decrease? Does he agree that one way of achieving that would be for the Government not to undertake the alteration of rural pursuits? I am not a participant in them, but any such alteration is likely to cause 16,000 people to become unemployed. Contrary to what the noble Lord said, those pursuits remain a substantial factor in the countryside.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept neither the figures nor the assertion. We were committed by our manifesto to a free vote on hunting with hounds. That will be pursued as parliamentary time permits. It is not a matter which the majority of people in the countryside see as central to their interests. I repeat that our concern is with jobs and prosperity in the countryside, not one particular small section.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, every word that the Minister has said so far has been entirely on agriculture, particularly BSE. That is understandable, but will he remember that those in horticulture are also having a rough time? They are often forgotten and do not share in any government goodies that may be thrown from the noble Lord's table.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that horticulture and many other rural industries face problems. I recognise the importance of the horticulture sector and hope that our measures and those of my colleagues to help small firms, particularly in rural areas, will address some of the problems.

Disability Rights Commission
3.6 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on the establishment of the disability rights commission and on the appointment of a chairperson.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we are determined that the commission should be up and running in April 2000. I am delighted to be able to inform the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is announcing today that Mr Bert Massie has been appointed chair. Currently he is the director of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, known as RADAR. As the House will know well, Mr

207
Massie is a widely respected figure and I believe he will make an excellent chair. Now that he has been appointed, key decisions about the commission's establishment can be made.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am delighted to hear of the appointment of Mr Bert Massie? He will do an excellent job, as he always has done with RADAR.
Is my noble friend aware that the establishment of the disability rights commission by this Government is a major step forward for disabled people? While within its remit there is provision for it to try to persuade employers and service providers to comply with the law, does the Minister agree that in any cases where there is wilful and persistent discrimination against disabled people the commission should use all the powers at its disposal, including recourse to the law?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks about the new chair, or chairman.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bach: My Lords, Mr Massie is a widely respected figure in the business world and with organisations working both for and with disabled people. His personal standing and political skills have achieved much on behalf of disabled people. The post demands a highly committed individual with strong skills in strategic leadership and a good understanding of disability issues. He is an excellent communicator and will work effectively with a wide range of external players, while bringing sound judgment to bear in a sensitive environment.
As to the second part of the Question, of course the commission will look into the matters that he raises. Once the commission is set up and running it will undoubtedly have recourse to law if there is seen to be discrimination.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I start by joining in the approval of the appointment which has just been announced. Does the Minister agree that congratulations are due to the chairman and members of the present National Disability Council? It was established expeditiously under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and has been functioning most effectively in the mean time and continues to do so.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments about Mr Massie and I agree with him, of course, about the role that the chairman and vice-chairman of the body to which he refers have played since the passing of the Act in 1995.
208
The House will recognise that the Bill which became an Act in July, with unanimous support from this House, is probably an improvement on the 1995 Act. The setting up of the commission will, we all hope, help disabled people a great deal.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as the president of Mencap I would also like to welcome the appointment of Bert Massie as the chairman of the commission.
Can the Minister say whether or not a person with a learning disability, with suitable advocacy support, will also become a member of that commission, as has been indicated in the past?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that the Act itself requires that more than half of the commissioners are disabled people or people who have a disability. Of course we recognise the value of direct personal experience of disability.
Much can be expected of a commission of 10 to 15 people, but they could never between them have personal experience of every type of disability. What is important is that collectively they represent the interests of all disabled people and the commission's other key stakeholders, such as employers and service providers.
Having said that, I am happy to tell the noble Lord, with his, if I may say so, distinguished record in this field, that candidates short-listed for interview for commissioner posts include a number of people with learning disabilities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first of all perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord on the way in which he is answering this Question, welcome him to the Dispatch Box and say how much we look forward to hearing more from him in the future. I also welcome the fact that he quickly corrected himself and did not use the awful, ugly word "chair" but the more acceptable form, "chairman".
Will the noble Lord tell the House when the commission is expected to be fully up and running?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the compliment from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am told that such compliments do not come frequently, so I will value it for a short period of time.
I will pass over the use of the words "chair" or "chairman" until a future occasion.
The commission will be up and running by April 2000. That is not to say that every service which it will provide will be provided by April 2000. By that month the following will be done by the commission: the provision of advice to those making inquiries; the handling of casework; policy work; and handling the media.
Lord Addington: My Lords, while I congratulate the noble Lord on the appointment of Bert Massie to this post, will the Government assure us that the new

209
commission and its chairman will be fully consulted in the implementation of the Disability Rights Task Force recommendations?
Lord Bach: My Lords, Mr Massie has been a member of that task force, as the noble Lord will know. Now that he is in post it will be much easier to get on with what has to be done. Mr Massie will obviously play an important part in the consideration of the views of the task force which, as I understand it, are to be known by November of this year.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that, given the establishment of the disability rights commission, it will take on board the broader implications of the Lawrence report?
Lord Bach: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, we are aware of the recommendations, which of course apply to the department, and are looking at them very seriously.
I find it hard to believe that the commission, when it is set up, will not look very carefully at the serious recommendations that were made in the Lawrence report.

Sudan: Peace Process
3.15 p.m.
Lord McNair Lord McNair asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they have done in the past six months to take forward the internal or external peace process in Sudan, and what is the current state of Sudanese-British relations following the recent meeting between the two Foreign Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, may I take a moment of your Lordships' time. Yesterday I was so overtaken by my new position that I failed to thank noble Lords for the warmth of my welcome. I feel equally in need of it today.
To answer the noble Lord's Question, I hope that your Lordships will be pleased to know that we have worked hard to revitalise the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace process, pledging funds to establish a secretariat that can maintain negotiation between the two sides. We have encouraged all parties to work alongside IGAD and we have pressed, successfully, for the resumption of a critical dialogue between the EU and Sudan.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his Sudanese counterpart, Mustafa Osman Ismail, agreed to rename ambassadors in New York on 23rd September. Our embassy will soon be in a position to be more effective in our efforts in helping to achieve peace for all the Sudanese.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very encouraging reply. Would she
210
agree that the main sticking point to resuming meaningful negotiations under the IGAD umbrella is Mr Garang and the SPLA?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree that. The issues are very widespread, as the noble Lord will know. There are rights on both sides of the argument, as it is seen by the participants, not necessarily by others. It is incumbent upon all those who genuinely want to see peace in this region to exhort those involved to follow the IGAD process in relation to negotiation.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, while congratulating the Government on their contribution to strengthening the IGAD peace process, may I ask the Minister if she is aware that the National Islamic Front regime has repeatedly broken the ceasefire, bombing hospitals and feeding centres; dropping bombs which have caused symptoms consistent with poisoning by the arsenical compound Lewisite, and that craters caused by those bombs contain liquid and are entirely different from craters caused by conventional weapons—as these photographs, which I will place in your Lordships' Library, show?
I have written to the Minister about this and I would appreciate it if the Minister could give an assurance this afternoon that the Government will support a full investigation into the possible use of chemical weapons by the NIF regime.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will know that as far back as 25th May this year Her Majesty's Government pressed for the Sudanese Government to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, which they did on that date. That now allows requested investigations through the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. That is the vehicle which will undoubtedly have to be used for this purpose.
In further answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we are aware that bombs were dropped on villages on Friday 23rd July, but those matters too will be dealt with under the aegis of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Sudanese Government are currently seeking to evict the Episcopal Church from their long-standing headquarters at the diocese of Khartoum at Omdurman, and that, while public assurances have been given that this will not take place, the promised legal documents have not been forthcoming—at least at 10 a.m. today—and the eviction date is Saturday of this week?
Is she also aware that two Roman Catholic priests have been under arrest for quite a long time, under charges of terrorism?
Would she agree that this situation is extremely unfortunate, at a time when efforts are being made to improve relations, and will she speedily make contact

211
with the Sudanese Government to seek to resolve the matter, especially bearing in mind the eviction date of Saturday?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the British Embassy in Khartoum has kept in close contact with all the churches and has taken up concerns such as the matters referred to by the right reverend Prelate. These issues have been raised with the leader of the National Islamic Front and others. We are aware that all religions are suffering in this area. This is a matter of deep concern that we shall continue to highlight and it demonstrates the importance of the IGAD peace process. We enjoin all those concerned—the Church has been very helpful in this regard—to join forces with Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the peace efforts are successful.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.20 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I rise to complain about the handling of the Report stage of this very important piece of legislation. I have given the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip notice of my intention to do so. This House is the main revising Chamber of Parliament and has a very important function under our constitution. It is entitled to be treated with respect. Government departments have a duty to assist this House in performing its revising function properly. I hope that no government will ever expect this Chamber to be a mere rubber stamp that endorses government Bills with little discussion and less notice. I do not believe that that is necessarily the intention of noble Lords opposite. However, the way that this House has been treated in recent days is not a good sign.
Yesterday, the House considered the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. We had some 170 late government amendments to a Bill which it had been agreed would be given two days on Report. As a result, as I and the Government Chief Whip will be aware, we sat until 2.30 this morning. Given the large number of (dare I say) older Members on both sides of the House involved in that Bill, that was most unsatisfactory. Today, we have received of the order of 300 late amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill. My colleagues on the Front Bench did not see those amendments until last Friday. I understand that four more amendments have been tabled today, and there are rumours that up to 200 further amendments to the Bill will be tabled during the course of Report stage.
The House went into recess in July. Since then, over nine weeks have elapsed before this mass of amendments has poured onto our heads. I must ask: why did so long a time elapse? Why were at least some
212
of the amendments not published somewhat earlier? Will there be any more government amendments to these and other Bills coming before the House at Report stage? If so, how many, and when will they be made available to the House and my colleagues on the Front Bench? Who took the decision that this House should be treated in this way? Was the Government Chief Whip warned or consulted on the matter; if not, why not? I very much hope that the noble Lord will communicate these points to the respective Secretaries of State and Permanent Secretaries in the departments concerned. I believe that both Ministers and officials should be made fully aware that Parliament and this House do not take kindly to being treated in this way. In making these particular points I am sure that I speak for all Members of this House with an interest in these important Bills.
The Greater London Authority Bill was some eight days in Committee. None of those days was a full day in that we were interrupted by Statements. My noble friends on the Front Bench co-operated as far as they could in ensuring that the Committee stage was completed before we rose in the summer, as the Government wished. I believe that it is right to ask whether it is reasonable to expect the House to sit quite so late on Report to consider a host of very late government amendments to meet a timetable which was accepted in good faith without knowledge of the weight of this business. I make that point particularly in light of the fact that the Bill was virtually rewritten in the Commons before it came here. The noble Lord put that point to me as an argument for having a shorter Committee stage than that which occurred.
I hope that the Government Chief Whip will not close his mind absolutely to giving the House sufficient time to consider this important Bill, and others, and the issues raised by them and to enabling us to do so with reasonable notice of all the amendments. I hope also that we shall debate them at a reasonable hour, not at 2.30 in the morning. There are limits to how long this House is prepared to sit, particularly when the extra time that we are being asked to sit is the result of the Government's incompetence in this matter.
As the noble Lord will be aware, we have in the past, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor put it, insisted on downing tools at a late hour. We hope that we shall not have to insist on downing tools in future and that the Government Chief Whip will make a conciliatory reply which will at least allow us to respond and consider these Bills in the appropriate manner and with the appropriate amount of time.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, just as I had great sympathy with the then Labour opposition, who made precisely the same complaints when the previous government were in office. The fact is that we do not handle the business of this House in a competent fashion. We had a report of a committee chaired by Lord Rippon of Hexham which made recommendations in the lifetime of the previous government. Unhappily, many of those recommendations have not been implemented. Lord

213
Rippon made the point that it was for the House to determine the number of hours that it sat but that, by and large, it should not regularly sit after 10 o'clock at night.
As the noble Lord who has just spoken pointed out, we sat. until 2.30 this morning. That is not a sensible way to conduct our business. I very much hope that the Government Chief Whip will return to this matter in the Procedure Committee in the next Session of Parliament so that we can review the recommendations of Lord Rippon of Hexham and his colleagues and avoid complaints of this kind. It is wholly unreasonable for the House to sit as long as it is now regularly sitting. I hope that the complaints made this afternoon will be taken very seriously by the Government, as I am sure they will be.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter today. I accept that this will be a very busy spillover, and there is a lot of work still to do. In that respect, it is no different from any other spillover; it is always a very busy time of year. I always try to be conciliatory, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is aware. As for the GLA Bill, the Government listened carefully to points made by the Opposition and others in Committee and have responded positively with amendments to deal with 80 per cent of the issues raised. It is a little strange. I understand the point that the noble Lord makes, but we have had to take time to make concessions on matters such as equal opportunities, consultation with the disabled on transport, and a new appeals process for bus licensing.
Notwithstanding the fact that many of these amendments relate to such concessions, we have been at pains to send advance copies of draft amendments and explanatory notes to opposition spokesmen. Most, but not all, of the amendments were tabled at least a week in advance. Meetings were organised last week in which my noble friend Lord Whitty discussed the remaining stages of the Bill with the Opposition and of her noble Lords. I know that he is willing to hold further meetings if that would assist.
No new areas of policy are being raised for the first time at Report. We would have expected the Opposition to be pleased that the Government had made a substantial number of concessions in this very important Bill. It is true that the GLA Bill will go back to the House of Commons with a large number of amendments in it, but the House of Lords is a revising Chamber; its role is to improve legislation where possible and to amend it where necessary.
Without speaking in any partisan sense, we became used to very large numbers of amendments being tabled by the previous government on a whole variety of Bills. Only this morning I was given a graphic description of the telephone directory of amendments tabled on the Financial Services Bill. The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about the Procedure Committee again considering the Rippon report in the new Session is a good one. This
214
is a problem for all governments, and I shall put with some force to the departments involved the points made by the Opposition Chief Whip.
As to the GLA Bill currently before the House, most of the amendments that the House is being asked to consider are technical or relate to concessions by the Government. As to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, I understand that there will be 60 fewer amendments than the 260 that the previous government tabled at the same stage to their Pensions Bill in 1995. I do not want to go backwards and forwards on the number of amendments tabled at different stages.
As regards the point about the amendments that were tabled on Monday for consideration today, I think there were only four and they were all technical. I suppose a little more time could have been found if we had sat last week but, in the spirit of good will, I try to avoid sitting the week of the Conservative Party Conference so that Conservative Peers can fully enjoy their week in Blackpool.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was not prepared to be slightly more conciliatory. As he will be aware, we were quite prepared to sit into August and it was the Government themselves who resisted such a move. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, boasts that many of the amendments were available last week, but can he confirm that my noble friend Lady Miller, who is leading for us on much of this Bill, was able to see those amendments only on Friday? As I am sure the Government expected her to be, she was in Blackpool earlier in the week.
I imagine that a certain number of Ministers and officials were in their offices for part of August and September. Nine weeks have elapsed since we completed the Committee stage of this Bill. It is simply not satisfactory to bring the amendments to us at this stage and then still have further amendments to bring forward. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, confirmed that four more amendments, which he described as merely technical amendments, were laid today. We do not have the resources of the Government to establish whether they are technical. It takes quite a long time to get to grips with these amendments.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is not prepared to be slightly more conciliatory in this matter. As I stressed, we sat—because we are a very co-operative Opposition—until 2.30 this morning to assist the Government in getting their business through on the Welfare Reform Bill. However, this Bill, the London Bill, which has had fewer than eight days in Committee, is the biggest Bill that has ever been before this House. It is bigger than the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Bills put together, and it is likely that four days will not be adequate for its proper consideration at Report stage. We, as an Opposition, reserve our right to consider how to deal with this matter later if the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is not prepared to offer more time.

215
As I said earlier, we have in the past insisted on our right, as the the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, to "down tools", and we might have to insist on that right again in the future.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as regards the point about August, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, knows, we agreed that if we could finish all Committee stages before the Recess, we would then rise. We did finish all the Committee stages by the end of July and that is why we did not sit into August.
As regards the amount of time required, that is a matter for the usual channels, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, knows. We meet each other, and I also meet the noble Lord, Lord Harris, every week. That is the time to discuss the problem. I do not like sitting until 2.30 in the morning any more than the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He, I and our Whips are the people who are here with the Ministers. We are as keen as anybody not to sit late. We do have a problem. This is a very large Bill. We have made a large number of concessions. Because of the size of the Bill and the concessions we have made, there have to be a large number of amendments. I am entirely willing to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to see if we can organise things a little better. The spillover is always heavy. This is not the first time and this is not the first Government to have a Bill before the House in the spillover with a large number of amendments presented a little later than we would all like.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Membership of the Authority and the Assembly]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, after ("London;") insert ("and the Deputy Mayor, who will exercise the executive power of the Authority")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I would like to speak to the group of amendments which start with Amendment No. 1 and go on to Amendment No. 159 on the Marshalled List. Not consecutively, I hasten to say; only to the amendments in the grouping.
As I said in Committee when I moved almost identical amendments, it really is not as formidable a number as it might appear because all of the amendments relate to one key point: that the deputy mayor should be elected and not merely nominated by the mayor and plucked out of the ranks of the assemblymen. Other amendments in this group are consequential or rectify the omission of reference to the deputy mayor where it would have been appropriate.
I shall deal with the principal amendments in this group, and I certainly will try to avoid taking up your Lordships' time by repeating the same arguments that I made in Committee, without much success I have to say. I will try to shorten what I wanted to say because of the lack of time.
If the deputy mayor is not just to be an ornament standing in at an engagement when the mayor is double-booked, we propose that the deputy mayor should be directly elected by the citizens of London in the same way and at the same time as they elect the mayor. The purpose of the amendments that I am proposing at this stage is to make it clear, which I clearly failed to do last time, that the mayor and his deputy shall be elected at the same time and on the same ticket.
Amendment No. 7 provides for the candidate for mayor to nominate his deputy to run on this joint ticket. Some of your Lordships might argue that that is not democratic, but at least the voters themselves will have some say in who is deputy mayor. If they do not like the mayoral candidate's choice, presumably they will vote for neither. It is certainly more democratic than the Government's proposal contained in Clause 41(3) which empowers the newly elected mayor to foist—I do not use that word lightly because he can do that—his choice on the electorate after they have elected the mayor when it is too late for the electors, who may not like that choice, to do anything about it.
All of the arguments that the Labour Party mustered for the election of a mayor apply equally to his deputy. Electing the deputy will give him not only status but also a greater degree of authority than he can expect if he is merely selected from among the assemblymen by the mayor to whom he will thereafter obviously be beholden.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in responding to my amendments on the previous occasion, argued:
"Our intention is that the deputy mayor should act as a link between the two directly elected bodies".
A few lines further on in Committee he said,
"It does give a separate position which … can provide a bridge between the two parts of this authority".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; co1.25.]
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, earlier in that speech also used the same phrase to describe the deputy mayor as a bridge between the two parts of the authority.
Obviously, this connection, whether they call it a link or a bridge, is exactly what the Government wanted; or at least what they wanted at that time because that is what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, told us. That is the direct antithesis of what we all understand as the separation of powers. A distinct separation between the executive, in the person of the mayor, and including his deputy whenever he is performing those executive duties on the one hand, and the legislature in the form of the assembly on the other. At Committee stage I argued for a clear application of the doctrine of separation of powers but, in opposition to that, the Government spoke, as I have just quoted, of "links" and "bridges".
In August the Minister for London issued a consultation paper regarding the proposed interim organisation which is needed to be in place before the

217
mayor assumes office. On page 1 of that consultation paper, at point 1, the Minister says,
"There will be clear separation of powers between a directly elected executive mayor and a 25 member assembly".
We do not believe that there will be that clear separation of powers when there is a link or bridge in the person of the deputy mayor plucked out of the ranks of the assemblymen; someone who will then owe the mayor his support in the assembly as the price of the mayor's patronage. The amendments will put into effect what the Government now say, in the person of the Minister for London, they want to achieve—the separation of powers.
The Minister's statement is the very reason why I believe the Government should simply accept this series of amendments.
If the deputy were to be selected from amongst the assemblymen, there is a grave danger of a conflict of interests should the mayor and the assembly disagree on some topic or other, as they are more or less bound to do at some time, even assuming that the mayor is of the same party as the majority in the assembly. One neutralised assemblyman taken out of the assembly to become the deputy mayor from a mere 25 members represents the equivalent of four per cent of the votes.
For the first time we have in statute a separation of powers between the executive, in the form of the mayor, and the legislature, in the form of the assembly. The mayor is elected on his own manifesto and carries out his own polices. The assembly is there to scrutinise how he does that and only to a limited extent to exercise a check where they disagree. That check and balance disappears when four per cent of the legislature has a dual role as a member of the legislature and as a member of the executive. It is poacher and gamekeeper simultaneously. The mayor's authority comes directly from his having been elected as an individual. The Government's whole raison d'être for having a directly elected mayor was to secure his total independence. Here they are trying to tie him into the assembly.
In Committee, I asked the Minister how, when the deputy was performing his duties he could simultaneously find the time to perform his duties as an assemblyman. At that stage the Minister did not answer me; he may have thought of something now. But, most importantly, the deputy mayor temporarily acts in place of the mayor if a vacancy occurs, but with extremely circumscribed powers. I pointed out that those powers are so circumscribed that there is a virtual hiatus in many of the functions of the mayor's duties until a replacement is elected. I also drew the Committee's attention to the anomaly that there was no provision in this badly drafted Bill to cover the temporary incapacity of the mayor. I am glad to see that the Government are now attempting to rectify this although I shall comment on their proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was kind in the way that he mentioned that we have real difficulties. The Chief Whip said that the Government had taken note and that that is why there are so many amendments. The truth is that the measure was extraordinarily
218
badly drafted, so they had to take note. We did our duty properly in Committee. We wish to continue to do so at Report stage.
If the deputy mayor is to perform some of the mayor's functions, the voters are entitled to pick him for themselves, with a properly elected deputy with the authority of having been elected by the voters. The natural thing would be for him to take over the office on a permanent basis in the event of a vacancy or during a mayor's long-term incapacity. If the Government were to accept the amendment, there would be some consequential amendments. However, I assure the Minister that we would be co-operative in seeking to get them through as quickly as possible.
I should like to touch on the provisions that the Government have proposed with regard to Schedule 4. The production of four pages containing 22 amendments covering a possible vacancy in the office of mayor, the refusal or inability of the deputy mayor to be the acting mayor, and the consequent situation of the chairman of the assembly who then has to cease to be the chairman of the authority, looks like the creation of a deputy deputy mayor. I believe that that complicated machinery might very well have been avoided by the election of a deputy mayor who is divorced from the assembly.
Amendment No. 4 makes it clear that the authority consists of the mayor, the deputy mayor and the assembly. I still believe that omitting the reference to the deputy mayor from the list is demeaning to that office. I hope that the Government may feel that it is worth accepting our wording so that the authority consists of the mayor, the deputy mayor and the assembly. Whether or not the deputy mayor is directly elected, there is no justification for making him a virtual non-person in the definition of the authority. I hope that the Government will accept that provision.
I hope that the Government will agree that the direct election of a deputy mayor is far more democratic than the mayor selecting his own deputy without the assembly or electors being able to gainsay it. Perhaps that last thought may make the Government pause and reflect on the matter and accept the amendment and the resulting consequential amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Baroness has had great experience of local government. Could she explain to the House how things would operate if the deputy mayor who was elected had a policy which was directly in conflict with the mayor? With her reputation as someone who likes to see tidy local government, would the noble Baroness please explain how that would be tidy?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the bottom line is that the mayor and deputy mayor will have a manifesto. Presumably if the mayor chooses, and it is on a joint ticket, the problem mentioned by the noble Lord does not arise. They will run the election on a joint ticket. That is what my amendment provides.

219
I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that I have enormous experience of local government. I should like to think that I have. If I have managed to convince the noble Lord that I have, I am very pleased—but I have not.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, during the last stage of the Bill, these Benches made clear that we were most unhappy about the structure for the new London authority proposed by the Government and set out at such great length in the Bill. However, we have taken the view that having made the effort at that stage to make alterations to the structure, such amendments will be fairly sparse from these Benches during this stage of the Bill. We believe that we need now to shift our concentration to improving the Bill within the framework on which the Government are so clearly set. In particular, we are not at this stage attempting to change the role of the assembly members other than in rather narrow areas.
Similarly, I believe that to have a mayoral candidate running on a joint ticket with a deputy mayoral candidate is likely to confuse the electors who will have four votes on 4th May. That is already difficult enough. I believe that such a joint ticket would compromise the position of the deputy mayor as a member of the assembly. That position is important. All the members of the assembly have a responsibility to scrutinise the actions of the mayor. We believe that that scrutiny function means a mixture of supporting the mayor when the mayor is right in the eyes of the assembly members—that may well mean supporting the mayor against an over-centralising central government—but also reining back the mayor when the members of the assembly believe that the mayor is going off course. We should be concerned to see such a change as proposed by the noble Baroness.
Nor do we believe—the recent brief exchange demonstrated it—that the joint ticket would be more democratic. It would be more democratic if one could vote for a mayoral candidate from one party and a deputy mayoral candidate from another, but not if there is a joint ticket. I do not think that that argument stands up. Therefore, I regret that we are unable to support this amendment or the accompanying amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is good news that the Liberal Democrats are not going to continue their strategy of attempting to turn the Bill into something they would have had if they had been in government rather than dealing with the Bill the Government propose. I am glad to hear that. I had said to them that I hoped that that is what they would do. I do not know whether I had any influence; but if I had I think the House owes me a little credit as well as them!
If the Government will not accept this idea, I should like to say (if it does not sound too pompous) that I think that they will be making a mistake. Many of the
220
amendments that the Government have put down are technical amendments. That is always a good thing to do. It is the job of the House. It is a sign that the Government have not drafted the Bill very well, but as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, that happened also when the present Opposition were on the other side of the Chamber. It is something that we regret, but it is necessary and we have to accommodate it.
However, this is not a technical matter. It is seminal to the way the new government of London will work. I believe that my noble friend's idea is more likely to work than that proposed by the Government. I believe that they should consider it seriously.
When replying to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that it would make for too much conflict if there were a deputy mayor on a joint ticket with the mayor. He said that there would be three directly elected components instead of two: a mayor, a deputy mayor, and the assembly. He also said that people have not voted for that. I do not believe that those three statements are valid. If the mayor and deputy mayor were elected on a joint ticket, the electorate would overwhelmingly expect them to agree.
I do not believe that the Minister thought it relevant on the last occasion, but perhaps he would turn his mind to what we all understand is the way things work in the United States of America. It would be very unlikely indeed that the President and Vice-President would disagree. If they did I believe that the Vice-President would have to resign. It is quite a simple point. The Minister said that people working in local government should understand this. My noble friend pointed out that what happens in local government is not similar. The matter has nothing to do with local government. It is a new form of such government. The separation of powers has nothing whatever to do with existing local government.
The noble Lord said that there would be three directly elected components if this amendment were adopted. There would be only two. There would the mayor and the deputy mayor and one vote. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that one would not vote twice on a joint ticket, but once only. There would be the assembly. The components would be only two in number. The first would have added to it the deputy mayor.
The noble Lord said that the people have not voted on this matter. We must use referendums intelligently. When the people voted they did so for a system which they assumed would work. Having proposed one structure, if the Government believe that it should be changed in order to make the system work better, no one would welcome it more than the people of London. I certainly would welcome it. As a Londoner, I voted for a mayor and for the Bill as it stands. I would have no objection to Parliament improving the Bill so that it worked better. I believe that it would do so in the way proposed.
I genuinely believe that this is not a party political matter at all. We are trying to get the government of London to work. I believe that there will be far less conflict and far more effective government of London

221
if the deputy mayor and the mayor were on the same ticket and were distinct from the assembly. I very strongly support this group of amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may make this point. I thought that I had not suggested that there would be an extra vote in any physical sense, but that there would be an extra person on the ballot paper or in the election literature, alongside each of the mayoral candidates. There will be four votes. The legislation provides for a first and second vote as regards the mayor and a vote for the electoral area assembly members. The fourth vote is for the top-up list. That was the context in which I made my comment.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend. I have watched the process from the day of the referendum. As the process has continued, I believe that all of us have discovered that because it is totally new, there could be better arrangements. I feel very strongly that it is a good thing that the mayor tells the people of London who his deputy mayor is to be. I have made it absolutely clear that the distinguished leader of Wandsworth Council, Mr Eddie Lister, would be the deputy mayor if I were fortunate enough to become the mayor. There would be no conflict in that regard, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. On the contrary, I have chosen a person of exceptional talent and with experience of local government. It is good that the people of London know that it is a team. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that in every mayoral election in the United States of America—I have been studying the subject quite seriously—the mayor always informs the city who the deputy mayor will be and the name is not on the ballot paper. Of course, it is in the manifesto which clearly states why that person should be chosen.
Perhaps I may add a personal note as I consider the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, a close friend. Like the noble Lord, I have long believed that my noble friend Lady Miller has a long and distinguished record in local government because she has served on every committee in London for many years. She has specialised in selecting those for local government. I believe that my noble friend is wrong and that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right. But we should all look on my noble friend as having great experience.
I say to the Minister very seriously that discovery has occurred during the past two-and-a-half years. We now know that the deputy mayor must come from the assembly, but will not be its chairman who will be another person. We could follow the road advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if, when elected, one looked at the assembly and said, "Now I have to find someone to be my deputy mayor". It would he much better to say, "I know who I want as my deputy".
In our party—I suspect it will also be the case for the Labour Party —I have stated that I want Mr Eddie Lister. Naturally, the team picking those to take the
222
GLA places is making sure, I hope, that Mr Lister will be at the top of the list otherwise one will need to look at the people who have been selected and choose in that way. When the Labour Party eventually finds a candidate, by whichever method, I hope that at least that candidate will be able to choose who his deputy will be.
I say to the Minister that if there is a chance of rethinking this matter, we would like to permit the mayoral candidates to pick their deputy mayors with the knowledge that they should be separated from the GLA because its chairman is not going to be the deputy mayor. I know that we face a long session over several days. I heard what was said by the Opposition Chief Whip. But we must not have a Bill which contains faults because it has been rushed through.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, not the least of the problems that we have faced constantly during debates on this Bill is the fact that the separation of powers is not spelled out on the face of the Bill. It is implicit within its massive content. Clause 31 deals with delegation and there the matter becomes relatively more apparent. But in fact the separation of powers is not spelled out. For that reason in Amendment No. 1 there are the additional words,
"who will exercise the executive power of the Authority".
Amendment No. 2 is grouped separately, but none the less it is relatively meaningless unless Amendment No. 1 is accepted. It is the second part of a pair of amendments which put on the face of the Bill the separation of powers which otherwise have to be sought in the document The Shape of Things lo Come? I suppose that it is a semi-official description of the future structure and the initial organisation of the Greater London Authority. There one sees how the separation of powers is set out.
We tend to think of the separation of powers almost automatically—perhaps completely erroneously, but none the less a fact—in the context of such separation in the constitution of the United States of America. There is a fundamental difference as regards the position that the Greater London Authority will face and its constitution. The assembly is not a legislature. It is not intended to be so. It has no possible role is which it could fulfil that particular function.
Despite that, the assembly will exist to scrutinise the work of the mayor. As regards London, the mayor is virtually the executive and legislature rolled into one. All that the assembly can do is to supervise, examine and criticise, if it so pleases, what he is doing. That is a fundamental distinction. It is not readily apparent to the normal person outside in the street that that is what has happened. That is the reason why Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are worded as they are.
The problem is that the position of the deputy mayor completely breaches that separation of powers because in particular circumstances—it has to be acknowledged that they may never arise and one might hope that they would never arise—the deputy mayor has to act either as or for the mayor, and for a temporary period he could even become the mayor. At

223
the same time he is expected or supposed to fulfil a full role as a member of the assembly. That is neither a practical proposition nor a reasonable way to proceed. Therefore, I have the greatest pleasure in supporting my noble friend's remarks on the first amendment.
Perhaps the House will forgive me for jumping a little ahead of the game: should the amendment fall, I shall probably not trouble the House by moving the second amendment. I am glad to support Amendment No. 1.
4 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House and in respect of the Chief Whip's comments, perhaps I may say that in many respects I regret the number of amendments which we are tabling. As the noble Lord, Lord Archer, says, they are an attempt to make the Bill right. I believe that as we go through the Bill there will be greater consensus on those amendments than perhaps appears at first sight.
Unfortunately, however, that does not apply to the first amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, proposed a similar, although not entirely the same, amendment in Committee. I believe that part of the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has shifted her ground slightly. We have previously discussed the direct election of a deputy mayor. We are now discussing an indirect election for the deputy mayor on the coat-tails of the mayor. If we are using the American analogy, we refer to the system that almost gave us Spiro Agnew as President of the United States. That does not lend a particularly attractive or democratic legitimacy to these proceedings.
That system would, in certain circumstances, also lead to exactly the kind of situation to which my noble friend Lord Mishcon referred. For example, if there were a less than credible candidate for mayor—not that there is any such in this House or elsewhere—that candidate might be tempted to have a populist running-mate. That would open up the possibility of serious conflict. One can also envisage exactly the opposite situation.
It must be clear that it is the mayor who has democratic legitimacy; that it is the mayor for whom people are voting and that it is the mayor who will have those powers. We have indicated that a deputy mayor should be designated by the mayor and should, as the noble Baroness said, be the bridge between the mayor and the assembly. Far from being foisted upon the people of London, they will have a democratic legitimacy, having been elected through the assembly. That provides the flexibility that the mayor will need as well as the link to the assembly.
Regarding the clean separation of powers to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and other noble Lords referred, we believe that we need some link between the various parts of the new authority. Indeed, with reference again to the United States, there is a link in the opposite direction, as it were, in that the
224
Vice-President sits as the Chair of the Senate. We are doing it the other way round, in some sense, and it will bring the two elements a little further together.
That system does not preclude the mayoral candidate from identifying in advance whom his running-mate shall be on the list of assembly candidates. If elected, the running-mate will become deputy mayor. But there must be left with the mayor the responsibility and the authority, throughout his term, to have a deputy mayor who will work with him. That means that the ability to change the deputy during the course of the term of mayor, if that relationship fails, must be left to the mayor. If that is not done, one builds in—even where candidates run on a joint ticket—the potential for further division and for a problem in terms of the mayor carrying out his function.
If the noble Baroness's amendments were accepted, the mayor could not change the deputy during the course of his own term. That is a recipe for greater confusion, not less. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness is able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said, as I always do. I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed. I do not really agree with his premise. I believe that in America where a President and Vice-President are elected on a joint ticket, the problems which the Minister has just envisaged do not actually occur. He proposes that the mayor can choose someone from the assembly and that it can therefore be said that they were democratically elected. But they were elected to the assembly, and that is not necessarily what the people of London might want for their deputy mayor. If the candidates ran on a joint ticket, the people of London would know who they were.
However, I do not wish to pursue the matter any longer. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister and his colleagues will have another rethink. There is a lot to be said for the suggestion in my amendment. I realise that it would cause some difficulty in terms of the way in which the Bill is structured, but I believe that that could be dealt with. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 5 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert ("; and
(c) the holding of an election for Mayor in the event of a vote of no confidence in accordance with section 14(c)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22. The amendments are tabled in my name and in that of my noble friend Lord Tope. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, had hoped to have had her name added to the amendment, which builds substantially on the Conservatives' amendment tabled in Committee. I know that some difficulties were

