Greater London Authority Bill

HL Deb 14 October 1999 vol 605 cc519-80

3.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 33 [General duties of the Mayor in relation to his strategies]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 113:

Page 20, line 32, at end insert—

("(8A) The Mayor shall from time to lime set such targets with respect to the implementation of any strategy mentioned in subsection (1) above as he may consider appropriate, having regard to—

1. (a) any related targets or objectives set nationally; and
2. (b) any performance indicators set by the Secretary of State, whether nationally or locally, which affect the exercise of functions by authorities involved in the implementation of the strategy;

and in setting any such targets the Mayor shall seek to secure that they are not less demanding than any related targets or objectives which are set nationally.").

The noble Lord

said: My Lords, Government Amendment. No. 113 provides for the mayor to set such targets as he or she considers appropriate in relation to each strategy. Amendment No. 138, which is the other government amendment in the group, requires the mayor to set current targets and report on progress in achieving them in the GLA's annual report. Our intention that the mayor should set targets in relation to his or her strategy was set out in the original London White Paper. Perhaps noble Lords will recall that the Government undertook to give further consideration to Opposition amendments moved in Committee requiring strategies to contain targets or indicators. These matters were raised both in this House and in the other place.

We indicated that we intended to bring forward appropriate amendments at the Report stage. The targets for which the amendments provide will enable Londoners to see where the strategies are ultimately aiming; to see the long-term objectives; and to track progress being made in implementing each strategy. They will therefore be able to press the mayor, if necessary, to improve performance if they are not being met.

The framework will enable Londoners to track progress in implementing each of the mayoral strategies. I shall listen to what noble Lords say in relation to their amendments, but I hope that the overall amendment achieves what their amendments intend. I shall therefore be asking them to withdraw them. I beg to move.

3.45 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 113, Amendment No. 113A: Line 2, after second ("time") insert ("after consulting the bodies and persons specified in section 34").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we welcome the general thrust of these amendments. Any self-respecting public body will set targets and want to ensure that they are properly monitored. That is the thrust of my Amendment No. 113B. Not only will the targets be set but the achievement of them or otherwise will be kept under proper review.

I make the point not thinking that in the common sense world the mayor will fail to monitor the targets but because we encountered the issue when the GLC was abolished. It became clear that in some respects if was difficult to discover what was happening in London, in particular as regards planning. There were difficulties in setting up useful and workable systems for monitoring what was happening with planning applications and their implementation. That was in my mind in tabling that amendment. I hope that the Minister will either accept it or assure me that implicit in the wording of the Government's amendment is monitoring.

As regards Amendment No. 113A, I hope that the mayor, in setting targets, will have regard to targets set by other bodies concerned with what is happening in London. I include in particular the London boroughs. They, too, have targets and performance indicators. We, like all noble Lords, are concerned that there will not be a duplication of effort between the new authority and the London boroughs, but we appreciate that their areas of responsibility will cover the same subject matter, although one hopes not precisely the same ground. My amendments, including Amendment No. 114A, are designed to ensure that there is a coherent approach.

My Amendment No. 138A is tabled for clarification that the authority is the subject of Clause 38(1)(b) and to ensure that the "Authority" and the "authorities" are covered. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, my Amendment No. 114 is directed to a specific point. I heard what the Minister said in his opening remarks—that he hoped we would be satisfied and withdraw our amendments—but in the light of those remarks, I am not sure that that will apply. It will depend on what he says in reply. The government amendment properly requires the mayor to establish targets and so on and so forth, as he may consider appropriate having regard to … targets or objectives set nationally; and (b) any performance indicators set by the Secretary of State". Of course, both of those factors are important, but I find it absolutely unbelievable that the mayor should be required to establish targets, objectives and indicators without some regard to the assembly, whose members are required to represent the views of the people of London and who might be expected to have a view on the matter.

My Amendment No. 114 is on the Marshalled List to ensure that in setting those targets the mayor has regard to the views of the assembly and therefore has regard to the views of the people of London. That is what the Bill is all about. Frankly, I do not believe that a throwaway line suggesting that it might be automatically withdrawn in introducing this group is a satisfactory way of treating the seriousness of the subject.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I may be misunderstanding this issue, but it seems that, in spite of Clause 34 which involves taking account of the assembly's views and of each London borough council, according to the terms of the amendment the government of the day could use the mayor to frustrate the local borough councils. Local borough councils can use their funds within their total budget to a considerable extent to implement their own priorities. That is what they are there for; that is why people elect them—to make local decisions about local priorities. If the mayor is to be, as it were, glued to the point of view of central government in that respect, it will simply be a way of centralising decision-making in London.

I may be misunderstanding that point, but it seems unwise for the Government to do that. The mayor should be taking account of government priorities and of local government priorities when deciding on a course of action. We all know that local decisions have to taken be within a framework set by central government. That is always the case, and local governments know that. But their great value is that they establish local priorities. How are they going to do that if the Government say, "Hoy! The mayor must do what we say"? This amendment seems to say that he will have to override local government in his decisions. If I am not misunderstanding the point, the Government should be very careful about that.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, we are pleased to see that the Government have brought forward Amendment No. 113, which takes note of our comments in Committee on setting targets, and so on. We consider it right also that the mayor, when setting those targets, should have some regard to any related targets or objectives which are set nationally. Indeed, I made that point when, in speaking on Tuesday to Amendment No. 106, I said that we had no difficulty with the mayor "having regard to". However, we had difficulty with the words, ensure that they were consistent with". I believe it right also, when setting targets, that the mayor must have regard to any performance indicators as described in the new subsection (8A).

Furthermore, we should have no difficulty with the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that it would perhaps be wise if the word "monitor" were also included, although there might be a different mechanism for the mayor to check whether his targets were being met.

Having taken all that into consideration, why should the mayor, when setting his targets for the implementation of the strategy as he thinks it right for London, also have to—and I go to the end of the amendment— seek to secure that they are not less demanding than any related target or objectives which are set nationally"? There is no suggestion that the mayor would necessarily even consider setting targets for London which are lower than targets set nationally. But there might well be a reason, when he has set his targets, for him to have to take something else into consideration which is not taken into consideration around the rest of the country and which may be pertinent only to London. Therefore that part of the Government's amendment is rather restrictive on the mayor. If the mayor takes note of, or has regard to, national targets, and if he takes note of the indicators, it is then up to him which targets he sets and how he implements his strategy.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am grateful for the admittedly slightly qualified welcome the noble Baroness gave to this amendment because I believe it reflects our debates at earlier stages, both here and elsewhere. I believe that the noble Baroness is reading too much into this as regards the national targets and objectives. Indeed, that point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. All we are saying is that the assembly is part of local government and that the mayor, like the rest of local government, must have regard to minimum standards and targets set nationally.

Therefore, in so far as they are minimum standards, the same requirements throughout local government would apply in London to the GLA as they would indeed to the boroughs. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, fears that the Government would use the national targets as a stick with which to beat the boroughs. The boroughs are already in the position of having to pay attention to the national targets. So the clause is not really using the mayor as an extension of the central state. It seeks to ensure that the whole of local government in London has regard to the national targets.

I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, misunderstood me when I indicated that I hoped that his other amendments could eventually be withdrawn. Although that is indeed my hope, I was merely indicating that I believed that the government amendments would in practice meet what his party sought at an earlier stage.

Now that I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, MOW their amendments, I believe that their points are valid but that the intention of the first clause subsumes the aims of their amendments. Amendment No. 114, tabled in the noble Lord's name, would require the mayor to consult the assembly before setting car targets. Amendment No. 113A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, refers also to that point and relates also to the other bodies specified in Clause 34, including the assembly.

The amendments are already covered by the fact that Clause 34 requires the mayor to consult the bodies listed before preparing or revising any strategy, including targets within that strategy. It would therefore be inconceivable for the mayor not to consult on the targets which related to that strategy at that time. The clause therefore already provides not only for the assembly but for the other bodies mentioned in Clause 34 to be consulted. The mayor would obviously be able to exercise his discretion to decide the number and nature of targets for each strategy, but we do not intend in any sense for that to be done in isolation. In setting the targets, he must have regard to national targets, as I have said, and should not set targets less demanding than those. However, the mayor must also have regard to performance indicators set by the Secretary of State and so forth.

He also operates in a context where there are other strategies operating in London by other public authorities. I cannot agree to the prescription in Amendment No. 114A which requires the mayor to have regard to any indicators or targets set by the boroughs in relation to a strategy. Of course the mayor will need to have regard to what the boroughs are doing and will need to consult the boroughs about the strategies. However, I believe it is over-prescriptive to look at the matter target by target and borough by borough. We are not talking about a power to ignore what the boroughs are saying. But believe that to look at every single target which appears in boroughs' plans and strategies is going a little far. The general consultation requirement covers the overall relationship with the boroughs.

Amendment No. 113B would require the mayor to monitor as well as to set targets. We have already provided for this by requiring the mayor to report on progress to the assembly in the authority's annual report.

Amendment No. 138A would alter that amendment to specify that the mayor's assessment of progress should include progress made by the GLA itself as well as authorities in general. Again, I believe that that is unnecessary. The mayor would be bound to report on the progress of all targets that he sets, including particularly those for which he himself is responsible. The noble Baroness said that it was a clarifying amendment but I should have thought that it was fairly clear from the requirement to report on progress on targets that those included would indeed focus on those targets for which the mayor himself was responsible.

Although I understand some of the points that were made, I believe the general amendment covers those points. The consultation procedures elsewhere in the Bill provide for taking into account those other concerns. Therefore, I hope that we can pass my amendments, and Amendment No. 138 when we come to it, rather than pursue those other amendments.

4 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I may invite him to comment on the fact that Clause 34, which he has called in aid as a reason for the rejection of my amendment, deals only with the preparational revision of strategies and does not mention the question of targets or performance indicators. Therefore, I believe that there is an argument here which could go either way.

The performance indicators are a separate issue, unless the noble Lord is prepared to give me an assurance that the targets in the performance indicators will be a part of the strategy. If the noble Lord gives me that assurance, I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I believe that I said earlier that, in most cases, certainly the targets will be part of those strategies, or the follow-through to those strategies, as regards which the mayor is also required to consult.

The question of performance indicators could, of course, go more widely than strategies in that there will be internal performance indicators as well as strategic indicators. Therefore, I am not able to give any assurance that all performance indicators will fall within the strategy. However, the targets referred to in this clause are certainly relevant to the strategies and therefore are covered by Clause 34.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I accept the assurances given by the Minister on my amendments but I am rather sad that vet again he seems to have demoted a little the position of the London boroughs. The general point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, was a very good point and one which concerns us a great deal.

The noble Lord says that the general point of having regard to what boroughs are doing is covered because of consultation provisions in Clause 34 and in other provisions in the Bill. However, if that is so, why is it necessary to specify that the mayor must have regard to targets and objectives set nationally and performance indicators set by the Secretary of State? After all, the Bill is very clear about the mayor's obligations regarding strategies being consistent with national policies—a matter which we have discussed at some length. I do not regard the points as consistent in that the Government are suggesting that national targets need to be referred to specifically but that local targets need not.

I believe that that point needs to be placed on record again. After all, the boroughs spend much time dealing with performance indicators—not only the ones which they would like to set themselves, but those which meet the Secretary of State's formats and so on. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment No. 113A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 113, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 113B not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 113 agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 114 and 114A not moved.]

Clause 34 [Consultation]:

[Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]

Clause 35 [Publicity and availability of strategies]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 117:

Page 21, line 24, after first ("to") insert ("the current version of').

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with arrangements for publicity and availability of the mayor's strategies, draft strategies, the annual report, the bus guidance document and the GLA publicly available documents in general. We debated the issues raised by these amendments at some length in Committee. We recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which was shared also by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. We promised to consider very carefully the points raised.

In the light of our further consideration we tabled a number of amendments to the arrangements for publicity and availability of strategies. One of those amendments will require the mayor to send each strategy to each London borough and to the Common Council. Another will require the mayor to make strategies available for inspection in such cases as he or she considers appropriate, in addition to the GLA's offices. I trust that noble Lords opposite will welcome those amendments.

I turn now to the amendments in my name. Amendments Nos. 117 to 129, with the exception of Amendment No. 118, alter and extend the arrangements in Clause 35 for publicity and availability of strategies. Those amendments respond to the points made in Committee by both Liberal Democrat and Conservative Peers. The amendments do three things. First, they ensure that it is the current version of each strategy that is kept available for inspection. We have taken the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the strategies available for inspection must be those in force. Therefore, the amendments remove the requirement that each shall be kept available for a period of six years. As was pointed out in Committee, that could have meant that a strategy in force for more than six years might not be available for inspection.

Secondly and similarly, we have been persuaded that the mayor should be required to send copies of the strategies to the boroughs and to the Common Council as those authorities will be guided by them and have a role in implementing them.

Thirdly, we have also been persuaded of the case for requiring the mayor to make the strategies available for inspection at places other than the GLA's principal offices. I trust those amendments will be welcomed.

Amendments Nos. 533 and 540 to 551 are consequential on the amendments to Clause 35. Amendment No. 412 alters the arrangements for publicity and availability of the bus guidance document in an identical way to those for strategies. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 118. I tabled this provision to ensure that there will be adequate publicity for draft strategies, which arguably need to be made more public, or at least made available to a different group of people than do the final strategies. The Minister's answer previously addressed the form of publicity rather than what was to be publicised.

I appreciate that draft strategies will be the subject of consultation with the boroughs and others. At the last stage the point was made that the boroughs themselves may wish to make arrangements locally for publicity on draft strategies. However, I believe that it is important to make the drafts widely available in order that the consultation process can be effective, by including indirect consultees who may choose either to respond to their own boroughs or who may wish to respond direct to the mayor.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 126, 127, 139 and 150, but my Amendment No. 126 requires the mayor to send out a copy of each of the strategies. Clearly I did not notice the Government amendment which sets out their intention to do that. For that reason, I shall not press the amendment.

In Committee, time did not permit me to move the first two of these amendments—in any event I shall not now move the first one—despite what I consider to be their importance, particularly to the citizens of London. At the moment there is no guaranteed provision for copies of the strategies to be available outside of the mayor's office, with the exception of the provisions just described to us by the noble Baroness. Further copies will be available to the public on payment of a fee to be determined by the mayor. I am very glad indeed that the Government have taken on board our request that the fee should be limited to a "reasonable fee".

The mayor is also obliged to take such steps as in his opinion will give adequate publicity to each of the strategies. However, none of the provisions is adequate in the interests of the current buzzword of "transparency". The mayor's office will not be readily accessible to most residents of London, especially considering the state of public transport on the one hand, and the Deputy Prime Minister's plans to drive private cars off the streets of London on the other. Further, I am willing to give very good odds that in common with most local and national government and government agencies, any available parking that might be outside the office will probably be restricted to officials only.

There has to be a way for someone living in Havering or Hillingdon to be able to discover what the mayor has in mind without having to traipse all the way to central London. It may well be that the mayor will consider it reasonable to provide a copy to every branch of every public library. However, as the clause is presently drawn up, it does not require him to do very much. In his opinion, he may decide to publish his strategy by a notice in the local or a national newspaper. On the other hand, it may be published in a newspaper read by only a small proportion of the population. Which of your Lordships can honestly say that he reads the public notices in the paper of his choice?

Amendment No. 27 also requires the mayor to post his strategies on a website to be established by him. Some time ago, the Government claimed that they have a target for 25 per cent of government services to be accessible electronically by the year 2002. That target has become more ambitious still, as we shall see in a minute. They have even sent Members of your Lordships' House a disc enabling them to reach "gov.direct", provided that Members know how to use the Internet. I must confess that I do not, but I have grandchildren who do.

The provision will require the mayor to follow the excellent example set by the Conservative administration in the London Borough of Wandsworth. It is also environmentally friendly for the information to be published on the Net rather than on paper.

As recently as 13th September, the Prime Minister gave business the following blunt message, which I quote: If you don't see the internet as an opportunity, it will be a threat. In two year's time the internet could be as common in the office as the telephone. If you are not exploiting it, you could go bankrupt". That is the end of the quote. If that is true for companies, then why is it not for the GLA?

On the same day the Prime Minister launched a report that called for all government dealings to be deliverable electronically by 2008. Why not also local government? The report specifically gave plans for the new assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Does the fact that London was not included mean that London is not to be given the same encouragement?

I now move ahead to Amendment No. 139 to Clause 38, which relates to a similar theme; that is, the wider distribution of the mayor's annual report and making it easily available to the members of the public who wish to see it, and indeed 10 the media who in turn will assist in its dissemination.

This is a quite innocuous amendment requiring the mayor simply to send a copy to each of the London boroughs and to the Common Council, and to make it freely available on the website. At the previous stage asked the noble Lord the Minister the simple question, "Why not?". I am afraid that I did not receive a satisfactory answer. He said that, it may be sensible for the mayor to do se;—[Official Report,23/6/99; col. 983.] that is, that it would not necessarily be compulsory.

I had tabled the provisions of Amendment No. 150 in Committee but, as the Minister knows, I did not move it then because of the lateness of the hour. It was some time after 9 p.m. and I thought that it required rather more serious debate.

The residents in the area of a local council a re within a comparatively short distance of the town hall or a public library where some councils ensure that some of their documents, such as the minutes, are available. However, in the case of Greater London, that is simply not practical. London is a vast, sprawling city, and the distances to the centre from any of the outer suburbs involves a time-consuming journey, whether by public or by private transport. It is sensible —indeed, it is vital—that interested parties should have access to public documents without having to make that journey.

It would also be a matter of some concern if the authority were required to make reading room facilities available at its offices for casual visitors, or even those arriving by appointment, and to provide copying facilities as well. It would be much more convenient for both parties—the authority and members of the public—if an inquiry could be dealt with by a request for copy documents, with the alternative of everything being made available on the Internet.

I should like to add two points that may be self-evident. First, the documents I am referring to are minutes and what I would call "public documents". It goes without saying that not every piece of paper passing through the authority's hands should be open to public inspection. Of course confidential internal memos, discussion documents, correspondence of a personal nature affecting members of the public and so on should not be available. No doubt in due course the long-awaited freedom of information Act will make it clear which documents are within the public domain and which are not.

Secondly, your Lordships will have noticed that I have taken it for granted that the Government will agree that the public availability of public documents is vital in the interests of open government and local accountability. The only issue is how easily that access should be obtained. Since it is the right of the public to see such documents, access should be by those means most convenient to the public, especially as the authority has ample resources to make the material available within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost.

It would not be acceptable for the Minister to respond by saying that this amendment is not necessary because of course the authority can be relied upon to do what is right. With no disrespect to anyone at all, since the authority has not yet been formed, I do not believe that we can accept that.

Experience tells me that in dealing with government, whether it be national or local, wringing documents out of officials, especially when it is known that they might contain something embarrassing or which they would rather keep to themselves, gives cause for regret at the passing of the rack or the thumbscrew, although I am not sure that I would endorse that action either.

The Minister will note that I have proposed the same six-year period for the availability of documents as the Government have provided for in Clause 35(4) relating to the publication of the mayor's strategies, and in Clause 38(7) on the availability of the mayor's annual report.

Finally, noble Lords will notice that I have again called for the material to be made freely available on the Internet. Parliament and the Royal Courts of Justice readily make their proceedings public via the Internet. As the Prime Minister pointed out in a speech from which I have already quoted in connection with an earlier amendment, the Internet is the communications medium of the future. London will not want to be left behind in the world of dog-eared documents in public libraries, or of its citizens standing in queues at counters in the new Greater London Authority's building waiting for some official to try to locate a file and being told to come back for it later.

There is no problem in setting up a website and loading it with all the documents you could possibly want. There is also no problem when someone wants to download that information onto a personal computer located anywhere in the world. My personal researcher keeps on coming up with pages of material obtained from the library of Congress, various universities, pressure groups or publications which he tells me he gets via "www something or other dot corn" on the Internet.

Government of the people, by the people, depends on the people having access to all the relevant facts and not confining them to the secret archives of the legislature and its staff. I very much look forward to the Minister giving a lead on the matter of open government by accepting this very simple amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I threatened the Minister earlier in a private message with taking this group amendment by amendment. In fact, the only amendment to which I shall seek to speak individually is Amendment No. 123.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I think that the Government ought to pay particular attention to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I was concerned by the reply given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when I spoke to the previous amendment. He seems to think that because local government has to work within central Government's targets, all parts of local government will be doing the same thing and the mayor can simply say, "Look, you can't do that because I, the mayor, have to stick to what the Government say in this matter".

There are a number of ways to skin a cat. One of the ways in which local government approaches central Government's targets is to try to have original ideas. A borough, for example, will try to find a method of achieving those targets which will work particularly for its area although the same method may not work for another area. I imagine that the London boroughs will approach the achievement of targets in a variety of ways.

In order that members of the public can discuss with their borough council what the mayor is up to before he actually issues his strategy, it seems important that the mayor should be obliged to ensure that the draft strategy is publicised and is in the hands of local government and that the public should know what those draft strategies are. That would facilitate public discussion in each borough of the local approach. The process will not work if the mayor's strategy does not become known to the public until it has been settled.

Unless I am misunderstanding this—having heard the Minister's response on the previous amendment, I do not think that I misunderstood last time—it is important that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or something like those provisions, should be inserted into the Bill so that the draft strategy is received by the public early on in the process and they can discuss it with the borough council which can then listen to what the public are saying about its approach. Without that, the effect of what the Government are doing will be to squash innovative ways of achieving national targets. That is my concern.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, Amendment No. 118 would apply all the arrangements for publicity and availability of strategies, as set out in Clause 35, also to draft strategies. Amendment No. 126 would require the mayor to send each strategy to the boroughs and the Common Council. Amendment No. 127 would require the GLA to post each strategy on a website which the authority would be obliged to maintain.

After further thought, we remain of the view that applying the requirements of Clause 35 to draft strategies and requiring that strategies be posted on a website is too overly prescriptive. I suspect that there is a difference of view on this. The requirements for consultation on strategies under Clause 34 are extremely thorough and comprehensive. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour.

The mayor is required to consult, and such consultation has to give those consulted a proper opportunity to make their views known. It seems extremely likely that the mayor will choose to publish draft strategies as part of complying with his or her consultation duties. If the mayor decides to do so, the requirement is to disseminate the drafts in accordance with the requirements of Clause 35.

We believe that ultimately the form of consultation should be for the mayor to decide. We do not think that the Bill should prescribe how that should be done. We remain of the view that a requirement to post strategies on a website is both unnecessary and overly prescriptive. I am sure that the mayor's strategies will be available on a website, but we do not require local authorities generally to make their minutes and other public documents available on a website. There is no case for placing, and there is no need to place, such an additional duty on the GLA.

Perhaps I may speak briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. These amendments would require the mayor to send his or her annual report to the boroughs and the Common Council and to post it on a website. I am afraid that that, too, is an example of what we view to be unnecessarily prescriptive. The mayor's annual report does not fall into the same category as the strategies, partly for the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. Those documents are guides to future action. Boroughs will play an important part in implementing them.

The annual report, however, reports on performance, and although it will certainly be of interest to the boroughs, it will not guide their own activities in the same way as will the strategies and the consultation on, and compilation of, the strategies. Again, I am sure that the mayor will choose to send the boroughs his or her annual report. In the extremely unlikely event that he or she does not do so, the boroughs will any way be entitled to obtain copies of the annual report and all other publicly available GLA documents at a reasonable cost. We do not believe that the mayor should be required to place the annual report or any other publicly available documents, such as minutes of meetings, on a website. We do not agree that that prescription should be laid down in the law. I am quite sure that there will be—

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I feel that I should point out that we have not yet reached Amendment No. 130, which specifically covers this point.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Yes, my Lords, but the point was touched on in debate. I am not intending to offend the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith; perhaps we on these Benches have been guilty of trying to move a little too quickly for him.

Amendment No. 123 requires the mayor to make strategies available at such other places as he or she considers appropriate in addition to the GLA's offices. I think that that covers the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We want to preserve flexibility so that appropriate decisions can be taken in each particular case.

I hope that I can reassure noble Lords by informing the House that the GLA transition team is currently preparing to start phase two of preparations for the GLA. This is likely to include the implementation of an electronic document management system which will facilitate availability of all published documents on the Internet. Like my children, although not my grandchildren, I am not up to date on such matters, but the Government are certain that the mayor, whoever that may be, will ensure that there is the maximum necessary public access.

In the interests of time I shall not rise to the bait of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and anticipate the debate on transport matters. I urge the noble Baronesses to withdraw their amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]

4.30 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 119 to 122.

Page 21, line 24, at end insert—

("() The Mayor shall send to the Common Council and to each London borough council a copy of the current version of each strategy mentioned in section 33(1) above.").

Page 21, line 25, after ("of") insert ("the current version or).

Page 21, line 25, leave out ("strategy mentioned in section 33(1) above") and insert ("such strategy").

Page 21, line 26, leave out ("for the appropriate period").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 123:

Page 21, line 27, after ("Authority") insert (", and (b) at such other places as the Mayor considers appropriate,").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move

Lord Lucas

My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, the relevant section of the Bill will read, A copy of each strategy…shall be kept available … by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge … at such other places as the Mayor considers appropriate. There are two possibilities here. One is that this matter deals with places over which the mayor has control and the right to place documents and tell people what to do. If that is the case, this amendment is entirely unnecessary. It is giving the mayor power to do something for which he already has power.

The alternative is that this amendment applies to places where the mayor does not have control, such as libraries. Since I presume that this amendment has some function, either we are looking at something which allows the mayor to compel people to keep documents at his behest and therefore to issue instructions to local authorities, tobacconists or anyone else he designates should hold the documents, or he is being asked to do something for which he has no power. If he decides that local libraries should hold the documents and the boroughs say no, he will be in breach of the legislation without the ability to remedy it. However this matter is seen, I am puzzled as to why this amendment is in the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, the point of the amended clause is that the material is available free at appropriate places. It may appear to the noble Lord that it was unnecessary to be so detailed and explicit. However, in the light of the debate on the amendments so far, it became apparent to the Government that people wanted matters to be set out more explicitly in the Bill.

Of course these provisions do not give the mayor power to compel. In my experience in local government—I am sure that the same applies to other noble Lords with such experience—to my knowledge such a matter has never become a difficulty. Even where there is no degree of compulsion people are often only too happy to ensure that material is made available for public consideration.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may point out that she has not answered the question; namely, what function does this amendment serve in the Bill? With this amendment what can the mayor do or what is he or she compelled to do which would not be so if this amendment were not in the Bill? Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to write to me.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I thought that I had made it explicit that the amendment requires him or her explicitly to do what is outlined. In previous debates on this subject we were asked whether it was necessary to add clauses and conditions which some of the other amendments to be dealt with this afternoon appear to indicate. From the Government's point of view we felt that it would be helpful to make that requirement explicit. This amendment does that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125:

Page 21, line 29, after first ("of") insert ("the current version of").