225
experienced by the Public Bill Office at the end of last week and the beginning of this week, given the number of amendments which arrived on their desk so late in the day.
The amendment gives me the opportunity to say that the House must, on this point, "think the unthinkable"; that is, about the position if the mayor loses the confidence of the assembly and of London. Amendment No. 5A is a paving amendment, adding a reference to the mayor being returned at an election after a vote of no confidence in his predecessor, or indeed in the same person if the electorate turns out to have greater confidence in him than had the assembly members. Our Amendment No. 22 which, if accepted, would become Clause 14(c), deals with a declaration of vacancy in the office in the event of a vote of no confidence. That vote would be cast by 19 members of the assembly out of the total of 25.
At the last stage of the Bill, my noble friends and I proposed that a vote of no confidence to unseat the mayor would require a two-thirds majority of the assembly. We added what became known as "the nuclear option", which would be the automatic resignation of the assembly members. In other words, all the members of the new authority, whatever their capacity, would have to go to the electorate. Other noble Lords thought that that was unrealistic on our part and we have accepted that view. The Conservatives proposed in a similar amendment that there should be a unanimous vote against the mayor in order to achieve his unseating.
I said that we need here to think the unthinkable. The Government have done so in their drafting to the extent of dealing with criminal offences which would commonly lead to disqualification from local government, electoral offences, bankruptcy, and criminal offences which carry the possibility of a custodial sentence.
However, it is by no means impossible that a mayor should lose the confidence of the assembly and of Londoners which is, of course, particularly important. In our view the assembly has a particular responsibility to speak for Londoners. The assembly has the job of scrutinising the mayor's decisions and actions and will be well placed to judge the conduct of the mayor and whether particular conduct might bring the office of mayor and the whole of the work of the authority into disrepute; for example, if the mayor's priorities lost touch with reality or even if the mayor's personal conduct affected public respect for the office. We believe that generally a politician's private life should remain private, but I mention that area of concern because, by definition, given the structure of the new authority, the mayor will be a big personality. The whole structure is designed for personality politics. Therefore, we believe that the mayor's general conduct is relevant where, in other offices, it might not be.
It is a sad fact—and I know that it is a concern shared right across the House—that confidence in politics and politicians is at a very low ebb. That is manifested in low turnouts, including that at the referendum last year for London government.
Therefore, to argue that a matter of confidence would begin and end with the electorate only at the time of the election is, I believe, ducking the issue of the responsibility of other politicians to that electorate.
I was a member of a Select Committee of this House and another place which considered a draft Bill on local government. That Bill is likely to come to your Lordships in the next Session. The aim of the Bill was in part to deal with the introduction of executive mayors into local government. During the proceedings of the committee, it was commented that to have no provision for the recall of an executive mayor would be unique. Most other countries have either an impeachment process or a process to allow voters to petition. There is no mechanism such as a voter petition in this case. If there were to be—and we have not proposed this—it would raise questions about how many signatories would be required. I understand that in Los Angeles 15 per cent of the electorate signing a petition can cause the mayor to leave office. That is a large number of people but quite a small proportion of the electorate. If that were to be the course that your Lordships favoured—in other words, some mechanism for the electors who put the mayor in office in the first place—I have wondered how he or she would be removed. Perhaps coupons would be printed by the Evening Standard to be returned. May be there would be the option to call an 0800 telephone number to register a view, although it occurred to me that that might be an income-generating activity if premium rates were charged.
That is not sensible. We believe that it should be possible for the politicians—the assembly members—to act as leaders in such an unhappy situation, if it were to happen. The figure of 19 members out of 25 proposed by the amendment is a high proportion. We do not believe that it could easily be achieved. We accept that. Indeed we have deliberately sought a high proportion. We have not proposed unanimity among the assembly members. We do not believe that that would be appropriate. Some of the assembly members—for example, the deputy mayor whose position we have just debated—could be so closely associated with the mayor that it would be in their personal interests to vote to support the mayor.
In other countries mechanisms flow from different constitutions; for example, the decision of a supervising governor. In Japan, I understand, a proportion of the assembly can pass a resolution of no confidence which allows the mayor to dissolve the whole body. We in this country have an unwritten constitution. In this Parliament, the Prime Minister may be subject to a vote of no confidence and that would normally lead to the dissolution of Parliament. The constitution of the new London authority is not unwritten. Indeed, one might say it is overly written.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, given how circumscribed and very detailed the constitution is, we do not believe that this is an omission which should remain. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am very pleased that I was able to add my name to Amendment No. 5A. As noble Lords will know, in Committee I tabled a similar amendment except that the power to remove the mayor depended upon there being a no confidence vote, unanimously passed. Clearly, since that debate I have had time to reflect and I hope that the Government have done likewise, because I now accept that a unanimous vote of no confidence is not a practical possibility. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, at least one member of the assembly—that is, the deputy mayor—will be beholden to the mayor for his position as deputy. Therefore, the chances of him voting against the mayor are highly unlikely. Secondly, under the system of proportional representation being used in this case, it is possible that a fringe party might somehow secure one single assembly member.
We propose the number of 19 members because that is equivalent to four-fifths of 80 per cent. It is a very substantial proportion and represents a hurdle which could be overcome only with cross-party support. That seems to us an impossible state of affairs. If a mayor for some reason behaved in a certain way, he could not be got rid of. It is unacceptable and, in my opinion, strange that in an office where the incumbent is elected for a fixed term, there is no power to remove him except on the very restricted grounds provided in Clauses 13 and 14. The Prime Minister can be removed if he loses the confidence of his parliamentary colleagues and they vote against him. I believe that that can happen on a simple majority. Therefore, it seems an extraordinary state of affairs that this cannot happen with the mayor. The occupant of the humblest political office—the chairman of a ward—would be bound to go in such circumstances if his committee voted against him. High Court judges can be removed from office under very stringent conditions. The most powerful man on earth—the President of the United States of America—can be removed from office by Congress. In the lifetime of every one of your Lordships, two presidents have very narrowly escaped that indignity.
Let us suppose that the mayor commits a serious crime for which he has not yet been convicted. Of course everyone is entitled to a fair trial and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. But should the mayor shoot the leader of the opposition in full view of the entire assembly, is he to continue in office for perhaps the time it might take to bring him to trial? The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did postulate the possibility of an entirely independent person, unconnected with any party, being elected as mayor. As the noble Lord put it, the party establishments would then gang up on him and remove him even though he had the endorsement of Londoners in a direct election.
228
The noble Lord upbraided me—rather nicely, I might say—during the debate on Amendments Nos. 48 and 50 in Committee for pointing to what he described as,
"a somewhat improbable set of circumstances".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 102.]
An independent candidate may stand for mayor. But while, of course, anything is possible, it is not necessarily probable. I cannot envisage an independent candidate beating the choice of any of the party machines. But let us suppose that that improbable event did occur. Is the Minister suggesting that new Labour would be a party to "ganging up" on the choice of the people of London? I have no authority to speak on behalf of the Conservatives on what is clearly a hypothetical point. However, I can say that I do not know of any one of my colleagues who would countenance such disgraceful conduct—"ganging up" on someone because he was not a member of the party when he really had not done anything that deserved it.
In rejecting my amendment, the noble Lord said also that this was a matter for the people, not the assembly. But how is the people's will to be expressed? The Government have made no provision for a recall petition, and perhaps that is just as well too. How does anyone set about collecting and verifying, for example, half a million signatures? The assembly is specifically charged with the duty of supervising the mayor and that is a mere piece of window dressing if it has no power remove him for what the American constitution neatly calls, without specific definition, "grave crimes and misdemeanours". The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred simply to "losing the confidence of". There could be a variety of issues that caused that to happen. The constitution the Government are proposing for our capital city is that the mayor is virtually irremovable, no matter what. That cannot be right and I very much support the amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I support the amendment. This is possibly one of the most significant issues we shall consider today. I certainly think that it is the most significant omission from the Bill, or the Bill as it will be amended during the course of our proceedings. My noble friend Lady Hamwee says that we must think the unthinkable. We have had to do that a number of times. Much of the Bill is devoted to making provision for circumstances which we all hope and many of us believe will never happen, but which may happen.
It is conceivable that in the future a mayor will lose the confidence of Londoners. I do not mean that the mayor will have low opinion poll ratings. That is almost certain to happen and has been the experience of most politicians at some time. I am visualising more serious events when the mayor loses the confidence of Londoners and of their representatives elected in the assembly. I do not wish to indulge in hypothetical conjecture of what such situations could be, but let us accept that there is that possibility.
What happens then? Noble Lords have pointed out that in the Bill as it stands we have a situation where the mayor is above recall. There are no mechanisms for

229
recalling the mayor, whatever the circumstances, other than those provided for in criminal law and so on. It is astonishing that a Bill of such length and detail omits a matter as important and as significant as that. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, at the previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that there might be "frivolous action" by assembly members ganging up together against the poor innocent mayor. I believe that that is highly unlikely. We have provided here that three-quarters of the assembly members—19 out of 25—have to agree on a vote of no confidence in the mayor. No elected assembly person is going to take such a decision lightly. They too will be answerable to the electors of London. If, by so doing, they force another election on Londoners, then Londoners will make their judgment on assembly members as well as on the mayor. This is not something which will be done frivolously by any assembly member.
To secure a coalition of 19 assembly members, all of whom will have been elected at the same time as the mayor—regardless of party or non-party affiliation, they will all have been elected in the same election—and get them to agree on such a serious step would mean that London and London government would be facing a very serious situation. All of us hope it will never happen, but it may. The Government may disagree with the mechanism we suggest for dealing with this unlikely situation. If so, I should like the Minister to tell us what he feels about the principle. Does he acknowledge that this is a situation that could happen? If he does, then what do the Government envisage should be done about it? In other words, I hope that he will deal with the principle of the situation, should it arise, rather than merely the mechanism.
If the Bill passes from your Lordships' House without some provision for dealing with the very serious situation where the mayor of London—a very high profile, public figure with considerable power—so significantly loses the confidence of the assembly and therefore, I am sure, of London voters, what do the Government propose should be done about it? We have proposed a sensible and serious way of dealing with the matter. We have reached agreement with the Conservative Opposition because both of us recognise that this is a situation for which we have to make provision. For that reason, we have come together to try to find, under all the circumstances, the most satisfactory answer.
Reference has been made to voter petitions. On a previous occasion I recall the Minister saying that it is the people who elect the person and that it should be the people who have the right to unelect the person. As a democratic principle, I adhere to that. However, the mechanics of trying to get a petition around 5 million London voters—or whatever proportion one chose, even the 15 per cent mentioned earlier—would be impossible. More importantly, too much time would be needed to organise that kind of action. The matter would need positive, firm but not precipitate action. The time taken to organise a voter petition could only be damaging for the good of London government.
230
I return to the point I made earlier. Whether or not the Government accept the amendment, I should like the Minister to tell us how they propose to deal with a situation that may arise at some time in the future where for some reason the mayor loses the confidence of the assembly and of London voters as a whole.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, I wish simply to underline that this is an exceedingly difficult issue. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made an extremely balanced statement in pointing out what happens elsewhere in the world. I readily agree with my noble friend Lord Tope when he says that we should deal with the principle more than the mechanism. But in this particular case the mechanism is not unimportant. I feel that I must introduce into the debate some comments on my experience of what happens in other parts of the world. I cannot think of a single example of circumstances in which someone who is directly elected by the people can be removed by another body also elected. There should be a procedure which is in some form judicial. That is true of the United States Congress and the question of impeachment.
It is conceivable that one could return to the original electorate and invite a certain quorum of signatures. I must say to my noble friend Lord Tope that there are quite a few examples around the world where large numbers of signatures of voters are required in order to set in motion a complicated and serious process of this kind. In my view, the mechanism has to be judicial and cannot simply comprise the removal of a directly elected person by another elected body.
We are moving here into an area of constitutional innovation. It is important that we understand what we are doing. The direct election of a mayor by the people is a serious new phenomenon in the practical constitution of this country. It does not have to he a written constitution. We need to think the matter through. It means in principle that whoever is elected cannot be removed except by the electorate or possibly, and arguably—this is where the mechanism as well as the principle becomes so important—by finding a judicial or quasi-judicial procedure. Perhaps there could be some kind of impeachment procedure leading to the removal of the mayor.
I make these comments as a contribution to a continuing argument and not because I believe that I have the right answer. We should take this constitutional innovation seriously. I am wholly in favour of the process, but it has implications, particularly as regards the issue we are discussing.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords I am grateful for all the views that have been expressed, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, because this can become an issue of principle. Similar amendments were discussed in Committee. The noble Baroness has abandoned the "nuclear option", but she seems to be going for ritual execution.
There is a principle involved here. The principle behind the amendment results from an incorrect understanding of the authorities we are setting up. It

231
assumes that the assembly's mandate is in some sense superior to that of the mayor. That is not the case. Both will have been elected by the same electorate, some directly and some indirectly. The mayor will be elected directly by 5 million Londoners for four years. It does not seem to me that people elected in parallel have the right to remove that mayor.
I have been accused of citing highly unlikely situations. Perhaps I may suggest another extremely unlikely situation. It has been put to me that the noble Lord, Lord Archer, for example, is hugely more popular than is the Conservative Party as a whole in London. I do not necessarily subscribe to that view; nevertheless, it is not inconceivable. That could still mean that he was third in the election; nevertheless, if the noble Lord were elected on that basis and the Conservative Party only had 15 per cent of the vote in the assembly, it is very easy to see that the other parties could gang up against the noble Lord in his new capacity.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it could equally apply to Mr Livingstone and the Labour Party.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the Labour Party has yet to decide its candidate. Therefore, I could not possibly comment.
It would be unacceptable, therefore, if the 75 to 80 per cent of the assembly which was of a different political persuasion from the mayor, or was momentarily, over an important area of policy, out of sympathy with the mayor, could on political grounds vote against the mayor and remove him from office. No one else in our political system who is directly elected can be removed by somebody else who is directly elected. All the other examples—the Prime Minister, the chair of the branch, the leader of the council—are indirectly elected by the group or the party in power.
The people will have decided who the mayor should be and the people should have the right to remove the mayor after the due four years. That does not mean to say that the mayor cannot be removed. I remind noble Lords that the normal disqualification rules that apply throughout local government apply also to the mayor. The conduct of the mayor will have to comply with what is required in terms of the conduct of all councillors and other local authority representatives, but removal in those circumstances will be by a judicial procedure and not by a procedure of parallel democratic election. Removal would be for specified crimes. The crime of being momentarily unpopular with the assembly is not one which is recognised in local government law. It would not be sensible to pursue that line.
Noble Lords have tried to give as an analogy the position in the United States. Since similar amendments on impeachment were considered by a committee of the House in another place, we have seen a deeply flawed process in the United States in relation to this similar process, which was conducted, until people saw where it was leading them, on deeply partisan lines. That is not a system which I think
232
should be imported into British local government and in particular into local government in our capital city. That alone should warn people of the dangers of giving one set of democratically elected politicians the right to remove another democratically elected politician. The mayor should stand or fall subject to the law, and the law is pretty tight in relation to local government misdemeanours. The mayor, subject to the law, should be removed only by the people who have elected him.
That is a principle that divides these Benches and the Liberal Benches. I am slightly more surprised at the Conservative Front Bench's support for the amendment because those noble Lords started from the position of wanting a mayor and not an assembly. Now they are saying that the assembly should be able to get rid of the mayor. That is not a logical and consistent position.
I understand the position put forward by the Liberal Benches, but I do not agree with it and I do not believe that it is a democratic position. Therefore, I urge noble Lords not to accept the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should like to deal first with the point made by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. I note his concern and anxiety, which I share. However, my noble friend makes the very important point that the Bill has no mechanism for dealing with a mayor who loses the confidence of both the electorate and other politicians, but most importantly the confidence of the electorate.
The Minister criticises the amendment on the basis that we are assuming that the assembly mandate is superior to that of the mayor. That is not the basis of our argument. We are seeking a mechanism to deal with the position where, for example, two years into a four-year term the mayor goes off the rails. The Minister states that no one else in government can be removed in this way. No one in local government or at any other level of government in this country will be elected in this way. We have to deal with a very particular situation. I accept that the normal local government provisions will apply, but they are not adequate to deal with the variety of situations which we hope will not arise, but which just conceivably might.
The criticism is also made that a temporarily unpopular mayor could be disposed of by an assembly acting in an irresponsible manner. I accept that that is just conceivably possible, but I suggest that it is likely that assembly members, who must have an eye to their own position, would be very careful about such an action.
The short point is that there is no proposal in the Bill for dealing with a mayor who acts improperly—but not improperly within the criminal provisions to which the noble Lord has referred. We would look at any proposed judicial mechanism carefully and we might well support it, but the Government have not come forward with such a mechanism. We have thought very carefully, and I hope responsibly, about how such matters should be tackled. I believe that this is a matter on which we should seek the opinion of the House.
4.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5A) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 213; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Addison, V.

Elton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Ezra, L.

Alderdice, L.

Falkland, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrers, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fookes, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Geddes, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

Geraint, L.

L.

Gisborough, L.

Arran, E.

Glanusk, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Astor, V.

Glentoran, L

Astor of Hever, L.

Goodhart, L.

Attlee, E.

Gray, L.

Avebury, L.

Gretton, L.

Barker, B.

Grey, E.

Bathurst, E.

Hampton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hamwee, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hanham, B

Berners, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bethell, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Blaker, L.

Harrowby, E.

Blatch, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Boardman, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Bowness, L.

Higgins, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hogg, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Holderness, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Burnham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Buscombe, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Butterworth, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Byford, B.

Jopling, L.

Cadman, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Caithness, E.

Keyes, L.

Calverley, L.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kintore, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Carlisle, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Carnock, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Chadlington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chesham, L.

Leigh, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Liverpool, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Long, V.

Coleraine, L.

Lucas, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Courtown, E.

Luke, L.

Davidson, V.

Lyell, L

Dean of Harptree, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Denbigh, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Dholakia, L.

McNair, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

McNally, L.

Donegall, M.

Maddock, B.

Downshire, M.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dundonald, E.

Marlesford, L.

Dunleath, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Effingham, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elles, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

234

Monk Bretton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Rowallan, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Russell, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Montrose, D.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Mountevans, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Moyne, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Moynihan, L.

Sandberg, L.

Munster, E.

Seccombe, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Selborne, E.

Naseby, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Newall, L.

Sharples, B.

Newby, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Norfolk, D.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Norrie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northbrook, L.

Slim, V.

Northesk, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ogmore, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Swansea, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Swinfen, L.

Pender, L.

Taverne, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L

Thurso, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Tope, L. [Teller]

Radnor, E.

Townshend, M.

Rathcavan, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Razzall, L.

Trumpington, B.

Reay, L.

Tryon, L

Redesdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Warnock, B.

Rennard, L

Waterford, M.

Renton, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Renwick, L.

Wharton, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rochester, L.

Wilcox, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Romney, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Desai, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dixon, L.

Alli, L

Dormand of Easington, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L

Dubs, L.

Amos, B.

Elder, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L

Bach, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Barnett, L.

Fitt, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Berkeley, L.

Goudie, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Blease, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bragg, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brett, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Burlison, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Hayman, B.

Christopher, L.

Healey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Crawley, B.

Hoyle, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

David, B.

Chancellor)

Davies of Coity, L.

Islwyn, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

235

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Rea, L.

Privy Seat)

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Richard, L.

Kennet, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sawyer, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Serota, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lockwood, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Simon, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

[Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Marsh, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thornton, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Varley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Molloy, L.

Walpole, L.

Monkswell, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Weatherill, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Orme, L.

Whitty, L.

Peston, L.

Wilkins, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Winston, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 213 names. The Clerks recorded 212 names.]
Resolved in the affirmative and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.55 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Time of ordinary elections]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—

("(d) for or in connection with enabling electors to vote in the poll at such polling stations or other places as may be prescribed, at such times as may be prescribed, on such one or more days preceding the date specified in or provided under subsection (1) above for the poll as may be specified in the order.

( ) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph (d) of subsection (4) above includes provision for such enactments or statutory instruments as may be specified in the order to have effect with such modifications as may be so specified.
( ) In this section "prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, an order under this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 gives the Secretary of State an enabling power to introduce a system of early voting at the first GLA elections next year. This is a new concept. By "early voting" we mean the option for voters to vote in person at a polling station on a day before polling day itself. Putting this in the Bill does not mean that we have made a final decision on whether or not to proceed with early voting for the first GLA elections. We want first to discuss the details with the London boroughs, the Common Council, electoral practitioners and the main political parties. If a suitable system can be developed in time this amendment would give us the power to implement it, and I commend it to the House.
The introduction of such a system was recommended by the official Working Party on Electoral Procedures under the chairmanship of George Howarth, which included
236
representatives of all political parties, in its interim report of January 1998. Such a procedure could ensure a higher turnout of voters for the London elections and it is one for which we should provide the power. Whether we can do so will depend on the conditions to which I have alluded. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am thoroughly opposed to introducing an innovation like this at this stage of the Bill. It is something which requires debate and a great deal of consideration. We need to consider what the consequences might be and whether those are desirable. To do it "on the nod" on a Government amendment in the spill-over period at Report stage is, to my mind, totally unsatisfactory.
The Minister has given no justification for this amendment except for a reference to a report which, as far as I know, is not before the House. I do not see it on the table at the moment. I consider this to be entirely unsatisfactory and I do not believe, unless I am contradicted and comforted by my own Front Bench, that we should pass this amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a meeting we had last week and for a preliminary discussion of this particular subject, since which time I have had the opportunity to test the views of those from another place to a limited degree. I am happy to say that, in principle, they think that anything that would make the voting process easier for the public is to be commended. Therefore, despite the doubts of my noble friend Lord Lucas about the method by which this amendment is being introduced at this late stage—and we have already had sufficient debate on that matter this aftemoon—the principle is not objectionable.
The only comment that was made to me was that one might perhaps need to think carefully about how this would be done. If one were to have a polling station open on a Sunday, that might offend Christians. Similarly, I am told that doing so on a Saturday might perhaps offend Jews and that having a polling station open on Fridays might offend Moslems. However, as we have permitted shopping and everything else to take place on these days, it seems to me that that is not an argument. Providing that such polling stations were not open on a particular day but were available for a number of days, I believe that that specific objection would be overcome.
I am happy to support the amendment. It will be very interesting to see how it works and whether Londoners—if they are given the chance—will avail themselves of the opportunity and to what extent they do so.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I should preface my remarks by declaring a potential interest in these matters as someone who has been selected as a prospective Greater London assembly candidate.
I, too, welcome the amendment. I know that some discussion has taken place within local government about this possibility during the past few weeks. I believe that there is quite widespread support for this as an innovation. There are many advantages to this proposal. We must recognise that working patterns have changed quite dramatically in recent years. Many people now leave their homes during the early hours of the morning, especially

237
those who live in the outer suburbs of London. They do not have the opportunity to vote, or it may not be convenient for them to do so on the particular days set for elections. Moreover, they may not realise this in time to apply for an absent voting arrangement. Therefore, this kind of flexibility would enable people to respond accordingly.
Part of the process that we are discussing must involve separate polling stations being available for a number of days. My own view is that we will not see an enormous uptake of this opportunity at the elections. However, it is an additional facility that ought to be offered to the public and one which should be monitored carefully during the elections. I am sure that it will be of general value in future elections. It is a welcome innovation and I am certainly not disappointed to see it put forward at this stage; indeed, I would have been very unhappy not to have seen it brought forward because it seems to me to be an innovation which is widely accepted.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I do not object to the amendment but I hope that those who consider it will do so rather carefully. There are some quite serious technical difficulties involved. We keep quoting examples from the United States, but I shall do so now in a totally different way. Because the USA is a big country, voting commences either three or four hours earlier in one area than another and, equally, polling stops earlier. As a result, the authorities have had to adopt some very careful rules to ensure that the people who vote late are not influenced by the exit polls or the results of voting in, say, New York or Washington—or, indeed, along the east coast of America in general.
We could have people voting on Sunday; indeed, I do not know why we do not all vote on Sunday. An awful lot of people vote on Sundays and it is a day when most people are not working. If, for example, some people voted on a Sunday and others voted on the subsequent Thursday, exit polls taken from people coming out of the polling stations on Sunday might very well influence the way people voted on the Thursday. People like to be on the winning side and that is one of the things that happen in elections. That is just one of a number of obvious technical problems. A slightly more frivolous one is that f hope that the fact that people are able to vote early will not mean that they will be permitted to vote often.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the support expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. It should be clear that a lot of further, detailed work will be required with the London boroughs and with the election officers before we could put this process into practice. However, it would be remiss of the House not to allow this possibility for the GLA elections.
As regards the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, I should point out that it is a different situation when the whole electorate has voted early in one part of the country, with an exit poll being taken, and where a few people have voted on a quite unrepresentative basis at an early date. We manage to keep the results of the European elections (where people vote on different days) secret until they are all announced on the Sunday. Therefore, I see no reason why we should not do so for these elections. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Voting at ordinary elections]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
("(10) At an ordinary election a person may not be both a candidate to be an Assembly member and a candidate for Mayor or Deputy Mayor.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12. Both amendments cover an identical point which occurs in different parts of the Bill. They would prohibit a person from simultaneously being a candidate for both the office of mayor and for a place in the assembly.
When I raised this matter in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who responded for the Government, pointed out in an endeavour to be helpful—for which I thank her—that under Clause 4(7):
"The persons who are to be returned as—

(a) the Mayor, and

(b) the constituency members,

must be determined before it is determined who are to be returned as the London members"—
in other words, if the person who is elected mayor was also high up on his party's list for being a London member, he is eliminated from the list.
I can understand a party wanting to place a mayoral candidate in a favoured position so that it can get him on the assembly if he fails to get elected as mayor, but why should he be allowed to have this safety net? Is it a qualification for a seat in the assembly that the electors did not think that you were fit to be the mayor? If you are not fit to be mayor, how are you qualified to exercise the supervisory and advisory functions of an assembly member?
The so-called "London members" are being elected by proportional representation off party lists. As an intrinsic part of that system, it is only those at the top of the list and who are not ineligible for some reason or other who get elected. As drawn, the Bill allows someone to stand simultaneously for mayor and also for a place in the assembly. I ask again: why should this be permitted? Why should someone be allowed to ride two horses at the same time?
A parliamentary candidate is not allowed to stand for two constituencies simultaneously, so why should the candidate for mayor be allowed to hedge his bets in this way? Is it not demeaning to the office of assembly members that a person standing for the office of mayor should say, in effect, "Well, if I'm good enough, elect me as mayor, but if I am not good enough for that, why not let me settle for second best"?
Although the Government accept that a person has to be eliminated from the contest for election as a London member if he is elected the mayor, there is still the anomaly of the person standing for and being elected simultaneously as a constituency member and the mayor. This would give rise to the need for an immediate by-election. Is that not the height of folly?
The Government have already legislated in Clause 10(10) against a candidate running in a by-election for a vacancy as a constituency assembly member if he is already a member of

239
the assembly or the mayor. The Government have already legislated in Clause 16(10) against a person simultaneously standing in by-elections to fill casual vacancies for mayor and the assembly. Why then do the Government turn their face against a person running for both offices in by-elections but insist on permitting it in an ordinary general election?
The noble Baroness did not deal with those points on the last occasion that the issue was before your Lordships. I do not believe that any logical reason can be given for the Government insisting on this anomalous position and I have brought back the matter for your Lordships' further consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Baroness. She moved her amendment solely in terms of the mayor and whether the mayor should be able to be a candidate for the assembly—and I have some sympathy with her arguments. I have also some sympathy with the smaller parties—the Greens, for instance—which may well recognise that their candidate is not likely to be elected as mayor, but wish to have their best person standing for that role and to be a member of the assembly, which is a little more likely.
The amendment refers also to the deputy mayor. As we discussed earlier, we differ on that matter. We certainly would not support the amendment—for reasons we have rehearsed many times; I shall not do so again. We believe strongly that the deputy mayor should be able not only to stand for the assembly, but should also be a member of it.
Lord Witty: My Lords, given that the noble Baroness did not pursue her earlier amendment, if this amendment were to be agreed, the provisions would be somewhat flawed. The question of fitness for these offices is a matter for the political parties putting forward candidates and for the electorate who will judge them. It is clear that the mayor cannot occupy both offices at once, but there is absolutely no reason why, in the first instance, the electorate should not be asked to decide about someone who is a candidate for mayor and who also appears on the party list. In the possible event of a candidate being elected to both offices, there would have to be a by-election. That is a relatively small price to pay for allowing the parties and the electorate the freedom to choose whoever they wish. I am not convinced by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, are correct. It would have been very different if the Minister on behalf of the Government had accepted my earlier amendments concerning the deputy mayor. I had such confidence that he would accept the amendments that I did not think it was necessary to table an amendment to this provision. In view of that, I shall not seek to press the amendment. I hope that the Government will reconsider the position in order that we may bring it back at Third Reading, if necessary, with the deputy mayor omitted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Voting at elections]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 207, line 27, at end insert ("no later than 55 days prior to the date set for the ordinary election")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13.
The Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 was passed to set up proportional representation by the party list method. Amendment No. 13 is a technical amendment which is partly dependent on Amendment No. 11 being agreed. It also tidies up the 1998 Act by setting a time-limit on the registration of political parties for Greater London election purposes.
The main amendment requires a party to submit its list of candidates no later than 55 days before the date of the election. That is more or less the equivalent of two months or 11 five-day working weeks. A 55-day deadline will serve to discourage last-minute entries by single-issue pressure groups. I remind your Lordships that as long ago as 17th May 1995 there was a debate on single-issue pressure groups when it was generally agreed that such groups often exercise an undue and undemocratic influence on governments. They are the inevitable consequence of proportional representation. However, we are not here to debate the merits—or lack of them—of voting systems.
The question is: whose convenience is to be considered? The registrar's duties are purely administrative. I venture to suggest that no more than a few hours' work is required to check the validity of each application. Any political party worth its salt will have its list ready well in advance of the 55-day deadline.
The public interest is paramount and needs to be considered. Bearing in mind that this election will be always on a fixed date, the public and the media are entitled to be given as much notice as possible of who the candidates are as that will enable them to make a thorough check of the candidates' antecedents and capabilities.
I was very surprised when the Government refused my amendment at an earlier stage. Despite studying the Government's reply, I cannot understand their reasons. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, said that the time-table imposed by the amendment would give the registrar,
"effectively three weeks in which to register a late-arriving application".
However, under the Bill as it presently stands, there is no time-limit except the physical one of what it is possible for the registrar reasonably to do. According to the noble Baroness, the registrar's aim,
"is to decide straightforward applications within five days".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 75.]
A possible five days; what sort of notice is that? To paraphrase Dr Johnson, if a party knows it will be excluded in two months, that will concentrate its mind wonderfully!
The next ground on which the Government opposed a time-limit was that one had not been imposed in any other election. The whole concept of PR and party lists is new to Britain. We are not talking about upsetting a long-standing, tried and tested system. Our concern—I am sure it is the concern of everyone in the House today—is London, a part of the United Kingdom which has a greater population than Wales and Scotland combined. What may suit two comparatively small electoral units may not suit London.
Equally, what is suitable for a national election for the European Parliament may not be suitable for local elections in the largest capital city in Europe. Are the Government telling us that the administrative arrangements for this novel form of election are the acme of perfection and need no adjustment or modification?
If the Government again ask your Lardships to reject this very modest, constructive and non-controversial slight modification to the rules, we should have a more explicit reason than the one given by the noble Baroness previously; that they do not
"add value to the Bill".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 75.]
I think it makes the Bill better for the public. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness has not convinced me. The strictures imposed by straightforward applications would not be a great burden on the registrar; in practice, he already substantially exceeds them.
Part of the problem is that we have a complexity of electoral law. In this area there seems to be no good reason why the time-scales and procedures applying to London should be different from those relevant to any other election. I am not sure that the noble Baroness has put forward a convincing argument as to why they should differ. It is normal procedure for time-scales to be set out in election rules rather than enshrined in primary legislation. As my noble friend Lady Farrington informed the House previously, we will follow that general practice in London.
There has been no move to put forward different time-scales and procedures in relation to other elections which have introduced new voting procedures and I see no reason to do so in London. I have heard nothing from the noble Baroness which would convince me to alter the procedure. Let us keep it simple.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords. there have not been many different kinds of electoral procedures. I made the point that Scotland and Wales cannot be compared to London; we think that London is special and I think that the amendments would be helpful. However, as the Minister wants to keep things simple, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Failure to attend meetings]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4. line 23. leave out ("six") and insert ("three")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 19 and 20. These two pairs of amendments deal with disqualification of, first, a member of the assembly and, secondly, the mayor for failure to attend.
We propose in both cases a reduction in the period of failure to attend that would lead to disqualification. The amendments are supported by the Conservatives. We have added accompanying amendments to provide that if the assembly agrees to a longer period of non-attendance, that would override the basic period.
The point about the period of non-attendance was made by the Conservatives at the previous stage. We thought that they had a good point. We propose that in both cases the period of six months should be reduced to three. In replying, the Minister said that six months was the period that applied in the case of local government —local authority councillors are disqualified if they fail to attend meetings over that period—and the Government saw no special reason for the period to be different in this case.
We believe that there is a difference. The assembly will have only 25 members. It will be a far smaller body than London borough, county, unitary and most district authorities. The impact of non-attendance will be proportionately greater.
The Minister said that it was unlikely that the mayor would consciously seek to avoid meetings but that he or she would have other "significant duties". The Minister could easily conceive of reasons—for example, illness—which would keep the mayor away.
This pair of amendments is intended as a balance. Six months is a long period. It is one-eighth of the term of office. However, there may be very good reasons for either an assembly member or the mayor being absent for more than three months. We follow the analogy of local government in the second of each pair of amendments by proposing that the assembly should be given the opportunity to consider whether the reason is a good one. If it is—for instance, illness—then, if noble Lords like to use the phraseology, the rule could be waived. The assembly will be in a position to judge whether a colleague or the mayor is "skiving" or whether he or she has a good reason for not being there for the period in question.
I recall a councillor colleague suffering from a long-term illness. It was well understood among councillors of all parties that that colleague was still carrying out certain functions as a councillor but that there were difficulties in attending meetings. Our proposals, which apply in local government, allowing the period to be altered are a matter of common sense and should apply in the case of both members of the assembly and the mayor. However, given the responsibilities and the numbers of people involved, the basic period should be reduced from six months to three months. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have put my name to both Amendment No. 14 and Amendment No. 19 and I am pleased to support them. Both are to the same effect. One relates to absences on the part of an assembly member, and the other to absences on the part of the mayor. The principle is the same in both cases.
The Government suggest that an assembly member can be absent from no fewer than live consecutive meetings of the assembly and the mayor can be absent for five consecutive statutory meetings of the assembly without forfeiting office.
As I promised, I have carefully considered the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, in response to my amendment in Committee. It seems to me that her observations actually supported my amendments rather than providing a reason to reject them.

243
I turn first to the situation regarding the mayor, which is covered by Amendment No. 19. The Bill as drafted refers to the statutory monthly meetings of the assembly held pursuant to Clause 44(2). The mayor is obliged to attend pursuant to Clause 37(3). The Bill states that,
"The Mayor shall attend every meeting of the Assembly held pursuant to Section 44(2)".
There is no sanction if he does not, except in Clause 13, which, as drafted, provides for him to be disqualified if he fails to attend six consecutive statutory monthly meetings.
The noble Baroness, in her response regarding the mayor's attendance, said:
"The assembly will undoubtedly want to invite the mayor to attend the other meetings it will hold and the mayor will undoubtedly wish to accept such invitations"—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 92.]
Those "other meetings" are not what the amendment is about. I agree entirely that the mayor is not to be at the beck and call of the assembly. If it decides for its own reasons to meet, let us say, every Tuesday, there is no reason why the mayor should be required to drop everything in order to attend. However, the Minister later referred to a series of theoretical calamities which might make it necessary for three or more meetings of the assembly to be missed.
But we are not talking merely about meetings of the assembly. Clause 13 relates to the statutory monthly meeting which the mayor is required to attend under Clause 37(3). In her reply, again at col. 92 the Minister reminded the House:
"The meetings have been established for the express purpose of allowing the assembly to cross-examine the mayor about his decisions and actions".
In a mayoral term there will be 48 statutory monthly meetings of the assembly. Clause 13 as drafted permits the mayor to be absent for five statutory meetings before the sanction comes into effect. So despite what the Minister concedes is the vital importance of those meetings, the mayor could avoid attending all but eight of them during the whole of his term of office. That is "completely unacceptable." Those are the Minister's words, not mine. She said:
"we recognise that the mayor cannot be allowed to treat the assembly in a wholly cavalier manner".
In terms of absence, six monthly meetings are far too many. The absence of the mayor, even if his deputy turns up in his place, leaves the assembly virtually toothless. What will the assembly do during those six meetings? Will the members merely turn up and claim their allowances?
The mayors of other great cities spend a large part of their time, sometimes up to 18 hours a day, glued to their desks. Although we agree that the mayor will have duties, possibly overseas, promoting London as a business and tourist centre and studying the government of other cities, the dates of the statutory meetings will be well known. The mayor will simply fix his absences abroad around those dates.
I stress that our amendment refers to the mayor's absence from the statutory monthly meetings. The Minister's reply was based upon it relating to only six meetings of the assembly, including those that the law will not oblige him to attend. The Minister said that the Government were linking the procedure for
244
disqualification to the statutory monthly meetings. So do we. The difference between us is that we believe that three meetings should be the limit, not the six consecutive absences that the Government propose to grant.
I now turn to the situation regarding the assembly member covered by Amendment No. 14. The Government propose that an assembly member can be absent for up to six consecutive months from all, or any, meetings, statutory or otherwise. In her reply, the noble Baroness said, at col. 93:
"An assembly member is likely to be busy with the statutory monthly meetings and any committees … on which he is required to serve".
Whatever meeting of the assembly he attends—whether one of the statutory meetings or any other business meeting that the assembly may hold—it starts the clock running all over again. If he attends a committee meeting or a meeting of some outside organisation as the representative of the assembly or the authority, then it counts in his favour. Once again, the clock begins to run.
The Minister attempted to draw an analogy between an assembly member and local authority members as provided for in Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972. With the greatest respect, there is absolutely no relation between the two situations. Local councillors represent infinitely smaller constituencies than the 14 super constituencies that the Bill will create. Each of those local wards usually has two or three councillors, so that an absent member can be covered by a colleague. Here, the constituents will be effectively disfranchised.
In my view, there is no reason to establish two different scales of permitted absenteeism. So the same period should also apply to the so-called London members elected on their party ticket. Here again, the difference between us and the Government is just a question of numbers. The Government offer an assembly member a generous six absences whereas we and our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat side say that three is enough.
The job of governing London is not a part-time job either for the mayor or for a member of the assembly. We do not want an assembly which is a mere talking shop, whose members drop in when they have nothing better to do. We also do not want a mayor who is supposed to be accountable to the assembly but who can treat it with total disdain by ignoring seven-eighths of its statutory meetings during his term.
The amended periods of absences that we have proposed are more than adequate. Except in cases of illness, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, when there might well be a need to have a few absences, if a person really cannot guarantee to give the time, he should not offer himself as a candidate.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I support the group of amendments, which are reasonable, sensible and, under the circumstances of the Greater London authority, necessary. As others said and we discussed at Committee stage, the provisions in the Bill are based on the current law and practice in local government. I know them well and have had to use them on a number of occasions, so many occasions that for the first and only time in my local government career, I knew the practice rather better than

245
the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. It is the only time I am willing to acknowledge that I have been right and she has been wrong.
The provision permits local authorities to give consent to the absence of a councillor for longer than six months. They will do so if it is seen to be for good reasons, the most obvious being illness, but there are others. In my 25 years in local government I have known that happen on quite a number of occasions. I have never known it to be refused. No doubt it has been refused somewhere, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Where an application is made for leave of absence for a demonstrably good reason, regardless of party politics, generally the body concerned will grant it. That is the situation referred to under Amendments Nos. 15 and 20. In other words, it is not automatic that if for any reason someone fails to attend a meeting within the specified period he or she is disqualified. It is not mandatory, there is a discretion on the assembly. In my experience, if there is a good reason, the body will exercise its discretion.
We come to the crucial point in the amendments: should it be six months, as is the provision for local government, or three months, as we propose? There are a number of reasons why I think it should be three. First, the Government have told us continually and probably rightly that the Greater London authority is not local government. It is not regional government either, it is unique. Therefore, it follows logically that we should have a unique provision.
It is unique in that it will be the first authority in the country to have a directly elected mayor with a high profile and considerable personal powers, unlike the situation anywhere else in the country. It is therefore reasonable to have a different provision with regard to his or her absence from that which applies to any other borough or district councillor anywhere in the country. Those people are in a different position. For a mayor to be absent without good reason and the consent of the assembly for a period of longer than three months—I believe it is unlikely to happen—would be serious and a situation for which provision should be made.
I turn to the assembly. There will be 25 assembly members, half the number of the smallest London borough council The assembly members will be full-time, unlike most London borough or any other councillors. They will have heavy and important duties both on the assembly and, most of them, on the functional bodies. For them to go absent without good reason for a period of six months would be very serious indeed for the workings of the assembly and the effect on their colleagues in the assembly. That is qualitatively different from the position if one of 50 or more London borough councillors should be missing for six months.
Six months is much too long a period, especially in a four-year term of office. It is reasonable to provide that three months should be the maximum unless there is a good and unavoidable reason for a longer period of absence—for example, illness. Should that happen, the assembly will have the power to give consent to that absence. In my 25 years' experience of local government I know that under those circumstances consent would generally be given.
I hope that the Government will consider the amendment seriously. It is reasonable and sensible and, given the circumstances of the Greater London authority,
246
it is necessary. If we are left with the six-month period of absence it could have a serious effect on the government of London.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some interesting points have been made. However, I still do not believe there is a convincing argument as to why assembly men and women should be treated differently from councillors throughout the land. Six months has long been the position there and there are local authorities of varying sizes and electorates. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope said, London is unique but there is no point in applying different rules to London from elsewhere just for the sake of it.
As regards the mayor, I can see that there are different arguments but we are in a unique situation in relation to the mayor. We considered that the six-month period was appropriate and a single absence of six months still seems to me to be the sensible position.
I take some of the points made by the noble Baroness in relation to the roll-on effect and how much, theoretically at least, it could mean throughout the mayoral term. I am not entirely convinced that we need to alter this to take account of an unlikely situation, but in relation to the mayor I am willing to consider it seriously.
If we accepted the amendments as they stand, we would have a potentially worse situation from the noble Baroness's point of view because theoretically at least, the assembly could concede that the mayor should not even attend after the six months. Whatever the level, three or six months, the assembly could give leave to him not to attend after that. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendments as they stand would meet either of the Opposition Benches' points. If the assembly were to collude with the mayor, it could allow the mayor to fail to attend for yet more meetings.
There is an issue in relation to the roll-on effect which I ought to consider further. But I would not be prepared to support the amendments as they stand.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, I know we are at Report stage but it is important. The Minister said that he would consider the question of the mayor and I am sure he is right to do that. Some very good arguments have been made. He said that he saw no valid reason why the assembly members should be treated any differently from members of local government. When the Minister reads what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has said, he will find that there are valid reasons. I suggest that he considers them.
It is important to get this right; it is not a difficult adjustment to make. The Minister may have considered this very carefully indeed or he may not: I do not know. He may be defending his position until he reads what Hansard says. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made one or two very good points about the assembly members and. I hope that the Minister will look at those as well.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hope that this is something to which the Government will give a little further thought.
The position may not arise so far as the mayor is concerned, although it is possible that it will. It is fairly likely, however, that a member of the assembly will, over a

247
period of four years, be in the position when perhaps illness or some other good cause will make attendance difficult but where, just as with local government councillors, it would be appropriate for there to be a mechanism to allow that person to remain in office.
The Minister has laid great stress on the rules applying to members of the assembly not being different to those applying to members of local authorities, including London boroughs. I believe that there should be no difference in respect of the way an absence is considered, as a quite separate matter from the length of time concerned.
When, as I hope will happen after this stage of the Bill, the Minister looks at how this applies, I would be interested to know how the proposed alterations to Clause 44 will affect the position which allows the assembly to meet more often than once a month, because I believe that we need to consider these things together.
With regard to possible collusion between members of the assembly and the mayor, allowing the assembly to let the mayor off the hook and perhaps spend the period of office promoting London around the world or whatever, we have talked about what is likely, what is conceivable and so on. It is possible that the mayor might decide that his or her duties called for him or her to be away from London at all the relevant points. That does not dispose of the need for attendance at what, for the purposes of the Bill, we are still to call the "State of London debate" and the "People's question time". I do not think that what we are suggesting, therefore, is to allow the mayor to go off on a "jolly" for four years and never to pitch up facing the people of London.
I hope that we may have some news now and perhaps I should go on speaking for a moment. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will consider the serious points which we are making. This is not an attempt to upset the structure of the Bill. It is an attempt to address likelihoods. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
VACANCY CREATED BY MEMBER RESIGNING PARTY WHIP
(" . Any London member elected as a member of a registered political party who resigns his party whip shall be deemed to have created a vacancy.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, earlier this afternoon we dealt with the possible eventuality of needing to recall the mayor. We all expressed the hope and the belief that such a situation was unlikely to arise.
This amendment deals with a situation which from long political experience I believe is very likely to arise sooner or later. Again, a Bill which is extremely prescriptive is singularly silent on this particular point. That is, what happens if one of the members of the assembly taken from the party list subsequently resigns the party whip and ceases to be a member of that party?
The Greater London assembly will have 14 members elected from constituencies—very large constituencies. It can be argued quite legitimately there, as it is in respect of
248
Members of Parliament, that the people who vote for them vote for them as individuals; they are elected as individuals, albeit most of them on a party ticket. We could have a debate about whether they would or would not be there if they were not on that party ticket. There at least, however, there is a direct link with the electorate. People have voted for that individual and elected him or her. They should no more be obliged to resign should they change parties than they are in the other place. One might have a point of view about what is the ethical thing to do under such circumstances, but there are enough precedents to demonstrate that ethics do not always arise in such circumstances.
Here, however, we are talking about a group of people the like of whom do not yet exist anywhere else in British politics. These are people elected from party lists to give a party balance on the assembly. In other words, to ensure that the membership of the assembly as near as possible represents the proportion of votes cast across London for each party or group. They are people who will be there for no reason other than their membership of a political party and the position on the list on which that party has chosen to put them. That constitutes their legitimacy. They are there because people have voted for the party, not for the individual.
What we are trying to deal with here is a situation where an individual decides that he or she no longer wishes to represent that party and to be a member of that party within the assembly. We are not dealing with a case where the party expels that member. That was a point of difference we had with the Conservative amendment at the Committee stage. I did not agree with that because, if it were to deal with expulsion, the incentive to expel a troublesome member might be rather too tempting on occasion.
The situation with which we are dealing here is one where an elected assembly person from the list chooses no longer to be a member of the party from whose list he or she has been elected. When that situation arises—and I believe that it will arise, perhaps not in the first term but sooner or later—the individual who has been elected and put in that position solely because of having been put on a party list by that party will no longer be representing that party. The party will be deprived of that representation. The voters who have voted for that party in the expectation that they will have that proportional representation will then be deprived of that representation.
My Lords, that is a different situation from any other in the British political system, structured as it is at the moment. I forget Scotland and Wales. I should say in the English political system. It is a very important situation and one which should be dealt with.
We are dealing with it in the way suggested here. We believe that someone who loses his or her electoral or party legitimacy as a London member, should be deemed to have resigned and to have created a vacancy. I think that is the right and proper way to deal with the matter, and presumably the next person on the list would step in.
I again ask the Government, as I did on the question of recall, if they recognise that this is a situation which is likely to occur sooner or later but they do not like this particular

249
mechanism—though personally I think that it is the best one—will they tell me what mechanism they propose to deal with it when it does arise?
This extremely long, very prescriptive Bill is strangely silent on something which is not a remote possibility but which is a very likely event, sooner or later. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord 'Tope, is right that we had a very similar amendment to this at Committee stage, with the additional part relating to expulsion. On reflection, we decided that the Liberal amendment was better than ours and we dropped our amendment. It was the second of the two amendments I mentioned earlier to which my name was unfortunately not added because of a problem when we went to the Public Bill Office rather later than we should have done.
I do not wish to repeat everything that the noble Lord has said. There is one thing I would say, however. The noble Lord, whose party has far more enthusiasm for proportional representation than do I or my party, joined me at Committee stage in pointing out that there is a vast difference between a first-past-the-post Member of Parliament crossing the floor and a member who owes his election simply to being a representative not of the members of his constituency but of a political party.
The fiction that applies in parliamentary elections and local council elections—namely, that voters elect individuals and not parties—does not apply here because that is precisely what the electors are doing. First, they are told, or authorised, to vote for a candidate for the constituency in which they reside. Secondly, they are authorised by a combination of the provisions of Clause 4(1)(c) and Clause 4(5)(a) to vote for,
"a registered political party which has submitted a list of candidates".
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has already said, that is precisely the point. The London vote is for a party, not an individual. The parliamentary fiction does not apply.
This is supposed to be an election based on proportional representation, and the proportionality chosen by the electorate—I stress that—ceases to exist when a party representative simply changes sides.
Why is it that Clause 11 is devoted to the machinery for replacing a vacancy among London members, but the Government, judging by their response at an earlier stage, decline to accept that such a vacancy occurs when a member of the assembly ceases to be a member of the party that sent him to the assembly? Why does Clause 11(5) specifically provide that when a vacancy occurs among the London members, which must be filled from among the other members on the list, someone who is not a party member is not eligible as a replacement?
What is the reason for the Government's inconsistency in this matter? Having listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to the Committee and studied it carefully in Hansard, I confess that I do not know. I cannot see it. It cannot be that they believe that under the benign dictatorship of their leader they are immune from defections from their party; certainly at local level, they are not. The noble Lord nods his head, but I am not sure that that is due to the note that he is reading or as a result of what I have said.
250
This amendment is not some devious plot on the part of the Opposition, including the Liberal Democrats, to damage the Bill; it is designed simply to correct an anomaly or to cure an oversight. The noble Lord criticised the Liberal Democrat amendment on the ground that a dissenter would not leave his party, but would simply ignore the Whip. He did not answer my amendment at all, except to repeat the entirely fallacious argument that people are to elect an individual, not a party. He prayed in aid the fact that it is only comparatively recently that party labels have been attached to candidates' names in Westminster and local elections. That was done precisely because it was realised that a large number of the voters did not have the foggiest idea who was the local candidate for the party of their choice, no matter how many posters went up in neighbours' windows or how many unread election leaflets fell onto their doormats, along with soap coupons and adverts from the local pizza delivery service. Three months after an election how many electors can tell you on the doorstep what party their member represents, much less his name? The election of a London member will take place not because of who he is, but because he is a member of a particular party. His individuality is absolutely irrelevant.
When the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, began his response to this debate in Committee, he admitted that he was "a little torn" on it. I assume that he meant that he agreed that the point had some merit. He said that he tended to think that if people left a party, there should be some sanctions, but that he thought our proposals were "pushing it a bit". But in this case he has missed the point. The sanction is not that the defector loses his seat; it is against the voters who lose one of their elected party representatives. It is not like an ordinary parliamentary constituency where the voter can take his problems to another Member of Parliament in a neighbouring constituency. There can be absolutely no reason at all why the voters who have elected somebody on a party ticket, not as a theoretical individual, should be deprived of part of their voice—perhaps of all of it if their party has only one London member—when an individual changes the party allegiance for which he was selected. I can only hope that the Government, having had time to reflect on what both I and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said in Committee, now accept this entirely constructive amendment.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I very much regret that in this amendment I cannot support my noble friend Lady Miller or the noble Lord, Lord Tope, whose knowledge of local government matters I deeply respect. I had rather hoped that those who were elected would be London-wide members in the light of the normal convention that, however people are elected and by whatever means, they then become representatives of the people of the area. Surely it is not suggested that the London members should be purely nominees just to do the bidding of their party irrespective of the wishes or needs of the citizens of Greater London. If one does not like the party list, to argue that that should be the case is to argue for more power to the party in determining such matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, wants a mechanism to deal with this situation. I hope that we shall not have such a mechanism, but that in the interests of democracy (even if people are elected by a list submitted by their party). they

251
become members of the Greater London authority. If they fall out with their party, that is a problem for their party and its leaders. It is not for us to legislate that they be removed from the forum where they might express a strongly held view for the benefit of the citizens of Greater London.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am reminded of the old line:
"O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"
The deception here is proportional representation. Having started down that road we encounter serious difficulties, such as the one your Lordships are considering this afternoon.
I take exception to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. He said that we had no experience of these matters anywhere in the United Kingdom's political system. We do. We have already had the experience of Scotland and of Wales. During our Committee considerations of the Scotland and the Government of Wales Bills your Lordships looked at exactly these issues when considering the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. In particular, we discussed this matter in relation to the Scottish Parliament on 14th July 1998. We discussed it then in the context of two quite different problems. The first was the one that we are addressing today: the position of the additional members who are there only to keep proportionality, now so beloved of the Government as well as the Liberal Democrats. They are not there for any other reason.
Whether a party has two or three members is decided entirely on the basis of proportionality. The intention is to retain proportionality. The additional members are there for that purpose and do not represent anyone other than their party and proportionality. I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend. We may not like it, but that is the reality. The additional members are quite different from the first-past-the-post members. The governing party here and in Scotland has treated them differently when it comes to expenses. It has said that the first-past-the-post members will receive so much expenses and that the additional members will receive less. Somehow they are second-class members when it comes to representing constituents—because they do not have constituents in the same way. The system that has been devised in Scotland, Wales and now London has created two classes of member. I do not like it, but that is the reality.
The problems that your Lordships addressed in the Scotland Bill were even worse than the present ones. If one of the additional members had died, retired or resigned, the returning officer would have turned to the highest loser and asked whether that individual wished to take the seat. If he agreed, he would have taken the seat. He could have left the party by that time, but the legislation as originally drafted would have allowed it. Your Lordships forced the Government to change that. Clause 11(5) now appears in the Bill solely because we forced the Government to change their mind. The situation is that if the highest loser is no longer a member of the party, he or she is not elected.
Unfortunately, in the Scotland Bill we were so pleased with our success that we rather took our eye off the other half of this particular ball game, the one that has been
252
addressed today; namely, if somebody from that additional list leaves that party and crosses the floor, do we treat it in the same way as we treat first-past-the-post members, or do we accept that that has actually upset the very proportionality for which that individual was sent to the Parliament? That individual was not sent to Parliament for any other reason than proportionality.
I believe it is a serious defect in the system. I believe the system is defective, and inside the system there is a serious defect here. As the Bill, the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act have addressed the first problem—namely that nobody should inherit a seat if they have left the party whose seat it is—then I believe that nobody should be allowed to keep a seat if they change their place in the chamber, because they are only there to maintain that proportionality. If they move to the other side of the chamber they will have broken that proportionality.
I am afraid that this amendment is totally logical and it is totally at one with Clause 11(5). If my noble friend does not like it, it is because he does not like proportionality and proportional representation. In that I agree with him. I do not like it either. However, it is reality. It is what we have in Scotland and Wales. It is what London is going to have. I believe that we have to grope for ways to make the system as workable as possible. I think that this amendment ought to have been pressed in the Scottish and Welsh Bills. It was not, and I take my share of responsibility for that. I certainly hope that, if it is pressed today by the Liberal Democrats, even though we profoundly disagree on the principle of proportional representation, it will be passed by your Lordships.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I simply cannot agree with my noble friend Lady Miller that because you fundamentally disagree with somebody you lose your seat. We know that proportional representation is a rotten system. If we think in this House that it is a rotten system, which we do because it produces people like Adolf Hitler who, as your Lordships are well aware, was voted into power perfectly legitimately under proportional representation, why should we even attempt to make it better? Why should we attempt to make it better by a method of democratic centralism which provides that you cannot do anything other than I say you can do? This is a deeply, deeply illiberal amendment.
I am sorry to say this and disagree with my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Mackay is saying that it is a bad system and that we might make it better. I think that it is a system which is not made any better by doing anything to it at all and that we should allow people to have some sense of their own consciences. What happens, for instance, if someone is a totally rebellious Tory, Liberal, Labour, Independent, Scottish National, Green or whatever in London? He does not resign, he just persistently votes the other way. Is his party going to have the right to expel him? All he does, if he has an ounce of noodle in his head, is not to resign the Whip. He just behaves as if he has and keeps the Whip.
This is giving too much control to party power. I do not like it, and for Tories who believe in freedom and for Liberals to agree with something like this seems to be going

253
against all of our ancient and good traditions—the best traditions of Gladstone or of Lord Salisbury, whose excellent biography I am now reading. To find myself in support of the Labour Party is such a painful experience.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with both my noble friends who spoke about democracy of the individual. The trouble is, as we have seen with the Scottish Parliament, this is the system we now have. My noble friend said that it does not matter at all who the member is; the members are just there for the party. Alas, that is the position the Government have accepted, as have the Liberal Democrats.
I wonder whether, quite apart from paying less expenses to the list members, it would not be cheaper still just to have buttons which one presses to vote. There is very little point in being there at all if you cannot do anything your party does not want.
The other point to make is that there is no way for list members to use clout against their party to try and tell them they are wrong and persuade them to change. On a number of occasions in local government I remember saying I was going to resign as the chairman of a committee or as a member if it did not do this, that or the other, or that I would change parties. If you move from one party to another in this assembly, no clout at all remains with you. You have no sanction. Nevertheless, this is the system we have and we have to get it to work.
I forget whether, when the Scotland. Bill was going through this House, anyone raised the question of the human rights of the 'individual. I do not know whether the Convention on Human Rights would make it difficult to legislate for someone to have to resign if they moved party. It seems to me it is a limitation on human rights. It is a question that the Government may have looked at and, if they have not, they probably should.
I think we have to go along with this amendment. In this assembly, I think that the system becomes more and more unfortunate and less and less democratic. The Liberal Democrats are being logical. They do not mind who is in the assembly. They just mind that they are there because they belong to a particular party and they are the ones the party happens to have picked out. The electorate can only tell what the balance of the assembly is.
I say that we have to go along with this—I say so with a heavy heart—simply to be logical. Your Lordships usually try to be logical when they are improving a Bill.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, with regard to the argument that has been advanced, the emphasis has been on the party. If they had been elected by way of proportional representation, then their loyalty is to the party. The amendment, as I understand it, is that if someone leaves the party and crosses the floor then of course they are no longer entitled to retain their seat. What would happen if the party machine does not like an individual and takes away that individual's membership, or indeed takes away that individual's Whip? Then that person is persona non grata. That is a power for the
254
machine to institute disciplines, beyond the level of democracy in my view, to ensure that that individual no longer is a representative of the people who elected him.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, on that last point., the possibility of party discipline being, shall we say, over-strengthened would arise if the words "if a member were thrown out of his party shall be deemed to have created a vacancy" were in the amendment, but that is not there. This particular amendment is very specifically drawn so that it applies only to an individual who, of his own volition, decides that he wishes to leave his party. There is nothing in this specific amendment which would give the party machine any greater authority over its members than it already has.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, that should teach my noble friend not to make jokes on the basis of his experience as an old apparatchik. He ceased to be one some time ago. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity—who I think must have been as surprised as the noble Earl to find himself on the same side—said it gives enormous power.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that is the point. In this House we can have very odd bedfellows (if that is the right use of the word).
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is indeed. The noble Lord referred rightly to the fact that those who wished for the democratic centralism to which the noble Earl referred would very much like this power.
As noble Lords have said, the amendment returns to an issue debated at earlier stages. The Government continue to believe that it would be impractical to implement the proposals set out in the amendment. A dissident member of a registered party who stood to lose his or her assembly seat by resigning the Whip would surely simply not resign. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to the question of ethics. But that would not arise because the person who was prepared voluntarily to face the electorate would not be in this position. Therefore, we are dealing with those who do not want to resign their seat.
From the debate, it is clear that, in the view of those who support the amendment, the provision should never be used for those who have been sacked. A case has not been made to justify those who take the specific action of resigning the Whip—for whatever reason and however honourably—to be forced to do so; while those who refuse to do so—however dishonourably it may appear in individual cases—are not affected.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, on the basis of that argument, the Government should be moving to delete subsection (5). Exactly those rules will apply to the next highest loser if a vacancy occurs. The party will be asked whether that person is still a member of the party. If it is good enough to be a test for whether the next highest loser can come into the Parliament, it is good enough for someone who is already there.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord is well aware that we are dealing with two separate

255
matters: the process whereby someone becomes a representative (whether of a parliament, local authority or an assembly); and what they become at the point they accept office. I, and noble Lords with more distinguished careers in local government than mine, recognise that at the point where the electoral process had been completed, he or she began to represent all those who had been involved in that election process. That is the position that the Government take.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are not talking about local government, but about additional members. I may be wrong, but I do think that any local government body in England has been elected by the additional member system of proportionality. The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are so elected. The London body will be quite different.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads Hansard, he will find that I said that it is regardless of which type of election and to which body the person is elected. It is a process that allows that person to accept office. I repeat the point. It is the Government's view that regardless of what happens during that process, at the point that that person accepts office, his position changes. What would happen is that a dissident member would refuse to toe the party line, or resign the Whip, and yet maintain his position.
We opposed these amendments when they were first considered in another place. We continue to oppose them. I hope that the noble Baroness will choose not to press them.
I have been asked what the Government would put in place. The Government take the view that the issue that is being dealt with in these amendments is a dangerously centralising one, giving far too much power to political parties. It is a quite clear convention that a sitting representative, whether a Member of Parliament or a councillor, has an identity and role regardless of the process used in terms of party affiliation.
London members, through whichever electoral procedures they are elected, will be elected to represent the strategic interests of all Londoners. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, is right in regard to the responsibilities people have.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked about the remuneration of Members serving in the Scottish Parliament. Knowing his support for the principle of devolution to Scotland, I am sure he would be appalled were Ito rise to that bait and deal with the internal affairs of the Scottish Parliament and its decisions. I think that it would be wrong for us to interfere in the way suggested in the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the amendment has provoked a most interesting debate. I am sorry that it has divided the Conservative Party. I have spent most of my adult life trying to divide the Conservative Party, usually unsuccessfully. On this occasion, I seem to have provoked it without intending to do so.
256
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for his eloquent support, and his experience in Scotland and Wales. I apologise if I gave another impression when I referred to Britain. As I said it, especially looking at the noble Lord, I realised that I meant England. I think that I corrected what I said. If I gave offence to Scotland or Wales, it was unintentional and I apologise.
Perhaps I may disagree with the noble Lord on one point. He said that what we have now is an inevitable consequence of proportional representation. That is not true. It is rubbish. It is an inevitable consequence of this system of proportional representation. If he would like me to give your Lordships a lecture on the differences of proportional representation, I shall do so; but I can see that he does not. The system for this election, as for Scotland and Wales, is not one favoured by the Liberal Democrats. We favoured a system of proportional representation which would not have led to these consequences. So from that point of view, I find myself in exactly the same position as the Conservative Members who are supporting this amendment. It is not a system we would have chosen, or wished for; but we have it and we have to make it work. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made the point well.
A number of speakers, including, surprisingly, the Minister replying, referred to giving too much power to the party and the party machine. We have had talk about democratic centralism. Talking about democratic centralism at the same time as referring to apparatchiks must cause a few twinges! It is to misunderstand the amendment. That was exactly the reason why we disagreed with the earlier amendment from Members on the Conservative Front Bench, as they have readily acknowledged and recognised. Their amendment provided that if someone were expelled from the party, he or she should have to resign. We disagreed with that for exactly the reasons others have given: that that would provide too much power to a party machine to deal with difficult and troublesome people.
This amendment does not refer to party power, but to the individual choice of the assembly member. It is nothing to do with the party. If the assembly member chooses to leave one party and join another party, or no party, that is that individual's choice. It is nothing to do with the party. If an assembly member knew that if he changed party or left the party from whose list he had been elected he would have to leave his seat on the assembly, that may well be a disincentive to change party. I acknowledge that and it is true. It will be troublesome for the party concerned, which I also acknowledge. Others have said that it is a problem which the party managers will have to deal with. That is also true. That situation may well occur. It is something we shall have to deal with. However, this amendment deals solely with a situation where an individual assembly member, elected for no other reason—
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I realise the subtlety in the difference between someone choosing to leave and someone being pressured to do so. But in the field of industrial relations, particularly as regards the legislation covering that subject, there is a term called "constructive dismissal". A situation could arise where one says it is only through choice that one leaves, but the pressure could be

257
such that the person concerned did not really have a true choice. I understand the subtlety of the situation, but I am not sure that the arrangement would work as perfectly as the noble Lord has suggested.
Lord Tope: My Lords, if we were ever in such a situation I suspect that there would be nothing very subtle about it. I also understand what constructive dismissal means in terms of industrial relations. I have no doubt that if we come to such a situation, all kinds of pressures will be placed on an individual assembly member under the circumstances. However, it will still be the choice of the assembly member. An assembly member elected by whatever means, but in this case through a party list, will not be in the same position as an employee in an employment situation. I do not believe that it is a close analogy.
We are speaking about an individual decision taken by an assembly member from the party list. Should the member take a decision that he or she does not wish to be a member of a particular party, but perhaps wishes to join another, then the effect of that decision is to destroy the proportionality in the assembly which the whole system has been designed to achieve. I cannot imagine it ever happening, but if a Liberal Democrat London member from the list suddenly had an aberration and decided to become a Conservative and joined that party, that would immediately upset the balance between the members. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, it would upset the balance to a much greater extent than would be the case in the Scottish Parliament, because we have only 25 members in total in the assembly. I have not done the arithmetic, but it makes a significant difference to the party balance. In one step it would destroy the purpose of having proportionality, even in this imperfect system.
This is a serious point. I am sorry that some noble Lords, including Members of the Government Front Bench, have misunderstood its purpose. It has nothing to do with party power, democratic centralism, but it is concerned with achieving the Government's objective of giving the Greater London assembly a proportionate membership which reflects the votes of Londoners. I shall not press the amendment on this occasion. I hope, having explained the amendment carefully and clearly, that the Government will reflect further on it. We shall certainly do so. I feel sure that we shall return to it in one way or another at Third Reading. I look forward to the Government's amendment for that purpose. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Date of casual vacancies]:
Lord Whitty,Lord Whitty, moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 27, at end insert—
("(aa) in the ease of any person being returned as mentioned in section 16(10) below, on the date on which he is returned to fill the vacancy in the Assembly constituency;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. They are quite straightforward. They attempt to rectify an inconsistency which has been referred to earlier. At the moment, the Bill prevents a person standing as a candidate to fill a vacancy in the office of mayor if he or she is also a candidate to fill a vacancy in an assembly constituency. I
258
appreciate that certain noble Lords were against the prohibition as regards an ordinary election, but we have passed that point. If we are in favour of that prohibition concerning an ordinary election, as the Bill now provides, then, on reflection, we consider it not sensible or consistent to prohibit it as regards a by-election.
Therefore the amendments provide for a candidate to stand for both offices. In the unlikely circumstances where a candidate is successful in both elections, it provides for a vacancy to occur within the assembly and for the procedures for a further by-election to be put in hand. That is consistent with the earlier part of the Bill, which has been agreed to. I hope that noble Lords will accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment. agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("give public notice of any casual vacancy among the Assembly members, and shall also convey such notice in writing to the Greater London returning officer")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as presently drafted, when a casual vacancy occurs in the assembly, Clause 9(2) requires a proper officer of the authority to issue written notice to the returning officer if the vacancy occurs among London members and a public notice if the vacancy occurs among the constituency members. What the Bill does not require is for the public to receive any notice when a London member's place becomes vacant. This amendment is tabled in order to cure that defect. The Government rejected this simple amendment at Committee stage because the vacancy among London members would be filled by the next person on the party list, so that no by-election would be held.
The Minister said that public notice was not necessary. Even if one were to accept that assumption and agree with the rather startling proposition that it is unnecessary for the electorate to be told who their representatives are, it is also not unnecessary, if a double negative is acceptable. The Minister claimed that public notice will have been given in effect by the publication of the party lists at the time of the preceding ordinary election. That is not a credible argument.
The Bill does not even require that the public should be told that a casual vacancy has occurred. An ordinary nonpolitical member of the public is unlikely to remember the sequence of persons appearing on the party list a week after the election, let alone a couple of years later. Giving the public notice of the name of the new London assembly member will cost next to nothing either in money or effort.
The proper approach to this amendment should be "Why not"? rather than "Why should we?" The public have the right to know the names of their representatives. They should be told in the simplest and most expeditious way without being obliged to go scrabbling through back numbers of local papers. The Labour Party claims to be the party of open government. In this case, let it match its words with deeds not merely by providing open government but by ensuring that the governed know who their governors are. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in this context, "public notice" means effectively the public notice of an election. An

259
election is not required as regards filling a vacancy in the list system for the London-wide seats. The names of the candidates for the seats will have been promulgated at the previous election as I said earlier.
It would require a wholly different system of notice to do what the noble Lord wishes. I am sure that, were a vacancy to occur in the 25-member assembly, normal coverage of that fact in the media and in political communications would be made. Therefore, it is unlikely that the electorate in London and those who are paying attention to the activities of the assembly—a higher proportion, we hope, than currently pay attention to local elections—would not notice when there was a change in their representation. It is my belief that the media would draw attention to the change in representation both at the creation of the vacancy and as regards the name of the person to fill it.
I do not think that the terms of the amendment would achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith seeks to do. I believe that an alternative means of public communication is unnecessary in this case.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it may well be that the reality of the modern world and modem communications would suggest that in fact the media at large would take note of what was happening and would report on the loss of a member and on the appointment of his successor. I certainly would not dissent from that particular series of events. But it seems to me a novel departure for local government in this situation to rely informally on the media to report and record what is in fact a very formal change.
It was with that situation in mind that the amendment was tabled. I am sorry to disagree with the Minister on the subject but I believe that the matter should be properly dealt with and published by the proper authorities. That said, we have had a lot of discussion this evening and we shall consider the matter further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Failure to attend meetings]:
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 21:
Alter Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
MAYOR'S ATTENDANCE AT STATE OF LONDON DEBATE
(".—(1) Subject to subsection (2), if the Mayor fails to attend a meeting in accordance with section 39 below he shall be disqualified from being the Mayor.
(2) The Mayor's failure to refer to the meeting the subject of section 39 below as a "State of London debate" shall not in the absence of any other failure cause his disqualification.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 140 to 145, two of which—Amendments Nos. 141 and 143—are government amendments.
The amendments are tabled in this way on the Marshalled List—and I am sure that the Government spotted this—because we did not know until late into the day the welcome news that the Government accept our point about the terms to be applied to the "State of London
260
debate", as it is referred to in the Bill, and indeed, later, the "People's Question Time". They will have spotted that Amendment No. 21 is a rather artificial amendment which might have allowed us to troop through the Lobbies again before dinner-time, had we needed to press the point.
We had some fun, though on a serious subject, at the last stage. I am glad that the Government have agreed with us. I suspect that neither Minister would much have relished defending the position that they were forced to defend on the last occasion. I shall not say more about that, because I believe that it would be proper for the Minister to speak to the two government amendments. I look forward to hearing what they have to say about Amendments Nos. 141 and 143. I simply say that I note that in Amendment No. 143, allowing someone who may or may not have a connection with the authority, they have produced what I can only term the "Let's have John Humphrys as chair" provision. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We have sought to listen and have on many occasions proved that we listen carefully.
We listened to the views expressed in Committee, and therefore government Amendment No. 141 removes the requirement to use the name while leaving it as a defined term in the Bill. We believe that that offers the best of both worlds, because it does not prescribe what the meeting should be called but leaves the term in the legislation as a clear steer as to the spirit of the event. Amendment No. 143 also responds directly to concerns raised in Committee, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, that the clause did not specify that members of the public should be able to participate in the debate.
The amendment places a duty on the mayor to decide the form of and procedure for the debate following consultation with the assembly, and it clarifies that that must include an opportunity for members of the public to speak, and also that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, a person not connected with the authority may be appointed to chair the meeting. We all know that, occasionally, we who are politicians may not attract such great interest from the public as might certain other figures chairing a meeting. We have listened and responded to concerns expressed in Committee, and brought forward what I hope are suitable amendments. We hope that, in the light of that, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we thank the Government for listening. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 21.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Declaration of vacancy in certain cases]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 8, line 15, at end insert ("or
(c) is the subject of a vote of no confidence by not less than nineteen Assembly members,")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Date of casual vacancy]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 8, line 21, leave out ("paragraph (a)") and insert —("paragraphs (a) and (aa)")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Filling a vacancy]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 9, line 24, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
("(10) If

(a) a person who is a candidate in an election to fill a vacancy in the office of Mayor is also a candidate in an election to fill a vacancy in an Assembly constituency, and

(b) that person is returned in both elections, but

(c) the circumstances are such that a vacancy does not arise in the Assembly constituency by virtue of section 8 above,

a vacancy shall arise in the Assembly constituency.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendments of the Representation of the People Acts]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 212, line 30. at end insert—
("Requirement of secrecy
—(1) Section 66 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (6) there shall be added—
"(7) In their application in relation to an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect with the insertion, after the words -the candidate for whom", in each place where they occur, of ", or the registered political party towards the return of whose candidates,".
(8) In relation to an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, any reference in this section to the return of a registered political party's candidates is a reference to the return of candidates included in the list of candidates submitted by the registered political party for the purposes of the election.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, because of its length, this group of amendments looks more daunting than it actually is. I understand that because of the length of the list, noble Lords may wish to speak to separate amendments in their place on the Marshalled List.
The purpose of the majority of the amendments is simple. They amend I he provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to take account of the new electoral system which will be used during the GLA elections. Amendment No. 25 extends to the GLA elections the application of the rules of secrecy of voting set out in Clause 66 of the 1983 Act.
Amendment No. 26 puts on to the face of the Bill the limit on the amount of personal money which a mayoral candidate may spend at an election. Paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 already establishes the limits for assembly members. We believe that our proposed figure of £5,000 is reasonable, given the size of the electorate which each candidate will need to address, and the number of individual communities which the population of the capital has formed. The £5,000 personal expenses limit is in addition to the campaign expenditure limits we propose to set, about which we shall be consulting the parties shortly.
The remaining amendments deal with a range of technical issues. I should like to single out Amendment No. 34. which adds to the provisions of Section 85 specific
262
provisions in relation to the mayor. It provides that if the required returns and declarations are not delivered by the mayor before the expiry of the appropriate time limit, the mayor shall be disqualified from office. It also provides that the mayor will be entitled to apply for relief against that qualification under Section 86 of the 1983 Act. The amendment does not specify for how long such a disqualification should apply. We shall be bringing forward amendments during Third Reading to rectify that omission.
As I said, the amendments in this group are simply designed to adapt the Representation of the People Act 1983 to fit the new electoral systems which we are proposing. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, these amendments are obviously very necessary, but it is quite difficult for those of us who have only just seen them to know what the noble Baroness is doing. Will she tell us why the amendments have not been introduced into the Bill until now?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in terms of the rules of procedure, may I clarify with the noble Baroness that she intends to answer that particular question?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will wait until she sums up to tell me the answer to that.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, this is indeed a fairly wide-ranging group of amendments and I intend to get to my feet fairly often during the course of this debate to explore some of the individual aspects on individual amendments.
We have received very little explanation from the noble Baroness as to what all these amendments are about. Indeed, some of them have not been mentioned by her at all, even in passing. Therefore, when we come to them individually, where I feel that there is a question that needs an answer and where their application is not entirely obvious, I will raise the question at that time.
It might now be sensible for me to address myself to the first amendment—Amendment No. 26—on which I do have some questions. That amendment sets the amount of personal expenses allowed to a mayor of London. I think we ought to have some justification for this figure. If one draws a line in relation to the size of electorates and the sort of campaigning which is likely to be necessary for a mayor to do, let alone the travelling that is likely to be necessary for a mayoral candidate to do, and sets that in relation to the level of personal expenses allowed for a general election to a candidate in a constituency in merely a small part of this area, the amount seems extremely low.
I would like to understand in some detail how the Government think that the figure of £5,000 can be justified in relation not to some earlier decision taken on the same Bill—I cannot say that I understood quite how those figures were justified—but in relation to a parliamentary election, which I think will be on much more the sort of scale that we are expecting for a mayoral election; something which

263
is wide ranging and involves a lot of travelling and public debate and activity. In the context of a constituency the size of London, £5,000 seems extremely low.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in response to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, we have discussed and considered in detail some of the points to which these amendments refer. That is one of the reasons for the amendments. Should there be further reasons, I shall let her know. During the course of this debate, should there be any point which I fail to clarify to her satisfaction, I shall be only too happy to answer her in writing.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has slightly misunderstood the position regarding the £5,000. That is a personal expenses limit, not a campaign expenditure limit. I fear that he was comparing the expenditure with that for the campaign. However, London is a far larger constituency than any other and far larger than a parliamentary constituency, as the noble Lord said, with 5 million voters. We shall consult widely about the overall campaign expenditure, and I hope that answer will satisfy the noble Lord. The points made by the noble Lord will be very valid when we come to consider the campaign expenditure as opposed to the personal expenditure.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I accept gratefully what she says about consultation. Will the noble Baroness give the House any indication as to the factors that may be taken, or may be required to be taken, into consideration at that stage?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it would be invidious to start to single out certain factors that would be taken into account. Since we shall consult parties, I am quite sure that, in line with their normal practice, the Government will take into consideration all valid points that are put to them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 215, line 21, at end insert—
("(aa) the amount which a candidate at an election of the Mayor of London may pay shall not exceed £5,000,")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 29:
Page 215, line 27, after ("(a),") insert ('(aa),")
Page 215, line 30, leave out ("at an ordinary election")
Page 215, line 31, after ("treated") insert—

("(a) if one of them is an election of the Mayor of London, as if they together constituted a single election falling within paragraph (aa) of that subsection, and

(b) in any other case,")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 29A:
Page 215, line 32, at end insert—
("Prohibition of expenses not authorised by election agent
.—(1) Section 75 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (which prohibits the incurring of certain expenses by any person other than the candidate, his agent or persons authorised in writing by the agent)—

(a) after "promoting or procuring the election of a candidate" there shall be inserted "(or. in the case of an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, a registered political party or candidates of that party)"; and

(b) at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be added "; or

(d) in the case of an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, of otherwise presenting to the electors the candidate's registered political party (if any) or the views of that party or the extent or nature of that party's backing or disparaging any other registered political party"; and.