Page 21, line 30, leave out ("during the appropriate period").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129:

Page 21. line 32, leave out subsection (4). Page 21. line 33, at end insert—

("() Any reference in this section to "the current version" of a strategy or part of a strategy is a reference—

1. (a) in the case of the spatial development strategy, to that strategy as last published, whether originally or by way of replacement, and to any published alteration thereof for the time being having effect; and
2. (b) in the case of any other strategy, to that strategy as last published, whether originally or as revised.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendments No. 130:

Page 21, line 33, at end insert—

("(5) The Mayor shall maintain a Greater London Authority web-site on which he shall publish each strategy of the Authority established under section 33 and also publish any other documents that are published in any other way by the Authority. (6) Nothing in this section affects the restriction requiring confidentiality for information in section 48 (2A) of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I assure the Minister that I tabled this amendment with a particular wish to be helpful to the Government. If they were to accept it or agree its principle and word it in a way which they may consider to be more satisfactory, they may save themselves a deal of bother with a series of amendments which may well refer to the publication of information on the Internet. We have returned to this subject again and again throughout the passage of this Bill.

I thought that my remarks could be relatively brief in that much of the ground that I wished to cover has already been dealt with by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon in the course of her remarks. However, there are still things to be said, partly in response to the Minister's reply to previous amendments.

During the course of that reply it was indicated that the Government's view is that to require this type of publication on the Internet would be too prescriptive. We are establishing a new authority with new systems and practices. The whole matter is prescriptive because the Bill prescribes what shall happen. Is this amendment too prescriptive when the whole Bill is prescriptive and when everything that the Government say about the GLA is prescriptive? What is one more piece? We are arguing from a false premise except that if one were cynical one might infer that it is not prescriptive if the Government prescribe it, but it is if the Opposition do so. Perish the thought that we should ever fall into such a narrow way of debating matters.

The noble Baroness also indicated that those who are looking at the way in which the Greater London Authority will work in future will be considering systems for handling documents electronically within the authority. That is nothing new because it has been going on for a long time. For instance, it has long been the practice for documents to be generated on desktop computers and then be sent to printers and so on. The information goes round within authorities and, thankfully, without having to appear on paper until it appears at the end of the process as a document in the hands of a member or a member of the public. That is a good thing.

There is absolutely no technical difficulty at all in that handling system and putting documents into a website available to the public. So there is no possible technical objection to what I have put forward in this particular amendment.

The amendment refers to the need to publish strategies. It goes on to deal with all other documents which the authority would normally publish being made available on the website. For the sake of safety I have added a subsection dealing with restricted information. As drafted, it refers to an amendment tabled by the Government but not yet passed. However, it seemed to be prudent to put it in that way rather than refer hack to the Local Government Act 1972.

There is no reason why this provision should not be on the face of the Bill, except that the Government say that it is prescriptive. The systems exist to make it possible. It would not require the Greater London Authority to do anything novel and is a perfectly reasonable requirement. An indication has been given that this is highly likely to happen in any event. If that is so, I cannot see why the Government cannot accept it on the face of the Bill.

I am prepared to accept that from the point of view of those who sit in courts and make judgments the wording of the amendment may not be wholly satisfactory. However, its principles are good. If the Government could find it in their hearts to accept the principle of the amendment at this point, it would save this House considerable time and anguish debating the matter piecemeal. They could then table their own amendment in a proper form if they consider this not to be so. I beg to move.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I support my noble friend on the Front Bench in his amendment. This morning on the website of the Scottish Parliament I encountered an exceptionally boastful account of a meeting between the Prime Minister, Mr Bill Gates and Miss Wendy Alexander of the Scottish Executive. They were proudly proclaiming what they would do for voluntary organisations in Scotland in providing them with a link across the Internet. Much was being made of that.

If the Government and those who support it in Scotland are so proud of what they do for voluntary organisations in Scotland, it seems reasonable that in such circumstances, where we have a new mayor with statutory strategies which he must spell out, he should be under a statutory duty to provide such details on a website. I see no difficulty with that.

I understand that in the eyes of the Prime Minister I am one of those forces of conservatism or reaction that are so damaging to the country at present. However, I hope that I shall demonstrate, in one bound, that I am far from being an unthinking member of such forces. The Government would be recognising that there is probably greater support for the modernisation of Britain—if that is what is so important— if they accepted my noble friend's new proposal and, in statutory form, placed a requirement on the mayor to post details of his strategies on the Internet.

It simply will not do to resort to the final argument of all Government Front-Benchers—which I know I have resorted to lime and again—by saying, "I regret to say that this proposal is far too prescriptive in its terms". This should be on the face of the Bill. Like my noble friend, I very much hope that it will be accepted by the Government.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am happy to acknowledge that both noble Lords who have spoken are clearly at the cutting edge of technology in these matters, as, indeed, is the Scottish Executive. However, I do not recall the noble and learned Lord proposing that we should prescribe on the face of the Scotland Bill that all documents should be posted on the Internet.

I am happy to go some way with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and say that I accept the principle. As indicated by my noble friend, the transition team and the mayor's team will undoubtedly post documents on the Internet. However, as to whether that will be on the face of the Bill is a different matter.

The cutting edge of technology is not frozen in time. Perhaps I may draw the attention of noble Lords to the proposal made by my noble friend the Leader of the House about an hour ago. The noble Baroness proposed that we should change a resolution of this House of 1849 relating to the material upon which our Acts are printed. I do not wish to put the leader of this House in 150 years' time in the same position of having to propose a minor amendment to the Bill because the Internet has been overtaken by some other form of technology. Indeed, I suggest that the Internet could possibly be overtaken within 10 years. In that case we would have to provide some other prescriptive form of communication.

The Bill clearly indicates that we should publish the strategy. There is an obligation on the GLA to publish it by the most effective means possible. As of today, one such means would be the Internet. However, I am not able to say that that will be the cutting edge of technology in 10 years yet alone 150 years' time. In that sense it is a little over-prescriptive. However, I believe that we are all agreed that that is exactly what the GLA should do. I would prefer not to see it on the face of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will accept at least some of my arguments.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I cannot be surprised at the tone of the Minister's response. He says, in effect, "This is good, right and proper. It will happen but we cannot put it on the face of the Bill." That may be all right. I take his remarks as being a pledge that this will happen. If that is the case, we are entirely used to accepting that that will be so. I suppose I shall have to be satisfied with that. I do not believe that the question of what was or was not in the Scotland Bill is relevant. I am bound to say that whether parliamentary Acts are published on vellum or archive paper is also not relevant to this argument. I do not see why an authority such as the GLA should not lead the way, even for the mother of parliaments, dare one say? In the light of the remarks made by the Minister, it may well be that that happens. I hope it does. l n the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.45 p.m.

Clause 36 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:

Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 131: After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—

LONDON PUBLIC HEALTH REPORT

(" .—(1) The Mayor shall prepare and publish a document to be known for the purposes of this Act as the London public health report.

(2) The London public health report shall contain—

1. (a) information about the state of public health in Greater London;
2. (b) an assessment of the impact of the Mayor's strategies specified in section 33(1) above on the state of public health in Greater London;
3. (c) information about the measures which other persons or bodies are to be encouraged by the Mayor to take for the purpose of improving the health of persons in Greater London;
4. (d) information about the measures which other persons or bodies have encouraged the Mayor to take for the purpose of improving the health of persons in Greater London.

(3) The London public health report shall be published—

1. (a) in the case of the first London public health report, before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day of the first ordinary election;
2. (b) in the case of each London public health report subsequent to the first, before the end of the period of four years beginning with the day on which the previous state of the public health report was published.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the current provisions regarding the health of people in Greater London are contained in Clauses 23 and 25 of the Bill. The latter places a duty on the authority to carry out a health impact assessment in the exercise of its powers. The former provides a duty on the mayor to promote improvements in health when considering the various strategies adopted by the GLA. However, in our view those clauses do not go far enough.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, stated that the effect of these existing provisions is that health considerations will be a top priority for the mayor in discharging his or her two most important functions: the preparation of strategies and the exercise of the general power.

With the greatest respect, it is difficult to read the Bill in that way. Her argument against going any further, whether in respect of instituting a health strategy or a public health report, was that as the mayor will have no responsibilities in respect of health services and major health service providers in London will be outside the remit of the authority, it would be respectively misleading or wrong and inappropriate to require a separate health strategy or a public health report to be produced.

Frequently, public health has been confirmed as central to the strategies of the Government. London has particular public health issues. In London detentions under the Mental Health Act are almost twice as high as the national average. A study published since the Committee stage of this Bill has shown that although some health indicators such as childhood mortality are good, others such as deaths from ischaemic heart disease and respiratory disease are unacceptably high. Similarly, teenage pregnancies and abortions are exceptionally high in London. Some 13 of the 20 most deprived boroughs in England are in London, with all that that implies for the health of the people living in those areas.

Last year, in his report, Sir Donald Acheson made it clear that health inequalities are linked to conditions in a wide variety of other areas such as housing, education, planning, transport and the environment. We believe that if the mayor does not have a general overview at regional level of the state of public health, we cannot expect London's considerable health inequalities in those areas to be tackled.

Amendment No. 131 is framed in similar terms to the duty to report on the state of the environment in Greater London, as now set out in Clause 309. The amendment is designed to ensure that the mayor regularly takes stock of the state of public health, publishes key indicators in order to measure progress and states the impact of policy actions taken to date.

Information on the health of those who live in London needs to be drawn together for the benefit of Londoners and for the benefit of the other strategies to be developed by the mayor. Such a report would fulfil that.

Amendment No. 545 is complementary to Amendment No. 131. It provides for a mayor's strategy group on public health to be set up and a function of that group would be to provide advice to the mayor on the contents of the London public health report. Now that a single NHS region covers London, it is essential that there is an advisory group for health that can contribute to mayoral strategies in areas other than health as well as on the state of public health.

Without a strategy group and a regular report on London as a whole, the task of achieving a healthier London population will be made immeasurably more difficult. If government in London genuinely is to be joined up at a regional level, it is essential to have a clear duty to report on the state of public health and to have a health strategy group. Having had the summer weeks to reconsider this matter, I hope that the Minister will accept the merit of such arguments.

In Committee we also argued for a health strategy. That is a less radical step, but as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey—I am sorry not to see him in his place today—said in Committee: it corresponds to what is likely to happen and will give a considerable boost to this area of the mayor's work and responsibilities".—[Official Report, 23/6/99; col. 978.] I very much agree with that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.

Lord Rea

My Lords, during the whole of my professional life I have been in the business of prescribing. I believe that the prescription contained in this amendment is not too prescriptive. I believe that it will do the patients—the citizens of London—a great deal of good.

In supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I emphasise that both the report on public health and the health strategy group proposed in the two amendments will not be concerned with providing health services. They will be the sole responsibility of the National Health Service, co-ordinated by the London regional office of the National Health Service, which I understand—if I am wrong perhaps my noble friend will correct me—will be coterminous with the area covered by the GLA.

As my noble friend knows, the health of the population, particularly of those living in cities, and the consequent burden of the ill-health of the population on the National Health Service, depend to a large extent on factors totally outside the control of a national health service, such as housing, employment, opportunities for exercise. food quality and education, to name only a few. In all those areas the Greater London Authority and the mayor will have great opportunities to make a real difference. The suggested public health report will inform the mayor and the London regional office of the National Health Service of the health needs of Londoners and suggest ways of improving them and that will lie outside the remit of a national health service.

Clause 33 requires the mayor to bear in mind the health impact of his policies, as mentioned by the noble Lord. I am glad of that. If the mayor does not have a public health team to produce the public health report, as suggested in the amendment, and to draw up the strategy required by Amendment No. 545, how will he be able to measure accurately the health impact of his policies? Without a team of public health experts, which need not be very large, the health impact assessment that he is required to make is likely to be marginalised and expressed in general terms.

To describe health impacts one needs to use the expertise of epidemiologists. Such people could make up the group that would draw up the report and the strategy.

An important study by the King's Fund, called Health & the London Mayor, strongly argues for a duty of partnership between the Greater London Authority and the regional office of the National Health Service and that there should be a public health team in the secretariat, headed by a full-time director, whose remit would include liaison with the regional office of the NHS. The arrangements proposed in the two amendments would fulfil that recommendation.

I do not believe that that report by the King's Fund was given adequate consideration when the Bill went through another place. If my noble friend cannot accept these amendments today, I hope that after discussions, which we could arrange, and a full perusal of the King's Fund report, she may return at Third Reading with her own amendments incorporating some of our suggestions.

Lord Bowness

My Lords, I oppose the amendment, conscious that I follow a noble Lord who has considerable expertise in health matters. I do not oppose the amendment because health is not proposed to be within the jurisdiction of the mayor or the Greater London Authority, but because it is my belief that the amendment is unnecessary. In my view, it is inconceivable that any person elected to the office of mayor will not express a view upon many matters, including health, even if such matters are not within his powers as prescribed by the. Bill.

If the mayor of London is dissatisfied with the state of public health within Greater London or its provision, I have no doubt that he or she will comment. It would be an extraordinary political figure, elected with the kind of mandate that we hope that the mayor will have, if he or she did not comment with that kind of authority.

Already there is a plethora of reports on health issues from trusts and authorities within London. Although health is not a function of London boroughs, many such boroughs examine the trends on health in their own areas and produce their own reports. No doubt if the mayor wants to produce a report, he will pull together all the information and publish such a report. As has already been pointed out, he is obliged to monitor the progress of his strategies, including the impact that they have on public health. He will look to the information that is available.

I cannot subscribe to an amendment that suggests that the mayor's office and the Greater London Authority should be staffed so as to cope with health issues.

This Bill is already long on reports and strategies. They are a big feature of this legislation and I have no doubt that more reports and strategies will be produced by the mayor of the greater London authority than this legislation requires. The temptation to produce a "glossy" on almost anything will not be resisted, I am sure. I do not believe that we want another statutory requirement for another report on another subject, however worthy that subject may be.