(c) after the words "but paragraph (c)" there shall be inserted "or (d)".

(3) After subsection (I) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) In the application of subsection (I) above in relation to an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, any reference to the candidate includes a reference to all or any of the candidates of a registered political party."
(4) After subsection (IA) there shall be inserted—
"(1B) In its application in relation to an Authority election, subsection (1)(ii) above shall have effect—

(a) with the substitution for the monetary sum there specified of such sum as the Secretary of State may prescribe in an order made by statutory instrument; and

(b) in the case of an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, with the omission of the words from "and are" to "others".

(1C) Different sums may be prescribed under subsection (IB)(a) above in relation to—

(a) an election of the Mayor of London:

(b) an election of a constituency member of the London Assembly; and

(c) an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election."

(5) At the end of the section there shall be added—
"(7) For the purposes of this section, in the case of an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, a candidate's registered political party is the registered political party (if any) which submitted for the purposes of that election a list of candidates on which the candidate in question is included.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment, as do the other amendments, brings into line the normal practice for elections. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 29B to 29D:
Page 216, line 27, leave out ("after") and insert—
("(a) for").
Page 216, line 28, leave out ("inserted "(a),") and insert ("substituted "74(1)(a), (aa),").
Page 216, line 28, at end insert ("; and
(b) after ''75(1) above" there shall be inserted ", a sum prescribed under section 75(1B)(a) above"").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No.30:
Page 216, line 33, at end insert —
("Return as to election expenses
.—(1) Section 81 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (I) (which allows 35 days after the day of the declaration for the making of the return) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above—

(a) in its application in relation to an election of the Mayor of London. shall have effect with the substitution for "35 days" of "70 days"; and

(b) in its apple cat ion in relation to the election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, shall have effect with the substitution for "35 days after the day on which the result of the election is declared" of "70 days after the day on which the last of the successful candidates at the election is declared to be returned."

(3) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(6) Where a registered political party submits a list of two or more candidates to be London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to those candidates and their election agent with the following modifications.
(7) The return which the election agent is required to deliver under subsection (1) above—

(a) shall be in respect of all those candidates; and

(b) shall be in the form set out for the purpose in rules under section 36(2A) above or to the like effect.

(8) If any payments made by the election agent were in respect of two or more candidates, the return shall deal under a separate heading or subsection with all such payments, and the expenses to which they relate, in respect of those candidates.
(9) The statements which the return is required to contain by virtue of subsection (3) above in respect of the matters there mentioned shall be a separate statement of each such matter as respects each of the candidate in question.
(10) If and to the extent that any such matter is referable to two or more candidates together, the return shall contain a separate statement of that limner as respects those candidates.
(11) Where one of the candidates is the election agent, subsection (4) above shall have effect, as respects that candidate, as it has effect where a candidate is his own election agent.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for the benefit of the House, I remind the House that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated to me that he and other noble Lords may wish to ask questions on amendments as we reach their place in the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the facet of this amendment which principally concerns me is the extension of the time limit from 35 to 70 days for getting together one's return of expenses. That seems to me to allow the matter to be dragged out for an astonishingly long time. I believe that, in an election which is fought principally by well-organised parties, it should not take more than about seven to 14 days to put together a reasonable schedule of expenses. To allow 35 days as in parliamentary elections would seem reasonable because one expects that individual candidates will be taking part. To extend it to 70 days merely because it involves a wider spread of the electorate seems entirely without justification. If the expenses for each individual constituency can be compiled within 35 days, it cannot take more than an hour or two to add them all together and hand them in as a bulk lot. I do not see any justification for this extension of time limit. I wonder why the noble Baroness believes that a 70-day time limit for getting together figures—something which would not be accepted in any business—should be allowable in a matter of government.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that a period of 70 days seems to be very long. My first thought was to ask whether, if for practical reasons, the period has to be extended, 70 days is the tight period. It is 10 weeks, but it is not naturally a period that one may easily calculate. However, that is a minor point. It is a long period and it is desirable that any questions that arise over expenses should be dealt with quickly. It is not good for such matters to drag on. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what period applies in the case of elections to the European Parliament, which is the nearest equivalent we have?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I believe that the period is considerably longer. However, I hope to be more specific than that and I shall write to the noble Baroness with a detailed response.
It is difficult to make a judgment. We take the matter seriously in terms of a desire to operate to the highest standards. Seventy days is a reasonable period, and it is right that disqualification would follow. This will be a different kind of election from that for a constituency in terms of the complexity of ensuring that election expenses are accurate. The area is larger and there is a need for parties to be accurate within that. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will overcome any hesitation he may have, and agree that to reduce the period below 70 days could lead to a degree of hastiness.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she agree that, in the days of properly programmed computers, it should not be difficult to keep the period to the original figure of 35 days?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. However, I remind the House that the situation is unique in the sense that, under the Government's policy, candidates will be able to stand for election both to the assembly and as mayor. For that reason, it is extremely important that adequate time—not

267
too great a period, but adequate time—is given to ensure that election expense returns are accurate to the highest possible standard.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I think I should have intervened before the Minister sat down. If the Minister considers it important that a period of 35 days does not appear to be enough, how is it possible that the provision has only just now appeared before us in this amendment? The Bill has gone through the House of Commons—through its Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading. It has been through Committee here. Why have the Government decided, with very little notice, that they want to change the provision to 70 days? This is a matter that could have come forward much earlier.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we have ensured, in great depth, that comments received from a wide variety of sources—not only during the passage of the Bill in Parliament but also from sources outside—have been taken into account. I would say particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that this Government seek to be a listening government. In that context, I hope that she will agree that it has been wise for us to have listened carefully and to have taken particularly into account representations that have been made concerning the complexities involved for those who may stand as candidates in two simultaneous elections.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would she be kind enough to write to tell me what those representations have been?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 216, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (1) (declaration by agent) for "the form in Schedule 3 to this Act" there shall be substituted "the appropriate form".
( ) In subsection (2) (declaration by candidate) for "the form in that Schedule" there shall be substituted "the appropriate form".
( ) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above. "the appropriate form"—

(a) in the case of the election agent for the candidates on a list submitted under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Act (election of London members) by a registered political party, is the form set out for the purpose in rules under section 36(2A) above;

(b) in the case of any of the candidates included in such a list, is the form set out for the purpose in those rules; and

(c) in any other case, is the form in Schedule 3 to this Act.".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 216, line 38, at end insert —
("( ) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) Where one of the candidates included in a list submitted under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Act (election of London members) by a registered political party is the election agent for those candidates, the declarations required by subsections (1) and (2) above shall instead be modified as specified in the form set out in the rules under section 36(2A) above.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 216, line 38, at end insert—
("Penalty for sitting or voting where no return and declarations transmitted
.—(1) Section 85 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) As respects Authority elections—

(a) subsections (1) and (2) above shall not apply in relation to a candidate in an election of the Mayor of London (for which separate provision is made by section 85A below);

(b) in the case of any other Authority election, the reference in subsection (2)(a) above to the council for the local government area for which the election was held shall be taken as a reference to the London Assembly; and

(c) in the case of a candidate included in a list submitted under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Act (election of London members) by a registered political party. the references in subsection (1) above to the returns and declarations in respect of election expenses shall be taken as references to the declaration as to election expenses by the candidate.".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 216, line 38, at end insert—
("Disqualification where no return and declarations transmitted after Mayoral election
.After section 85 there shall be inserted—
"Disqualification where no return and declarations transmitted after election of Mayor of London.
85A.—(1) If, in the case of any candidate at an election of the Mayor of London, the return and declarations as to election expenses are not delivered before the expiry of the time limited for the purpose, the candidate shall be disqualified from being elected or being the Mayor of London or a member of the London Assembly.
(2) Any application under section 86 below by such a candidate for relief in respect of a failure to deliver the return and declarations as to election expenses must be made within the period of 6 weeks following the day on which the time limited for their delivery expires.
(3) A disqualification under subsection (1) above shall not take effect unless or until

(a) the period specified in subsection (2) above for making an application for relief under section 86 below expires without such an application having been made; or

269

(b) if such an application is made, the application—

(i) is finally disposed of without relief being granted; or

(ii) is abandoned or fails by reason of non-prosecution.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, here again we have come to an interesting part of this group. This amendment proposes that if the mayor, unlike the assembly members, is found not to have handed in his election expenses within the requisite time, he shall be disqualified; he will not merely be suspended. As I understand it from the noble Baroness, further amendments in this area are to be tabled.
At this stage I would appreciate receiving from the Government an exposition of exactly what they believe will happen should this matter come to pass, and indeed, how they believe it might come to pass. What will constitute an undelivered set of election expenses? One could dream up any set of election expenses and submit it, but presumably that would not count. I assume that the election expenses would have to be accurate. If one reached the position where the election expenses of the mayor were in some way called into question, presumably it would be extremely difficult for any government of London to carry on until the matter was resolved. It may be that at that point the mayor has been disqualified and that actions by or on behalf of him would become—questionably—void.
The situation is odd and it is not one that occurs in parliamentary elections in which the Government and Parliament take the decisions. However, the mayor in this town will have a Very particular position. If his or her election expenses are queried in this way, and he or she is therefore seen to be likely to be disqualified, until that rather lengthy and tortuous procedure is settled (we have seen that in parliamentary election cases), the whole government of London will be called into question. I should like to understand exactly how this provision might be triggered, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to take me through the sequence of what would happen. I hope to understand the consequences for the government of London of a mayor who is first suspected of having produced incorrect expenses and is then eventually found to have done so. How would that be handled? It may be that this will need to be set out in a letter. However, I should appreciate a little essay on the subject from the noble Baroness this evening, if that is possible.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I rise in support of the question. The House should realise that, with the time-limits that we have accepted, if the eventuality arose, the mayor would have already been sworn in. I believe that the mayor will be sworn in within 48 hours of the election. In this scenario, he will then, therefore, have been functioning as mayor for nearly two-and-a-half months. Then, on a technicality, the office would come to an end and we would need to have another election. That may very well be, but it seems to me that we should recognise that the mayor should not be eligible to be recognised as the mayor until his return of election expenses has been submitted. Then there would not be the dilemma of somebody having served in the job for a long time and then suddenly losing it. The essay that the noble Baroness is going to write is expanding!
7 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall seek to answer the points raised by some noble Lords, but I crave the indulgence of other noble Lords in allowing me to give a written reply. It is extremely important that, for example, we take up the very valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and specify in detail for how long such a period of disqualification would apply. I hope that he will understand that I cannot, off the top of my head, refer to Section 85 of the 1983 Act and slot in the information. It would give me pleasure, and I hope give the noble Lord satisfaction, to write to him in detail on that point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, there is a question about the period involved. I shall write to the noble Lord if my memory is in error, as it was on a previous occasion in relation to an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but my recollection is that when someone is elected, he or she will take office and assume the responsibilities, and that the disqualification occurs only when there is a challenge to the completed returns. It is my understanding that that situation would apply in this case in exactly the same way. To prevent people taking office until that process has been gone through could lead to an enormous hiatus.
I hope that I have answered some of the points raised. If other noble Lords want to ask detailed technical questions, I shall be only too happy to arrange detailed replies as soon as possible and before we reach the next stage.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness going to move the amendments? If she is going to move them before noble Lords have received written replies on the matters that she is going to look into, what will happen if the answers do not satisfy noble Lords, because the amendments will then have been passed?
The amendments have been put down quite late and the Opposition need answers to many of the points. However, the Government themselves need to know a little more about them.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I think the noble Lady misunderstands me. I have now moved Amendment No. 34. I have answered the factual questions raised about the period of disqualification and have stated that somebody takes office immediately upon acceptance of office. I have assured the noble Lords that I shall look into the period of disqualification.
There was a query as to whether 70 days was an accurate period of time. I have undertaken to write to noble Lords, but that is the kind of issue in respect of which we have considered representations from those who act as returning officers and have detailed, professional knowledge. I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendments as moved.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to deal with a further question when she replies to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas? If, after 70 days, the mayor has failed to submit the election return, does the disqualification come into operation immediately or is it suspended for a further six weeks pending his request for relief under Section 86? I do not have a copy of the Act with me and I do not know

271
whether Section 86 already deals with that point, but if it does not, there would be a further period of uncertainty during which the mayor would be carrying out all the functions of office but be under threat of disqualification.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this is in addition to Section 86, so the answer is that that provision does apply.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is there a time-limit within which a challenge can be issued after the end of the 70 days, because it is eating well into the mayor's period of office? If it is a matter of weeks or months, it could cause absolute chaos.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there is a period during which there may be an appeal by the person concerned. My understanding is that that is quite a lengthy period of two years. However, I am being very careful not to state that something is accurate without checking that that is so. I should be much happier if I could write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 35 to 41:
Page 216, line 38, at end insert—
("Publication of time and place for inspection of returns and declarations
.—(1) Section 88 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In the words preceding paragraph (a), after "At a parliamentary election" there shall be inserted "or an Authority election".
(3) In paragraph (a) (which requires publication of notices in at least two newspapers circulating in the constituency for which the election was held) after "the constituency" there shall be inserted "or electoral area".")
Page 216, line 42, at end insert—
("Schools and rooms for election meetings
.—(1) Section 96 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (which entitles a candidate to the use of certain premises for holding public meetings in furtherance of his candidature) for "in furtherance of his candidature" there shall be substituted "to promote or procure the giving of votes at that election—

(i) for himself, or

(ii) if he is a candidate included in a list of candidates submitted by a registered political party at an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, towards the return of candidates on that list,".").

Page 216. line 42, at end insert—
("Bribery
.—(1) Section 113 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (conduct which constitutes bribery) at the end of paragraph (ii) there shall be added "; and

(iii) references to procuring the return of any person at an election include, in the case of an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, references to procuring the return of candidates on a list of candidates submitted by a registered political party for the purposes of that election".").

Page 216, line 42, at end insert—
("Election court for local election and place of trial
.—(1) Section 130 shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the beginning of subsection (2)(b)(ii) (which provides that a person is not qualified to constitute an election court for the trial of a petition relating to a local government area in which he practises) there shall be inserted "except in the case of an Authority election,".")
Page 216, line 42, at end insert—
("Consequences of election etc of London members being declared void.
.—(1) In section 135 (consequences of local election declared void) after subsection (1) (which provides for a new election in certain cases) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in the case of an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election (for which separate provision is made by section 135A below)."
(2) After section 135 there shall be inserted—
"Consequences of election or return of London members being declared void
135A.—(1) This section applies where the election court has made a determination under section 145 below at the conclusion of the trial of a petition questioning the election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election.
(2) Where, pursuant to section 145(6) below, the proper officer of the Greater London Authority receives the copy of the certificate of the election court's determination in relation to the election which was questioned, he shall send notice of the determination to the Greater London returning officer.
(3) If the election is not declared void but—

(a) the return of a candidate at the election is declared void, and

(b) no other person has been declared returned in his place, the vacancy shall be filled (or, as the case may be, remain unfilled) as if it were a casual vacancy (see section 11 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999).

(4) If the election is declared void, a new election shall be held in the same manner as at an ordinary election.
(5) The date of the poll at the new election shall be fixed by the Greater London returning officer.
(6) The date fixed shall be no later than three months after the receipt by the Greater London returning officer of the notice under subsection (2) above.
(7) A new election shall not be held if the latest date which may be fixed for the poll falls within the period of three months preceding an ordinary election.
(8) If the determination of the election court is that the election is void, the Greater London returning officer shall inform the returning officer for each Assembly constituency of—

(a) the contents of the notice under subsection (2) above; and

(b) the date fixed for the poll at the new election.

(9) The results of the elections of the constituency members of the London Assembly at the last ordinary election shall have effect for the purposes of ascertaining the results of the new election.".").
Page 216, line 42, at end insert—
("Conclusion of trial of local election petition
.—(1) Section 145 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) (which specifies the questions to be determined by the election court) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) In the application of subsection (1) above in relation to an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, for the words from "shall determine" to "void," there shall be substituted "shall determine whether—

(a) the person or persons whose return is complained of were duly returned,

(b) some other person or persons should have been declared to be returned, or

(c) the election was void.".").

Page 216, line 42, a t end insert—
("Election court determination in respect of election of Mayor or constituency member
. After section 145 there shall be inserted —
"Determination in respect of election of Mayor of London or constituency member of London Assembly.
145A.—(1) This section applies where the election court makes a determination under section 145 above in respect of—

(a) the election of the Mayor of London, or

(b) the election of a constituency member of the London Assembly, and the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) below are satisfied.

(2) The first condition is that the determination of the election court is—

(a) that the person whose election is complained of was not duly elected; or

(b) that the election was void.

(3) The second condition is that the return of that person at that election was taken into account for the purpose of deciding which persons were to be returned as London members of the London Assembly.
(4) Where this section applies, the validity of the return of the London members of the London Assembly shah not be affected by—

(a) the determination of the election court; or

(b) in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) above, the subsequent return of a person as the constituency member for the Assembly constituency concerned.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 217, line 6, at end insert—
("Avoidance of election Pr employing corrupt agent
.—(1) Section 165 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) (vote given for person incapable of being elected by reason of employing corrupt agent not to be deemed to be thrown away unless given for same person at a poll consequent on the decision of an election court) there shall be added—
"(4) In the case of an election of the Mayor of London, a vote deemed accordance with subsection (3) above to be thrown away shall be so deemed only to the extent that it is a vote given so as to indicate that the person who was under the incapacity is the voter's first or second preference from among the candidates."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sorry to cause inconvenience, but there will be one or two other amendments in this section in respect of which I should like an answer.
I confess that my knowledge of what constitutes a corrupt agent in this context is scanty and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to sketch that in, but an interesting innovation on the pattern of the present law is that when one is discovered it shall only be one type of member who is disqualified and not another type of member. I should be very grateful for an explanation of why this decision has been taken and why it is expressed in the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is an important one. The expression "corrupt agent" could mean at least two things. It could mean somebody who has been successfully convicted of corruption, and it could mean that such a person could
274
never act as an agent in the circumstances envisaged; or it could mean somebody who, while acting as agent, behaved corruptly and was convicted accordingly. I presume that it is the last meaning that the Government intend. If so, they should make that clear. I suggest that we do not accept the amendment at present but ask the Government to take it away and consider it further with the parliamentary draughtsmen.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Representation of the People Act 1983 includes the definition of corruption as:
"… having been convicted more than once of an offence under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act … the candidate shall be incapable of being elected to fill the vacancy in the election which is held".
The side note to Section 165 reads:
"Avoidance of election for employing corrupt agent.
Section 165 goes on to state:
"If at a parliamentary or local government election a candidate or his election agent personally engages as a canvasser or agent for the conduct or management of the election any person whom he knows or has reasonable grounds for supposing to be subject to an incapacity to vote at the election …"
Those are two examples of corruption.
Amendment No. 42 merely provides that in circumstances where a mayoral candidate cannot be elected because he or she has employed such a corrupt agent, the elector's second preference vote is not deemed to be thrown away and is held as valid unless any other candidate is subject to the same incapacity.
I would be happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with the detailed reply that he seeks and to send copies of the replies which have already been sought by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I trust that I am in order in saying that we should be grateful to her for pointing out the intention of the Government and the previous law in this matter. However, not all previous law makes good sense for ever, as some of us who have practised in the courts know only too well.
The expression "corrupt agent" in the circumstances in which it is intended to apply in the amendment needs to be looked at again. It obviously covers two possibilities; not merely the previous conviction but the behaviour while acting as agent. The Government would be wise to consider this again. It would be in their own interests and the long-term interests of Greater London.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I sympathise with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Amendment No. 42 merely seeks to apply existing law in the particular circumstances proposed in this form of election in London. I sympathise only too well with the noble Lord when he makes the point that there may be sections of the law which need to be looked at again and revised. However, in the context of this Bill, I hope that he will agree that it is logical to ensure that the same caution, care and scrupulous attention to detail is taken within the

275
existing framework of the law to ensure that corruption does not allow anyone to gain or to lose inadvertently by not being involved in the corruption.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I move Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 en bloc. They all deal with references and definitions.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not exactly au fait with the procedure of the House, but I wish to speak to Amendment No. 46.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I might assist the noble Lord. My understanding of the procedure is that if any noble Lord objects to the amendments being taken en bloc they are not so taken. Therefore, amendments No. 43 to 45 can be taken en bloc but Amendment No. 445 should be moved separately. The noble Lord can then speak to it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 en bloc:
Page 217, line 6, at end insert—
("References to elections under the local government Act to include Authority elections
. After section 189 there shall be inserted'—
"The Greater London Authority
"Extension of references to elections under the local government Act.
189A. For the purposes of—

(a) Part II of this Act,

(b) Part III of this Act, and

(c) section 189 above, any reference to an election under the local government Act includes a reference to an Authority election.").

Page 217. line 9, after ("(1),") insert—

("(a) in the definition of "election", after "parliamentary election" there shall be inserted ", an Authority election";

(b) in paragraph (b) of the definition of "election court", after "questioning" there shall be inserted "an Authority election or".")

Page 217, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (1), after the definition of "proper officer" there shall be inserted—

""registered political party" means a party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998;".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 218, line 20, at end insert ("and related expressions shall be construed accordingly—)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should like clarification of the meaning of the amendment. It is to be inserted at the end of a subsection which states:
"Any reference in this Act to a registered political party submitting a list of candidates to be London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election shall be construed in accordance with section 4(5Xa) of, and Part II of Schedule 2 to, the 1999 Act"
and which will then continue:
"and related expressions shall be construed accordingly".
Could the Minister provide me with a list of related expressions and how they should be construed because I am at a total loss to understand this?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my point is more general. As has been said most forcefully from this side of the House, there are difficulties with so many amendments, technical or not, coming before your Lordships at so late a stage.
I shall put my complaint on the record just once. It is not a complaint against Ministers; nor, indeed, against particular officials. I would not, of course, make that point. However, in producing a Bill which was clearly always going to be complex, the Government should have devoted adequate resources to its drafting.
I can only sympathise with those who have been involved in the preparation of the Bill. I note the Minister's remarks about listening to the representations that have been made both within and outside Parliament. However, Amendment No. 42 is both technical and legal. There should have been enough people dealing with it to have picked this up, perhaps not last November when it was first presented to another place, but certainly earlier than October of the following year.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I reiterate the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is impossible for the House to scrutinise this enormous schedule when it comes before us in this way. Most of this seven-page schedule amends other Acts of Parliament, to which we do not have instant access; I certainly do not. I only saw the amendments when I arrived at the House this morning. Therefore, we are not able to do a proper job.
The noble Baroness is quite right that we should not pin blame on anyone in particular. However, perhaps I might suggest that if the same situation arises again, the Government should supply the House with the equivalent of an Explanatory Memorandum and, if possible, quotes of how the amended Acts will look. They were good enough to do that with one part of the Scotland Bill which the House had problems in understanding.
It is not at all suitable for this to be done in this way. The Government may inadvertently make mistakes as a result of not having the schedule scrutinised. It would be helpful if they could perhaps provide something better. It would have been helpful to my noble friend Lord Renton who, as an eminent lawyer, asked a valid question. It was very difficult for him, as for the rest of us, to see how it would read when the Bill was amended. Would it be possible to do that in future?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, there have been in the past, if I remember correctly, rewrites of legislation that was being amended in a major way in the Bill amending that legislation. I am not sure whether I am right, but I wonder if I am thinking of a Keeling schedule. Would it be possible to include that in this Bill?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry. I think there is a misunderstanding here. It is not that we are amending the Representation of the Peoples Act; it is that we are applying it and tailoring it to this particular Bill. Therefore producing an example of what the other Bill would look like is not relevant in this context. The particular query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with regard to this particular example is that it merely ensures that the definitions referred to encompass the point already being covered, ensuring that they relate to registered political parties. It is a fairly minor point, meant to ensure that the legislation applies in the appropriate way to a different form of government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
EXPENDITURE OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN CONNECTION WITH HOLDING THE FIRST ORDINARY ELECTION
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may incur expenditure in doing anything which he considers expedient—

(a) in preparation for the holding of the first ordinary election,—

(b) for the purpose of facilitating the conduct of the first ordinary election, or

(c) otherwise in connection with the holding of the first ordinary election.

(2) "The Secretary of State must not, by virtue of subsection (1) above, incur expenditure of a kind which is recoverable by a returning officer under suction 18 above.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is an important technical addition to the provisions for expenditure on the first GLA election. As currently drafted, the Bill only allows returning officers to incur expenditure directly in support of preparing for the election. That is normal practice, and returning officers will be reimbursed their costs accordingly. However, the reality of the matter is that it may be some time before we are able to appoint a Greater London returning officer, and we need to press ahead with preparations for the fast election. This clause will allow the Secretary of State to get on with the preparations in advance of the appointment of the Greater London returning officer. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could give me some examples of expenditure which would fall under the heading of "otherwise".
Lord Whitty: My Lords, "otherwise" relating to the preparation of the election means expenditure over and above that prescribed by the clause; for example, early information to the public as to in what manner their votes should be cast—not in what direction they should be cast. I was quoted earlier as being in favour of democratic centralism, but even I would not go that far. Therefore I
278
stand corrected on that. This would also help in preparing literature for the returning officer for the election. All that needs to start probably before the returning officer is formally appointed, and that is what the amendment is intended to cover.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I wonder if I might ask him one further very specific question. He will be familiar with the Scope report about the difficulty of access to polling stations for disabled people. Would action taken to remedy that difficulty come under the heading of "otherwise" under this amendment?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, only if such action had to take place prior to the appointment of the returning officer. In most cases the actual preparation of the polling station, which is the relevant point, would almost certainly occur after a returning officer had been appointed. It refers more to the publications and preparations for advice rather than the actual physical conditions of the polling station itself.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—I am sorry, but this point occurred to me while he was giving his explanation—can he advise the House of the significance of subsection (2)? I understood him to say that the Secretary of State could incur the expenditure that the returning officer would incur had the returning officer been appointed. However, subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State must not incur expenditure
"of a kind which is recoverable by a returning officer under section 18 above."
That seems contrary to what the Minister was saying was the purpose of the clause.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, once the returning officer is established it is his expenditure and not that of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State cannot therefore recover that expenditure, but up to the point where the returning officer is in post and has a budget, then the budget and that preparation falls on the Secretary of State. It is not directly covering the cost of the expenditure: it is a pre-returning officer's expenditure which is covered here.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, the new clause does not say that. It says "of a kind" incurred by a returning officer. It defines the sort of expenditure, not by whom it is incurred or when,
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with great respect, subsection (2) refers to expenditure incurred by a returning officer and recoverable by a returning officer.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, it says "of a kind".
Lord Whitty: My Lords, subsection (2) reads:
"The Secretary of State must not, by virtue of subsection (1) above, incur expenditure.….which is recoverable by a returning officer under section 18 above."
Is that what the noble Lord is referring to?
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I was referring to the fact that subsection (2) says,
"incur expenditure of a kind which is recoverable by a returning officer."

279
We know that the Secretary of State is going to spend money which would be spent by a returning officer had he been appointed, but the subsection appears specifically to exclude, not expenditure which the returning officer could legitimately incur, but expenditure had he been appointed, "of a kind" which he would incur. That seems to me to prevent the Secretary of State doing what he wants to do because there is no returning officer and he cannot spend money on that kind of thing.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring now to the existing Clause 18(1), not the subsection to which he drew the attention of the House.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I am sorry. Perhaps the noble Lord can write to me and explain. I am referring to Amendment No. 47, subsection (2), and the wording thereof.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I understand it, that amendment does not refer to "of a kind". Where "of a kind" is referred to is in Clause 18(1)(a). I apologise. The words "of a kind" were omitted from my version and therefore for the last two minutes I have caused a serious misunderstanding between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for which I deeply apologise. It is nevertheless expenditure of a kind determined by the Secretary of State under the existing Clause 18, which means the regulations which are issued by the Secretary of State in relation to parliamentary elections, as I understand it. Nevertheless, I shall write to the noble Lord, as he requested.
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): The Question is that Amendment No. 47 be agreed to?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, forgive me, but before the noble Lord sits down, he has said that he is going to write to my noble friend. However, I would ask your Lordships: should not this amendment now be withdrawn, taken away and looked at so that we can have it in proper form in front of us? I feel sympathy for the Minister but it is a difficult position to be in if amendments are moved and accepted but we do not know what they mean.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I understand it, this amendment has been moved and the vote was actually taken while the noble Baroness was standing up. If it has not been taken I now move it again. If anything arises from my consideration of what the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said I shall come back at the next stage of the Bill and clarify the matter. However, can I just say that in the whole of this area all we have tried to do is to make sense of the Representation of the Peoples Act in the context of the new London elections.
There is no question of pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. I have outlined what we are trying to do. The same applies here, where there will be a hiatus before the appointment of the returning officer. I commend the
280
amendment to the House. If anything further arises in this respect, I will return to your Lordships on the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
7.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 11, line 33, at beginning insert ("section 85(2A) or")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is the last of the notorious group. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel moved at the end of this grouping to agree that such groups should not be imposed upon this House again in the course of the Bill. It really would be much simpler and easier if we rattled through these questions with a separate subject for each group, rather than having a mishmash of what has turned out to be half a dozen good and important debates within one group. In particular, when discussing issues on Report, we cannot come back in the course of the debate. It is extremely difficult to handle portmanteau groups effectively. When amendments involve matters which we have not seen before, I think that the Government owe us the courtesy of presenting them to us in a way which is reasonably digestible.
I have a very simple question for the noble Baroness and I hope that she will be able to solve it for me. Can she say what Section 85(2A), which, apparently, was forgotten by the draftsmen in their previous attempts at this Bill, will do?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. There was a sound of paper being rustled and I did not actually hear his question.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the amendment would bring Section 85(2A) of the Representation of the People Act into the disqualification provision. I would be grateful to know what this section does and why it was previously omitted.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord ought perhaps to consider my remarks on the previous amendment. All we are trying to do here is to bring in a form of the Representation of the People Act which is applicable to the London elections. I do not have any trouble with the Representation of the People Act or with the other legislation to which there is a cross-reference. I can assure the noble Lord that we are doing nothing underhand here. Therefore, if he requires further clarification and is not satisfied with that clarification, we will return to the matter on Third Reading.
I believe that the whole episode of the past hour or so has indicated that we have not sufficiently communicated our intentions to the House, and I apologise for that. Nevertheless, this is a fairly straightforward transposition of pre-existing electoral legislation upon which I would have thought we could have reached a consensus. However, that may be partly through the late tabling of our own amendments and partly because of a suspicion on the other side of the House that we are trying to pull a fast one—and we are not. I think that such groupings could be done better in the future. For the moment, I commend Amendment No. 49 to the House. In the same light as I replied to the

281
noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I should tell the noble Lord that if he is not satisfied with my subsequent reply, we will return to the matter on Third Reading.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am absolutely certain that there is no suggestion that anyone from any part of the House is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. However, the fact remains—and this point was made very early on in the proceedings—that very many amendments were tabled at a late stage. The Chief Whip said that something like 80 per cent of those amendments were in response to points that we had made.
The point we would now like to make is that none of these issues that have been discussed over the past hour are in response to any points that we made. As they appear to be so necessary and the Minister wishes to move them before we have actually seen the documentation—he feels that there is nothing much in them and that they are quite simple, and so on—we would like to point out that it really does look like legislating on the hoof. This Bill has been through the House of Commons; indeed, as I said before, it has been through the Committee stage, the Report stage and Third Reading. It has also been through the Committee stage here. It seems extraordinary to us that, all of a sudden, things arrive which apparently are so obvious and simple. We have had no time to discuss them.
Noble Lords, like my noble friend Lord Lucas, have only seen such amendments today and it is very difficult to deal with them. Quite frankly, with all the other amendments that we have had to consider, noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench have not really had the time to take note of these issues. Indeed, we have had since Friday. It has been impossible. We do not have the officials. We are not blaming the Ministers and we are not singling out any officials. I think that the Ministers have been ill-served in this matter. I feel very sorry for them. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it has not been right for us and it is not right for the House. This whole group of amendments ought to have been taken away, looked at again and the necessary advice taken as regards the questions that noble Lords have asked.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must say that I have huge sympathy for the Minister's position. I readily accept that we on these Benches should have looked up Section 85(2A). We, too, have been overwhelmed. However, as I read it, this is an amendment to Clause 20, which deals with disqualification of someone who is elected as mayor or as an assembly member I believe that to be so serious that it is not a matter upon which the House should be asked to take a decision.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure whether or not we are all abusing the procedural rules relating to the Report stage of a Bill. However, it is logical that I rise to speak at this point, even if it is not entirely procedurally in order. Again, all we are doing here is dealing with the disqualification proceedings which are at present in existing legislation and transposing them into this legislation by means of amendment. If noble Lords do not agree with that, I think that they had better vote against the
282
amendment. I wish to press the amendment now. If further issues arise as a result of subsequent correspondence between us, they can be dealt with on Third Reading.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I hope that he agrees that nothing said during the course of the past few minutes has answered my question as to what this amendment actually does. We are being asked to insert something into the Bill about which we are entirely in the dark. We have received no explanation from the Government as to what it will do. If the Government do not know what it does, I really do not think that they have any business voting on it.
7.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ahmed, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Alli, L.

Hoyle, L.

Amos, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bach, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Chancellor)

Berkeley, L.

Islwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bragg, L.

Kennet, L.

Brett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Chandos, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

[Teller]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Orme, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Palmer, L.

Desai, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dixon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Elder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gilbert, L.

Simon, V.

Goudie, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grenfell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hacking, L.

Thornton, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Varley, L.

Hayman, B.

Walpole, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Whitty, L.

283

Wilkins, B.

Winston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alderdice, L.

Lucas, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Avebury, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

McNair, L.

Barker, B.

McNally, L.

Bathurst, E.

Maddock, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Berners, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Biddulph, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Blatch, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Boardman, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bowness, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Burnham, L.

Montrose, D.

Buscombe, B.

Mountevans, L.

Byford, B.

Moyne, L.

Calverley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carlisle, E.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Northbourne, L.

Chesham, L.

Northesk, E.

Clancarty, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Onslow, E.

Coleraine, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cross, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dholakia, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Falkland, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Russell, E.[Teller]

Geddes, L.

Selsdon, L.

Geraint, L.

Sharples, B.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Hamwee, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Swinfen, L.

Hogg, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hooper, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thurso, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Tope, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Torrington, V.

Leigh, L.

Wise, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned and that we resume again not before 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Art Colleges
7.41 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this debate on the Government's plans for the funding and role of art colleges in the United Kingdom. I wish to spell out the enormous changes which have taken place in art colleges in the past
284
decade; the effect of those changes; and the likely consequences if certain aspects of funding are not rethought.
The case for art colleges is an unusual one. Their importance lies not only in the obvious end results—painting and sculpture—but in the atmosphere of creativity engendered and encouraged. Over the years, that has borne fruit in the work of the creative industries, which range from product design and fashion and furniture-making to graphic design, the film world and the theatre. In other words, our colleges make a major contribution to Britain's economy, although many of the most profitable movers and shakers in the design world start off studying fine arts before turning to more practical applications. That is because creativity has to be properly nurtured before any quantifiable results appear. Britain's imaginative art school courses have in the past been excellent at doing that, winning admiration world-wide. However, with their emphasis on employability, governments sometimes seem to confuse education with training. For example, recent Conservative governments attempted to boost vocational art courses at the expense of non-vocational ones, not realising their interdependence.
In the past decade art colleges have been forced to run themselves as commercial enterprises. While there is nothing particularly sinister in modernising institutions or putting professional practices in place, the cost-cutting has gone too far. Every year since 1989 governments have demanded an annual efficiency rate of at least 1 per cent, and sometimes up to 3 per cent, in real terms. The practice continues under the current Labour Government. While there was room for improvement initially, the continuing chipping away at funding throughout the 1990s has had a detrimental effect. Instead of putting their energy into maintaining excellence, art colleges have had to concentrate on fund-raising while course heads have been overwhelmed with paperwork. The pressure has eroded core teaching and damaged a precious ethos. It is a running battle which staff feel they are losing. Students and their work suffer as a result, while tutors are frustrated at being diverted from what they were hired to do. The policy is short-termism at its worst.
Of particular concern are two practices art colleges have been forced to adopt. These were reasonable in their initial stages but have been taken to damaging extremes. First, since the late 1980s colleges have been obliged to take on more and more students in order to maintain their original level of funding, but without a corresponding increase in facilities, working space or tutors. For example, in 1989, I was one of around 100 students on the foundation course at Camberwell College of Arts; today, there are 324. Extra students may keep up figures—and thus funding—but teachers have less time for individual tuition, and students find that there are simply not enough kilns, video editing suites or materials to go round. Student surveys at the London Institute all indicate that students are dissatisfied with the amount of equipment, studio space and resources available.

285
The second cause for concern is the explosion of overseas art students in the UK, up from 3,316 in 199495 to 6,654 in 1997–98. In theory, that development should be exciting and enriching; in practice such students are encouraged chiefly for the extra income their fees provide. In 1998–99, 2,143 students from 88 different countries contributed fees of £12.2 million to the London Institute, which consists of Camberwell College of Arts, Central St Martin's. Chelsea College of Art, the London College of Printing and the London College of Fashion. It would not survive without that extra income. Is it right to depend on overseas students to that extent?
Colleges are free to set their own level of fees for students from outside the European Union—depending on what the market can bear. Thus, the Ruskin in Oxford charges £6,684 a year; the Slade £11,435; and the Royal College of Art £15,670 a year. By comparison, Eton College, with longer terms and full board, costs £15,660 per year. Without such fees, these institutions would go to the wall. They are therefore obliged to take as many foreign students as possible. There is no set limit. Inevitably, the quality of those students' work is less important than their ability to pay. Too often, overseas students cannot speak much English—in spite of their course involving written work.
That naturally lowers the morale of other students who have to fight harder for their own places. But everyone's credibility is affected. The overseas students feel that they have been seduced to British art colleges as cash cows and that, thanks to overextended courses, the back-up and facilities they were promised simply do not exist. There are several cases pending in London where overseas students are suing the college they attend for delivering poor value for money.
In addition, there are stories of art colleges touting for business abroad. vying in an unsightly manner with each other for desirable potential students. Is it really desirable that rich foreign students alone—rather than talented ones—should have access to British art colleges? Rather than making further education more accessible, such a policy diminishes diversity. That is an iniquitous double standard. Moreover, it is extremely difficult for institutions to voice their concerns without fear of being penalised.
Worse still, by cramming in students and accepting some of dubious standard, Britain risks losing its reputation for excellent art education—the very reason overseas students are prepared to pay over the odds. So far, people are still willing to pay, but if the current situation continues we shall kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Art colleges should not be penalised for practices that have been forced on them. However, that could well happen once there is regulation of the recruitment of overseas students, the level of their fees, and so on, and the findings are published, as should properly happen. Instead, the Government should accept that they have pushed the situation too far, show that they are prepared to get to grips with the problem, and
286
allow otherwise efficient organisations to operate at a less pressurised level in the best interests of students and staff alike.
There are other financial problems, in particular the lack of postgraduate funding, which is the responsibility of the Arts and Humanities Research Board, set up in 1998. Postgraduate bursaries for arts and design are far fewer than in other subjects and the competition steeper. At PhD level, students of English and history are eligible to apply for funds but arts and design graduates are not.
With that scenario, the brightest and most promising students are likely to be deterred from continuing their studies because they cannot face further debt. So, while the UK's invisible earnings in music, art and film are mammoth, and the Government make a lot of mileage out of Britain's creative industries, the funding to develop those skills largely runs out at undergraduate level. Where is the logic in that?
All these concerns would not matter if students were getting a better education, but they are not. The academic base of art colleges is being constantly eroded. Sadly, the reason is financial—the commodification of art education. By placing too many financial and managerial constraints you blight standards and morale.
What we have in our art colleges is very special. It is the driving force behind the creative economy. That is why colleges deserve sustained funding to continue in the most robust manner possible. The Government must act soon or they will destroy—however unintentionally—one of Britain's best resources.
7.59 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords,
"A disaster of massive proportions is going unnoticed in the press. I'm referring to a development of major national significance, which every painter and sculptor I know has bitterly opposed since its inception; namely, the Government-decreed, and therefore forcible, absorption of nearly all the country's biggest and most important colleges of art by the new polytechnics".
So began Patrick Heron's article titled Murder of the Art Schools published in the Guardian coincidentally on Tuesday 12th October 1971, exactly 28 years ago. He says:
"Would it not be much better to streamline the whole system in such a way that the vast majority of art students were side-tracked from the beginning into a host of useful, economically justifiable, skills and disciplines and indeed trades—in a word—were discouraged from the madness of pursuing the uselessness of fine art, which is an end in itself, and were encouraged instead to think from the start of the relevance of the applied arts to society?"
One almost has to add that that was meant ironically, because today it appears to be government policy.
Heron did not dismiss what he termed the applied arts—far from it. However, what he regarded as central is now regarded as marginal—a grassroots groundswell of free and independent artistic thinking that might tentatively be termed a core or base level "fine art culture" or "impulse" out of which the

287
applied artists, designers, pop musicians and all others could draw and develop ideas. The understanding is that this terrain of experimental thinking could develop properly only in institutions which retain their autonomy within the education system.
It is this terrain of experimental thinking which is today most under threat. One of the problems now is a confusion about what an artist is. Heron used the phrase,
"the relevance of the applied arts to society",
but today we might rephrase that as, "the relevance of the arts as applied to the demands and needs of society and industry".
It is tacitly assumed, certainly by this Government, that the so-called "creative industries" embrace the work of all artists. The creative industries are not all-inclusive. They define a certain kind of creative work which can respond rapidly to the demands of the market. They do not necessarily include artists who have a critical relationship to society, untempered by commercial considerations.
Over the past three decades, the absorption of colleges into polytechnics and universities and the accompanying lack of resources for a greatly increased number of arts students, also mirrored by a decline in the funding of the arts sector, has begun to place certain limits on freedoms of thought and creativity, as it existed within the colleges.
That does not mean that there is not creative thinking in art colleges and university art departments; there is a great deal. But the reduction in available studio space, for example, places a limitation on the possibility of developments not only in practice but also in the thinking which is dependent on that practice. Nor should creativity stop at the college gates. Those who have been watching the current BBC documentary series on the Royal College of Art may recall the remarks in the programme on fashion of one of the students. She said that while she was at college this was her "last chance"—that was the phrase she used—to be creative, since after graduating there would be no further chance to experiment. It is clear that such feelings are now not uncommon and that they start to raise questions not only about the funding of art departments, but also about the whole relationship between the work that is carried out in those departments and the outside funding environment.
Loans and tuition fees, too, are part of this creation of a mental climate which justifies everything you do in economic rather than in intellectual or artistic terms. I believe there was nothing essentially wrong with the mandatory grant system, and that it should be restored. The London Institute estimates that after three full years of loans, students taking fine art courses will be in debt on average by about £14,000. The assumption is that graduates will get jobs, and indeed there is considerable evidence to suggest that arts graduates are very adaptable in taking different kinds of jobs within the arts sector and outside. But that does not help those students whose primary desire
288
is to become artists contributing to that groundswell of creative activity from which others also may draw inspiration.
The question should be not whether we can find work for the artist to do when he or she leaves art college, but whether we are prepared to believe in and value the work in which in many respects they are already engaged. A detailed National Artists Association survey found that the average income of practising artists was just over £7,000 a year. We have a laissez-faire attitude towards arts graduates. The tendency is to say, "They'll win through in the end if they persevere". That is obviously true for those who do. However, you do not build a thriving culture in that way, but one that is for ever struggling. You cannot expect individual products of creativity to emerge without the contribution of a considerable number of artists who themselves may never achieve recognition.
A particular casualty of lack of funding is the arts foundation course which is placed at a crucial point between leaving school and beginning a degree course. Foundation courses provide prospective arts students with a necessary experimental grounding in a range of practical areas from which they can later choose to specialise. There are no loans for foundation students, clearly no government grant funding. The student is often still living at home and having to be supported for the cost of materials and educational trips, among other things, by families that often cannot afford it. The danger is that foundation courses will become increasingly populated by students from wealthier backgrounds, and that poorer students will be excluded.
The whole problem of resources for art students is paramount. Last year, students at Camberwell College of Arts held a 10-day occupation which was primarily a protest against lack of resources. There are important differences, for example, between fine art and design practice and other subjects, not only in terms of cost but in terms of the utilisation of space and time. Since the Further Education Funding Council took over the funding of art foundation courses from the local authorities, with an accompanying drastic reduction in funding, it has applied what are called "space norms" which are the standards by which the space which students occupy in a college is assessed. Yet the normal assumptions that the FEFC makes in terms of space, student frequency and occupancy are those that apply to disciplines which will use the lecture room, for example, where space is about a constant flow of students. Practical courses are by nature quite different in that colleges tend to encourage students to occupy a studio on site every day of the week. I ask the Minister whether she will agree to look into the issue.
In line also with problems other disciplines face, teaching staff suffer from an overload of administrative duties. In art colleges this situation is particularly detrimental because it affects the time they can devote effectively to their students, including the

289
need for one-to-one tutorial contact, as well as the time necessary to devote to the development of their own creative work.
When I phoned the DfEE to research this debate, I was told that it had no policy on art colleges. It had policies on further and higher education, but not on art colleges per se. That is clearly at least in part a result of the absorption in to universities of art courses which has taken place over such a long period. I would be interested to know whether the Department of Education and Science in 1971 would have given me the same response.
Finally, when looking at art colleges, one also has to look at art education as a whole and to see the importance of the arts and humanities as having a fundamental place at the heart of the school curriculum. I note that there is to be a joint response by the department and the DCMS to the report of the National Advisory Committee on Cultural and Creative Education on creativity, culture and education at the end of this month. But what I most look forward to is a detailed joint policy by both departments on art education, from schools right through to post-graduate level.
8.8 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has given us an interesting subject for debate. He asks the Government an interesting Question and I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will give him a full and interesting Answer. I wish to explore some of the implications of the questions which the noble Lord asked and the concerns which arise from them.
The primary objectives of the Government's education policy are admirable. They are to increase literacy and numeracy in our country. If they succeed—and we all hope that they will—that must inevitably increase equal opportunities in this country and contribute to our future affluence, success and competitiveness in the world. The concerns we have on these Benches are that the concentration on these admirable objectives must not be permitted to eclipse the importance of the arts.
The arts in this country have enjoyed a chequered career in education over a number of years. Indeed, my own parents met at an art school. My mother was training to be a painter in the late 1920s. What my father was doing in the art school is not entirely clear, but that is where they met. She went on, unusually for those times, to make a living, not as a portrait painter as she had intended but in fashion work, later going on to paint portraits. 'There was a reasonably large number of people in the art schools at that time but most of them went there to study painting, drawing, sculpture and the more craft-oriented areas of the arts. I met my first wife when she was at art school at Clerkenwell at the beginning of the 1960s. At that time the art schools were quite well funded by various local authorities. There were a lot of young men and women attending them, carrying out a lot of experimental work—far too experimental for the taste of many—
290
and many successful people went on" not necessarily into the world of painting and drawing but into the worlds of music, film and so on. Again, funding was not an enormous problem.
I now have a daughter who has decided to discontinue her studies at art school, her reason being that she has always wanted to be a painter. Though she had a good academic record, she decided not to go to university but to go to art school. There she found that, because of the need now for students to acquire skills to pass a degree course, she was not enabled to draw and paint to the extent that she wanted but was required to write essays on post-Modernism and to discuss the influence of Kant, Hegel and so on, in various essays—essays which she could write. She said, however, that 90 per cent of the students there had not heard of Kant or Hegel, or indeed knew what post-Modernism was; but they wrote the essays and everyone received the same marks—indicating that there was collusion between the students and the administration, in order to go through the performance of maintaining the new educational importance of these kinds of subject. My daughter, who wishes to be a painter, has therefore left and is painting.
This is slightly worrying, though I appreciate that art schools now have a much wider remit, given the requirements of a technological society and the wider application of the arts. I am concerned because, as my daughter said in rather broader terms than I would wish to use in your Lordships' house, it is distressing that the atmosphere in the art school—an excellent art school, with excellent teaching in drawing and painting—was that of an almost exclusively middle-class establishment.
These days, because of the lack of funding, the need to pay tuition fees and the need to borrow as a student, it means that many people from poorer backgrounds are no longer willing or wish to take the risk to go to art school. Art schools are expensive institutions to run. A lot of space is needed: much more than a lot of people crammed into a room, learning about Kant and Hegel, for example. You need room for the materials for sculpture, painting, drawing, photography and so on. The tuition costs alone represent an inhibitory factor for the broad entry from our society which is needed. After all, much of the contribution to the arts in this country over the last 30 to 40 years has been across the socio-economic barriers. I am quite sure that in that regard I would have the support of David Hockney and Patrick Procter, for example—another painter from that period but from a different background.
Given that, and also the fact that because of the urge to move towards literacy and numeracy infant pupils are having less access to the arts than before—a survey by the Royal Society of Arts has shown that such pupils now spend half the time on arts-related subjects that they did 10 years ago—one has some concern for the coming generations going to the art schools. There is less funding for visits to art galleries and exhibitions. One wonders whether this trend will lead to a situation which is worrying in a wider context.

291
I hesitate to mention France because it always seems to raise the hackles, particularly of government, but France is a country which might be described in the broadest possible sense as a bourgeois country. It has high standards of education generally, even though a lot of disputes arise in that area. It has a high standard of living and people have high expectations in their life and attainments. It is a much more formal society. Indeed, a term of disapproval, if a member of one's family in France is not doing a regular job or is disappointing the family in some way, is "He's an artist". On the other hand, they pay great attention to culture and the arts—much more than we do.
I am concerned that we become an ordered, prosperous, successful society, a much less differentiated society - in the way that I am quite sure the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would like us to become, as I do—but that we do that without paying attention to the arts. At least the French, although they are a much less free society than we are and a much more centrally controlled society, realise that it is important to encourage artists of all kinds, not only to do what they do but to challenge the barriers which face them; indeed, to encourage them to be iconoclastic, to take risks, to push the barriers forward; indeed, to fail—always a problem with artists. In order to flourish, they must be allowed to fail as well as to succeed. I wonder if the noble Baroness has an answer to this?
I am sorry if I am asking questions which I should more properly ask of the Minister for Culture, but I am quite sure that the noble Baroness and the Minister often speak together on these subjects.
It is a matter of concern. Will the Government seek to correct the dangerous trends being pointed out by the Royal Society of Arts and others, and the fact that fewer people will want to go into the arts because they do not have the basic education to do so? Will we bear in mind the need for us to take and maintain our place as a country which in the arts is challenging, innovative—even at the risk of offending a few people with cows' heads and other things which appear in exhibitions?
8.19 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, there is absolutely no doubting the interest and the passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, supported by his noble friend Lord Clancarty, views the importance of the arts. In the Motion before the House we are to discuss the funding and the role of the arts in the United Kingdom.
I have been absolutely fascinated by the family history of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. We heard an interesting story about how his daughter responded to her place in art school. That, too, poses a number of questions to which we look forward to hearing the Minister reply. I welcome this debate and the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has given us.
292
There will be little difference between all parties on the importance of the role of the arts in the United Kingdom. All aspects of our lives are touched in some way by the skills and talents of those who have trained in arts and design. At the most practical level we must accept that art and design underpin all our manufacturing industries. We must also recognise how the quality of our lives is enhanced by music, drama and art in all its forms. More importantly, we must recognise the massive contribution that the arts make to economic generation and regeneration.
I take some pride in having been a member of a government that introduced art into the national curriculum as a right for all children. Sadly, it is no longer central to the national curriculum as it once was. I was also party to the development of the city technology colleges and specialist schools, including those that specialised in the arts. They have been so successful that I am pleased to note that they exist under the present Government and that their number is still increasing.
However, I believe that the predominant concern of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, apart from stating the obvious—the importance of the arts within the United Kingdom—is their funding. Much has been made of the £9 billion earmarked for education over a three-year period. Schools, colleges, universities and colleges of the arts can be forgiven for expecting vastly increased budgets, but when one realises how the £9 billion is arrived at a different picture emerges: just over £3 billion this year, £3 billion next year and just over £3 billion the year after. This cumulative accounting has been used to create the impression of a massive increase for education. However, much of the educational world has been waking up the fact that this does not live up to the generosity claimed by the Government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and his colleagues on the Liberal Benches have done some detailed work on this matter and are making comparisons between the funding provided by the two governments. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, was fairly even-handed in his criticism not only of the present Government but of the previous one, but the funding is not as generous as it may seem. Even the Prime Minister is discovering this. His children attend a school with a fine reputation for music and the arts. I have been most impressed by the work going on in the school. That school is receiving less money than it requires to maintain its present level of staffing.
There is a good deal of data available, but I have found it quite difficult to find it over the past few days. I pose a number of questions for the Minister. Just in case the Minister suggests that I ask too many questions at short a notice, either I shall receive the answers now or perhaps I shall be patient and wait for them in writing. But it would be interesting to know just how much of the additional moneys from tuition fees has gone specifically to arts colleges. How many specific arts colleges within the whole list of such institutions have been singled out for preferential treatment? I make no criticism of that. There have

293
been some generous allocations of grant to ballet, music and the conservatoires, which have already been mentioned. However, I have in mind core arts college funding and the extent to which the preferential treatment is detracting from the funding of the other arts colleges.
How many art foundation course students took a course in 1998–99 with the intention of going on to higher education commencing this autumn, and who will be liable for tuition fees? That question was posed in February of this year. The response from Mr Moody in the department was that the data would be available in April, so it would be helpful to have that information now. How much would it cost to exempt arts foundation courses from tuition fees? That question has also been asked before but there has been insufficient information about how many young people take up places on foundation courses. That concern was raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.
Finally, how much money is being diverted away from the National Lottery Arts and Heritage Fund to health, education and the environment? I am a trustee of two museums and am involved with many schools. I receive a fair postbag about those organisations that have high expectations of grants from the Arts and Heritage Fund. They are in receipt of some pretty stern letters which say that funds are now much depleted and will not be available in such amounts in future. It is important to have that information.
We were not to know that one noble Lord would scratch from this debate. In such a short time it is difficult to do justice to the subject. I have looked through the pages of Hansard to see how many times we have discussed the arts. We have done so a number of times. I shall not repeat what has been said before, other than to return to what I said at the beginning. So often we underrate the role of the arts in the United Kingdom, their aesthetic importance, their importance as an economic generator within the country and their importance to our country as a whole in maintaining our status in the world.
Having said that, one does not want to detract from standards in our schools today wherever one sees young people's art exhibitions and drama and music productions. At the end of this month I shall attend the Schools Orchestra Concert in Birmingham. The orchestra will be playing again next year in Paris. The standard is superb. The importance of this debate is to ensure that that standard is preserved. I end by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for this further opportunity to give our support to the subject.
8.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for giving me this opportunity to speak about the role and funding of art and design colleges. Art and design is central to society and to our sense of ourselves, enriching ourselves in every way. It is inextricably linked with our culture and heritage. I very much agree
294
with the remarks of the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. We should value the fine arts for their own sake. But art and design and its associated activities make a very large and growing contribution to the economy, and that is not something that we should ignore.
Before I turn to education in art and design, I should say a brief word about general government support for the arts and perhaps respond to some of the points raised by the noble Viscount. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government have put in place a three-year funding settlement which involves an increase of £125 million for the arts and £99 million for museums and galleries. This is the biggest-ever increase in funding for cultural activity by central government and is something of which we can be proud. It will help to create stability, fund new productions, support key arts organisations and increase access, we hope, for many thousands of people.
We have taken other measures. We have established a special fund—the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to this—to enable dance and drama students to obtain proper grants and assistance to undertake courses at accredited colleges. We are ensuring that the provisions of the New Deal are appropriate to the needs of young musicians who wish to follow that career path. We have insisted that art, music and drama must remain a statutory part of the national curriculum in our schools. I think that issue was raised by more than one speaker. We have also established NESTA (the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) to provide a national fund for talent.
The arts provide their own justification by what they do for us all. As I think the noble Baroness. Lady Blatch, has already said, they also have an increasing economic importance in our national life, in commercial music, film, architecture, design, publishing, broadcasting, multimedia, and fashion. Growing at twice the rate of the economy as a whole, these industries are worth over £60 billion per year. I am not sure that I completely understood what the noble Earl was saying in his comments on creative industry, but I think it is reasonable to consider these collectively as a creative industry because they rest ultimately for their economic value on the creativity of individuals, and the intellectual property that is created by them. Economically, artists and designers are categorised as part of the creative industry sector. Recent work by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport attempted to measure, for the first time, the extent of this sector. The estimate was that it generated added value of about £25 billion, with export earnings of nearly £7 billion. These industries are growing at a rapid rate—a 34 per cent increase in employment over the 10-year period of the census compared with only a slight increase throughout the economy as a whole. Of course, many of these industries take in graduates from our art and design colleges. At a rate of growth between 4 and 5 per cent per annum, which is less than

295
the current rate of growth, within 10 years they could be employing 1.5 million people and generating revenue of £80 billion.
The Government are committed to supporting art and design colleges and to underpinning the provision of the broad range of teaching and training which they offer to students. Students enrol on art and design courses with many different aspirations: to progress to higher education; with a wish, often long held, to fulfil a talent; as a leisure interest or with a very determined career intention. The range of college provision is extraordinarily diverse. Art and design includes the traditional artistic disciplines—painting, drawing, sculpture, print-making and the full range of design specialisms. Although the disciplines encompassed are various, underlying them is a shared emphasis on personal creativity.
I dispute any suggestion that personal creativity is not valued in our art colleges. I am sorry to hear that the daughter of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is giving up her course. I do not know which art college he was referring to which gave these identical marks on essays on Kant and Hegel and post-modernism—I suppose it is just possible that all the students wrote essays of a similar standard. However, I hope that his daughter has a successful career and that she might perhaps consider returning at some time.
Surveys of employment available in the area of art and design often use overlapping definitions, but its importance is often underestimated. It makes an enormous contribution to the economy, bigger than perhaps many people imagine. The Financial Times has made an assessment that this sector employs more people than the high street banks and building societies combined. We are looking at something approaching 800,000 people, with a turnover to match.
The importance of art and design in the arts industries is a consequence of the very high standing in the world enjoyed by British designers and creative technicians. They include household names such as the artist David Hockney, designers such as Sir Terence Conran and James Dyson, and fashion designers such as John Galliano and Zandra Rhodes. Of course, we could mention many others. Most practitioners who contribute to the vigorous national culture for which this country is renowned began their careers in further and higher education courses in art and design. As well as preparing them for employment, these courses educate students to become enlightened consumers of the arts and the media, something we should not forget.
Chris Smith has recently said that the present 50 per cent of the population who enjoy or take part in the arts should be increased to two-thirds within the next 10 years. I hope that his prediction proves to be right. Also, we know that the arts, when taken together with sport and leisure, can contribute to neighbourhood renewal, urban regeneration, and can help to counter social exclusion.
296
Perhaps I may advise the noble Viscount that I do not think there is any evidence that fewer people want to go into the arts. There are 15 specialist art and design colleges—seven are in the further education sector and eight are in higher education. Although HEFCE does not technically regard it as a specialist art and design college, there is the London Institute which covers the Camberwell College of Arts, which counts among its past students the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and there are the other well known colleges which comprise the London institutes, such as St. Martin's, which I think is now known as Central and St. Martin's; Chelsea; the London College of Fashion, and the London College of Printing.
There are about 5,000 students studying art and design in the seven FE colleges and 8,000 in HE in its eight specialist colleges. Around 14 per cent of those students are postgraduates. The London Institute, through its five colleges, adds a further 6,000 art and design students, again with around 14 per cent being postgraduates. We must not forget that this is only a part, albeit a very central part, of the much wider picture. Some 330,000 students are studying art and design in other colleges in the FE sector and over 80,000 students are studying art and design at other HE institutions. Overall, there are around 430,000 students on art and design courses.
Incidentally, I am not sure that I really agree with the implied criticisms of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about the merger of some of the former art colleges with the polytechnics, which happened under the previous administration. I believe that those new universities, as they have subsequently become, are providing very good courses in art and design for many of the students to whom I have just referred.
I turn now to the issue of funding. I do not want to get into arguments about what the previous administration did. I do not want to dwell on the fact that there was a 40 per cent reduction in per capita funding for students in higher education; nor do I want to dwell on the collapse in funding for further education colleges when the demand-led expansion was introduced. What I do want to say, however, is that this Government have acted to restore funding in both further and higher education and that, of course, the art colleges will have benefited very substantially from that. The settlement following the Comprehensive Spending Review was excellent news for both FE and HE. For further education, another £725 million is being made available over the next two years with another £776 million for HE.
I cannot answer the precise questions of the noble Baroness about the art colleges' share in these overall figures, but we shall certainly write to her. What I can say is that specialist FE colleges receive over £12 million per annum. The number of students is expected to rise by 8 per cent over the next three years and the number of students studying art and design is expected to rise by 12 per cent. Again I think that that adds to what I said to the noble Viscount earlier.
In higher education, the specialist art and design institutions are getting over £30 million in the current academic year which has just started. That is over

297
11 per cent more than last year. Again, the somewhat downbeat assessment by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, was not entirely accurate. However, I think that he was referring to some of the cuts that had taken place earlier.
Unfortunately, I have run out of time and I shall not be able to pick up on all the other questions including those that related to funding of overseas students. However, I wish to say briefly that international students bring great benefits to the UK—financial, commercial and artistic. It is a very good business. But those students also bring with them a lot of talent. I do not accept that we are simply taking in rich students from abroad at the expense of able students. Nor would I accept that the art institutions are overcharging those students. As the noble Viscount said, the provision of art and design is expensive. They charge full-cost fees, but they are not above the actual cost of provision.
I conclude by saying that the specialist colleges and courses in art and design play a vital part both in our society and our economy. I can give my assurance to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate that the Government will continue to give their full commitment and support to our art and design colleges.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.42 to 8.50 p.m.]

Greater London Authority Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 20.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(" .—(1) The Authority shall pay to the Mayor and the Assembly members salaries at such levels—

(a) as the Authority from time to time determines; or

(b) before the first determination, as the Secretary of State directs.

(2) The Authority may pay to the Mayor and the Assembly members, in respect of expenses incurred in the exercise of their functions, allowances at such levels—

(a) as the Authority may from time to time determine; or

(b) before the first determination, as the Secretary of State may direct.

(3) A determination or direction under subsection (1) above may provide—

(a) for a higher level of salary to be payable to the Mayor than to any Assembly member;

(b) for higher levels of salaries to be payable to Assembly members holding the offices specified in subsection (4) below than to other Assembly members; and

(c) for different salaries to be payable to Assembly members holding different such offices.

(4) The offices mentioned in subsection (3)(b) above are—

(a) Deputy Mayor;

(b) Chair of the Assembly.

(5) A determination or direction under subsection (2) above may provide for different allowances for different cases.
(6) A determination under this section may provide for levels of salaries or allowances to change from time to time by reference to a specified formula.
(7) The Authority's functions of making determinations under this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor and the Assembly acting jointly on behalf of the Authority.
(8) The standing orders of the Authority must include provision for the publication of every determination under this section.
(9) The Secretary of State shall publish any direction under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after it is given.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a range of amendments involved here. They attempt to carry out some quite straightforward things although. in the light of events of the past hour, I am not entirely sure that that will convince people. These amendments provide for the authority to pay the mayor and the assembly members salaries and expenses and for the abatement of those salaries where the members hold other paid public office to which they have been elected or appointed. They provide for the authority to establish a pensions scheme both for the mayor and the assembly and for the authority to publish details each year of salaries and expenses which have been paid and the financial provisions which have been made for pensions. There is also provision for assembly members to be excluded from the right to claim an attendance allowance or other remuneration from the fire authority and the London Development Agency. Provision is already made for that as regards the Metropolitan Police Authority. Of course, assembly members cannot be appointed to TfL. The other minor amendments in this group are consequential.
In this context perhaps I should also mention that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has invited the Senior Salaries Review Body to make recommendations to him about the initial levels of salaries which should be paid to the mayor and assembly members and to recommend an uprating mechanism. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I would like to check that when the Minister refers to a range of subjects he is also speaking to Amendment No. 55.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I should have said that in moving Amendment No. 54 I was also speaking to Amendments Nos. 55 to 57, 60, 536, 539, 566 and to Amendment No. 572 as regards pensions.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister. That is very clear. I speak in particular to subsection (3) of Amendment No. 55. Why should an authority member, who is also a member of another public body, suffer the penalty of having his or her salary reduced to a specific proportion of what it would otherwise be or to a

299
specified amount? First, that appears not to be very logical. Secondly, it appears to be a very dangerous precedent. If one works for the family firm or is employed in the private sector, one's salary would remain the same as that for an assembly member. However, because one is appointed or elected to another public body, it appears that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce any allowance received.
If the idea is that one would only be able to serve on one public body because the financial penalties involved in serving on more would preclude one from doing so, I believe that the Government should say so. It is the electorate's choice to decide whether it is a good idea for a person to serve on more than one public body. A principle has been established that there is some point in having people to serve on more than one body because they bring experience and cross-fertilisation of ideas from one body to another. To penalise them financially, as this amendment seems to do, does not achieve any useful purpose. I imagine that it would be very counter-productive for someone who did not have any salaried employment for any reason. It might be a parent who chooses to stay at home to look after the children but who has positions on two public bodies. It might be someone who has retired but is still able to bring considerable expertise to more than one public body.
I ask the Minister to say what is the point of reducing a person's salary simply because he or she has been elected to another public body. One should bear in mind that quite often an appointment to some of the public bodies, commissions and so forth, which the Government have introduced, have been dependent on expertise gained, for example, in a local authority. That might equally be the position as regards a London authority member. I would like the Minister to explain exactly the purpose of this amendment. I am minded to disagree with what appears to be its purpose.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall be very grateful to the noble Lord if he can tell me the position under these amendments of what one might call "provisions" made for members such as free transport, free canteens, staff and other facilities which might be provided for members. Do the appropriate costs have to be published as well as the salaries and allowances or are the advantages for the members of the assembly provided in this way free from public inspection, at least in their minutiae?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, if there were a subsidy for catering facilities or transport, that would appear in the mayor's budget and therefore be subject to scrutiny. It would not necessarily cross-refer to the abatement and the other provisions of these amendments. Nevertheless these provisions would be in the public arena.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the position is that these measures generalise the provisions that already exist in relation
300
to the dual function of MPs and MEPs. There are Members of Parliament who are members of both the European Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. They take only one salary. There are similar provisions for persons who are members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Westminster Parliament. Given that these are paid, full-time jobs in the London assembly, it is re-running the same provisions concerning their positions.
I agree that as regards Amendment No. 55 and subsection (1)(c), the matter is widened somewhat further. But the same considerations apply. We are not against people being appointed or elected to more than one authority or more than one tier of government, but, in principle at least, we are against their having cumulative salaries for so doing. That is already the position as regards MEPs and legislation passed concerning Scotland and Wales.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 57:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
LIMIT ON SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF OTHER PUBLIC BODIES
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision such as is specified in subsection (3) below in relation to any Authority members to whom relevant remuneration is payable—

(a) pursuant to a resolution (or combination of resolutions) of either House of Parliament relating to the remuneration of members of that House;

(b) under section 1 of the European Parliament (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 (remuneration of United Kingdom MEPs); or

(c) in respect of their membership of any other public body (whether elected or appointed) which is specified in the order.

(2) In this section—

"Authority member" means—

(a) the Mayor; or

(b) an Assembly member;

"relevant remuneration" means

(a) a salary; or

(b) any allowance of a description specified by order made by the Secretary of State.