5 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I support my noble friend and thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for adding his name and speaking so powerfully to this and the subsequent amendment.

As has been said, the amendment is not about service delivery and is not, therefore, about "staffing up"—to use the terminology of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness—in quite the way the noble Lord's criticism may have suggested. It is not only arguable, but I believe accepted, including by those who oppose the amendment, that the London authority will have an enormous influence on the state of public health in London.

I became aware of the GLA's role—not through the report to which the noble Lord referred, but through a debate organised by the King's Fund—when that view was expressed extremely forcefully. One only needs to think of a few of the GLA's primary functions —for example, regeneration, which must be about tackling poverty; transport, which includes the effect on air quality and the stress levels suffered by Londoners; as well as looking at the principal purposes as expressed by the Bill in, for instance, Clause 25, which deals with the economic and social development and improvement of the environment—to appreciate that they will all have a profound impact on health.

Clause 25, subsections (4) and (5), contain a duty, in exercising the powers, to have regard to the effect on health and how the powers can best be calculated to promote the improvement of health. In other words, the Government recognise the scope and the opportunities of what they are proposing for London.

The mayor will need information about public health in order to feed it into the other strategies to enable him to carry out his or her obligations with regard to those strategies from the point of view of health. Conversely, the mayor has a duty to be seen to be taking the lead and helping to co-ordinate the approach to these issues. That is not the same as delivering health services but it is a reflection of the mayor's duties.

We talked earlier today about monitoring, and a strategy group would be helpful in monitoring the effect of what the mayor is doing in this area and the implications for public health of other actions. Perhaps I may put one specific question to the Minister: if the Government are not minded to accept these amendment and the provisions do not find their way, in this or a similar form, into the Bill, can the Minister confirm that there is nothing in the Bill to stop the mayor from organising the sort of report which is the subject of this amendment and obtaining advice in the way proposed? In other words, the optional extras that the mayor will undertake can cover the areas to which the amendments are addressed.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, it may be helpful for me to begin by confirming to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the mayor or the assembly from appointing a public health specialist or specialists to the staff of the GLA or having advisory groups. That perhaps also partly answers my noble friend Lord Rea.

These amendments are similar to those tabled by the noble Baroness at Committee stage. They require the mayor to publish a report on the state of public health in London, and to provide for a health strategy group for London to advise the mayor in preparing the report. The group would also advise the mayor on the content of his or her state of the environment report, air quality and ambient noise strategies; matters relating to his powers to promote social development and improvements to the health of Londoners; and the effect of his strategies on the health of Londoners.

The Bill as drafted ensures that health and public health considerations will be a priority of the mayor in discharging his or her two most important functions—the preparation of strategies and the exercise of the general power. For example, in deciding whether or not to exercise the authority's general power, the mayor must have regard to the effect that the proposed exercise of the power would have on the health of Londoners. If the mayor then proceeds to exercise his general power, he or she must do so in a way best calculated to promote improvement in the health of persons in Greater London.

Similarly, in relation to strategies—this answers a further point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—the mayor must have regard to the effect which a proposed strategy or the revision of a strategy would have on the health of persons in Greater London. In addition, where the mayor prepares or revises any strategy, he must include such available policies and proposals relating to the subject matter of the strategy as he considers best calculated to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London.

The framework we have put in place is designed to ensure that the improvement of the health of Londoners is a primary concern of the mayor, both in the exercise of the general power and in the formulation of policies and strategies. Each of these strategies must be consistent with one another, and we shall accordingly achieve an integrated approach to health matters.

We cannot, therefore, accept the case for a separate health strategy. The promotion of health improvements will be taken into account in the exercise of key mayoral functions. But, as the mayor will have no executive responsibilities in respect of health services, and major health service providers in London will be outside the remit of the authority, it would be misleading to allow a separate health strategy to be produced. Similarly, we see no need for a requirement to set up a health strategy group to assist in the carrying out of that function, or the other functions set out in the amendment.

In response to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Rea, the boundaries would not be coterminous—in my experience in public life, the answer is always that the boundaries would not be coterminous. The mayor could, of course, publish a health strategy if he chose to do so, and could also convene an advisory group of health experts if he thought that was appropriate. But these are properly matters for the mayor to decide, and it is not appropriate to require him or her to prepare a separate, discrete health strategy.

Under the provisions of Clause 38 of the Bill, the mayor must produce an annual report which must include an assessment of his or her progress in implementing the strategies the Bill requires to be prepared and published. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that the production of such a report will include information about the impact on, and improvement to, the health of Londoners that these strategies will have. We therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Clement-Jones

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Before I discuss the terms of her reply and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, perhaps I may say that I fully understand the desire not to increase the bureaucracy of the GLA or the mayor's office, but paradoxically he seemed to be implying that in practice the mayor would be carrying out those functions. The noble Lord said that he had no doubt that the mayor would express a view—it would be extraordinary if he or she did not—and that there is a plethora of reports produced by local authorities that already carry out that kind of operation. He had no doubt that the mayor would wish to do something similar. So in a sense the amendment goes with the grain. It is difficult to understand why the Minister is so resistant to adopting Amendment No. 131.

We are not proposing a separate health strategy. We on these Benches are very environmental. I suspect that part of the Minister's speech was a little bit recycled from the Committee stage in terms of talking about a health strategy. We have not proposed a health strategy for London in this group of amendments. We made that proposal in Committee; this is a separate proposal. It is about producing a report on the state of public health in London and measuring the indicators to determine whether progress is being made. It is not about a health strategy. The noble Baroness said that it was inappropriate that a health strategy should be set up.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in particular, for his valuable expertise on this subject; it was very useful. I wholeheartedly agree with his comments that this would fulfil in full the recommendations of the King's Fund. It would take it that one step further to ensure that action on public health was fully effective in all the fields that it needs to be—not only in the pure area of NHS health but also in the areas of the mayor's strategies, such as transport, waste, the environment and so on.

Returning to the Minister's remarks, it seems extraordinary that, despite the fact that she said the mayor could, on a voluntary basis, produce a report and set up an advisory committee—all those things are possible—she is resistant to enshrining them in the Bill. It seems far preferable to have a clear mechanism for setting up these two matters, rather than relying on something established on a voluntary basis. At some future date the mayor could be in negotiation with other bodies without the necessary standing that he or she will need if the mayor and the GLA are to be effective in the area of health. If the Government are genuine in saying that health will form a major consideration—I think the Minister said "a primary concern"—surely the setting up of both a statutory advisory group and a regular progress report are vital to ensure that that primary concern is met.

We are not satisfied with the Minister's response—it follows very closely the Government's response in Committee—and in those circumstances we propose to seek the opinion of the House.

5.12 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13l) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Alderdice, L.	McNair, L.
Avebury, L.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Barker, B.	Methuen, L.
Bradshaw, L.	Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Calverley, L.	Newby, L.
Carlisle, E.	Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Clancarty, E.	Razzall, L.
Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]	Redesdale, L.
Dahrendorf, L.	Rennard, L.
Dholakia, L.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Ezra, L.	Russell, E.
Geraint, L.	Sharp of Guildford, B.
Goodhart, L.	Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Grey, E.	Taverne, L.
Hamwee, B.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Hankey, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Thurso, V.
Holderness, L.	Tope, L. [Teller]
Holme of Cheltenham, L.	Tordoff, L.
Hooson, L.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Watson of Richmond, L
Lester of Herne Hill, L.	Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Hardy of Wath, L.
Ahmed, L.	Harris of Haringey, L.
Alli, L.	Haskel, L.
Amos, B.	Hawke, L.
Ampthill, L.	Hayman, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Ashley of Stoke, L.	Hollis of Heigham, B.
Bach, L.	Howie of Troon, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Hughes of Woodside, L.
Berkeley, L.	Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Blackstone, B.	Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord
Borrie, L.	Chancellor)
Bowness, L.	Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord
Brett, L	Privy Seal)
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Burlison, L.	Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Carter, L. [Teller]	Kennet, L.
Christopher, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.	King of West Bromwich, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Laming, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Lea of Crondall, L.
Craigavon, V.	Lipsey, L.
Crawley, B.	Lockwood, B.
Currie of Marylebone, L.	Longford, E.
Darcy de Knayth, B.	Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
David, B.	McIntosh of Haringey, L
Davies of Coity, L.	[Teller]
Dixon, L.	Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Donoughue, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Marsh, L.
Dubs, L.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Elder, L.	Milner of Leeds, L
Evans of Parkside, L.	Mishcon, L.
Evans of Watford, L.	Molloy, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.	Monkswell, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Nicol, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Filkin, L.	Paul, L.
Gilbert, L.	Peston, L.
Gladwin of Gee, L.	Pitkeathley, B.
Glanusk, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Goudie, B.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Prys-Davies, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Puttnam, L.
Grenfell, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Hanworth, V.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L

Rawlings, B.	Strabolgi, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Richard, L.	Thornton, B.
St. John of Bletso, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Serota, B.	Uddin, B.
Sewel, L.	Walker of Doncaster, L.
	Warner, L.
Shannon, E.	Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Shepherd, L.	Whitty, L.
Shore of Stepney, L.	Wilkins, B.
Simon, V.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Smith of Gilmorehill, B.	Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.22 p.m.

Clause 37 [The Mayor's monthly report to the Assembly]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 132:

Page 22, line 2, after ("three") insert ("clear working").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 133, 137, 189 and 191 in this group. I hope that there will be a reasonable consensus on the amendments. They respond directly to points raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lady Hamwee. They relate to the interval between the mayor submitting his annual report and the assembly considering it at its monthly meeting.

The Bill as drafted provides for an interval of three days. We had already committed ourselves to clarifying that that should be three clear days. The amendments provide for the interval to be three "clear working days". That means that the report will generally be available to the assembly for longer than papers are available before a local authority meeting.

Amendment No. 189 simply tidies up the reference to the mayor's monthly report in the provisions of Clause 44. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was concerned that the mayor should, if necessary, be able to submit a supplementary report to the assembly covering urgent business. We made clear that we were exploring whether the Bill as drafted would prevent the assembly from considering a supplementary report at a monthly meeting. Amendment No. 191 clarifies that the assembly may consider any issues that are on the agenda. It puts the matter beyond doubt. This is a useful group of amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I welcome this series of amendments, some of which respond to points that I raised in Committee. They clarify matters considerably. My Amendment No. 134A allows us to debate again the matter of written questions to the mayor outwith the normal meeting of the assembly.

This concept was rejected by the Government in Committee—wrongly, I believe. If anyone writes to the mayor, it seems to me that the mayor will reply. It is far more likely that the mayor will be buried under what may be termed informal correspondence from the people of London at large rather than under formal written questions from members of the assembly. Those assembly members will be limited in number—after all, there are only 25 of them; and there are 5.25 million electors, who might all want to express a view on an issue, or indeed 5.25 million separate issues, and decide to write to the mayor.

The reason given previously by the noble Baroness for not accepting such an amendment was that the poor mayor might be so overburdened with written questions from members of the assembly that he would not have time to undertake his official duties. I found that proposition unsatisfactory and therefore return to the matter in Amendment No. 134A. It requires the mayor to respond, within a reasonable time"— the time is not specified— in writing to any written question from an Assembly Member about matters relating to statutory functions which are exercisable by him". That is a reasonable requirement. It places on the face of the Bill formal recognition of what is a common procedure in Parliament. I cannot for one moment believe that it will cause the mayor and his staff a problem as regards administration or workload. I return to the fray and invite the Government to take the question up and answer in an affirmative way. Such a provision would be immensely helpful.

Alternatively, I may be told that I am again being over-prescriptive, or some such euphemism will be used. None the less, I have no doubt that members of the assembly will write to the mayor—but they will do so without the legislative authority of requiring the mayor to answer. That would not be reasonable. In courtesy, he would do so in any event. I do not think that there can be any objection to this proposal. I hope that the Minister may be slightly more generous in his reply than he was on the previous occasion. I have already thanked him for the concessions in the other amendments in this group; I am grateful to the Government. Were he to concede this point, my joy would be doubled.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I should very much like to give extra comfort to the noble Lord. However, I fear that I cannot agree with him completely on this point. In most circumstances, in whatever form an assembly member approaches the mayor, he or she will receive a response. But we are concerned here with the proceedings of a formal meeting and a question in a formal sense. The prescription is not intended to go beyond that. To some extent this strays into the next group of amendments that I shall move. All relate to formal questions. The equivalent would be Written Questions in this House and in another place, rather than general correspondence. Although it is not appropriate to express it in quite the same way, I imagine—although, so far as I am aware, there is no prescription in statute—that Ministers will always respond to a Member of this House or another place. The mayor would do the same if he wished to retain the political support or minimise the political opposition of assembly members.

The clause deals with a formal procedure in the same way as with the formal procedure for Written Questions in this House. I therefore urge the noble Lord not to move his amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 133: Page 22, line 4, after ("three") insert ("clear working").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 134:

Page 22, line 20, at end insert— ("(3A) The Mayor shall—

1. (a) so far as reasonably practicable, answer any such question orally at the meeting at which it is put, or
2. (b) if for any reason it is not reasonably practicable to do that, provide a written answer before the end of the third working day following the day on which the question was asked at the meeting,

(subject, in either case, to subsection (4) below). (3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A)(b) above, the day on which a question is asked at a meeting is—

1. (a) in the case of an oral question, the day on which the question is first asked at the meeting; or
2. (b) in the case of a written question, the day on which the question is first raised at the meeting.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 134 and speak to Amendments Nos. 135, 190, 215, 259 and 260. This group of amendments deals with questions put to the mayor and GLA staff at monthly assembly meetings and the procedures. It goes no wider than that, as I said in reply to the previous intervention.

As I explained in Committee, it has always been the Government's intention that the mayor should be required to answer written as well as oral questions put to him or her by assembly members at their monthly meeting. It has also been our intention that if the mayor is unable to answer all the questions assembly members put to him at the meeting, he should provide written answers to those questions. We have also been clear that written questions and answers, including those given after the meeting, should be publicly available.

Following the points made during our debate in Committee, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith; will welcome the amendments.

Amendment No. 190 specifies that assembly members' power to put questions to the mayor at the monthly meeting covers oral as well as written questions. Amendment No. 134 provides for the mayor to answer oral and written questions orally as far as this is practicable. Where it is not, he or she will be required to provide an answer in writing within three working days.

Amendment No. 259 provides for the GLA staff, who may be required to attend the monthly assembly meetings and answer questions, also to provide oral answers, where practicable, and written answers where not.

Finally, Amendment No. 215 makes express provision for the text of questions and the text of answers to be available for public inspection. The amendments fulfil our commitments on formal written questions. I urge noble Lords to accept the amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am interested in Amendment No. 134, paragraph (3A)(b) where the mayor is asked to answer a written question, before the end of the third working day following the day on which the question was asked at the meeting". Why is the mayor being required to meet that timetable when it has been my experience over the past two years that I cannot in this House obtain an Answer to a Written Question from departments in under three weeks?

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I wish to make a similar point. Does the noble Lord agree that what is sauce for the gander should also be sauce for the goose? I ask the noble Lord—casting him temporarily as the goose—whether by Friday evening. I may have a reply to the questions which he was unable to answer on Tuesday.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, it is asking a lot of the mayor to reply within three working days. Does the Minister believe that as a result the answers will tend to be superficial? If the Minister gives an undertaking on the Floor of the House that he will reply to a noble Lord in writing, the noble Lord does not necessarily expect the reply to arrive in such a short time. He would think inadequate thought had been given to it if he received it within three days. The same applies to the mayor. Should there not be greater flexibility in the procedure than we have in the amendment?

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I wanted to make a similar point. Recently I wrote to my bank, taking up a point. I received a letter written about two weeks after mine stating: "You will receive a substantive answer to your letter within seven working days of the date of this letter". That is the kind of nonsense that too tight timetables often provoke: a standard response which says nothing. Sometimes performance standards applied to dealing with customers or consumers make the customer or consumer much more angry, having been brushed off.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, we are probably amalgamating general correspondence and questions like those of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on lengthy delays during legislative periods with formal questions in a formal setting. It is reasonable that some time limit be put, in normal circumstances, on a substantive reply to a formally tabled question. There are occasions, even with formally tabled Questions, when Ministers do not reply within what is normally regarded in this House as an adequate timescale. However, it is reasonable in those specific circumstances for Ministers to say why it happened.

I am slightly hoist with my own petard in what I said in relation to the earlier amendment when the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tried to draw an analogy between Ministers' responsibilities in this place and the responsibilities of the mayor. But I do not believe there is a read-across to general correspondence. This timetable applies to a formal tabled question at or before the meeting. It is not necessarily general correspondence. In most cases, a formal substantive reply ought to be possible within the three days. If it is not, then occasionally the kind of reply to which the noble Baroness referred may arise. However, in general a substantive reply ought to be possible.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, I am not talking about general correspondence. It is months before one receives a reply to general correspondence. I am talking about a formal question. Today I was promised by a Minister that I would receive a reply. I should be surprised if I received it by Monday. No department in Whitehall replies to a question arising from a formal point made in debate in this House either at Question Time or as part of an Unstarred Question or an equivalent of the assembly meetings within a three-day timetable.

It is wrong to impose that timetable with no flexibility built into it. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I add to her point that we will receive this standard reply saying, "You will receive a substantive reply", that I have never received an acknowledgement that I shall receive such a substantive reply within a three-day period.

It is an unreasonable time-limit to put on the mayor. It might be interesting to put an aspirational limit, but not a rigid legal timetable of three working days.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am not sure that it is in order at Report stage for me to reply or for the noble Baroness to come back. The issues raised go wider than the legislation, but I note her point.

5.38 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 134) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 66.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Boardman, L.
Addington, L.	Borrie, L.
Ahmed, L.	Brett, L.
Alderdice, L.	Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Alli, L.	Burlison, L.
Amos, B.	Carlisle, E.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Carnegy of Lour, B.
Ashley of Stoke, L.	Carter, L.[Teller]
Avebury, L.	Christopher, L.
Bach, L.	Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Barker, B.	Clement-Jones, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Clinton-Davis, L.
Berkeley, L.	Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Blackstone, B.	Crawley, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.	Marsh, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
David, B.	Methuen, L.
Davies of Coity, L.	Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Dixon, L.	Mishcon, L.
Donoughue, L.	Molloy, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Monkswell, L.
Dubs, L.	Monro of Langholm, L.
Elder, L.	Newby, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.	Nicol, B.
Evans of Watford, L.	Peston, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Falkland, V.	Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Pitkeathley, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Filkin, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Geraint, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Gilbert, L.	Puttnam, L
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Glanusk, L.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Goodhart, L.	Razzall, L.
Goudie, B.	Rea, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Redesdale, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Gray, L.	Richard, L.
Hamwee, B.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Hanworth, V.	Rotherwick, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Russell, E.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Ryder of Wensum, L.
Haskel, L.	St. John of Bletso, L
Hayman, B.	Serota, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Sewel, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Shannon, E.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.	Sharp of Guildford, B.
Howell of Guildford, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Howell of Guildford, L.	Shepherd, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Shore of Stepney, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Simon, V.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord	Strabolgi, L.
Chancellor)	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord	Tenby, V.
Privy Seal)	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.	Thornton, B.
Kennet, L.	Thurso, V.
Kilbracken, L.	Tope, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.	Tordoff, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Leigh, L.	Uddin, B.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.	Walker of Doncaster, L.
Lipsey, L.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Lockwood, B.	Warner, L.
Longford, E.	Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L	Watson of Richmond, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.	Whitty, L.
[Teller]	Wilkins, B.
McNair, L.	Williams of Crosby, B.
Mallalieu, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Clanwilliam, E.
Ashbourne, L.	Clark of Kempston, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Colwyn, L.
Attlee, E.	Cross, V.
Bathurst, E.	Davidson, V.
Biddulph, L.	Donegall, M.
Blatch, B.	Dundee, E.
Brentford, V.	Effingham, E.
Brigstocke, B.	Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Burnham, L. [Teller]	Feldman, L.
Cadman. L.	Fookes, B.
Caithness, E.	Hanningfield, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Harrowby, E.	Norton of Louth, L.
Henley, L.[Teller]	O'Cathain, B.
Higgins, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
HolmPatrick, L.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Ironside, L.	Renwick, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Kingsland, L.	Seaford, L.
Kinnoull, E.	Seccombe, B.
Lucas, L.	Selborne, E.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Lyell, L.	Shuttleworth, L.
Mackav of Ardbrecknish, L.	Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Marlesford, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
	Sudeley, L.
Mersey, V.	Swansea, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.	Swinfen, L.
Montrose, D.	Tebbit, L.
Morris, L.	Vivian, L.
Munsler, E.	Wilcox, B.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.	Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

5.47 p.m.

[Amendment No. 134A not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 135: Page 22, line 21, after ("(3)") insert ("or (3A)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 136: Page 22, line 23, at end insert—

1. ("(b) a functional body,
2. (c) a member of a functional body, or
3. (d) a member of staff of a functional body,

except as provided by subsection (5) below. (5) Where—

1. (a) the Mayor receives advice from a person falling within paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (4) above, and
2. (b) the functional body mentioned in that paragraph is the Metropolitan Police Authority or the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

the Mayor is not relieved by subsection (4) above from any requirement to disclose the advice, if or to the extent that the advice falls within subsection (6) below. (6) Advice given to the Mayor by a functional body falls within this subsection if it has been disclosed—

1. (a) at a meeting of, or of a committee or sub-committee of, the functional body at a time when the meeting was open to members of the public by virtue of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents); or
2. (b) in a document which has been open to inspection by members of the public by virtue of that Part of that Act.

(7) Any reference in this section to a member of staff of a functional body includes a reference to an officer or employee of that body. (8) In this section "advice" includes—

1. (a) an expression of opinion; and
2. (b) an analysis of information.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 136 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 216, 226 and 228. The Government have always been clear that the mayor will need private space in which to consider policy options and take decisions. Therefore we are providing for unique openness generally for the GLA where the mayor is not obliged to disclose advice that he or she receives to the assembly and, through the assembly, to the public.

The Bill as drafted already makes provision for the mayor not to disclose advice from GLA staff. We indicated that we would bring forward amendments to ensure that the provisions of the Bill fully met our intentions by covering also advice from functional bodies and ensuring that advice to the mayor did not become available as a "background paper" as provided under Clause 48 of the Bill. Those amendments are within this group.

The amendments ensure that the mayor is not required to disclose advice that he receives from functional bodies, their members and staff. This is achieved by providing that the mayor is not required to disclose such advice in answering assembly members' questions and that functional bodies, their members and staff are not required to provide evidence or produce documents relating to advice to the mayor under the assembly's power to summon. The amendments also ensure that advice to the mayor does not become available to the public as a "background paper" to a paper or report considered at an assembly meeting. Under the assembly's openness arrangements, "background papers" are open to public inspection.

The amendments also provide that where advice to the mayor from the fire or police authorities has already been made available to the public under the openness arrangements for those authorities, then the mayor's power not to disclose does not apply.

I recognise that those who believe that the usual local authority arrangements for openness should apply to the GLA—as we indicated in the general provision in the earlier parts of the progress of this Bill—will not accept that advice to the mayor should be private. But throughout the Bill we have made our intentions quite clear: that in this respect at least the mayor is more equivalent to Ministers than he or she is to local authority chairs and members. The amendment therefore makes clear that that applies to advice from the functional bodies as well as to advice from GLA staff. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 136 and 226. I regard them as dreadful amendments. Since the first day of Report last Tuesday I have worried that many new amendments have been tabled by the Government. The Minister, being unable to answer probing questions from this side of the House, promised to write. I do not quarrel with that. Nevertheless, he insisted upon moving those amendments. I am concerned that there are now amendments on the statute book which may or may not be good. When we receive the answers they may not adequately cover the problems we raised.

I hope that the Government will return with suitable answers on Amendments Nos. 136 and 226. If they cannot, I hope that they will take the matter away and return at Third Reading with amendments in an improved form. These are serious matters. In introducing Amendment No. 136, the Minister pointed out that such information is not the same as that in the public domain in local government. However, he hoped we understood that that is the way the Government want to deal with the issue.

Amendment No. 136 adds a functional body and a member of a functional body, or a member of staff of a functional body to those people whose advice the mayor does not need to disclose. But under subsection (8), the definition of "advice" has been widened to include a mere expression of opinion—it does not have to be notified—and an analysis of information. That would mean that any report on traffic which goes beyond uncollated traffic-counted data would be called an analysis of information. Almost any report produced within the GLA or the functional bodies could be excluded from public and assembly scrutiny on the ground that it contained an analysis of information.

Clause 51 deals with the assembly's power to require the attendance of witnesses. That complicated and last minute amendment imposes even more restrictions on the information that can be obtained by the assembly whose supposed function is to oversee the exercise of the mayor's powers and duties. Clause 51 deals with the assembly's power to require attendances of witnesses. It exempts members of staff or any of the functional bodies from giving evidence or producing any document relating to advice given by that functional body to the mayor. Fortunately, as the Minister said, this exemption does not extend to advice given by the Metropolitan Police Authority or the Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. And it does not extend to matters which are already in the public domain.

This amendment is tabled by the Government who have proclaimed their devotion to open government and made the word "transparency" a new political cliché. However, to take a topical example, let us suppose that the mayor is given advice about the safety of the signalling system in the transport system operated under the jurisdiction of the Greater London Authority; and the mayor or the functional body chose to ignore that advice. Will no one be able to find out what the mayor knew and when he knew it? It is said that disclosure of advice and opinions might inhibit officials in the conduct of their duties. But public accountability means just that. It means taking responsibility for their actions. This provision includes advice given and received and formal opinions expressed.

I do not want to labour the point, but noble Lords will be aware of the wide powers of Select Committees and their ability to extract information from Ministers and their officials. There is no reason why the mayor should be more privileged than the Secretary of State and any government department, with this relevant advice not being made public.

I feel strongly about these two amendments. We are going down a dangerous route. I hope that the Minister will agree to think again. The job of the House of Lords is to scrutinise legislation carefully. Perhaps we did not do our job properly on Tuesday. We allowed amendments to be moved by the Government despite the fact that we had problems with them and were content to accept that answers might come. As my noble friend Lady Blatch said, that might be in two or three weeks' time.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I support entirely my noble friend. It is astonishing that such an illiberal and indiscriminate amendment to provide a blanket exemption on disclosure of information should be proposed at this stage. Under one amendment it does not even have to be disclosed that the information exists. That is close to licensed lying.

Under Amendment No. 226 a member of staff of a functional body is permitted not to give evidence or produce any document which relates to advice given to the mayor. That almost completely negates the point of the inquisition function. If they have given advice to the mayor on a specific matter, or policy relating to that matter, they can claim exemption. The provision does not relate only to individual documents. It does not state that they cannot produce documents which have gone to the mayor. It prevents them from talking about anything to do with advice which has been given to the mayor. As they will be giving advice to the mayor concerning all their functions, as drafted—it may not be the intention of the Government—the provision will enable those functional bodies to refuse to answer almost any question that the assembly might reasonably ask.