(3) The provision referred to in subsection (1) above is provision that the amount of the salary payable to an Authority member under section (Salaries and expenses) above—

(a) shall be reduced to a specified proportion of what it otherwise would be or to a specified amount; or

(b) shall be reduced by the amount of the relevant remuneration payable to him as mentioned in subsection (1) above, by a specified proportion of that amount or by some other specified amount.

(4) An order under subsection (1) above may make different provision in relation to Authority members—

(a) to whom (apart from the order) different amounts of salary would be payable under section (Salaries and expenses) above;

(b) to whom different amounts of relevant remuneration are payable as mentioned in subsection (1) above.

(5) Such an order may include provision that it (or a specified part of it) is not to apply to a specified Authority member or description of Authority members—

(a) either indefinitely or for a specified period; and

301

(b) either unconditionally or subject to the fulfilment of specified conditions.")

After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
PENSIONS
(" .—(1) The Authority may make such provision for the payment of pensions to or in respect of persons who have ceased to be the Mayor or an Assembly member—

(a) as the Authority may from time to time determine; or

(b) before the first determination, as the Secretary of State may direct.

(2) The provision which may be made under this section includes, in particular, provision for—

(a) the making of payments towards the provision of superannuation benefits;

(b) establishing and administering one or more schemes for the provision of such benefits;

(c) the making of such payments as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above to any scherne (whether or not established or administered by virile of paragraph (b) above) of which the Mayor or an Assembly member may be or become a member.

(3) Different provision may be made under this section for different cases.
(4) The Authority's function of determining the provision that may be made under subsection (1) above shall be a function of the Authority which is exercisable by the Mayor and the Assembly acting jointly on behalf of the Authority.
(5) The standing orders of the Assembly must include provision for the publication of every determination under this section.
(6) The Secretary of State shall publish any direction under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after it is given.
(7) A determination or direction under this section shall not affect pensions in payment before the making of the determination or the giving of the direction.")
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause
PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT REMUNERATION PAID
(" . The standing orders of the Authority must contain provision for the publication of information relating to sums paid under section; (Salaries and expenses) and (Pensions) above for each financial year.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23 [Declaration of acceptance of office]:
[Amendment Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 13, line 30, at end insert—
("(6A) No salary, and no payment towards the provision of superannuation benefits, shall be paid under this Act to or in respect of the Mayor or an Assembly member until he has complied with the requirements of subsection (1) above.
(6B) Subsection (6A) above does not affect any entitlement of the Mayor or an Assembly member to payments in respect of the period before he complies with the requirements of subsection (1) above once he has complied with those requirements.")
On Question amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 60A:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
REFERENDUM
(" .—(1) At the end of the eleventh year after the first Assembly is elected the Mayor shall arrange for a referendum to be held to take place at any time within the ensuing six months.
(2) The persons entitled to vote in such referendum shall be the persons entitled to vote in any local election in Greater London at that date.
(3) The questions to be asked at such referendum shall be—

(a) Are you satisfied with the present structure of the Greater London Authority consisting of a mayor and an elected assembly of 25 members, none of whom represent an actual single borough'? YES/NO

(b) Would you prefer the Assembly to consist of 33 members, each one representing a single one of the 32 London Boroughs together with the Common Council of the City of London? YES/NO

(4) The Mayor shall transmit the result of the referendum ':o the Secretary of State and to both Houses of Parliament.
(5) Each Parliament being sovereign and one Parliament being unable to bind a later one, the Secretary of State shall not be bound by the result of the referendum.
(6) The Secretary of State may by Order authorise (but not require) the Mayor to include further questions in the referendum if so requested by the Mayor.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when I introduced an identically worded amendment in Committee I described it as a probing amendment, and said that my noble friends and I would be extremely interested to hear what the Government had to say. I must confess that I was not in the least surprised that, as with so many of the constructive amendments which we have introduced in this and in other Bills, the Government arbitrarily rejected it out of hand.
What surprised me was the entirely specious arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because normally we can rely on him to have carefully studied our points first. He began his speech by saying that he rarely makes cheap political points. However, this was clearly one of those rare occasions. He said,
"13 or 14 years ago the previous Government, in the face of massive opposition in London and without any talk of a referendum, completely demolished the structure of local government".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 122.]
As I tried to explain then, a referendum was not required, because the intention to reconstruct London's government was clearly set out in our manifesto for the 1983 election, which we won with a substantial overall majority of 144. As to the massive opposition, that came from the Labour Party, which controlled the GLC as it then was in the person of Ken Livingstone. The expenditure for his campaign, "Say no to no say", was some £20 million of public funds. As we are in the area of not making cheap political points, I shall refrain from saying that the Labour Party does not seem to be falling over itself to be nominating Mr Livingstone as its candidate for mayor.
The noble Lord went on to ask,
"What will happen under the noble Baroness's referendum if the electors of London answer "no" and "no" to the two questions? Where would that leave us? The assembly would be abolished and nothing would be left in its place".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 122.]
That extraordinary argument is what prompted me to suggest, as I did a few moments ago, that the noble Lord has not prepared himself for that particular debate with his usual care. The answer "no" to either or to both questions would not have the slightest effect without some further primary legislation.
My proposed subsection (5) spelled out the situation with absolute clarity, as it does again here. Perhaps I may read it for the benefit of noble Lords who do not have the text before them.
"Each Parliament being sovereign and one Parliament being unable to bind a later one, the Secretary of State shall not be bound by the result of the referendum".
In other words, the Government of the day need not take a blind bit of notice of the wishes of Londoners expressed in such a referendum. I reminded the House that, as recently as 3rd June this year, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said,
"I think the idea of regulations within the expiry date is an attractive one. There may very well be the case for sunset clauses in new regulation".
Is there not an identical case for new legislation? Or are the Government saying that legislation by the Department of the Environment is different from legislation from the DTI? The Government claim that their policy is to listen to the people. But by refusing to accept this amendment, which allows them simply to have second thoughts after the lengthy period of 11 years—in other words, well into a fourth mayoral term—the Government are saying that they will listen to the people, but they will not allow them to say anything. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, the amendment before us today seeks to require the mayor to hold a referendum on the GLA 11 years after its creation and, if one studies the wording of the questions proposed, it may be possible for some people to interpret those questions as having rather a slant towards seeking a particular answer.
The Government do not feel able to accept the amendments. The people of London voted in May last year in favour of the Government's proposals for a Greater London Authority on the basis of clearly laid out proposals contained in the White Paper A Mayor and Assembly for London. It does not seem sensible to place on the face of the Bill a requirement to hold a referendum at an arbitrary date in the future on questions which relate to the current policy position of the party opposite—proposals which were considered and rejected in the context of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill and during the earlier stages of consideration of this legislation. It is entirely possible that that policy may have changed by the time the 11 years come around.
We are not sympathetic to the amendment and ask the party opposite not to pursue it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, we were not happy with the
304
question having two parts, on both the mayor and the assembly. Nor, I believe, was the other Opposition party happy, but with regard to different aspects. I understand and listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I wonder what would happen if the people of London decided that they did not like the assembly and mayor. There would be no provision for them to do anything about them, whereas they could take part in the referendum which I am suggesting and nothing much would happen. But in view of what the noble Baroness has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [The general power of the Authority]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 14, line 18, leave out from ("have") to end of line 19 and insert ("the powers conferred by this Act")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 63 because in due course I shall not be moving it.
When I spoke on this amendment in Committee, my noble friends and I had tabled a further three amendments. Having studied carefully what the Minister said in reply, we have decided to drop four of them, but we still wish to pursue the remaining two. I hope that the Minister has given equal weight to what we had to say and will now accept the amendments we propose, particularly as we accepted all the arguments which he gave in regard to the amendments which we have now dropped.
Amendment No. 61 deletes the sweeping, unlimited, unfettered power given to the authority
"to do anything which it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes".
That is power to do absolutely anything without any restraint whatsoever. The provision grants the authority the power to do that without even being required to show that what it is doing will actually further its objects. I can imagine what a field day the lawyers will have over the interpretation of that provision. I have no objection in principle to lawyers having a field day; my husband is a lawyer. But because the Government refuse to define more closely the sweeping powers they are giving to the authority, sooner or later—and probably sooner—the mayor, with the connivance of the assembly, is going to want to do something not specifically referred to in the Act. Someone or some group or other is going to haul them up before the High Court for an order that it is ultra vires. I beg the pardon of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. Legal Latin is now verboten.
Someone will claim that they are doing something beyond their powers, and he will probably be right. Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. It is surely not necessary to remind your Lordships of the excursions into matters that were absolutely none of its concern which were indulged in by the former GLC under the leadership of one of the present aspirants for the Labour Party's nomination as mayor. Frolics and diversions were one of the causes

305
for its abolition and are now the reason why the Labour Party is desperately searching for the "ABK" candidate—"Anyone but Ken".
I shall not give a list of the things which were published in a set of booklets called The London Industrial Strategy. I could do so, of course, and I do have the list. However, I have no intention of doing that because there is no point in dwelling on the past. When the Government promoted the creation of the GLA., they promised to ensure that the excesses of its predecessor could not be repeated. Nevertheless, it is giving the blank cheque contained in Clause 25(1).
Theoretically, what could happen under this legislation? Clause 25(5)(a) of the Bill requires the authority in exercising its powers to promote the health of persons in Greater London. What does that mean? Does it mean that it could try to build its own hospitals or make health and safety regulations different from the rest of the country? Or does improving economic development and wealth creation in Greater London mean that it could start to finance workers' co-operatives, like the late-lamented Meridian, or could direct industry hither or thither in London? Does promoting the improvement of the environment of Greater London include making the entire area motor vehicle free and forcing everyone to travel by bicycle? I do not even know what promoting social development in Greater London means. But surely that is a wide enough remit to give the authority power to promote, if it wished to, tea dances in Hyde Park.
It is no use for the Minister to say, "But, of course, none of those things could possibly happen". Once the Bill becomes law, it could, and would, be far too late to stop it. All we ask in this amendment is that the authority's powers should be those specified by the Act and not those which it believes it could try to assume because of the blank cheque that the Government are asking Parliament to write.
The reply of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to this particular amendment was to accuse the Opposition of "a degree of schizophrenia". Then he went on to claim in a rather curious metaphor that a general power is not an open-ended Trojan horse. An open-ended Trojan horse is a contradiction in terms. If the wooden horse had been open-ended, the Trojans would have been able to see right through it and the whole object would have been defeated. The Opposition and anyone with an elementary knowledge of the English language can see right through the meaning of this clause. It says in totally unambiguous, unequivocal terms that the authority can do anything that it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes. I emphasise "anything" that it "considers"; not even anything that actually or reasonably might be assumed to further its principal purposes; not even anything that the man on the Clapham omnibus would consider would do so.
The noble Lord pointed out that Clause 1(3) says:
"The Authority shall have the functions which are transferred to, or conferred or imposed on, the Authority by or under this Act or any other Act".
306
Exactly, my Lords. That is precisely what our amendment says. The amendment prevents the authority from assuming additional powers not specifically granted to it by Parliament under, in the words of Clause 1(3),
"this Act or any other Act".
We do not want the authority to attempt to take advantage of the contradiction between the plain words of Clause 1(3) and the ambiguous and vague words of Clause 25(1).
I draw your Lordships' attention to Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, when a similar provision appeared on the statute book for the first time. That section stated that,
"a local authority shall have power to do anything … which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to. the discharge of any of their functions".
That is a vastly different set of criteria and a vastly different test to the airy-fairy test of merely what the GLA considers will further its principal purposes. If the words of the clause, as presently drafted, are not a blank cheque, then why will the Government not say so and tighten up the wording in accordance with the 28 year-old precedent that I have just cited, so that the authority cannot attempt. or even be tempted, to assume powers that it was never intended to have?
I turn now to Amendment No. 62. This simple amendment requires the authority to act in cooperation with the boroughs and with the City of London. What could possibly be wrong with that? The mayor and the authority will have strategies and objectives which will need the co-operation of the boroughs in order to make them work. That is sensible, practical politics. Co-operation between the mayor, the authority and the boroughs is a necessary relationship for the future government of London. On the last occasion when this amendment came before noble Lords, I pointed out—I apologise for repeating myself—that in their wisdom the Government have decided that there should be 14 super-constituencies instead of having one assembly member for each borough. That means that each constituency member of the assembly will be covering pieces of between two and three boroughs.
How will the differing and perhaps conflicting interests of each borough be represented? The Government have answered that by saying that Clause 27 requires the authority to "consult" with others on how to promote their purposes. However, we all know that "consult" is a weasel word. Consultation does not require the authority to take a blind bit of notice of the representations it receives. If the authority decides upon a course of action, in reality it will work only with the co-operation of and in conjunction with the boroughs that are involved.
In a Bill which gives the authority the purposes described by such platitudes as "promoting social development", "promoting improvement of the environment" and "contributing towards the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom", surely there is room for a slight, almost imperceptible nod of the head in the direction of

307
furthering good relations with the London boroughs whose residents will have entrusted the mayor and the assembly with such wide ranging powers?
In his reply on the previous occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that such an amendment would place too great a restriction on the mayor's freedom to act. That is an admission that the mayor is to have supervening powers to override the wishes and views of boroughs or their residents. However, many of the mayor's strategies will work properly only if carried out in connection with—and that means with the co-operation of—the boroughs. The efforts of the mayor alone on biodiversity, municipal waste, air quality and ambient noise, as well as road traffic, will amount to little unless he acts alongside the boroughs.
The Minister said that he accepted the intention behind the amendment. For that reason, I am disappointed that the Government have not offered any concessions or brought back any proposals of their own to meet our genuine worries. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, by a curious grouping decision, I shall speak to Amendment No. 64. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 105 and 112, which are similar in their purpose and intent.
Crime and crime prevention are issues of the greatest importance to Londoners. I believe that, along with transport, crime will be a key issue in the mayoral elections next year. As a result of the recent Crime and Disorder Act, which I greatly welcomed, I shall repeat what I said at Committee stage; namely, that individual boroughs have a duty to co-operate with the police and probation services in the formulation of local strategies for the reduction of crime and disorder in their areas.
The amendments seek to ensure that the mayor and the GLA play their part in ensuring that the mayor's strategies and the exercise of the GLA's powers—whether in planning urban regeneration, the environment or transport—contribute to the prevention of crime and community safety. Strategies of this kind are judged in respect of health and sustainable development. It seems an extraordinary omission that crime prevention is not included in the list. If anything, the issue is of equal or greater importance to Londoners. Opportunities for crime reduction and prevention exist if support is given at the strategic stage, and there is a clear recognition of the interlinking of crime with many other areas of policy. Clearly, if we are to crack crime, we need also to tackle other social and environmental factors.
There is now a strong recognition that tackling the problems of disadvantaged neighbourhoods by embracing all policy areas is the key to significant success in preventing crime. We need to understand the problems and to bring residents into the centre of regeneration. We need to target economic development, to strengthen those communities and to ensure that long-term commitment to sustainable neighbourhood regeneration exists at all levels of government, including regional government.
308
The GLA powers and the mayor's strategies that are proposed in the amendment would comprise a strong strand of crime prevention provisions, which would assist in solving some of London's seemingly intractable problems.
On these Benches we make no apologies for bringing back the amendment on Report—I do not believe that we received a fully satisfactory answer in Committee—and we shall bring it back at Third Reading, if necessary. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide more enlightenment and agree with the amendment. The logic is quite clear: the new MPA will not provide the necessary cross-departmental scrutiny of either the powers or the strategies in the process. The amendment is vital in order to ensure that all those strategies and powers are properly directed towards reducing crime in London.
Lord Renton: My Lords, Clause 25 is arguably the most important clause in the Bill because it deals with the powers of the proposed Greater London Authority. I support Amendments Nos.61, 62 and 63 which stand in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. I should like to comment briefly on each of them.
Amendment No. 61 is a very neat piece of drafting on her part. It shortens and clarifies the meaning of subsection (1).
Amendment No. 62 states:
"In furthering its purposes the Authority shall act in cooperation with the London boroughs and the Common Council".
I should have thought that that was essential in order to avoid conflict.
Amendment No.63 incorporates the concept of observing
"any national policy for the time being in force".
That is a very good idea, but I should like to make a minor drafting point and to draw the attention of my noble friend Lady Miller to the fact that those words, instead of coming after the word "to" in line 28 should come after the word "further". That would make greater sense and clarify the situation.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has spoken very powerfully about community safety. I should like to add that I, and no doubt he, heartily agreed with the Minister's words at the last stage which were used to argue against our amendment, but which entirely supported it, and that is that the mayor's strategies and his or her activities would clearly be directed at crime reduction and community safety. He asked what other logical role there could be for the mayor. Quite so. The new authority has a strategic role, but crime prevention and community safety is one of those holistic subjects that should be the aim of London's strategic government.
Amendment No. 66 is also, a little oddly, grouped with these amendments. It proposes the deletion of Clause 26(8) which provides that the Secretary of

309
State may, by order. impose limits on the expenditure which may be incurred by the authority by virtue of Clause 25(1).
The Minister stated that the new authority must be small and streamlined, as designed, but that reserve powers are needed in case an irresponsible mayor funded a significant expansion of the GLA or essential services were starved of funds as a result of those decisions. He said that they are reserve powers that would be used sparingly. From the drafting of subsection (8), it is not clear to me that they are reserve powers which would be used sparingly.
Why is this subsection necessary, given that all the normal constraints on local government spending will apply to the new authority? This sledgehammer of a clause could undo all the good which we hope that the GLA will do. To take one of the worst reasons, it is perhaps because we have a centralising government in power who do not like the success of the authority. We have been through arguments time and again in this House as to whether it is appropriate for electors to judge whether an administration has more or less hit the right level of spending. I shall not take up time by repeating those arguments. I am sure they are well known to all of your Lordships.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a number of different and contradictory points have been raised. Contrary to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the effect of Amendment No. 61 would be to deny the authority the ability it must have to co-operate with other statutory authorities and organisations to ensure that London receives the level and quality of strategic services it deserves and needs.
The noble Baroness seems to think that this would give the authority an open-ended power. I am not sure about the Trojan horse aspect. Clearly, I need to watch my metaphors. However, this is not an open-ended power. As I explained in Committee, the GLA is a statutory corporation and, as such, has only the functions—in other words, the powers and duties—conferred on it by statute.
Clause 1(3) clearly states:
"The Authority shall nave the functions which are transferred to, or conferred or imposed on, the Authority by or under this Act or any other Act".
It cannot, therefore, simply adopt new functions on an ad hoc basis.
Clause 25 confers a general power on the GLA but limits that power to particular purposes which, to differentiate them from other purposes for which the authority may exercise functions—for example, functions for the purposes of the four functional bodies—are defined as its "principal purposes".
The provisions of Clause 26 prevent the mayor from intruding into areas which are the statutory responsibility of other authorities and bodies. It is therefore clear that the GLA cannot incur expenditure in directly providing, for example, housing, education, health or social services. The guidance that the Secretary of State will provide about the use of the
310
general power, under the provisions of Clause 25(7), will make it absolutely clear that the GLA should not use the power to provide services where those are provided by other authorities or public bodies.
If the GLA did seek to do so, the Bill also gives the Secretary of State powers under Clause 26(7) to add to the list of services on which the GLA is prohibited from incurring expenditure.
The Secretary of State also has the reserve power to limit the expenditure of the authority using its general power in pursuit of its general purposes. That is here, in subsection (8), which Amendment No. 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to remove. That provides a safeguard against an irresponsible mayor diverting such a large proportion of the authority's resources to discretionary activities so that essential services are starved of funds.
As I have stated in earlier debates on this Bill, we have always made it clear that the GLA will be a relatively small authority, streamlined in terms of staff and costs. It will spend the money on services which Londoners wish to see and not on extravagant, diversionary expenditure of the kind alluded to or on activities other than those which the Bill decides should be the functions of the GLA.
However, it is the case that the GLA should he able to co-operate with those authorities in the London area in co-ordinating or facilitating the provision of services at a strategic level. That is clear from the main clauses of the Bill.
I would argue therefore that Amendment No. 62 is unnecessary in dealing with the question of cooperation with other authorities, because the mayor would both need and want to act in co-operation with the London boroughs and the Common Council of the City in pursuit of the authority's purposes. Their interests are common and the successful achievement of the GLA's purposes relies on co-operation not only with the boroughs but with all London's major players. We have tabled amendments to Clause 31 to enable the mayor to delegate his or her functions to the Common Council of the City where such an arrangement is agreed. Before the mayor can exercise the general power of the authority, he or she must consult the boroughs or the Common Council where their interests are likely to be affected. In preparing or revising any strategy, the mayor must always consult the London boroughs and the Common Council of the City.
There is, therefore, already every opportunity for the boroughs and the Common Council to make their views known to the mayor, and the mayor must act reasonably in the knowledge of those views. On the other hand, we do not believe that the mayor's actions should be prescribed by being made subject to—and to the veto of—the boroughs or the Common Council of the City. That is what Amendment No. 62 would require. They do not want to perceive the mayor as overriding the legitimate concerns of the boroughs, yet we do not want the boroughs to veto the mayor's actions in the exercise of his legitimate functions.

311
Amendment No. 64, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke, would require the authority, in exercising its general power, to do so in a way which is calculated to prevent crime and to promote community safety. Again, I argue that this amendment is unnecessary, as are the other amendments to which he spoke. It is quite clear that one of the principal purposes of the authority—to promote social development—must include crime prevention, community security and other matters related to the safety and security of citizens. Therefore, crime prevention is not simply the role of the Metropolitan Police Authority, but that factor is subsumed under the general requirement to promote social development. The general power may be exercised only in pursuit of those purposes, and strategies must have regard to those purposes.
I understood the noble Baroness to say that she would not move Amendment No. 63, so I shall not refer to that. In relation to the other amendments, I think that some of them could be damaging as regards constraining the mayor's powers unnecessarily. Others could be damaging, particularly Amendment No. 66, which seeks to delete the power of the Secretary of State to constrain the mayor, in extreme circumstances, from engaging in extravagant and unnecessary expenditure.
Other amendments, such as Amendment No. 64, are unnecessary in that they are covered by the general purposes referred to in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will not press these amendments. They would undermine the purpose of the authority, and in some cases they are unnecessary.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether I may remind your Lordships that this is Report stage and it is not possible for noble Lords to speak after the Minister.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I would not wish to undermine the purposes of the clause, as the noble Lord the Minister has suggested my amendments might do. I shall read very carefully what he has said. I know he will forgive me if I say that I am amused when he says that something is not necessary—and he says it to me very often. I often reply that such amendments are therefore not necessarily unnecessary.
Perhaps I may comment on Amendment No. 63. I shall not be moving it now because Clause 33 appeared to be a better place to put that particular amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 61.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Limits of the general power]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 15, line 30, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 26 sets out to define the limits of the general power in Clause 25. Therefore, I am somewhat puzzled by the drafting. I propose the amendment so that we can explore exactly what the limits might mean in one specific area. Clause 26 begins:
"The Authority shall not by virtue of section 25(1) above incur expenditure in doing anything which may be done by a functional body other than the London Development Agency".
Subsection (3) says:
"The Authority shall not by virtue of section 25(1) above incur expenditure in providing—

(a) any housing".

That is fine, but subsection (4) says:
"Any reference in subsection (3) above to the provision of housing—

(a) includes a references to the management of housing: but

(b) does not include a reference to the acquisition by the Authority of existing housing accommodation and the making of that accommodation available on a temporary basis for one or more of the principal purposes of the Authority".

I must admit that I would like to hear from the Minister in his reply what the limits of that particular phraseology might be.
If the GLA can acquire housing but cannot manage it, I am not quite sure what it is to do with it. Presumably, the authority would have to make it available for someone else to manage. But who else? As far as I can see, it would probably be one of the other statutory authorities. I do not know who else would be likely to want to manage housing in this way. In that case, it seems to me that it ought almost certainly to fall within the prohibition of Clause 26(3).
I may have misunderstood the purpose of the provision. Of course, it is possible that the authority might wish to purchase existing housing accommodation in order to demolish it for some other development. That would be a perfectly acceptable reason for purchasing housing. However, I am not sure that "demolition" would count as the management of housing, although it is a form of management. If that is the purpose of the provision, I think that the clause could perhaps have been drafted somewhat more felicitously. In any event, it seems to me that the existing drafting leaves an element of uncertainty. I particularly wish to hear the Minister's explanation regarding the exact nature of the restrictions and limitations of this power and why subsection (4) appears to be in some conflict with subsection (3) of the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has raised too many anxieties in this respect. Amendment No. 65 would prevent the authority from acquiring and providing housing on a temporary basis—covered by Clause 26(4)(b)—for one or more of its principal purposes or for purposes incidental to such purposes.
The provision in subsection 26(4)(b) will not provide the authority with an opportunity to become a housing authority and, therefore, go into housing management in that general sense. However, it would permit the authority to exercise a rational approach in, for

313
example, its regeneration programme where it might be necessary to engage in the temporary decanting of tenants and rehousing, or the acquisition of property, short-term. which was tenanted. There would be other projects. I am not entirely sure whether, for example, if what is now the Highways Agency—which will become part of the TfL—is covered by this clause or a later clause, but very frequently it acquires houses for road schemes which need to be tenanted for a number of years. That is for a temporary purpose incidental to the main purpose and the Highways Agency therefore has housing on its books. To some extent TfL will inherit some of that. There will no doubt be similar issues in regeneration schemes and a number of other building projects.
The amendment would deny the authority and its functional bodies the flexibility it will need to act in this way and undermine its ability to act in relation to the purposes and functions we have given it. Our proposal is not the thin end of the wedge to it becoming a housing authority.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. He has clone a great deal to calm my concerns. He has defined the purposes behind the subsection which might otherwise have caused concern. I shall study the reply with some care. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 16, line 8, at end insert ("except where it is the case that the Secretary of State is empowered under any other enactment to impose limits on any expenditure which may be incurred by the Authority,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had indicated in tabling Amendment No. 66 her wish to excise Clause 26(8) from the face of the Bill. I have considerable sympathy for that wish to see this particular phraseology outwith the Bill.
I wonder why we spent so long working in the House on the Local Government Act last summer. The Local Government Act begins with defining local authorities and determines that the Greater London Authority is a local authority. If one goes on through the Act, Part II, which deals with the regulation of council tax and precepts, says that Schedule 1 shall have effect. Schedule 1 goes on:
"If in the Secretary of State's opinion the amount calculated by an authority as its budget requirement for a financial year (the year under consideration) is excessive, he may exercise his power to designate or nominate the authority under Section 52D below".
If one goes further, under Section 52E, which deals with designation for the year under consideration, one sees:
"He shall notify the authority in writing of…
"(d) the amount which he proposes should be the maximum for the amount calculated by the authority as its budget requirement for the year".
It seems that we have a wonderful duplication of legislation here. Rather than proposing to excise the phrase—which, it seemed to me, the Government were unlikely to accept—my amendment merely suggests that the power in Clause 26(8) should not be used except where it is the case that the Secretary of State is empowered under any other enactment to impose limits on expenditure; in other words, the Local Government Act should take precedence over this Bill and, therefore, the power would not be used.
It may be that I have missed something somewhere. Some of us in the House did a considerable amount of work—as did the Minister himself—to get the Local Government Act through. When we had done so, we thought we had done some good. When I see such a clause in this Bill, it makes me wonder whether one part of the relevant government department talks to another part of the relevant government department. It is possible that those responsible for drafting one Bill do not talk to those who are responsible for drafting another. In any event, it seems to me that we do not need both provisions. If the Bill is not appropriate, we should seek to amend subsection (8). In the mean time, I await the Minister's reply with considerable interest.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord paid me the compliment of agreeing with my Amendment No. 66. I am not surprised; it repeated exactly an amendment that he tabled at the previous stage. I am afraid that I cannot pay him quite the same compliment, as I am not sure what is the proposed effect of his Amendment No. 67. However, I strongly agree with his point that we should be relying on other existing legislation. I am simply not sure about the way in which the proposal is framed.
The noble Lord's amendment enables me to ask the Minister to explain, if he can, in rather more detail than he did in regard to Amendment No. 66 how subsection (8) relates to Clause 25(1). In the previous debate he said that the subsection is to prevent expenditure on peripheral matters. But Clause 25(1) seems to deal with everything. It states that the authority,
"shall have power to do anything which it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes".
In other words, it covers all the functions of the authority—what the authority does in order to promote its principal purposes. I am unable to see how Clause 28 is limited in the way that the noble Lord has argued. I hope that he will be able to assist me further on that point.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I follow the noble Baroness's last point. I understand that she is concerned about the inter-relationship between Clause 26(8) and Clause 25(1). But as I understand it, the point of the noble Lord's amendment is that in this whole area there are adequate powers within the Local Government Act 1999, on which he rightly spent some happy hours before the Recess.

315
The point about the local government legislation, to which the GLA will clearly be subject, is that by and large it provides powers relating to the total budget and precept of the GLA. The provision in Clause 26(8) is not a power to limit the total expenditure of the GLA; it can only limit the amount within that total budget which is spent on activities other than those specific statutory functions under the general powers. That is why in the previous debate we were diverted into references to extravagant activities that were not part of the general purposes of the authority. So while the Local Government Act certainly deals with the total budget, it does not deal with that specific power in those specific circumstances. Therefore, we need that power within the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hear what the Minister has to say. If he will forgive me, it seems to me that we are in danger of establishing a very nasty precedent which might be used to extend this principle to other areas of local government. The excuse could be made that we have accepted it in this legislation. We are invited to accept that the Secretary of State should have the power to limit the expenditure in a specific area of an authority's budget. I believe there is not an authority in the country that would not fight that to the death. It is a serious matter. Local authorities have perforce had to accept—because they are creatures created by legislation—that the Government should require powers to control their expenditure. The Local Government Act that was made law in the summer was passed with that provision as part of its purpose. It may be reasonable that the Government should control the overall expenditure of the local authority or authorities. Although there is now some academic evidence against it, they argue that the impact of local government expenditure on the nation's coffers is sufficiently significant to justify it.
That may be an acceptable argument, but when we reach the point where the Secretary of State has the power to control a specific part of an individual authority's budget I am obliged to part company with the Minister.
I shall study his reply with care. It is late in the evening, perhaps we have had sufficient excitement for a little while. We may need something later in the evening to wake us all up, therefore I shall not pursue the matter. However, I suggest that there is here an exceedingly dangerous principle. I can imagine that it might well be argued to extend the principle in other directions, and that would be wholly unacceptable. The Minister may say that that will not happen. This House and, I suspect, the other place have had a litany over a number of years and I do not wish to provide the opportunity for the principle to go further. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Consultation]:
[Amendment No.68 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 16, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) In determining what consultation (if any) is appropriate under subsection (1) above, the Authority shall have regard to consultation undertaken in the preparation or revision of any applicable strategy.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 69 is to explore a little further the relationship between the consultations on functions and strategies. Clause 27(1) gives the power to do anything which the authority considers will further one or more of its principal purposes. That is a wide power, but I do not quarrel with it. Under Clause 27(1), it is exercisable only after consultation with the bodies which the authorities think are appropriate. I hope it will not be thought that I am decrying or denying the importance of consultation, but I remain unclear how this links with consultation on the mayor's draft strategies, as provided by the Bill.
The amendment was spoken to in Committee; it was part of a wide-ranging group. Re-reading the debate, it seemed to me that it became lost in whether there should be a list of consultees under Clause 27(3), or additions to that provision. In considering the Bill, it has seemed to me throughout that the order of events is that the authority needs the power, then the mayor creates a strategy about exercising the power and then comes its exercise. So it would be appropriate to have regard to consultation which has already been carried out on the same subject. I apologise to the House for returning to the point, but I do not believe it was answered at the previous stage. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I find the amendment slightly confusing. As I understand it, the noble Baroness says that, if the mayor has already consulted on the preparation of the strategy, he needs to take account of that consultation as to whether, with whom and to what degree he needs to consult on the exercise of the powers.
In one sense it would automatically be the case that the mayor would take note of what consultation had taken place on the strategy and would make use of it; but I do not know that we need to legislate for that. The perverse effect of this, it seems to me, is that it could discourage the mayor from consulting about the use of the general power, using the excuse that he had consulted on the preparation of the strategy perhaps a matter of years previously.
I am sure that is not the intention, but the "if any" in the amendment might suggest it. We would wish to consider a continuous, iterative process between the mayor, the authority and the bodies which are the relevant consultees. This would seem to limit that. It may not have been the intention, but it could be the effect in certain circumstances.
I would therefore ask the noble Baroness to consider that and not to pursue the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister and I probably take the same view. My concern is about whether it is properly expressed.

317
He is quite right: I certainly did not intend to limit consultation. I intended to direct the mayor's mind, not just to the amount of consultation but to those whom he or she consults, having regard to the comments that have come back as a result of the previous exercise. As he says, it should be an iterative process. The mayor, having regard to comments already made, should be considering very carefully whether the particular points should be explored in more depth.
I do not think that there is anything between us on the substance, and I certainly will not take any more time of the House on it tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 70:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
(" .—(1) The Authority shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that—

(a) in the exercise of the power conferred on the Authority by section 25 above,

(b) in the formulation of the policies and proposals to be included in any of the strategies mentioned in section 33(1) below, and

(c) in the implementation of any of those strategies,

there is due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.
(2) The functions conferred on the Authority under or by virtue of this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of the Bill I agreed to take away and consider your Lordships' comments about the need to place on the face of the Bill specific references to the authority's duties in relation to the promotion of equal opportunities. I am now moving an amendment which represents a response to the concerns raised. It also makes explicit what we believe was already implicit in the Clause 25 provisions of the Bill.
The new clause means that the may or must put in place appropriate arrangements to ensure that, in exercising the general power and in preparing and implementing his or her strategies, she or he will have to have due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people. The mayor is already required to consult people or organisations whose interests are affected either by the exercise of the general power or by the strategies she or he has prepared. There will therefore be many opportunities available to people to ensure that the mayor cannot fall short in fulfilling those duties in relation to the implementation of the equal opportunities provisions of the Bill or, for that matter, any other provisions of the Bill. The mayor's statutory meetings with the assembly in the people's question time will provide other public occasions during which the mayor may be held to account and progress assessed.
As we have explained throughout the passage of this Bill, we are concerned that the authority should recognise the diverse nature of the population it will
318
serve and the need for that population to be given an opportunity to have its say and to be involved in the governance of London. We believe that the provisions of the Bill deliver that opportunity and that the provisions of this amendment make our intentions absolutely explicit. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all welcome the new clause introduced by the noble Baroness the Minister. She has obviously tried to give due weight to arguments advanced by all sides of your Lordships' House during the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill. The proposed amendment, however, falls far short of the arguments that were advanced and which formed the basis of our contribution during that part of the Committee stage.
To explain, the Government's proposal would require the Greater London Authority to make arrangements with a view to securing a number of key areas that the Minister has just mentioned: first, the exercise of the power conferred by Clause 25 of the Bill; secondly, the formulation of policies and proposals under the strategies referred to in Clause 33(1); and, thirdly, the implementation of any of those strategies.
We have a problem here. In short, the arrangements for securing these objectives could be met by the GLA putting some arrangements in place with the intention specified in the amendment, but in reality there would be no real obligation to build equality of opportunity into the functions of the GLA. I go by my previous experience in this particular field. I shall be as helpful as I can to the Minister. I declare that at one time I worked for the Commission for Racial Equality. At present there is similarly vague wording in Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which refers to making appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that various functions of the local authorities are carried out with due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. Note the similarity between what the Minister proposes and what is already on the statute book.
But the Commission for Racial Equality, which has carried out some major formal investigations under the race relations legislation, has concluded, and will state, that provisions of this nature have enabled some local authorities in this country to pay lip service to racial equality but to do little or nothing whatever. In reality, the discredited Section 71 and the provisions proposed by the Minister do not advance equality of opportunity any further.
We seem to have lost sight of the Macpherson Report. Only last month the Home Office published a thematic review of equality and fairness in the Fire Service—a damning report if ever there was one. Central to this major report is the extent of racism and the need to eliminate such practices. The GLA Bill already provides in Clause 338 that Section 71 of the Race Relations Act shall apply to the GLA, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

319
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, moved an amendment at Committee stage, which the Government agreed to consider and redraft, to make the promotion of equality of opportunity part of the core function of the GLA. Although the Government have acknowledged that the GLA will be subject to the existing antidiscrimination legislation, there was a strong feeling in your Lordships' House that, given the diversity of London's population, a positive duty to promote equality of opportunity should be included in the Bill. The totality of the Government's amendments adds very little to what will already be the duty of the GLA under Clause 338. Can the Minister explain the difference between Clause 338 and the new clause after Clause 27? In reality, there is none, and Clause 338 depends very much on the provisions of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act.
I take off my hat to those who drafted the new clause. It pays lip service to the promotion of equality of opportunity but adds very little to what is already in the Bill, and this simply will not do. What is also needed in the clause is specific reference to race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion. While the Government talk about
"equality of opportunity for all people",
the major advantage in specifying particular factors that must not be grounds for unequal treatment is that it makes the GLA's duty far more concrete and solid. Critically, this would provide from the outset statutory criteria that must be applied in any monitoring of compliance by the GLA of its duty to promote equality of opportunity. If the government proposals are enacted, the GLA is likely in practice to adopt monitoring on the basis of some, but not necessarily all, of the criteria I have just mentioned. It is preferable for the legislature to specify in primary legislation the specific criteria on which it expects the GLA to monitor its equality performance. Those criteria—race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion—are the same as those included in Article 13 of the European Union treaty that will ultimately be specified in European anti-discrimination legislation.
Time does not permit me to refer to the ALG briefing. Most of your Lordships will have seen what it had to say. This is a subject that I raised in Committee. Of course, we also need to revisit Clause 338.
I plead with the Minister to reconsider this provision. I shall be pleased to assist her in any way I can. If she does not, I shall certainly move appropriate amendments at Third Reading.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, when the amendment was considered in Committee, there was all-party support for the principle of placing a responsibility for promoting equal opportunities and tackling discrimination at the heart of the Greater London Authority. I think that is the critical issue. I have listened very carefully to the remarks which have just been made and I understand very clearly the points that are being made. I still think that this is a very
320
welcome step forward because it places clear requirements in respect of equality of opportunity on the face of the Bill. I think that we have to recognise that the nature of the work of the Greater London Authority will be tied in with its specific power conferred under Clause 25 and in terms of the preparation of policies and strategies. That is covered by this amendment.
Having said that, I do think that there should be an expectation on the mayor to report on a regular basis on the way in which this responsibility has been carried forward. Certainly in the legislation on the Welsh Assembly—I refer to the Government of Wales Act—there was a similar requirement on the Welsh Assembly to promote equality. There was also a requirement that the Assembly should publish a report after each financial year containing a statement of the arrangements made which had had effect during that financial year and—this is perhaps most important—an assessment of how effective those arrangements had been in promoting equality of opportunity. Essentially, such a system would require the new authority—if such provisions were applied in those terms to the Greater London Authority—to audit its own progress on this matter.
I listened very carefully to my noble friend the Minister's explanation that, in practice, the mayor will be accountable to the assembly and will be required to report on many matters during the course of the year. I think that is a valid point. I anticipate that assembly members will want to make sure that all such matters are addressed properly in those reports. None the less, it might be helpful to have the requirement to have an over-arching report bringing together all the different strands of policy in terms of equality of opportunity and the work which had been done.
This amendment might have been drafted in a slightly more precise way, but I am none the less extremely pleased to see it in this form. I believe that we have made considerable progress. Something is now to be written on the face of the Bill. I think that is helpful.
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will want to take away the points which have been made in this discussion. It may well be that in the ensuing discussion and, indeed, in the debates that we shall no doubt have during the run-up to the elections for the new authority and the election of the mayor, there will be considerable emphasis on these issues and we shall find that the new mayor and the new assembly spend a great deal of time focusing on how they are going to deliver what is contained in this proposed new clause in terms of equality of opportunity for the people of London.
Let us be quite clear. Given the nature of London's population it is far more important to get this right in London than it has been in other parts of the country. I do not decry its importance in other parts of the country. However, given the nature of London's population, it will be a critical responsibility for the mayor and assembly.