Not only is this an illiberal measure, it is badly drafted and badly thought out. It should not be proceeded with at this stage until the Government have considered it further.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I share the concern expressed. Having led a local authority for 13 years, I understand well the mayor's need at times to receive advice known to be given in confidence. Most of us would understand that. The same must be true in government. These proposals go beyond that.

If the mayor believes in a regime of openness, there is probably no problem. However, from time to time, when the mayor and the functional bodies are under pressure, that will not be the case. My fear is that the provisions provide a cloak of respectability behind which to hide, and the temptation to do so is too great.

I understand that it is difficult to achieve the right balance, but I do not believe that we have done so here. I do not know what the Minister will say in reply, although I have a suspicion. But in view of our experience on Tuesday I urge him to withdraw the amendments and allow us to consider more carefully how we can cover this difficult issue in legislation. I do not believe that the proposed way is the correct way and I and I am sure Members on the Conservative Front Bench, shall be happy to discuss how we can do so while preserving the presumption of openness, recognising the realities of a mayor who must sometimes operate in receipt of confidential advice. I hope that the Government will seriously consider our well-intentioned offer to try to achieve a joint objective.

6 p.m.

Lord Bowness

My Lords, I support, my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I, too, understand, and have argued before the Widdecombe Committee, the desirability of local authorities and their policy leaders having the ability to receive advice in private. There is a difference to be drawn between private and secret advice. We run into difficulties with the suggestions in the amendment because the advice is becoming preciously close to being secret rather than private. I hope that the Government will reconsider the provisions, which in the wrong hands could be dangerous to say the least.

I also believe that we are placing an extraordinary burden on the officers named in the amendments. I understand that they are employees of the authority, even the mayor's own appointments, and not the mayor's own employees. A considerable conflict of interest and loyalty will arise if the measure is enacted as it stands.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, during the debate I realised that we had a recent and tragic example of the kind of incident which might be the subject of advice within the proposed provisions. Transport for London will have responsibility for certain transport services within London. After the accident at Paddington, the Deputy Prime Minister made a careful point of being seen to be as open as possible as to its likely causes. He is to be applauded for being bold in allowing, facilitating and encouraging statements to be made and making a statement himself about the likely causes. It would be ironic, as well as worrying, if in pushing the amendments at this stage the Deputy Prime Minister's own department were thought to be allowing Transport for London and the mayor to act in a different fashion.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, throughout the Bill, we have made it clear that the mayor is a unique creation and he or she will require a great deal of political judgment and advice. In that sense, the mayor must be treated more as a Minister than other local authority officers. We believe that, although it was not appreciated in some quarters in the House, the original clause accepted that the mayor would require private and detailed advice which would not be subject to what is generally an open access of information to the authority. I thought that we managed to convince a few concerned people that this was a potential problem.

Having established that the mayor is in that position, we needed to consider which advice would fall into the capacity of private advice equivalent to that received by Ministers from civil servants. It is not reasonable to confine that to people employed by the authority; it should also extend to people in an equivalent capacity in the functional bodies. It is therefore simply a question of reflecting across from what has been agreed in relation to GLA staff to staff from other authorities who are giving advice to the mayor.

Therefore, I do not agree to take away any suggestions made here because that would be reopening an argument which in principle has been debated. The Government have made their position clear. It is our contention that such advice, whether from functional bodies or the GLA, should not be subject to disclosure provisions.

However, an additional point relates to the definition of advice in subsection (8) in Amendment No. 136 and is repeated in Amendment No. 228. The form of words gives me cause for thinking that we do not have an adequate definition. If I agree to take that away and consider it, I must make it clear to noble Lords that it is only in relation to the definition that I am prepared to look at these provisions again. I do not wish to raise expectations. The other aspects follow on from the way in which we have already regarded the mayor. What was intended in the definitional clauses was to narrow the definition of advice, but, as noble Lords have interpreted it, it could be read to extend that advice into areas which would be dangerous were they covered by the provision.

In general, I am rejecting the request to Lake the provision away and look at it again, but in relation to that subsection and Amendment No. 228 I undertake to think again.

Lord Bowness

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he accept that in considering this matter it is necessary to distinguish between policy advice and general political advice and advice which is given and forms the background against which an executive decision is made and implemented?

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, before the Minister stands to comment on my noble friend's question, we on this side of the House are pleased that he is prepared to look again at subsection (8) of Amendment No. 136 because the definition of "advice" is much wider. When the Minister was responding to me in the first instance, he talked about political advice and that became rather mixed up with this. The fact is that in Clause 56(1)(a) and (b) it says that, not more than two persons as his political advisers; and not more than ten other members of staff", are excluded. We are not arguing that they should be put back in. Indeed, we are quite happy for that to be in the Bill. We understand about private political advice.

However, what we find absolutely appalling at this very late stage is that the Government have come forward and asked for these other exemptions—a functional body, a member of a functional body, or a member of staff of a functional body. Again, I do not wish to labour yet another point with the Minister, but this Bill has been through the other place. It went through all its stages there and at no stage was that provision found to be something which ought to be brought into the arena. Moreover, it has been through the Committee stage in this House. Therefore, if we let this amendment pass today because the noble Lord will not withdraw it, even if he takes out subsection (8) which deals with advice, it means that advice from any of these three bodies, whatever its description, will be on the statute book and will be exempted in the same way as private political advice. That is improper. I really think that the Minister ought, once again, to take a step back and reconsider this point. It is a very serious matter.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, perhaps he could reply to the question that I posed concerning Amendment No. 226. Does the phraseology "which relates to" in the amendment imply that members of functional bodies will, in effect, not have to reply to any questions presented to them by the assembly?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I have indicated that I am prepared to take one step backwards, but I am not prepared to take several steps backwards. The intention is absolutely clear: we wish to provide the mayor with the ability to take advice from senior members of staff who will exist in the functional bodies as well as in the GLA. The distinction between political advice and policy advice is not one which is made in that sense for Ministers, and we do not intend to make it here. I thought that I had clearly indicated to the House that I believe there is a problem about the definition in subsection (8) of this amendment and also in Amendment No. 228. However, I am not convinced by the arguments relating to the general principle of extending such advice from officials for the GLA to those from the functional bodies. I believe that that extension is both sensible and logical; and, indeed, flows from what we said in relation to the principal matter here.

As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I have to confess that, although I have received advice on it, I am not entirely clear that it clarifies the matter. Therefore, if he will indulge me, I am prepared to write to him—it is to be hoped—within three days.

I am in a slight difficulty here because I do not wish to withdraw these amendments. I feel strongly that they should stand. However, I should like to look again at subsection (8) of Amendment No. 136 and Amendment No. 228. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 136 to enable me to do so. But, if I return with the rest of it intact, I think noble Lords are clear as to where I stand on these matters.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 137:

Page 22, line 23, at end insert— ("() For the purposes of this section, a day is a working day unless it is—

1. (a) a Saturday or Sunday;
2. (b) Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Maundy Thursday or Good Friday;
3. (c) a day which is a Bank Holiday in England under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971; or
4. (d) a day appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.15 p.m.

Clause 38 [Annual report by the Mayor]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 138:

Page 22, line 31, at end insert— ("() a statement of any targets for the time being in force under section 33(8A) above with respect to the implementation of those strategies and an assessment of the progress made by authorities involved in the implementation of those strategies towards achieving those targets;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 138A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 138, not moved.]

[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]

Clause 39 [The annual State of London debate]:

[Amendment No. 140 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 141: Page 23, line 8, leave out from ("meeting") to end of line 9 and insert ("under this section (in this section referred to as a "State of London debate") which shall be open to all members of the public.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 143:

Page 23, line 9, at end insert— ("() The form of, and procedure for, a State of London debate shall be such as the Mayor may determine after consultation with the Assembly, but must be such that there is an opportunity for members of the public to speak. () The power to determine the form of, and procedure for, a State of London debate includes power to appoint a person to preside. () Any person may be appointed to preside at a State of London debate, whether or not he has any connection with the Authority. () A member of the public who attends or speaks at a State of London debate shall do so subject to and in accordance with the procedure for the State of London debate.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 not moved.]

Clause 40 [People's Question Time]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 146:

Page 23, line 22, leave out from ("meeting") to end of line 23 and insert ("under this section (in this section referred to as a "People's Question Time") which shall be open to all members of the public.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 149. I hope that we can deal with these amendments reasonably quickly. During the debate on the clause in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned that legislation should not require the event to be called by a particular name and she has tabled an amendment today to address that concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was also concerned that the clause did not specifically provide for people to have a right to ask questions and was generally quiet, if not silent, on the procedure for and the form of the event.

We have listened to these concerns and, as with the State of London debate, we have brought forward amendments to rectify them. Amendment No. 146 removes the requirement to use the name "People's Question Time", but leaves it as a defined term in the Bill solely because it indicates what the event is all about. Amendment No. 148 (and the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 149), places a duty on the mayor to decide the form and procedure for the event following consultation with the assembly. It clarifies that the purpose of the event is for the public to question the mayor and assembly members. It also enables someone not connected with the authority to be appointed to chair the event.

I believe that these amendments directly address the concerns raised in Committee. Therefore, I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota)

My Lords, in calling this amendment I should point out to the House that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 147.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, when the matter was discussed in Committee, the Minister looked somewhat crestfallen because a measure that was clearly intended to be, and was, blatantly populist was criticised for not going far enough. In such circumstances, we were confident that he would return, at our urging, with some amendments to the provision—indeed, we are grateful for those changes. However, the fundamental point that we made remains unanswered and the position is still unsatisfactory.

If noble Lords look again at Clause 37, which deals with the monthly meetings and the attendance of the mayor at those monthly meetings of the assembly, they will see that subsection (3) states quite clearly that the mayor shall not only attend that meeting but also, answer questions put to him at any such meeting by Assembly members about matters in relation to which statutory functions are exercisable by him". Indeed, the Minister has been successful in having carried an amendment in this House earlier this afternoon which will extend that duty incumbent upon him in such a way that, if he is unable to answer the question at the meeting, he is under a duty to take the matter away and, if it is reasonably practical, answer it within three working days. I think that that general framework is desirable. Therefore, should the mayor fail to discharge that clear statutory duty imposed upon him, it will be a matter for the courts to consider.

However, in sharp contrast, I turn to the "People's Question Time", which is as much a statutory event as the mayor's attendance at the monthly meeting of the assembly. All we find in Amendment No. 148 is: The purpose of a People's Question Time is to afford an opportunity to members of the public to put questions to the Mayor and Assembly members and to enable the Mayor and Assembly members to respond". The contrast could not be sharper. First, there is no restriction on the questions that may be put to the mayor or to the members of the assembly. He might be asked for his view on who is going to win the cup: Tottenham Hotspur or Arsenal? If there is an anticipation of a tricky meeting, the mayor might be perfectly happy to waste half an hour discussing that matter.

I suggest that the appropriate way to proceed is to impose upon the mayor exactly the same statutory duty to answer questions as is imposed upon him under Clause 37. I see no reason whatever why the citizens of London should be treated in a second-class fashion if in relation to assembly members the mayor is bound to answer the questions put to him. If the Minister and the Government seriously believe that this is a useful extension of participative democracy, it would seem to me to be highly desirable that that change should be made. I have to express my disappointment to the Minister that he has not gone that bit further. I ask him to reflect on the matter again and to consider doing just that.

That is not the only problem relating to this provision. Under its terms, all that is incumbent upon the mayor is to hold and attend the meeting twice every financial year. There is absolutely no indication given of when, where and what size the meeting is to be. Is it to be for half an hour in the back room of a pub just before closing time, or is the mayor to take over the Albert Hall, Earl's Court or Wembley? If he were to take any of those three locations, I suspect that he would find it difficult to get even 1 per cent of his electorate present at those meetings.

I am not suggesting that any of those standing for election as mayor would resort to such grubby tricks, but I find nothing in the proposed legislation which would prevent them from resorting to some restricting approach. There would be no duty on the mayor to answer those questions.

There is a satisfactory modernising way in which to approach the matter. It might most simply he resolved—if the Government and the Minister do not wish us yet again to be too prescriptive—by trying to determine exactly what a meeting is. In common parlance, I believe that it is the idea that one or two people are physically present. However, it occurred to me that there must be few companies in this country now which do not have within their articles of association a provision that a meeting can be conducted electronically or telephonically.

It would seem to me to allow far greater access for the people of London to their mayor and the opportunity to ask him questions if a duty to have a phone-in was imposed upon him. Hundreds of thousands of people would be able to listen and a wide range of questions could be put to the mayor. That would seem to be a desirable way in which to approach the problem. I am contemplating that we might try to firm up this proposal by making just such a suggestion. However, as the Minister clearly does not wish us to be too prescriptive, I should be grateful if he would tell me whether the idea of having a meeting at least partially conducted in a phone-in fashion—that is to say, with communication by radio telecommunications to the public, with questions coming from them—could be contained within the term "meeting".

I appreciate that the Minister may not feel that he can provide an answer to me instantly, but if the Government consider that the term "meeting" would allow for a phone-in to be utilised as a way of getting the views and questions from the public and answers from the mayor, I should be grateful if he could let me know within three working days or whatever, but certainly in sufficient time to enable me to reflect on the matter before Third Reading.

If the Government are not simply playing the populist game with this provision but genuinely wish to extend participation in the democratic process, I urge the Minister to give the matter rather more serious consideration than seems to have been the case today. I hope that he can respond now to some of the points I have made, although I recognise that there are others on which he may wish to write to me.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, I quite like the idea which the noble and learned Lord expounded of widening people's question time in the sense of having a phone-in instead of people having to be physically present. That would obviously enable people who are disabled or housebound to take part in the process.

I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would agree, if he is going to put forward the proposal at Third Reading, to take it one stage further and consider having an electronic method of question time whereby the people would submit questions to the mayor which would then be placed on a website, so that they would be available not only to those who happened to be listening at the time but to anyone else who managed to access that particular website.

If that was done, it would form a permanent record which would be available for subsequent inspection. It would be available to a much wider circle within London than just anyone who happened to be tuned in at a particular moment or those who were present in the Albert Hall. If we want to widen participation, we must use modern technology and the web is the ideal way of doing that.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I rise to support my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. He has raised a number of anxieties which I felt. Indeed, he refers to the most important one as being the unrestricted nature of the questions which the public is able to ask. It might be perfectly reasonable for a Member of Parliament to ask the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time what he had for dinner the previous evening, because that question could reasonably lead to a supplementary question about food standards, or indeed about foreign affairs, depending on with whom the Prime Minister might have had dinner and the state of the MP's knowledge. However, that is an appropriate parliamentary practice.

I do not believe that the Minister brought forward this amendment to promote that sort of practice. I had understood that the purpose of the people's question time was to enable the mayor to be cross-examined by the public, in public, about the way in which he is undertaking his statutory duties. If that was not the case, I am under a misapprehension and so are we all. If that is the case, I suggest that a little more thought about this amendment is required.

The amendment goes on to say that the form and procedure for the people's question time shall be such as the mayor may determine after consultation with the assembly. That would permit the mayor to take up the idea of a telephonic question time, or, indeed, a public question time in a hall, both with the public present and with live and telephone questions coming in at the same time, and, indeed, the use of the wonderful website which we have not been allowed to have—at least not on the face of the Bill.

There are still quite a few matters to be answered. One question which arises out of them is that while a completely ad-lib form of questioning may be what is intended, the question time would probably work rather better if the questions are required to be submitted—even if they are telephonic questions—say, half an hour in advance, so that someone has some opportunity to reflect on what the actual situation is. For the mayor to be questioned about his performance and the way in which he is handling his statutory duties with no notice of what the question might be would seem to me to be extremely difficult. In considering the form and procedure of the people's question time, the mayor would be almost bound to put some sort of restriction on the way in which questions are put, and a completely ad-lib proceeding seems to me to be unlikely to be permitted.

However, that of course raises another point; that is, if questions are submitted in advance, presumably the question time will need to be time limited. One cannot have an ad lib number of questions with the poor mayor, his staff and, indeed, the audience sitting in a hall while the questions keep flowing. I well remember that many years ago I was immensely grateful to a school caretaker. We had a huge public meeting on the matter of a school reorganisation. It was held in the school's sports hall. Those matters are always highly controversial and the audience were minded to participate and did so with great effect. That meeting would have gone on for half the night. The school caretaker was a wise old bird. After the meeting had been going for an hour, he switched off the heating. It was a very cold night in the middle of January. The meeting ended half an hour later and everybody was happy. That is quite remarkable.

We do not want that kind of thing to happen, but the point remains about what will happen to the questions that have not been answered by the time the session ends. believe that that needs some thought. Again, that leads us to the business of written answers, particularly if the questions are written ones. I may be accused of trying to extend the duties and obligations of the mayor's secretarial staff in an unreasonable way, but I do not believe that that is the case.

I believe that what has been said is sufficient to suggest that the amendment is a good one, and one which we would welcome in principle. However, it requires a little more thought and I hope that in his response the Minister will indicate that he might give the matter perhaps just that little more thought.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am continually impressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in trying to outflank the Government both as regards populism and modernisation. I am not sure that they have entirely succeeded today. Nevertheless, I understand where they are coming from.

The event, whatever one calls it—and for the moment we still call it "People's Question Time"—is intended to be an innovation in participation. The intention is that it should open up the mayor and the assembly to the people of London. Clearly, it could be run in a partially electronic way. People could phone in, particularly the kind of people to whom the noble Lord was referring. The event will probably be broadcast, either in part or possibly totally. It is intended to open up the whole process.

However, we do not wish immediately to close it down again by prescribing here precisely how the event will be dealt with. Clearly, there have to be some procedures. The amendment provides that the mayor, after consulting the assembly, shall draw up some procedures. After the first occasion that the question time is held, it is possible that it will be found that something is wrong with the procedures and that they will need to be altered. Let us be a little open-ended about this, but not so open-ended as the noble Lord implied in terms of meetings which never close. Incidentally, this meeting occasionally becomes rather open-ended and wide-ranging. I was told that during the debate on this amendment the annunciator was switched off. It may well be that the heating will go fairly soon.

We have to be somewhat relaxed about this matter. The principle is here, and I believe that everyone has now agreed that something in this area is a useful extension of democratic participation. The first set of procedures which are followed may not. work; indeed, the second set may not work; but we shall learn from it. However, if we lay down Standing Orders here, we cannot then amend them. I hope we may leave that to the mayor, the assembly and the people of London to sort out.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am grateful to him for what he has said. He seems to me to have been positive and constructive and I understand why he does not want, in the course of this Bill, to lay down in every detail what is to be the format of the meeting. Interestingly, if I heard correctly, the noble Lord said that he did see that this provision would allow for a telephonic and/or a broadcasting element. If I have that assurance from the noble Lord, I believe that we shall have made considerable progress.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, on both points I said "could", and it is up to the mayor and the assembly to decide how to use that event. If I were a candidate for mayor, I would make that promise. However, from my knowledge of the existing candidates for mayor, they are never very shy of an audience and the bigger the audience the better. I suspect that that will be the view of the mayor. But I do not believe it is for your Lordships—and it is certainly not for me —to be precise as to the procedures which should be used. Therefore, I believe that in this case we can be reasonably open-ended.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 148:

Page 23, line 23, at end insert— ("() The purpose of a People's Question Time is to afford an opportunity to members of the public to put questions to the Mayor and Assembly members and to enable the Mayor and Assembly members to respond. () The form of, and procedure for, a People's Quest ion Time shall be such as the Mayor may determine after consultation with the Assembly. () The power to determine the form of, and procedure for, a People's Question Time includes power to appoint a person to preside. () Any person may be appointed to preside at a People's Question Time, whether or not lie has any connection with the Authority. () A member of the public who attends or speaks at a People's Question Time shall do so subject to and in accordance with the procedure for the People's Question Time.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Tope moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 148, Amendment No. 148A: Line 7, leave out from ("Mayors') to end of line and insert ("and Assembly shall agree").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment in the name of my noble friend and myself. It is fairly self-explanatory. Clause 40 requires the mayor and the assembly to hold and attend the question time, by whatever name it is now to be known. The purpose of the amendment is to give the assembly the right to agree with the mayor—not simply to be consulted and perhaps ignored by him—the form and procedure of the People's Question Time, which the assembly members themselves are required to attend. I believe the amendment is reasonable, common sense, fairly small and one which I am confident the Minister is about to accept. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord's confidence in me. We have just talked about the matter being open-ended. We have said that the mayor should consult the assembly and, it is hoped, reach agreement with the assembly. However, on previous amendments we have indicated that that may be a situation where the mayor and the assembly are not in the same political arena and may not be agreed on everything. Certain procedures may favour the mayor more than the assembly and vice versa. In those circumstances, if the mayor has to agree with the assembly, the whole event may never happen. Therefore, unless one builds in an arbiter as to who decides, the noble Lord's amendment may lead to deadlock. One hopes that agreement would be reached but, if not, the mayor would decide the procedure after consulting fully and taking on board the views of the assembly.

Lord Tope

My Lords, the Minister has indeed disappointed me. I cannot share his deep pessimism that a reasonable mayor and a reasonable assembly cannot even agree the form and procedure of an event which will be of such public interest and such excitement as the People's Question Time. I recognise that I shall not convince the Minister; his pessimism will rule. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 148A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 148, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment No. 148 agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 149:

Page 23, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert (", after consultation with").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]

Clause 41 [The Deputy Mayor]:

[Amendments Nos. 151 and 152 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 153:

Page 24, line 1, leave out ("Chair") and insert ("Chairman").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 153, I wish to speak to the series of identical amendments to Clauses 41, 42, 43 and 44. Those amendments all call for the deletion of the word "chair" and for its replacement by the word "chairman". I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who, on Tuesday, in answer to a question, spoke about the "chairman". I understand—I very much hope that my information on this is correct—that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is a great-nephew of that wonderful Tory lady, Emmeline Pankhurst. I hope that that information is correct because only this week she has been named as the "woman of the century".

After I spoke to this series of amendments in Committee, a number of people were kind enough to congratulate me on my speech which, they told me, they found humorous. Of course I was grateful for the compliments, but I fear I must have struck the wrong note. I believe that this is a serious subject. When I last spoke on the subject, I mentioned my personal credentials in supporting women seeking to participate in public and political affairs. Many other Peers on all sides of the House have done likewise. I should like to pay tribute to them all. Together, and in our separate ways, I believe that we have made a difference. The status of women in public and political life has increased. More women are being encouraged to take their place in public service, or perhaps I should say that less women are being discouraged from trying to make their contribution by the prejudice that formerly we had to face.

Speaking as sometimes I do to schools and audiences of young women, I find that nowadays they too are less worried about being sidelined on the grounds of their gender. However, the point is that it is hard enough to break down the rules of prejudice and deeply ingrained chauvinism without facing the additional hurdle of being dismissed as "just one of those feminists".

I have no objection to being described as a feminist. In fact, I am proud to be one. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as, An advocate of women's rights on the basis of equality of the sexes". I chose as one of the supporters on my coat of arms the representation of a suffragette. But the popular image of a feminist, the picture of all of us engaged in the advocacy of women's rights, is of some shrill bra burner who insists that all men are beasts and maybe even potential rapists. This image is caused partly by some of the extreme nonsense that some of our sisters indulge in, including the abuse of the English language.

The English language enjoys an advantage not shared by any of the Latin or Germanic languages by not having male and female nouns. The invention of alien words like "chair" instead of the word "chairman" introduces connotations of strife where there is none. A number of female Peers—for that is what we are, not Peeresses—who spoke in the previous debate recounted how, like myself, they had been perfectly happy to be the chairmen of the various organisations that they had "chaired", to use the noun that seems to have become the shorthand for "presided over". Now we find in use tortured expressions like "humanity" being used, instead of the perfectly innocuous "mankind".

I am sure that some noble Lords will remember discussions that took place after the first woman High Court judge was appointed. Was she to be addressed as "My Lord" or "My Lady"? Was she to be "Mrs Justice So-and-so"? Thank goodness that the barbaric "Ms" had not then crossed the Atlantic, so that we do not attach that title to unmarried lady judges.

However, what has crossed the Atlantic is the concept of political correctness. That is an attempt to impose an ideology by the distortion of everyday language. If you say this thing, you are a racist; if you say that thing, you are a xenophobe; if you say the other thing, you are a chauvinist. I believe that political correctness is a kind of verbal fascism which regards saying the right thing as being much more important than doing the right thing.

When Judge Henry Pownall, QC, retired from the Old Bailey as recently as 30th September, he said to his legal colleagues—his wise words are worth quoting— I find it sad, even disturbing that political correctness in all its horrid forms is creeping into our everyday lives. There are those who will find prejudice around every corner. They find it where none exists, and they find it where none is intended. It is time that somebody said there is none of it here in this building, in any of us". The building he was referring to was of course the Old Bailey, but I would like to echo his eminently sensible remarks in relation to the Palace of Westminster, and I invite your Lordships to do the same.

This House is having to participate in an upheaval of the British constitution. Let us not at the same time, for no reason whatsoever, aid and abet the unnecessary desecration of the English language. I agree that language is a living and changing thing. The tongue that Shakespeare spake", would be totally incomprehensible to any of us who were somehow transported back in time. But we do not have to import into what is still called "the mother tongue" transatlantic horrors like my own particular bugbear, the phrase "at this moment in time", instead of just saying "now".

Far from advancing the cause of the status of women, calling people "chair" instead of "chairman" provides ammunition to those who still try to hold back the tide: ammunition in the form of the weapon of ridicule.

Parliament, wisely, in 1889 passed the Interpretation Act which said in Section 1(1) that in, this Act, unless the contrary intention appears,— (a) words importing the masculine gender shall include females". It was not until 1978, almost 90 years later, that in the interests of sexual equality Parliament enacted the reverse, that, words importing the feminine gender include the masculine", although Section 61 of the Law of Property Act 1925 had made a similar provision in respect of legal documents. There is a story, no doubt apocryphal, that a trainee lawyer once included a phrase in a document he was drafting, "In this deed, male embraces female".

Even if any noble Lords actually believe that the word "chairman" may have some gender connotation, Parliament in its wisdom 110 years ago ensured that "male" automatically embraces "female". There is therefore no need to inflict this verbal monstrosity onto the statute book.

If noble Lords believe that I am genuinely not making any political point here except to try to ensure that the cause of the advancement of the status of women is not impeded by giving our opponents an opportunity to belittle that cause, then I urge your Lordships to support this series of amendments and to remove this nonsensical expression from such an important Bill. I beg to move.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Stewartby

My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend. I am very glad that she has moved the amendment. It is absurd to use the word "chair" for a person. I do not like being called a chair. It is something for other people to sit on.

I should be very surprised if lady chairmen like being called "chairs", especially since they often have four straight and rather ugly legs. More seriously, for those who feel squeamish about such matters, why cannot we use the term "chairperson" rather than "chair"? "Chair" is a nonsense because it means something else. The word refers to the seat being occupied by a chairman or a chairperson. I wish we could move away from the ridiculous use of the word "chair" for people instead of things.