321
I welcome the measure. I hope that it is a duty that is embraced enthusiastically by the mayor and all members of the assembly when elected next May to ensure that the new authority has the opportunity to make a real difference in these areas for the benefit of the people of London.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are not dealing with specific anti-discrimination legislation. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in this Bill we should not go too much into the details under these circumstances. Once one strays beyond race, sex and other easily ascertainable factors, spelling things out in detail can become extremely difficult.
The advantages of the wording in the proposed amendment are that it covers many areas which would be difficult to specify such as age, financial status and other matters which might reasonably be taken into account by the mayor in ensuring that the policies he or she puts forward are of benefit to all Londoners equally, and that all Londoners have the same opportunities as far as reasonably possible. That would not be the case if we limit the provision to individual categories which are well covered by existing legislation. If they are not, the existing legislation should be amended.
I support the suggestion from the Labour Back Benches that there should be a reporting requirement. These issues are best enforced in that way. If they have to be reported on, the mayor and assembly have to pay attention to them. That ensures that the new clause is not a dead letter.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, I declare, not an interest in the subject, but a passion. Like many noble Lords, I am only here because of actions by many previous generations. To that extent, I feel passionately about the subject. However, putting passion to one side, perhaps I may speak as a businessman.
The clause is mainstream good business for London. Let us take two examples. The cultural diversity of London is a major strength. At times there is great hysteria in the media and elsewhere—some justified, some not—but it is of immense strength if one is dealing with inward investment and business start-up. The huge blend of people from many different groups—they may include Italians and perhaps Scots—makes London a successful business mix. We must build on and encourage that cultural diversity.
If we are to be globally competitive, we cannot have an unskilled underclass. Apart from the fact that we might have a social revolution, we would have extremely bad economics. We cannot afford not to level up in terms of education and skills, and therefore living standards and so on. My only surprise is that the issue arises only at this stage of the Bill. I should have thought it would be the first provision drafted rather than the last.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that perhaps the
322
provision should be more precise. Equally, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that it is a good thing to have a general clause.
However, I wish to ask the Minister about the wording. The Government have picked up the wording of one of the amendments brought forward previously. I have been unable to find the context in Hansard. The provision states:
"The Authority shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that … there is due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people."
There is no such thing. My great niece is very fond of doing handstands. She has the opportunity whenever she wants, I imagine, to do a handstand in Piccadilly Circus. I do not have that opportunity because I am 74 years of age. I used to be able to do it, but not now. That is a trivial example, but there is no such thing as equality of opportunity for all people.
When we legislate it has to be capable of being tested in the courts. I picture a judge trying to decide whether something that the authority has done provides equal opportunity for all. That phrase is guff. I believe I said so at Committee stage. The noble Lord. Lord Dholakia, explained the remit of the Commission for Racial Equality. He said that it was absolutely precise. I wonder whether the Government have got it right or whether they have just taken notice of whoever moved the amendment and included the phraseology. I suspect that it will not stand up to scrutiny.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Dholakia began his speech he welcomed this amendment. Perhaps I may reiterate that we are pleased that the Government have recognised the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said was expressed from all Benches at a previous stage of the Bill. I believe that the Government have recognised that fact and I say so without qualification.
Quite serious concerns have been expressed tonight by my noble friend Lord Dholakia. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, did not refer to everything. He specifically used the same criteria as those contained in the EU treaty which are race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion. They are specifics laid down in the treaty, which will become incumbent upon us.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, rightly drew attention to the requirements upon the Welsh Assembly for an annual report. Others have said that that is a useful requirement. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said rightly that the assembly members are doing the job that they are supposed to do and that they will pick up that point in any event. That applies to a great deal in this Bill.
I welcome this important step forward by the Government. I suggest that the phrase "could do better" is appropriate. I echo the offer made by my noble friend that we shall be 'very happy to discuss with Ministers and others how best the clause can be improved to meet the objectives that I believe all Members of this House share. I do not believe that there is a difference between us as to what we are trying

323
to achieve. If there is one, it is how best to achieve the objective. I believe that through discussion we shall be able to agree a number of improvements to the clause which will make it clearer, more specific and more generally acceptable.
In response I hope that the Minister will accept the offer in the spirit in which it is meant and that perhaps at Third Reading the Government will produce an amendment that can achieve the objectives to which a number of speakers have alluded tonight.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have been generous about what we have achieved. In reply I shall deal with the points of concern that have been raised. We do not believe that this amendment is a token provision. The Bill provides for a number of ways in which the mayor must report on progress. Clause 38 already requires the mayor to prepare an annual report which must include an assessment of progress in implementing the strategies, a summary of information which relates to the performance of the authority in its statutory functions and information which the assembly, prior to the beginning of the financial year to which the report relates, has asked the mayor to include. It also requires that the report be sent to the assembly and published.
Given that the mayor will be required to include in the strategies targets or bench marks which he or she has set and that all strategies specifically must now have regard to the achievement of equal opportunities, we believe that this new clause is a strong point.
I understand the issues raised by noble Lords. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that I fear that I too would be unable to take part in handstands. However, to me, the issue of equality of opportunity relates to the fact that the country, and individuals in the country, are being denied the skills of large numbers of people. Unfortunately, that includes disproportionately large percentages of people from certain sections of the community who have the capacity to achieve an awful lot given those skills. My capacity to achieve handstands departed more years ago than I care to remember, but I look, as do other noble Lords, at the enormous pool of talent. I am aware, as are other noble Lords, that all too often the children who end up with the most difficulties in life are those who have enormous talent which is not recognised because they are not given equality of opportunity to develop that talent.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with everything that the Minister says about this particular point. But I hope that she will realise that I was not suggesting that there are equal opportunities for all. I was saying that they cannot exist in the terms of the wording of the amendment. I would have thought that the wording was simply not suitable to be tested in court, unless it is already defined somewhere in a way that makes it possible to test it in court. It is simply a vague phrase that should not appear in legislation. Of course I agree with the Minister and, furthermore, I
324
think it excellent to put this clause in—of course I do. But I am questioning the wording of the part which refers to,
"due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people".
If someone could not stand on his head, then there would not be equality of opportunity for all people. It is just nonsense.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry. Perhaps, because it is getting late, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and I ought to continue our duologue outside the Chamber.
My point is not that there should be an assumption that all people can achieve equal success in all fields in which other people are able to achieve high levels. That is not equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is absent when a child who has the potential to be a brain surgeon ends up, for a variety of reasons, not even being literate. That, when other children get through, to me is a total failure to achieve equality of opportunity. It would be difficult to take the issue further.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, that if the population of London—indeed, of anywhere in the country, but of London in particular—does not have an opportunity to develop its talents and its cultural diversity, not only will London be the poorer for it, but so will the rest of the country. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that there is always an opportunity for those with a responsibility to challenge and question and scrutinise and that that has not always happened. I put to him the point that this is a totally new model of governance and that the specific role for scrutiny envisaged within the Bill or the assembly will—I hope and I am sure he hopes—develop a sharper edge and sharper focus.
I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Harris. We believe that the proposals now within the Bill will strengthen and put a hard force before the need to tackle the issue. No one—including Members of this House speaking for the Government at this Dispatch Box—ever claims that they have discovered every single phrase which could possibly strengthen and enhance a particular part of a particular piece of legislation. Of course we stand fully prepared to take into consideration any points raised. It is quite clear from the contributions in your Lordships' House that we have one common goal regarding this item, and that is that we get it right. We must make sure it is as effective as possible and that it delivers the conditions that must apply in this country because of European commitments. I pay tribute to the reference from the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 17, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 72. I confess that Clause 29(1) has given me more

325
difficulty than any other provision in this Bill or, indeed, so far as I can recall, any other clause with which I have ever had to deal in any other Bill.
As drafted, the clause would enable any of the functions of the Greater London Authority to be exercisable by, in the alternative, the mayor alone or the assembly alone or the mayor and assembly jointly.
When the Bill was first published after being introduced in the other place, my initial reaction was that I did not like the provisions of this subsection because it seemed to me that we could end up with a situation where there was a lack of accountability. Each of the parties—the mayor on the one hand and the assembly on the other—could blame the other for actions they did not specifically agree or decisions in which they had not specifically participated.
It would create a huge potential for conflict if the two had different views on which policy should be pursued. It would create the potential for good old-fashioned demarcation disputes that would put the inter-union conflicts in the shipbuilding industry into the shade if the mayor on the one hand claimed that something was within his jurisdiction and the assembly on the other hand claimed it was theirs, while a disgruntled resident of Greater London might claim that a decision by either one or the other should have been made by the two bodies jointly under subsection 29(1)(c).
My response to this problem was to suggest that there should be only one choice as to who should be responsible for exercising the functions of the authority. My initial choice was that the function should be exercised by the mayor and assembly jointly; in other words, deleting subsections (a) and (b). That was the effect of Amendment No. 98 which I tabled for the Committee to consider. However, when I came to prepare my speaking notes I had a change of mind. I came to the conclusion that, as the office of the mayor was to be the executive of the authority, then logically it should be the mayor who should exercise the functions of the authority. After all, when we consider the governance of the United Kingdom, the functions of Westminster Parliament—the equivalent of the assembly—do not involve it in taking any part in the exercise of its powers by the executive in the form of the government. It grants the executive its powers and supervises the government as best it can. However, I repeat that Parliament itself does not take an active part in the exercise of the functions of the government.
Therefore, having changed my mind about who should exercise the functions of the authority, I withdrew Amendment No. 98 before it was reached and substituted Amendment 98A, which was to delete paragraphs (b) and (c), leaving the functions to be exercised by the mayor. The Government, as is their wont, rejected my amendment and in withdrawing it I said that I was sure that the Minister would not expect me to accept his explanation. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord. Lord Whitty, possibly to his great
326
surprise, that, having since carefully read his remarks, I now find that I certainly do agree with him. He said—and I streamline his remarks—that:
"The Bill provides for the majority of the authority's functions … to be exercised by the mayor … and it is right that the assembly … should exercise certain functions on behalf of the authority … There are other instances where perhaps the mayor and the assembly could jointly have responsibility".
He then concluded by saying that,
"in general there needs to be some differentiation in function—[Official Report, 21/6/99; col. 758]
It is that one phrase that contains the nub of the point. On reflection, I entirely agree with the noble Lord.
I am not one to be persuaded by rhetoric but, as an eminently reasonable person, I most certainly can be persuaded by logic. If I may tell the House of my thought processes, following the noble Lord's most logical remarks, I then asked myself the equally logical question, what is the purpose of subsection (1)? In what way does this subsection improve or explain the Bill? My answer has to be: in no way. The individual, separate and joint functions of the mayor and the assembly are clearly set out and defined throughout the Bill. So what does this subsection mean? In my opinion, and with due respect to the draftsman. I believe it is mere verbiage. It does not improve the Bill in any way. As I said a few minutes ago, what it does do is to provide fertile ground for disputes, arguments and uncertainty.
I apologise to your Lordships for raising this point at such a late stage of the Bill, and in particular at such a late hour. I should have questioned it at Second Reading, or I should have introduced a probing amendment in Committee. However, I was so engrossed in adopting a minimalist approach to the amendment that although I realised that there was something drastically wrong with the clause, I did not appreciate that it really was beyond amendment and that the only solution to its basic flaw would be to excise it altogether. I have tried to make up for this by giving the Minister advance notice of my opinion and argument. I look forward with interest to his reply.
I turn now to the minor drafting amendment, Amendment No. 72. It calls for two words, "in particular", to be deleted from subsection (10), which reads:
"This section is subject, in particular, to Part II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994".
But why "in particular"? This section, and this entire Bill, and indeed every Act of Parliament, is subject to every other part of the law of the land, whether or not mentioned, unless specifically excepted. I can understand that the Government wish to adhere to this Act by an appropriate declaration, but why "in particular"? It is an unnecessary and indeed most odd phrase to use in legislation. Again, it could provide fertile ground for a future nitpicker to suggest that this Act is not "in particular" subject to some equally relevant law.
Just as subsection (1) is not relevant, I believe that the two words "in particular" are mere tautology. I hope the Government will agree to their deletion to prevent any future problems. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not understand, or at least I did not understand until three or four minutes ago, what the noble Baroness was trying to do in moving to delete subsection (1) of Clause 29. The clause provides that all powers under this Act are exercisable by the mayor, the assembly or a combination of the mayor and the assembly as specified under those particular powers. That clarifies the position that there are no powers under this Act that fall outside one of those three areas.
The individual powers are based on the separation of powers which we have described at great length during the course of the Bill. It makes clear that the mayor will play the role of an executive decision maker, and the assembly will provide scrutiny of the mayor's actions. The clause makes it clear that all powers contained in the Bill will be exercisable by either subsections (1)(a), (b) or (c), and not in any other way. Other clauses therefore develop from that point.
If we were to remove the clause, it would open the way for those future nitpickers referred to by the noble Baroness to put forward the possibility that not all actions of the authority are exercisable in this way. They could be exercised in an entirely different way. We therefore need this clause as a safety net, and I resist its removal.
The noble Baroness is correct in stating that in relation to Amendment No.72 any relevant legislation will apply to the provisions of the GLA Bill. Clause 29(1) simply draws attention to Part II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which is particularly significant. Deletion of the words "in particular" would probably have the opposite effect to the one intended by the noble Baroness because it would suggest that it was only subject to Part II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act and not to other legislation. Whether that provision in itself can alter the basic, fundamental position that all Acts are subject to other relevant legislation unless specifically prescribed, I am not sure, but it would confuse the issue. That Act is singled out because it is particularly significant in these circumstances. It could be argued that the deletion of "in particular" suggests that other Acts that are relevant to carrying out powers under this Act would not apply. It is therefore better to leave those words there, although, as the noble Baroness stated, it does not alter either way the general position that all other legislation, unless specified in this Act, shall apply. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the matter.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I accept what the Minister has said about Amendment No.72, that it is not necessary to delete it; neither is it unnecessary. Nevertheless, I shall accept what he says because it is late.
I have no intention of pressing Amendment No. 71 at this late hour, and I do not think that I shall bring it back at Third Reading, but I should like it to be on the record that I think it is a confusing provision. It
328
certainly confused me. It may very well lead to problems later on, and I think it would have been much simpler to have removed it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
STANDING ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITY
(" .—(1) The Assembly, in consultation with the Mayor, may make standing orders of the Authority.
(2) The procedure of the Assembly, and of any committees or sub-committees of the Assembly, shall be regulated by the standing orders of the Authority.
(3) Standing orders of the Authority may make provision regulating the procedure to be followed—

(a) by any member of the Assembly, or

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

by whom functions of the Authority are exercisable pursuant to arrangements under section 46 below.
(4) Standing orders of the Authority may make provision regulating the procedure to be followed by the Mayor or by the Assembly in discharging any functions of the Mayor or the Assembly. to the extent that the functions—

(a) consist of consultation or any other interaction or relationship between the Mayor and the Assembly: or

(b) are exercisable by the Mayor in relation to the Assembly or by the Assembly in relation to the Mayor.

(5) Standing orders of the Authority may make provision for any other matter for which provision by standing orders of the Authority is authorised or required by or under any other provision of this Act or any other enactment.
(6) Subsections (2) to (5) above are subject to any other provision of this Act or any other enactment which regulates, or provides for the regulation of, the procedure of the Assembly or any procedure to be followed by the Mayor.
(7) Standing orders of the Authority may make different provision for different circumstances.
(8) The Assembly, after consultation with the Mayor, may at any time vary or revoke any standing orders of the Authority.
(9) Neither section 31 below nor section 46 below shall apply in relation to the functions of the Mayor or the Assembly under this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this clause is to provide for the assembly to make standing orders of the authority, following consultation with the mayor, and in so doing to limit the extent to which the assembly can make standing orders in relation to the mayor. Subsection (4) relates in particular to procedures for consultation or any other interaction or relationship between the mayor and the assembly; for example, statutory meetings.
This provision is intended to ensure that the assembly's standing orders do not prescribe the actions of the mayor more generally outside the interface between the mayor and the assembly. It is a useful clarification. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, both this new clause and Clause 45 provide that they are subject to other provisions of the Act. On first reading, it seems that neither is paramount. Can the Minister confirm that Clause 29(2), which states that the procedure of the assembly and committees shall be regulated by

329
standing orders of the authority, means that the standing orders take preference over procedure, notwithstanding what is provided later in the clause?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am particularly interested in subsection (4) which states that the authority may make provision regulating the procedure to be followed by the mayor. Presumably, this function will be exercised by the assembly.
Let us suppose that the mayor and the assembly were from different parties, which is not unlikely. The mayor could be required to approach the assembly on his knees, or wearing a gold lame jockstrap or whatever else might amuse, or there could be other procedures more subtly intended to humiliate the mayor in the presence of the assembly. That would seem to be an odd arrangement of powers. I am sure that the mayor should have an interest in the procedures to be followed by the assembly concerning its relationship with him.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the mayor does have such an interest. It is built into subsection (1) of the new clause, which reads:
"The Assembly, in consultation with the Mayor, may make standing orders of the Authority".
I suspect that any such consultation would make it clear that the mayor was not likely to be well disposed towards the kind of situation described by the noble Lord. That point is, therefore, covered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to other procedures and precedents. The procedure to be adopted will clearly be subject to what is required under the Act. In other words, the standing orders relate to the responsibilities and functions of the various parts of the authority in other parts of the Act. They are therefore procedural and not substantive in that sense.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Exercise of functions during vacancy or temporary incapacity of Mayor]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 219, line 5, leave out ("to the Deputy Mayor") and insert—

("(a) to the Deputy Mayor, if there is a holder of that office: or

(b) in any other case. to the Chair of the Assembly.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group, all of which relate to the question of a vacancy in the office of the mayor and, in particular, to where it may not be the case that the deputy mayor will, in all circumstances, take on the role of the mayor until that vacancy is filled.
The deputy mayor may be either unable or unwilling to take on those responsibilities. In those circumstances, the chair of the assembly would be invited to take on the duties of the mayor and to act as mayor. We believe, therefore, that there should be a formal office of acting mayor to which either the
330
deputy mayor, in normal circumstances, or, in other circumstances, the chair of the assembly, may be appointed where necessary. Amendment No. 74 creates that office.
Amendment No. 76 provides the procedures for filling the office of acting mayor. Under those provisions, the deputy mayor becomes acting mayor unless he or she is unwilling to accept office. If the deputy mayor does not become acting mayor, the appropriate office notifies the chair of the assembly that he or she will become acting mayor.
The amendment also provides that if the deputy mayor or the chair of the assembly becomes acting mayor, he or she cannot be deputy mayor, chair, or deputy chair of the assembly.
The acting mayor will be subject to the provisions of Schedule 4, Part II(4), which sets out the functions not exercisable by the deputy mayor. Amendment No. 81 provides that the acting mayor may not act as an assembly member other than in relation to the budget.
Amendment No. 92 provides for similar procedures where a vacancy occurs in the office of acting mayor. Amendments Nos. 93 to 9:5 which are virtually at the end of this group, provide for the chair to be treated as mayor when the mayor is temporarily unable to act. The other later amendments in the group are consequential on the principal amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would put on the record the amendments in the group to which he spoke, not all of which he has mentioned.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 74, I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 75 to 95. Then there are Amendments Nos. 172, 177, 179 and 182.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as I have told the noble Lord, I intend to speak to Amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 95 separately. On consideration, I shall add No. 92 to those, in order to keep the subjects separate. On Amendments Nos. 74 to 91, I have no point of major importance to make, but I should like to ask the noble Lord about one subtlety of drafting.
Amendment No. 83 inserts the words "unless and", followed by "until". Amendment No. 90 makes it "unless or until". Can the noble Lord explain to me the difference between those two phrases and why they should be different in those two positions? Perhaps he can also explain the necessity for reinforcing the word "until" with "unless" in the first place.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, if I may, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 76 and ask the noble Lord for his help. I find it difficult to reconcile the proposed paragraph 2B(1) in the amendment with paragraph 5(1). There it says that the deputy mayor may not exercise the functions of

331
the acting mayor until he has delivered a declaration of acceptance. Yet by paragraph 2B(1) the deputy mayor is the acting mayor immediately, though the status is lost if he does not deliver a declaration of acceptance within seven days. I refer to paragraph 2B(1)(b) and 2B(6). But as soon as the deputy mayor becomes the acting mayor he ceases to become the deputy mayor under paragraph 2B(2). Therefore how can paragraph 5(1) in the Bill actually apply? I have to say that I find that a complete and utter muddle. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could help me on that. To me, paragraph 2B(1)(b) is barely comprehensible. It says that if the deputy mayor does not give a notice under paragraph (a) above "and". I think that is quite unnecessary and ought to go, because as soon as a notice is given under (a) the whole thing is triggered. I find that inelegant drafting and I cannot understand it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are complicated interrelationships between the various clauses. On the noble Baroness's last point, you need to provide for the situation where there is a formal declaration that the person does not wish to be acting mayor and also for the situation where the person does not deliver a declaration under paragraph 5(1). One is a passive and the other an active denial, so to speak, of taking on the office.
Regarding the earlier cross-references between what is on the face of the Bill and paragraph 5(1), I am not immediately in a position to give a clear answer. I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her. If necessary, we can return to the matter at Third Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gave me notice that he wishes to raise questions on Amendment No. 93, and so on. Perhaps he can remind me which of the amendments he wishes to discuss in this first group.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall get difficult when we reach Amendment No. 92. However, there are also Amendments Nos. 83 and 90—the use of "unless and" in the former and "unless or" in the latter; and, indeed, the reason why the word "until" in Amendment No. 83 needs reinforcing. I wish to know what additional circumstances are covered by the words "unless and". I am quite happy for the noble Lord to write to me on the matter, but I would like to know the answer.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord will probably get a more accurate response in that case. If the noble Lord will bear with me, I shall write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 91:
Page 219, line 8, at end insert—
("Provision for acting Mayor during vacancy
2A. During any vacancy in the office of Mayor there shall be an acting Mayor of London (in this Act referred to as the "acting Mayor").")
Page 219, line 8, at end insert—
("Filling the office of acting Mayor
2B.—(1) If a person holds the office of Deputy Mayor on the date on which a vacancy in the office of Mayor occurs, that person shall be the acting Mayor unless, within the permitted period—

(a) he gives notice to the proper officer of the Authority that he does not wish to be the acting Mayor; or

(b) he does not give a notice under paragraph (a) above and does not deliver a declaration under paragraph 5(1) below.

(2) If a person becomes the acting Mayor by virtue of being the Deputy Mayor—

(a) he shall cease to be the Deputy Mayor: and

(b) he shall not be the Deputy Mayor, the Chair of the Assembly or the Deputy Chair of the Assembly at any time while he is the acting Mayor.

(3) If, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, the person who is the Deputy Mayor does not become the acting Mayor, the proper officer of the Authority shall give notice of that fact to the Chair of the Assembly as soon as practicable after—

(a) receipt of any notice under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above; or

(b) if no such notice is given, the last day of the permitted period.

(4) Where notice is given to the Chair of the Assembly—

(a) under paragraph 2(1)(b) above, or

(b) under sub-paragraph (3) above,

the person who is the Chair of the Assembly shall be the acting Mayor.
(5) If a person becomes acting Mayor by virtue of being the Chair of the Assembly—

(a) he shall cease to be the Chair of the Assembly; and

(b) he shall not be the Deputy Mayor, the Chair of the Assembly or the Deputy Chair of the Assembly at any time while he is the acting Mayor.

(6) In this paragraph "the permitted period" means the period of seven days following the day on which notice under paragraph 2(1)(a) above is given to the Deputy Mayor.")
Page 219, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert —
("Acting Mayor to be treated as Mayor during vacancy
3.—(1) If and so long as there is an acting Mayor—")
Page 219, line 12, leave out ("Deputy") and insert ("acting")
Page 219, line 14, leave out ("Deputy") and insert ("acting")
Page 219, line 16, leave out ("Deputy") and insert ("acting")
Page 219, line 31, at end insert—
("Acting Mayor not to act as Assembly member except in relation to budget
4A.—(1) While a person is the acting Mayor, he shall not act as an Assembly member except in relation to the functions of the Assembly under Schedule 5 or 6 to this Act.
(2) Any period during which sub-paragraph (1) above has effect in relation to a person shall be left out of account in applying section 6 of this Act in relation to that person.")
Page 219, line 33, leave out ("The Deputy Mayor shall not") and insert ("A person shall not, by virtue of being Deputy Mayor,

(a) become the acting Mayor, or

(b)")

Page 219, line 34, after ("above") insert ("unless and")
Page 219, line 35, after ("Authority") insert ("within the permitted period")
Page 219, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) In sub-paragraph (1) above, "permitted period" has the same meaning as in paragraph 2B above.")
Page 219, line 40, leave out ("Deputy") and insert ("acting")
Page 219, line 43, leave out ("Deputy") and insert ("acting")
Page 219, line 47, leave out ("Deputy") and insert ("acting")
Page 220, line 1. leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)
Page 220, line 6, at end insert—
("Declaration of acceptance by Chair of Assembly
6A. A person who becomes acting Mayor by virtue of being the Chair of the Assembly shall not act in the office of acting Mayor unless or until he has satisfied in respect of his office as an Assembly member the requirements of section 23(1) above.")
Page 220, line 7, leave out paragraph 7
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 220, line 15, al end insert—
('Occurrence of vacancy in office of acting Mayor
8A. —(1) If, at any time during a vacancy in the office of Mayor, a casual vacancy occurs in the office of acting Mayor, the head of the Authority's paid service shall give notice of the vacancy —

(a) to the Chair of the Assembly, and

(b) to the Deputy Mayor, if there is a holder of that office,

and this Part of this Schedule (other than paragraph 2 above) shall have effect as if a vacancy in the office of Mayor had arisen on the date on which the vacancy in the office of acting Mayor occurs.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, the cases in which, and the date on which, a casual vacancy occurs in the office of acting Mayor are the cases in which, and the date on which, a casual vacancy—

(a) occurs in the acting Mayor's office as an Assembly member; or

(b) would have occurred in the office of Mayor, had the acting Mayor been the Mayor.

(3) Any notice under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be given as soon as practicable after the date on which, by virtue of su-bparagraph (2) above, the vacancy is, in accordance with section 9 or 15 of this Act, to be regarded as occurring.")
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should very much like some clarification of paragraph (2) of the amendment, which sets out the date on which the casual vacancy occurs in the office of acting mayor and offers two alternatives—the date on which the casual vacancy occurs in the acting mayor's office as an assembly member, or would have occurred in the office of the mayor had the acting mayor been the mayor. I should be very grateful to have the Minister's confirmation that there is no possibility of conflict between those alternatives and that there is no possibility of that duality generating two different dates because of concatenation of events which resulted in both a vacancy in the position of the assembly member and a vacancy in the position of mayor. I shall be fascinated to know the function of paragraph (2)(a); in other words, what vacancies might occur in the acting mayor's position as an assembly member which would not, at the same time, trigger a vacancy in the office of mayor if he had been mayor?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in relation to the noble Lord's first point, I should point out that it is not at all clear that there is a position where the two dates would lead one to a different answer. As regards his second point, if the previous deputy mayor has not become acting mayor there is a difference between paragraphs (a) and (b). That is why we require the distinction.
334
That leads me to my first conclusion; namely, that there would not be a different date. However, it may be necessary to look at all the contingencies covered by the clause. If that is the case, I had better, once again, agree to write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 220, line 17, at end insert—
("Notice of Mayor's temporary inability to act
8B.—(1) If the head of the Authority's paid service becomes aware that the Mayor is temporarily unable to act, he shall as soon as reasonably practicable give notice of that fact—

(a) to the Chair of the Assembly; and

(b) to the Deputy Mayor, if there is a holder of that office.

(2) For the purposes of the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule, any period when the Mayor is temporarily unable to act shall be taken to begin with the giving of the notice required by sub-paragraph (1) above.")
Lord Lucas: My Lords, here we come to a subject of much high drama and great fiction—the Mutiny on the Bounty no less, passages in "Hornblower" and other great sea-going stories; in other words, when does the captain become sufficiently doolally that he should be replaced by his senior officers? As I remember it, in those cases the arbiter was the ship's doctor. It was a very tricky position for him because a court martial awaited automatically at the other end to discover whether he had been right. If he had got it wrong, that was the end of him.
"If somebody else becomes aware that the mayor is unable to act"—that is a very undefined position. How would it have been defined, for instance, in the case of President Reagan or Boris Yeltsin; or in the case of any other leader people might say was getting to the point when his ability to act was questionable? There have certainly been stages where Boris Yeltsin has been unable to act and he has handed over power, temporarily, to other people while he has been in hospital undergoing operations.
It seems very odd that the power should not be exercised in consultation with the mayor and that the burden of making such a lonely and difficult decision should be placed on someone without the support of some democratic procedure to ensure that the decision is taken properly. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on how this particular formula has been arrived at and whether it has any precedent in any elected office of any other authority in this country.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the intention is to avoid he situation where it is part of the political process that someone reaches that conclusion. I suspect that in many political circumstances there have been occasions when your colleagues might decide that you are incapable of acting.
Noble Lords: Never!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not referring to anyone who is in the Chamber at the moment. One can

335
think of geographically less distant situations than those referred to by the noble Lord where at least a query about an ability to continue to act might have been raised by one's colleagues. It is therefore important that it should not be the assembly—or, if you like, the politicians—who make that judgment; it should be taken by the senior professional within the authority. It is a judgment he would take in consultation with the mayor, if the mayor is capable of making a rational judgment—it is a chicken and egg situation—and, if necessary, with medical authorities if it concerns a medical condition. The amendment seeks to clarify who takes the decision in such a situation and to remove the decision from the political arena.
I am getting into deep water here. To leave a decision as to the mayor's health or sanity to an assembly or political vote could be very dangerous. Therefore it will be the senior professional in the authority who makes that judgment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 220, line 31, leave out from ("under") to end of line 32 and insert ("Schedule 5 or 6 to this Act;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 94.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain what this amendment achieves and why it is necessary.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 clarifies and further specifies that the deputy mayor, acting in place of the mayor in case of a temporary vacancy, is not allowed to act in relation to the budget. That is the main point of the amendment: it prevents the deputy mayor from determining the authority's budget in accordance with Schedules 5 and 6. It mirrors the provision which restricts the acting mayor from doing the same under Part II of Schedule 4 to the Bill. That is why the reference is to Schedules 5 and 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 221, line 10, leave out paragraph 13 and insert—
("13.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any period (or, as the case may be, the remainder of any period) when the Mayor is temporarily unable to act, if

(a) at the beginning of that period there is no Deputy Mayor; or

(b) the person who, at the beginning of that period, is the Deputy Mayor gives notice to the proper officer of the Authority, within the permitted time, that he does not wish to exercise the functions of the Mayor pursuant to paragraph 9 above; or

(c) a casual vacancy occurs in the office of Deputy Mayor during that period;

and in paragraph (b) above "the permitted time" means the period of seven days following the day on which notice under paragraph 8B(1)(b) above is given to the Deputy Mayor.
336
(2) Where this paragraph applies—

(a) paragraphs 9 and 10 above shall have effect with the substitution for references to the Deputy Mayor of references to the Chair of the Assembly; and

(b) paragraph 12 above shall be disregarded, but without prejudice to any action taken under paragraph (a) or (b), or required to be taken under paragraph (b), of that paragraph.

(3) If and so long as functions are exercisable by virtue of paragraph 9 above by the Chair of the Assembly, he shall not exercise any of the other functions of Chair of the Assembly.
(4) If and so long as the Chair of the Assembly is precluded by sub-paragraph (3) above from exercising any of his functions, those functions shall be exercisable instead by the Deputy Chair of the Assembly.
(5) If and so long as any functions of the Chair of the Assembly are, by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above, exercisable by the Deputy Chair of the Assembly, the Deputy Chair of the Assembly shall not exercise any of his other functions.
(6) If and so long as the Deputy Chair of the Assembly is precluded by sub-paragraph (5) above from exercising any of his functions, those functions shall be exercisable instead by a person ("the acting Deputy Chair") elected for the purpose at a meeting of the Assembly from among the Assembly members.
(7) A person must not at the same time hold office as acting Deputy Chair and as Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chair of the Assembly or Deputy Chair of the Assembly.
(8) If the acting Deputy Chair becomes Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chair of the Assembly or Deputy Chair of the Assembly, a vacancy shall occur in the office of acting Deputy Chair.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have a couple of questions. First, could the noble Lord elucidate the meaning of sub-paragraph (2)(b)? I am afraid that, after a fair amount of study, it still eludes me and I should be grateful for the noble Lord's help. Secondly, I am interested in the contrast between the provision in subparagraph (3) and the provision in Amendment No. 81, where budget provisions are excepted. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell me why the provisions in this case are different.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the first question, the whole point of the amendment is to set out arrangements when the mayor's office is vacant and, perhaps for entirely different reasons, the deputy mayor's office is vacant—that is, the deputy mayor has resigned or, for other reasons, there is no deputy mayor in place. If there is no deputy mayor in place when the mayor becomes temporarily incapacitated or unable to act, the provision in sub-paragraph (2)(a) applies.
I was not entirely clear in regard to the noble Lord's reference to the previous amendment and the cross-reference to the budget provisions in this proposal. Perhaps I may write to him on that aspect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Delegation]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 18, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) the Common Council;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 97 to 102.
In these amendments we seek to meet concerns expressed at earlier stages of the Bill about the need for the clarification of the mayor's powers to delegate his or her functions.
Amendment No. 96 is straightforward. It simply adds the Common Council of the City of London to the bodies to which the mayor may delegate functions. I regret to say that its omission was an oversight.
In the light of concerns expressed in Committee, Amendment No. 97 makes explicit on the face of the Bill what we had previously thought was implicit; namely, that the mayor, when delegating functions to a local authority or the Common Council, may do so only with the written consent of that authority. It also makes clear that any authority which makes such an agreement may withdraw from it when it chooses to do so.
Amendment No. 98 provides that the mayor may apply conditions to any delegation he or she makes to an authority, and that those conditions would also apply to any committees, sub-committees or people to whom the authority in turn sub-delegates those functions.
Amendment No. 99 adds the Common Council and any local authority to the list of bodies which can exercise functions on behalf of the authority, whether or not they would already have the power to do so were it not for the provision in this subsection.
Amendment No. 100 extends to Transport for London and the LDA the delegation provisions of Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. These permit delegation to committees and sub-committees.
Amendment No. 101 deletes the current provisions on joint committees—which adopt the provisions of the Local Government Act. They are replaced by the specific provisions for joint committees between the GLA and one or more local authorities which are set out in Amendment No. 102. This will allow them to form joint committees where their functions are either the same or, where they are different, they have related or connected interests. Again, that reflects some of the concerns expressed earlier in terms of the working between the GLA. and the boroughs and other authorities.
The purpose of this group of amendments is practical. They are intended to assist the authority in the conduct of its business and its relationships with other authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have a simple question to ask the Minister on Amendment No. 102. In subsection (7), what do the words "Subject to that" mean? Should those words be amended to make more sense?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall clarify the matter if that is not the case, but, as I read the provision, it is subject to subsection (6). However, the noble Baroness may have a point. It relates to persons disqualified under subsection (6). Subject to that, the mayors may appoint virtually whomever they like, under subsection (7) Perhaps it could be clearer.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 97 to 102:
Page 18, line 16, at end insert—
("(2A) In the case of the Common Council or a local authority, an authorisation under this section—

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

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

Page 18, line 16, at end insert—
("(2B) Where, by virtue of an authorisation under subsection (1) above, a duty is exercisable by any of the bodies or persons specified in subsection (2) above, that body or person shall discharge the duty in accordance with the authorisation and any conditions imposed by the Mayor under subsection (1) above.
(2C) Subsection (2B) above is without prejudice to the exercise by the body or person concerned of any power to arrange for the discharge of functions by—

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

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

except to the extent that the terms of the authorisation or any conditions imposed by the Mayor under subsection (1) above otherwise provide.")
Page 18, line 24, at end insert—

("(c) the Common Council,

(d) any local authority,")

Page 18, line 31, leave out from ("authorisation") to ("as") in line 32 and insert ("under subsection (1) above given by the Mayor—

(a) to a local authority,

(b) to Transport for London, or

(c) to the London Development Agency,")

Page 18, line 34, leave out subsection (6)
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS BY JOINT COMMITTEES
(" .—(1) Where any functions exercisable on behalf of the Authority by the Mayor are, by virtue of an authorisation under section 31(1) above, also exercisable by one or more local authorities, the Mayor and those authorities may enter into arrangements under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 for the joint discharge of the functions by a joint committee.
(2) Where—

(a) a statutory function of the Authority is exercisable, or has been exercised, by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority, and

(b) the exercise, or any particular exercise, of that function will or may affect, or be affected by, the exercise, or any particular exercise, of statutory functions of local authorities (whether or not the functions are the same in the case of each such authority),

the Mayor and those authorities may enter into arrangements under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 for the joint exercise of any of the statutory functions mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above by a joint committee, as if those functions were exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority and by each local authority.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, the exercise of a function shall be taken to affect, or be affected by. the exercise of another function if the functions are exercisable for the same, or for similar or connected, purposes or in relation to the same, or similar or connected, subject matter.
(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above, sections 101(5) and 102 to 106 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall have effect as if the Authority acting by the Mayor were a local authority.
(5) Any arrangements made by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above for the discharge of any functions by a joint committee (or by a sub-committee of a joint committee) shall not prevent the Mayor or any local authority, or the joint committee by whom the arrangements are made, from exercising the functions.
(6) A person who is disqualified under section 20 above from being elected or being the Mayor or an Assembly member. otherwise than by reason only of being a member of staff of the Authority, shall be disqualified from being a member of a joint committee established by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above or of any sub-committee of such a committee.
(7) Subject to that, the Mayor or any other individual may be appointed as a representative of the Authority on any joint committee established by virtue of subsection (1) above and any such representative may be appointed as a member of any subcommittee of such a joint committee.
(8) Any reference in this section to a local authority includes a reference to the Common Council.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 97 to 102 en bloc. They are subject to my comments on Amendment No. 96.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 33 [General duties of the Mayor in relation to his strategies]:
Lord Luke Lord Luke moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 19, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) the River Thames Strategy prepared and published under section (River Thames Strategy) below,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 544, which is consequential.
The river Thames, for some extraordinary reason, usually gets left out or at best a cursory mention in discussions about London. This is all the more strange in that the Thames is why London is where it is, and what it is, and it is the fount of London's prosperity and fame. Tourism is now of great economic importance to London and yet only a fraction of tourists visiting London do so with the prime object of taking a trip on the Thames. Both the London Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority are rightly most concerned about this and are constantly looking at ways of encouraging tourists to go on the Thames.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said in his Amendment No. 451 at Committee stage, the advent of the mayor is a golden opportunity to combine and co-ordinate the affairs of the Port of London Authority, the riparian authorities and other interested bodies, to the benefit of all those participating and, I add, the cause of tourism on the Thames.
What is the present state of affairs? I am grateful to the London Tourist Board for up-to-date information. There is, of course, the Greenwich Dome, the catalyst for much new activity on the Thames. There is the new ocean terminal which I hope will come to Deptford Creek. There are other significant new riverside developments at Woolwich and Greenwich. All those should lead to more Thameside attractions for
340
tourists. River services are being significantly boosted for the millennium. Thames 2000 is the umbrella name for them and the cross-river partnership is the coordinating factor.
City Cruises are providing four new boats to run services from central London to the Greenwich peninsula. They will go from one of the new piers just by the London Eye, via Blackfriars to the dome. A new shuttle service is already running from central London as far as Canary Wharf and will continue after the Experience is over. A shuttle service will run from Old Greenwich to the dome. Several new and refurbished piers are coming into operation as part of Thames 2000. There is also the new pedestrian bridge at Bankside and the new pedestrian bridges attached to Hungerford Bridge.
All the projects are most welcome and worth while, but we are worried by the advent of the new authority made responsible for licensing the use of piers and river operators. This is London River Services, a subsidiary of London Transport. They seem to be embarking on a policy of providing services for transport as distinct from being angled towards tourism. They could even insist, I am told, that boat operators adopt uniform fares. This is not good for competition and is causing consternation among operators. I submit that the new mayor will be splendidly placed to help resolve this and other, similar kinds of problems.
Tourism, though at present modest in its scope, is vital to the well-being of the river and therefore of London itself. All possible means should be used to encourage it. The mayor will see the Thames from his new office, if he uses it. If not, he should go up the Eye and count the vessels using the Thames on an average day.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 104 as a paving amendment and also to Amendment Nos. 554 and 555.
We had the opportunity of visiting this issue when we were debating the matter at Committee stage. I therefore do not need to rehearse all the arguments at any length. I do believe, however, that it is very important for the Bill to be able to set out the nature of a strategy for utilising the River Thames much more effectively than has been the case in the past.
The amendment deals with a wide variety of policies to give effect to the strategy; it deals with transport and spatial development, biodiversity, municipal waste, air quality, ambient noise and cultural activities. I certainly do not propose to go into those matters at this time of the night. It is very important, however, that this great jewel in the crown of London, with its historic past, should have a major role in future so that it can be used for this wide spectrum of policies. These need to be mobilised in a coherent way, since all the areas and activities identified are in a sense interdependent. They clearly require a public transport service, and the amendments address transport, freight and also water.
Why should we separate the approach from that referred to elsewhere in the Bill in defining the duties of a mayor? The Government have argued previously

341
that the new clause, or something like it, is not necessary. It will he for the mayor, they say, to deal with issues relating to waste, transport, biodiversity and public access, all as part and parcel of his strategies to promote the use of the river.
I have felt. and this is a matter of judgment of course, that the Bill does not comprehensively and conclusively deal with all these matters in satisfactory detail. The River Thames Association has indicated that it concurs with that view.
It is perfectly true that there are discretionary powers relating to the "desirability" of promoting the river, especially in its transport role: but what about enhancing the civic and cultural matters which are associated with the river? These are intrinsically involved with using the river as a resource for public amenity, enhancing its civic and cultural attributes.
What it comes to is requiring the mayor, through a statutory duty, to follow a strategy to promote social development. Is such a separate strategy desirable? I would argue very strongly that it is. Co-ordination goes to the heart of all that has been set out in this amendment, and I am not wholly reassured by the arguments produced by my noble friend at the Committee stage.
Bearing in mind the significance of this river and everything that it stands for and does not only to London but the whole country, it is important that there should be a framework within which the mayor will work for the benefit of London and the country as a whole. That is an integral part of our national policies to which the Thames is so vital.
The amendment also provides that there should be the fullest consultation. That is set out in subsections (5) and (6) of Amendment No. 554. That is also an important ingredient of the mayor's duties. Although I do not intend to expand on that matter, I should like to know whether in the past few weeks my noble friend has been able to reflect on the validity of the argument, bearing in mind the significance of the matter, that a particular framework should be provided within which the mayor can work so that he is able, together with the authority, to exercise proper discretion.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, I ask both noble Lords who have tabled the amendment and the next one—perhaps the Minister is able to confirm it—whether the River Thames strategy also involves safety. One thinks about safety particularly at this moment. One also casts one's mind back to the tragedy of the "Marchioness" disaster some time ago. I cannot see any reference to safety in the Bill, but perhaps it is there. If so, can the Minister confirm that the River Thames strategy is concerned with safety? It may be that both noble Lords who have tabled these amendments can also confirm the position.
Lord Whitty: Nily Lords, the Government understand and sympathise with the sentiment behind the amendment. As all noble Lords have said, the River Thames is an important component of London's
342
identity. It has a number of diverse roles that need to be handled sensitively and in a strategic manner. However, as I indicated in Committee, we have given further thought to this matter. We still believe that the Bill already gives the mayor the powers that he or she needs to reflect the strategic importance of London's river through the spatial development strategy and other strategies. We do not consider that to require a free-standing, separate strategy for the Thames is the best way to achieve the objective that the noble Lord has set out.
The Government currently set the strategic framework for planning policy in London through regional planning guidance. A dedicated annex sets out strategic policies for the River Thames. It may well be that the mayor will want to incorporate the Government's current policies on the Thames, which are widely supported, wholesale into the spatial development strategy. But we believe that that should be a decision for the mayor, and that it is not one that we should place on the face of the Bill. To retain strategic policy for the Thames within the ambit of the SDS confers very positive advantages; in particular, it will ensure that it has added teeth.
The boroughs' unitary development plans will also have to be in general conformity with the spatial development strategy and the mayor will be responsible for monitoring; that. The effect or putting policies for the Thames into a separate strategy as the noble Lord proposes is to take them out of those arrangements and may result in the Thames having less protection than it has at present. Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 33 already provides that the mayor must consider in all the strategies the desirability of promoting and encouraging the use of the River Thames.
I hope that I have at least reassured noble Lords that we recognise the importance of the Thames to London and that we have provided the mayor with powers in the Bill to preserve and enhance its role. Having highlighted the concerns about having a separate, freestanding Thames strategy, hope that the noble Lord will recognise that those concerns are central both to the SDS and other strategies.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend is about to sit down.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not, but I shall sit down.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we are all in eager anticipation of sitting down. That is totally untrue: we want to go on for ever.
Perhaps I may put a question to my noble friend. If the strategy adopted by the mayor and authority was in conflict with the wider aims of the Government in relation to the river and everything that it offers, including its access to the sea, would the Government have no status in that argument? Would it be solely a matter for the mayor of London to devise, as prescribed in the Bill? Surely there are transport issues

343
here which could be of great national import. How would that be given effect to by the Bill as presently constructed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the strategies of a mayor all have to be in broad conformity with national policy and the Secretary of State would have some reserve powers were the mayor attempting—a slightly unlikely situation—to close the Port of London to international shipping. I am not quite sure of the conflict my noble friend envisaged but there is provision within the Bill for conformity between all strategies, including in particular the development strategy, and broad national strategies, and that would apply to transport as well.
The Thames features in many of those strategies, in particular, in the spatial development strategy, and would best be linked with all the broader policy objectives, both London-wide and nationally, rather than being dealt with on its own.
Safety on the river, covered by both the intervention by the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and also Amendment No. 108, is a matter we must take very seriously. Noble Lords will know that an inquiry now being carried out by Lord Justice Clarke into safety on the Thames will review the current position, particularly in the context of potential additional use of the Thames during the millennium year celebrations and indeed will consider early issues arising from the tragedy of the "Marchioness". I cannot at this stage prejudge the conclusions that the inquiry may reach but we are committed to ensuring that safety procedures on the river are adequate for responding to emergencies, including collisions. With that in mind, I would like to take away Amendment No. 108, particularly with regard to adding the word "safe" to Clause 33(5)(d). I am not so persuaded by the rest of Amendment No. 108 but I believe that the safety issue does require further consideration and, with the leave of the House, I shall consider it further and the possibility of bringing forward a proposal at Third Reading. Subject to that, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I confess that I am a little disappointed by his response. Nonetheless, I still feel that at some stage a proper river strategy should be incorporated in the directives to the mayor. Perhaps we can come back to the issue at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 106.
Page 20, line 3, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

("(a) the need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom,

(aa) national policy")

The noble Baroness said: I believe that this is one of the most important amendments to be considered on the Bill. I did try to have it degrouped but there was a bit of a muddle in the office. The only reason I wanted it degrouped was to point out the importance that I attach to it. It goes right to the heart of the relationship between local government, particularly London's local government, and national government. It will also be a precedent for other city authorities with elected mayors and others forms of regional government which may eventually be set up.
As drafted, the Bill requires the mayor to do two things in preparing or revising any of his strategies. First, he must ensure that the strategies are consistent with national policies. Secondly, he must ensure that the strategies are consistent with those international obligations that the Secretary of State may notify to the mayor. I should like to look at each of those two concepts in turn. First, he must ensure that the strategies are consistent with national policy; that is, with the policy of the government of the day. The Bill does not say that the mayor should simply have regard to those policies when formulating his strategies. It does not say that he should simply consider them. Either of those forms of words would mean that the mayor should look at national policy but would not be bound to follow it. The words in the Bill positively impose an obligation on the mayor to follow government policy.
That is a major constitutional innovation that the Government are slipping in through the back door of an extremely long Bill. It is right and proper that a local authority should have regard to national—that is, government—policy. However, having regard to government policy is not the same as being required to follow it if the local council disagrees with it. That is a total negation of the concept of local government. The council, or in this case the mayor, should be able to decide that the policy should not be applied in their particular circumstances; or that the policies are wrong. The law does not oblige a local authority to obey the Secretary of State's policies. It requires the local authority to obey primary or secondary legislation. Parliament has not previously required local councils to follow national policies except in rare and special cases: for example, the interpretation of the contaminated land regime. The Secretary of State will have policies on local government responsibilities and the way that they carry them out. It is right and proper that he should do so. However, he cannot demand obedience unless Parliament has given him a direct power or the responsibility for determining appeals by the public against local council decisions.
Subsection (5)(a) is a dangerous and damaging innovation. It creates as a matter of law the necessity of local government acting consistently with government policy. If the Bill remains as drafted, the mayor would be hard pressed in law to justify a failure to follow government policy. Indeed, in Committee the Minister referred to judicial reviews.
The second part of the amendment reverses the rampant centralization—the very over-centralisation that the Government claim as a justification for their

345
policies of devolution, regionalisation and the creation of the Greater London Authority. The mayor would be required to take national policy into consideration but he will not be required to follow it or even be consistent with it. This part of the amendment ensures that the mayor's role is not merely to produce strategies as the proxy of the Government: to be the Government's rubber stamp.
The other part of the amendment requires the mayor to ensure that his strategies are consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom. As drafted, the Bill has the rather curious obligation for the mayor to follow,
"such international obligations as the Secretary of State may notify to the Mayor".
That means that the Secretary of State could pick and choose which international obligations he would require the mayor to follow. What about any other international obligations about which the Secretary of State did not formally notify the mayor? Is the mayor free to ignore them? Of course not. Perhaps I do the Government an injustice over this extraordinary passage. Perhaps the Government intended that the mayor should be reminded of international obligations to which he is subject. We do not need an Act of Parliament to tell the Secretary of State to do that; and certainly not one in the form at present proposed. Like all public bodies, the mayor's actions, not merely his strategies, should be consistent with the country's international obligations.
The amendment maintains that obligation while removing the implied limitation of the present wording to only those obligations notified by the Secretary of State. Compliance with international obligations should not be dependent on a letter from the department to the mayor.
When this same amendment was debated in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave us the benefit of the Government's thoughts on the subject, which I promised to study. I am sorry to say that in this case, uncharacteristically, he does not appear to have answered the points that I and other noble Lords who supported me then made, which is why have brought the matter back before your Lordships. In dealing with the aspect of international obligations, he said,
"The GLA is not a nation state which makes its own international obligations"."—[Official Report, 23/6/99; col. 926.]
We entirely agree with that. That is why we want the mayor to have regard to all this country's international obligations, not just such of them as the Secretary of State may designate. The noble Lord told my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith at col. 930 that,
"The duty to ensure that international obligations are carried out falls on the state. The state must therefore notify those authorities that are required to act in conformity".
We entirely agree. We also agree with what he told me two paragraphs further on in col. 930, when he said,
"Clearly, there are many international obligations which are totally irrelevant to the GLA".
He disclaimed any intention to cherry-pick but that is precisely what the clause does, as drafted, whether that was the Government's intention or not. If we are both
346
agreed that, first, the Secretary of State should notify the mayor of any international obligations affecting London—which we presume he would normally do as a normal executive act without being told to do so by statute—and, secondly, that he is only seeking to exclude irrelevant obligations, then our amendment produces precisely the effect on which we both agree, but without the ambiguity that simply bothers us.
I am surprised that, having heard of the disquiet that the wording of the clause has produced, particularly including the word "such", and having acknowledged that there was a genuine problem, the Government have not introduced their own amendment to tidy up what is clearly a loose piece of drafting.
As regards the mayor being obliged as a matter of law to conform to national policy in framing his strategies, the Minister's reply has confirmed our worst fears. That is precisely the Government's intention. When the Minister replied to the earlier Amendment No. 111, moved by his noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, he said at col. 925:
"The mayor must, in preparing any strategy, ensure that it is consistent with national policies".
Noble Lords should note the word "must". It is not just a question of "have regard to" as the clause under debate proposes: he "must ensure" their consistency with national policies.
Having taken considerable time in discussing the issue of international obligations, the Minister only briefly touched on that part of the amendment dealing with national policy, where he said at col. 929:
"This is not a centralising matter. It is designed to ensure that London plays its part in the delivery of our national policies and our international obligations".
Ensuring that London plays its part in delivering our national policies, as the Minister put it, is centralising. If it is not, then what is it? That one remark confirms what we fear. The clause, as drafted, makes the mayor a Government poodle whose purpose is to act as a figurehead while obeying the orders of the Secretary of State, but taking the blame in London if anything goes wrong. The clause, as drafted, removes the mayor's promised powers and ability to decide his own policies. It merely leaves him applying the Government's policies as the proxy of the Secretary of State. This amendment restores the balance. It allows the mayor to decide what is best. It allows the people of London to have the sort of mayor they voted for in the general election and in the referendum. It allows the people of London to get in each term what they were voting for in the successful candidate for mayor. Both parts of the amendment re-establish the mayor as an independent political figure with independent executive powers, elected by the popular vote of the people of London to reflect their aspirations and concerns. That is what the Government promised in their manifesto. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it may be because of the time of night, but I found the argument of the noble Baroness perplexing, because surely it is the duty of the Government and the Secretary of State to point out to the authority, as stated in Clause 33(5)(a), what are the

347
relevant international obligations. Otherwise it will impose on the mayor the impossible task of having to identify what is relevant and what is not. Therefore I believe it is a helpful provision and not a hindrance as regards this subject matter. It is quite clear that international obligations are paramount. Having said that, as a matter of convenience it is right that those issues should be pointed out by the Secretary of State to the mayor.
I am a little bewildered by paragraph 5(d). That is why I suggested that it might be wise to leave it out, at least for the purpose of this debate. Does it not, as it stands, contain a question mark about whether in fact the mayor might even suggest that the river is closed down with respect to passenger transport services and the transportation of freight? That is unlikely to take place, but it is an ambiguity and one which should be dealt with in the legislation, although not in the way in which it is represented in paragraph 5(d). I will be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say on those points.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we shall not be speaking to the amendments on community safety and crime prevention which are tabled in this group. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones spoke to the subject matter earlier. However, I shall speak to Amendment No. 116, which relates to Clause 34(6). It proposes a small amendment in connection with revision of any of the mayor's strategies. We propose that the assembly—this is one of the few places where we are going to make the point—has a role in determining whether a revision to a strategy will or will not materially affect it and therefore whether there should be further consideration on it.
At the last stage of the Bill, the Minister indicated on a similar amendment that the provision was to allow the mayor to make minor and drafting changes to a strategy. Of course we have no objection to provision being made for that possibility. However, the provision in this subsection is rather wider. The clause is about far more than minor or drafting amendments. Amendment No. 116 seeks to provide some sort of brake on the mayor, because, if the mayor is acting slightly ambitiously by suggesting merely a small revision that does not require further consultation, the assembly with its scrutiny role will be well placed to determine whether or not that is actually the case. It will thereby act as a guardian for the interests of Londoners who would, if the mayor did not take such a restrictive view, be able to contribute to a consultation. We have proposed that the decision under this subsection as to whether a proposed revision will or will not materially alter the strategy is not one for the mayor alone, but should also involve the assembly.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is a slightly mixed bag of amendments. Through Amendment No. 106 the noble Baroness has again sought to address the issue of strategies being consistent with international obligations and national policy. The noble Baroness
348
has referred to my previous explanation that the Bill makes it clear that the mayor's strategies must be prepared within the context of national policy decisions and those national policy decisions will include some international obligations, some international treaties and some international cooperation. The GLA is a city-wide governance of supreme importance within the United Kingdom, but it is not a nation state or even a city state.
It is therefore important that the mayor's strategies are consistent with international obligations, but those international obligations are the responsibility of the state and not of lower tiers of government. Therefore, it is important for the state to decide which of those obligations will be carried out and met by the mayor. That is why the Bill provides for the GLA to meet those obligations where the central state has notified the obligations to the GLA and where guidance has been given about the contributionwhich it is to make in relation to those obligations.
It is not unique for national bodies to be subject to government policies. In this as in other areas, the Government set targets which authorities are expected to meet and use as a basis for their own strategies. That applies in relation to international targets as well as to other targets.
I turn to the other main point made in this discussion, which I believe relates to Amendment No. 116 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. That amendment would require assembly agreement to be given before the mayor could waive the consultation requirements set out in Clause 34 in relation to revising strategies. Again, I believe that that is a reflection of a quite deep-seated difference between us in relation to the mayor and the assembly. We believe that that must remain a matter for the discretion of the mayor. The mayor would obviously have to be able to demonstrate that he had good reason for deciding not to consult on a particular strategy and he would have to be able to justify the view that the revision did not materially affect the strategy. Those reasons could be challenged and tested by the assembly in its normal procedures and in its regular statutory meetings with the mayor and others. However, we believe that the discretion should be a matter for the mayor.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness would not pursue this amendment. I hope also that the noble Baroness will not pursue Amendment No. 116 in due course.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the hour is late. However, I did not totally understand his answer. We have no objection to the fact that the mayor of London must have policies which are consistent with this country's international obligations. That is very much the point which we are making. The Bill refers to obligations such as those that are notified by the Secretary of State. It may be that, for one reason or another, even by some sort of omission, the Secretary of State did not notify the

349
mayor of a particular international obligation, which, if the mayor did not take note of it, would cause quite a lot of problems. We certainly do not consider London to be a nation state.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, if the Government were to breach their obligations in that way, there is a legal remedy to deal with that. Surely that is sufficient.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we are not going to argue about the wording at this time of night. All that I am saying is that we have no objection whatever to the mayor's policies having to be consistent with international obligations or with other obligations about which the Secretary of State tells him; but we shall not argue about that now.
With regard to the national policy, the Minister was busy talking about national targets and so on. My amendment does not refer to targets but to policies. The fact remains that this would be a complete break away from the current position as regards local councils throughout the country. The mayor of London is either a special person and a model for something else, or he is not. It seems extraordinary that that strong position which is now being created will be less powerful than is any local leader of a council who could do something different from national policies.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, shakes his head but I can tell the House that I have been lobbied by numerous councillors across the country who are concerned that this is a new move. What the Bill should properly provide is that the mayor should have regard to national policies when he is making his policies. That is what would happen in local government. However, my amendment seeks to provide that his strategy is consistent with national policy.
At the beginning said that I wanted to degroup the amendment because I consider it to be very important. I shall certainly not pursue the matter today. I shall read very carefully what the Minister has said. It is rather late and I believe I may have misheard him. I thought he was talking about targets and I am talking about policies. I urge the Minister to read very carefully what I have said and to take note of what other local councillors are saying because this is a new move which could be extremely dangerous. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 20, line 11, at end insert ("; and
( ) the views of such organisations representative of business as the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult having regard to the impact of his strategy on business")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 109, 110 and 115. The three amendments have a common theme. They
350
require the mayor, at the barest minimum, to consult with business on the impact of his strategies on commerce and industry and to consider the compliance costs of his strategies. Consultation with business interests will not mean that commerce will have a veto over the mayor's strategies or compel him to modify them in any way. However, it does mean that the mayor will not simply be able to blunder in and produce strategies that may have long-term or unforeseen effects simply because he has not sought advice from appropriate sources.
There are some of us who recall the former Greater London Council's disastrous experiment in banning lorries in Central London. Attractive as no doubt that was to the green lobby, it produced a bureaucratic nightmare and heaped untold costs on everyone, especially businesses trying to receive stocks or dispatch goods. Before that there was a no less disastrous direction of industry perpetrated by both political parties. "Make industry move out of London", they said. That is why there is a shortage of unskilled and clerical jobs for the youth of our capital city.?
I shall not indulge in any further recrimination. However, the point I wish to make is that we must ensure that we do not, by accident or through ignorance, make the same mistakes. Further, we have to be sure that London will not be used as the guinea pig for a social engineering experiment. I shall also not comment on the business experience of any of the declared or would-be candidates for the office of mayor. This debate has neither the time nor is it the place for electioneering. However, let me instead point out the irrefutable truth that since there are no qualifying examinations for political office, and no apprenticeship requirements—more is the pity, some of us might say—it is not impossible that the person elected as mayor may never have been in commercial employment. He or she may never have had the problem of covering the employees' payroll on a Friday afternoon. They may not know the meaning of the three most dreaded words in business: negative cash flow.
A lifetime politician, a political adviser, or even a journalist, teacher or lawyer may not necessarily be a business orientated mayor. That is what the amendment aims to address It requires the mayor to seek advice, even if in the end he chooses to ignore it. Let him take the political risk, when it all goes wrong, of having someone say to him, "Well, I told you so".
The issue raised in Amendment No. 110 relates to compliance costs. It is surprising that this is not part of the proposed requirements. In the case of new legislation passed by Parliament, this is a factor to be considered, so why does it not have to be by the mayor? Restraints on noise are superficially desirable, but in an area where there is a great number of restaurants and bars, what would be the effect on local jobs? The mayor should at least be able or be made to consider the matter.
When imposing requirements for recycling more waste, as distinct from handing it over to the dustman, what will be the effect on small businesses? The mayor should at least give that a passing thought before deciding on his strategy.
We can all think of numerous examples where one desirable objective can also result in an undesirable effect. It is only a question of weighing up the pros and cons. That is all that the amendment requires him to do.
It is convenient to include Amendment No. 115 in the same group, even though it relates to Clause 34. Clause 34(1) requires the mayor, when preparing or revising any strategy, to consult the assembly, functional bodies, the London borough councils, the Common Council and any other body or person he considers appropriate. The amendment simply adds "business" to the list of those specifically named, rather than leaving it to the mayor to decide whether to include businesses in the catch-all of "any other body or person".
As has become the invariable practice of the Government, the Minister dismissed the identical amendments by saying that they were not necessary. He prayed in aid Clause 34(2) and Clause 27(3), claiming that they covered these issues. With respect, they do not. Clause 34(2) refers back to Clause 27(3) for a definition of those to be included in the phrase "any other body or person". Clause 27(3) includes,
"bodies which represent the interests of persons carrying on business in Greater London".
Consulting the usual trade and employers' associations goes a long way to achieving what is required, but the vast body of commercial firms, the small businesses, do not belong to those organisations. Why should unattached businesses not have the right to make their views known?
My own experience of these "bodies" is that they do very little consulting with their members; instead, they rely on the decisions of their policy sub-committees. Without naming names, my husband and I resigned our separate memberships of one such body, not because it announced its policy on a particular topic, but because it had not sought members' views before it did so.
It should be clear to the public and to businesses in particular, especially those which are not members of trade associations, that they have a right to be consulted. That right should be clear on the face of the relevant clause. It should not be discoverable only by someone having to hop backwards and forwards through the various subsections of this extremely lengthy Bill.
It is a common theme of the amendments that both the assembly and the mayor should have regard to the views of the wealth creators in our capital city. After all, the three principal purposes of the authority have at their head,
"promoting of economic development and wealth creation in Greater London".
352
If that is the first function of the authority, why should the Government be so coy about boldly including business in the list of those to be consulted, rather than burying it in a pile of verbiage or hiding it in a completely different quarter?
Before the general election, the Labour Party claimed that it had reformed and that it was now extremely friendly to business. By accepting the amendments, that would enable them not only to put that fine sentiment into practice, but also to be seen to be doing so. I beg to move.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, it would be a great tragedy if we took a step backwards in the Bill. Over the past five or six years, a close voluntary working relationship with business, local government and central government, normally through the Minister for London, has been built up. It would be very sad if we were to go backwards rather than forwards in that respect. I know that noble Lords opposite are conscious of that situation.
We happen to have a great success on our hands: London is a fabulous business success. We must not do anything to damage that. We need to grow more wealth so that we can reduce inequality. We spoke about equality of opportunity earlier.
I see no reason for not supporting the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, because although the Government have done an amazingly good job—it may not he amazing to them—of convincing business that the GLA is a good and sensible thing for London, it did not necessarily start that way. The amendments would cement that relationship and demonstrate that there will he consultation. We know that there must be. Business will certainly consult with the mayor of London, whether or not he wants to be consulted. It is probably a good idea, therefore, if he or she consulted with business.
I should probably declare an interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in that I am not only a "large businessman" but I also happen to be a "very small businessman" in many start-up businesses, and so on. I am aware, therefore, of some of the problems she describes.
We must find a way to keep businesses of all sizes and types locked in, supporting the whole of this mission. I cannot see any reason why we should not cement that by inserting some of these clauses.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in Committee we proposed an amendment which was not dissimilar to the first of those tabled by the noble Baroness. We, too, regard the relationship between the new authority and London's business sector as very important. The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, quite rightly referred to the way in which the relationship between local government and business in London has developed

353
over the past few years. He has played no small part in that. He has provided a terrific lead. I was fortunate enough to be involved as a board member of London First when it was originally formed. It was an illuminating experience to see business and local government, under his assistance and with his lead, gradually begin to understand one another rather better than before.
We received considerable assurances from the Government in Committee. However, I should like to put on record our concern that there should be no doubt about the importance of involving business in the same way as other sectors, and being particularly sensitive to the needs of business.
In response to the noble Baroness, I reject the notion that strategic government in London, implementing policies which reflect environmental concerns, will necessarily, therefore, be against business. I do not believe that the two are mutually exclusive. She referred to the London lorry ban. For the record, perhaps I should briefly make the point that that was not an anti-business strategy but was to reduce the traffic going through London and not to places within London. There are exempted routes and a licensing scheme. These matters are often difficult to balance. However, we should not allow ourselves to believe that business and environmental interests are somehow in two pigeon-holes and cannot be put together.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging my interjection regarding safety. However, my noble friend has withdrawn her Amendment No. 108. As far as I can see, that is the only mention of safety in any of the amendments and, indeed, in the Bill. Amendment No. 108 contains the little word "safe" which might appear to be there accidentally. If the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment or if the Minister will not accept it, could he give assurances that safety is written in fiery letters in the strategy for which the mayor will be responsible. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that or perhaps he might consider, with his colleagues, introducing an amendment at a later stage which brings in safety as a policy within the strategy.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the latter point, I am sorry if that was not clear to the noble Lord. I believe I specifically told him that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, withdrew his amendment on the basis that I would consider—partly in relation to the "Marchioness" inquiry but also in the light of this amendment—whether to bring forward at Third Reading an amendment relating to safety in this context. It would be without commitment: at this point I needed to consult somewhat more widely. I did agree to take it away, and it was on that basis that it was withdrawn.
354
Turning to the main point of these amendments, I find it slightly difficult because, although I agree with quite a lot of what the noble Baroness said, together with virtually all of what the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, said, I do not know why it is necessary to put the amendment in here. The noble Baroness dismissed my earlier assurances, but the Bill does say that the mayor must consult bodies which represent the interests of persons carrying on business in Greater London.
The noble Baroness seemed to suggest that her formulation, which also refers to organisations representing business, was somehow closer to the grass roots of business. I do not myself see that, and since that formulation relates to the general duties of the mayor I do not know why we need to repeat it in a different form at later stages. I do not want to have a dispute with noble Lords opposite on this, because clearly it has been central to the formulation of the whole strategy for London that we take on board discussions with representatives of business and put into the Act and its procedures a requirement to involve business in all the key decisions which the mayor will produce under this Bill.
I find it unnecessary to specify this in a slightly different way from what was specified earlier, because that in itself could lead to confusion at various stages of this Bill. I would hope that noble Lords opposite, and the business community of London, would accept that general position as being indicative of the Government's intention to ensure that the mayor works closely with business of all kinds in London. That is certainly our intention, and it would be a very foolish mayor indeed who attempted to ignore that. Indeed the Bill would not permit that. I simply do not think that we need to write it into every clause and I would ask noble Lords opposite to consider that what is already in the Bill would meet their points.
Regarding Amendment No. 115, which refers to compliance cost assessment, that is a term of an which is related to legislation and the authority is not a legislative authority. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness is clearly concerned not with compliance cost assessment in a technical sense, but with the costs which would fall on business or distort the economics of London. It is clear that the cost implications of the mayor's strategy and other related matters such as unemployment will be part of the consultation that has been described, and so I think the noble Baroness's point would be met. I do not think we ought to fall out over this. I hope that, on consideration, noble Lords will see that we have made our intentions clear. If not, no doubt they will return to these matters at a later stage.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Lord that in none of our amendments do we intend to fall out with the Minister: it is the very last thing that we would dream of doing.

355
As the noble Lord has explained the position so well and as he has asked me to consider it carefully, I shall undoubtedly do so. Perhaps in return he might also consider some of the things that we have asked him to consider during the course of our debates, particularly those where there might be confusion. Having said that, it is with pleasure that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110, 111 and 112 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past midnight.