I hope, if not for this legislation then in the future, that we can consider whether "chairperson" might not be quite so bad. I cannot say that I welcome it because I prefer the old term "chairman". However, at least "chairperson" makes sense, whereas "chair" does not.

Lord Monson

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has, as always, done us a great service in so ably introducing this very sensible and welcome group of amendments. Given that they are so sensible, I do hope that the Government will accept them. If not, then I trust that the Opposition will divide the House. As the noble Baroness said when she introduced the amendment, this is not a laughing matter. Rather, it is a serious matter.

The amendments not only strike a blow against the tyranny of political correctness, but, as the noble Baroness said, they also strike a blow against the increasingly appalling misuse of the English language.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am not sure which Minister is to respond to this series of amendments, but I suspect that it will be the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. I have reread several times her response to similar amendments at art earlier stage. I find it difficult to find any intellectual defence for the Government's view.

Perhaps I may join others in saying that I thought that these amendments were introduced brilliantly by my noble friend Lady Miller and with impeccable use of the English language. Indeed, she did the language a great service as well as putting up an extremely intellectually valid defence for appealing to the Government to change the very ugly term "chair". I must advise my noble friend Lord Stewartby that I do not quite agree even with the use of the term "chairperson". However, there is the marginal improvement that that term at least refers to a human being. The terms "chairperson" and "chair" are wholly ugly terms and, as my noble friend said, they do no service to the advancement of the interests of women in public life.

In Committee, I referred to a number of clauses in the Bill in which the word "chairman" is used. I referred, for example, to Schedule 14; Clause 20(1)(a); Schedule 21; Clause 269; and Schedule 23. Those provisions refer back to the London Regional Transport Act 1984, the Police Act 1996 and the Local Government Act 1985. In response, the noble Baroness said that because those were references back to other Acts, the proposed change could not be made. But here we are in this Bill amending those Acts and repealing sections of them. Perhaps I may refer to page 121 and Clauses 217 and 218. Indeed, Clause 217 states that Section 40 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 shall cease to have effect, but Clause 218 then proceeds to use the term "chairman" in relation to the chairman of the London Transport Users' Committee.

It is no argument to say that because a term has been used previously, it must inevitably be used again but then to change the word to "chair" for the rest of the Bill. Equally, if this opportunity is being taken to use more elegant language from past statutes, it seems to me that it would be consistent to continue to use that terminology throughout the Bill.

There is no defence for the Government's proposed language. It is politically correct. Old Labour does live on in this sense. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will feel able to respond to what I thought was a most elegant speech from my noble friend Lady Miller in an attempt at least to have consistency in the Bill while also reintroducing elegance of language.

Lord Harmsworth

My Lords, do the Government think that there should be an interpretation Bill, intimating that sometimes inanimate objects refer to human beings?

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, I am tempted, but I shall not say anything except that I still support the language of these clauses as firmly as I did when they were debated at such length in Committee.

The Earl of Bathurst

My Lords, I wonder whether either of my noble lady friends can say what the objection would be to saying "chairwoman". My noble friend Lady Blatch did not mention that. She expounded the good reasons for saying "chairman"; but why not "chairwoman"?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond to that—

Noble Lords

No!

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I am sorry, but we are on Report and we had a very lengthy debate on this in Committee. It is not possible for noble Lords to speak more than once—

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, again with the leave of the House—

Noble Lords

No!

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I am sorry, but the noble Baroness—

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, may I ask for advice from the Clerk of the House as to whether it is in order to respond to a question?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

My Lords, I am sorry but it is not in order at Report stage—

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, with the leave of the House—

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

Well, go and ask the Clerk of the House, but please do not take the Floor of the House when the matter is quite clear. The noble Baroness is much more experienced in the ways of this House than are many of us, including myself, and knows that at Report stage noble Lords do not speak more than once on an amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, this lengthy series of amendments seeks to amend every single reference to "chair" and "deputy chair" of the assembly. The Greater London Authority will be a radical, new style of governance. As one small part of that modernising agenda, we decided to update the terminology used to refer to the presiding officers of the assembly to the usage which is now recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary.

Of course, it is true that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, previous legislation uses the term "chairman". In fact, where this Bill modifies earlier Acts or makes provision in the context of earlier legislation, as the noble Baroness noted, the term "chairman" does appear. It would be ridiculous—and we do not believe that it would be either practical or necessary—to amend all previous legislation from beginning to end in order that that legislation should be consistent with this. I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to ask why we were not amending all that legislation. Where we are using quotations from and references to legislation which has already been enacted and which uses the term "chairman", we are not seeking to change that usage. Here, we are merely ensuring that where this legislation refers to the Greater London Authority, a more modern usage, recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary, is used.

I personally find it offensive to be described as "verbally fascist" for wanting to recognise that language evolves and changes. It is matter of opinion; it is a matter of judgment; it is a matter of taste. I hardly believe that those of us who came to recognise that generations younger than us had seen fit to seek to change the language should be accused of being verbal fascists. Referring to others who do similar things as "verbal fascists" does, by implication, in my understanding of the use of—

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, I did not accuse anybody of being verbally fascist; I said that I believe that political correctness is a sort of verbal fascism—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

It is the same.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

No, my Lords, it is not the same. I went on to say that political correctness regards saying the right thing as being more important than doing the right thing. I would certainly never call anybody verbally fascist and if the noble Baroness interpreted what I said in that way, I of course apologise; but I did not mean it that way and I do not think that I said it either.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, we shall both read Hansard to see what was said. In the light of her explanation, I am only too happy to recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, did not intend to be offensive.

We could debate this for a very long time, but I say simply this. I was convinced of the need for a change of language following the period when I used to travel between the north and south of England and had constantly to change my language when I reached Crewe because the north referred to "chairman". I was "chairman" of Lancashire County Council and our chief executive officer explained that the legislation setting up the county council and the office of chairman referred to "chairman" so that was the word that had to be used. However, I also remember when a small child in a primary school playground asked me, "How can you be the chairman of Lancashire County Council?" That made me think about use of language. I think about it because if a child visualises a man every time the word "chairman" is used, there is perhaps a case for changing the language.

I can say little else. I fear that no one will have their mind changed on this. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that nobody is likely to change their mind on this matter. I feel very strongly about it. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

6.59 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 153) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Anelay of St. Johns, B.	Lyell, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Attlee, E.	Marlesford, L.
Biddulph, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Blatch, B.	Mishcon, L.
Boardman, L.	Monson, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Montrose, D.
Brentford, V.	Morris, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Mountevans, L.
Burnham, L. [Teller]	Moynihan, L.
Byford, B.	Munster, E.
Carew, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Norrie, L.
Clanwilliam, E.	Norton of Louth, L.
Clark of Kempston, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Colwyn, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Courtown, E.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Denham, L.	Rawlings, B.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Rennell, L.
Dundee, E.	Renton, L.
Elton, L.	Rotherwick, L.
Feldman, L.	Seaford, L.
Fookes, B.	Seccombe, B.
	Selborne, E.
Gray, L.	Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Hanningfield, L.	Stewartby, L.
Henley, L. [Teller]	Sudeley, L.
Higgins, L.	Swinfen, L.
HolmPatrick, L.	Taylor of Warwick, L.
Howe, E.	Ullswater, V.
Jenkin of Roding, L.	Vivian, L.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E.	Weatherill, L.
Liverpool, E.	Wilcox, B.
Lucas, L.	Windlesham, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Wise, L.
Luke, L.	Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Ahmed, L.	Crawley, B.
Alderdice, L.	Currie of Marylebone, L.
Alli, L.	David, B.
Amos, B.	Davies of Coity, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Davies of Oldham, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.	Dixon, L.
Avebury, L.	Donoughue, L.
Bach, L.	Dormand of Easington, L.
Barker, B.	Dubs, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Elder, L.
Berkeley, L.	Evans of Parkside, L.
Blackstone, B.	Evans of Watford, L.
Borrie, L.	Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Bragg, L.	Falkland, V.
Brett, L.	Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Burlison, L.	Filkin, L.
Carlisle, E.	Gilbert, L.
Carrick, E.	Gladwin of Clee, L.
Carter, L. [Teller]	Goudie, B.
Chandos, V.	Gould of Potternewton, B.
Christopher, L.	Graham of Edmonton, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.	Hamwee, B.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Hanworth, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.	Puttnam, L.
Haskel, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Hayman, B.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Razzall, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Rea, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Rennard, L
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Renwick of Clifton, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord	Russell, E.
Chancellor)	Serota, B.
Janner of Braunstone, L.	Sewel, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord	Simon, V.
Privy Seal)	Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Stern, B.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.	Stone of Blackheath, L.
Kennet, L.	Strabolgi, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Lea of Crondall, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Lipsey, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Longford, E.	Thornton, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.	Thurso, V.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.	Tope, L.
[Teller]	Tordoff, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
McNair, L.	Uddin, B.
Mallalieu, B.	Walker of Doncaster, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.	Warner, L.
Molloy, L.	Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Monkswell, L.	Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Nicol, B.	Whitty, L.
Patel, L.	Wilkins, B.
Pitkeathley, B.	Williams of Crosby, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.10 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 154 to 159 not moved.]

Clause 42 [Functions]:

[Amendments Nos. 160 to 165 not moved.]

Clause 43 [Appointment]:

[Amendments Nos. 166 to 171 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 172:

Page 24, line 43, at end insert ("except as provided by subsection (6A) below").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 173 to 176 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 177:

Page 25, line 4, leave out ("arise") and insert ("occur").

The noble Lord said My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I would be grateful for a brief explanation of this amendment which I do not think has been given.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would clarify whether he is referring to Amendment No. 177 which, for the elucidation of noble Lords, states: leave out ("arise") and insert ("occur").

Lord Lucas

My Lords, yes.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I do not know how lengthy an explanation is needed. Clearly, "arise" suggests that it follows a previous reference. "Occur" means that it may occur of its own nature. That is why the change has taken place.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 179:

Page 25, line 6, leave out ("arises") and insert ("occurs").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 182:

Page 25, line 8, at end insert— ("(6A) If a vacancy occurs in the office of Chair of the Assembly and there is a person who is the Deputy Chair of the Assembly, that person shall (subject to the other provisions of this Act or any other enactment) also be the Chair of the Assembly until such time as the vacancy is filled in accordance with subsection (6) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 not moved.]

Clause 44 [Meetings of the whole Assembly]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 185:

Page 25, line 13, at beginning insert— ("(A1) The Assembly may hold. in addition to any meetings required to be held by or under this section or any other enactment, such other meetings as it may determine.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 185 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 188 and 192. This group of amendments deals with the types of meetings which the assembly may hold, their frequency and the public notice.

Amendment No. 185 makes it clear that the assembly may hold any meetings it chooses in addition to statutory meetings. Amendment No. 188 should be welcomed by the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Tope. I undertook to consider their concerns that the assembly should be required to hold a monthly meeting in August. This amendment is our response to that concern.

It places the requirement to hold 12 monthly meetings with the mayor with a requirement to hold 10 such meetings in each calendar month. Amendment No. 193 provides that the meetings may be not less than 28 days apart. Amendment No. 192 requires the first of these meetings after an election to take place not less than 25 days after the date of the poll. Provision for notice for the meetings is made in Amendment No. 193. Notice is to be given and published at least 28 clear days before the meeting or as soon as practicable in advance of the first meeting after an election.

The amendments answer queries on the previous procedure. Requiring only 10 meetings a year will enable both the assembly and the mayor to have what will undoubtedly be a well-deserved rest in August. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to our points on the matter. I suspect that if the evening wears on as it looks as though it will, he will be grateful to have a break rather sooner than the next one which will arise for this House.

Lord Tope

My Lords, perhaps I may add my gratitude. The amendment is obviously necessary and sensible. Indeed, it might have been better if it was there in the first place. However, I am grateful to the Minister and hope to be even more grateful next August.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 188 to 192:

Page 25, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 19 and insert ("On such ten occasions in each calendar year as the Assembly may determine,").

Page 25, line 21, leave out ("Mayor's monthly written report") and insert ("written report submitted for the meeting by the Mayor").

Page 25, line 23, leave out ("question the Mayor or") and insert ("put—

1. (i) oral or written questions to the Mayor, and
2. (ii) oral questions to").

page 25, line 25, at end insert ("; and () to transact any other business on the agenda for the meeting").

Page 25, line 25, at end insert— ("()The first meeting under subsection (2) above after an ordinary election shall be held not later than 25 days after the day of the poll at the election.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 193:

Page 25, line 26, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) Notice of the time and place of any meeting of the Assembly—

1. (a) shall be given to the Mayor and the Assembly members, and
2. (b) shall be published, in accordance with the standing orders of the Authority.

(3A) In the case of a meeting of the Assembly under subsection (2) above, the notice required by subsection (3) above must be given and published—

1. (a) if the meeting is the first such meeting after an ordinary election, as soon as reasonably practicable after the day of the poll at that election; or
2. (b) in any other case, at least 28 clear days before the meeting.

(3B) If notice of a meeting to be held under subsection (2) above has been given pursuant to subsection (3A) above. then, until that meeting has been held or the notice has been withdrawn. notice must not be given of another such meeting.").

The noble Lord said

My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Tope moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 193, Amendment No. 193A: Line 13, leave out subsection (3B).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 193A stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It could not be more straightforward; it speaks for itself. It simply leaves out subsection (3B) which Amendment No. 193 seeks to insert.

There is some role reversal here. On these Benches, I have become used to listening to Ministers standing up and telling me that things are not necessary. It is my turn now. I really do not understand the necessity of having the new subsection (3B). I can understand its purpose—because I can understand the language—but not its necessity. It seems to me to be entirely unnecessary. The reason for my simple, short amendment is to demonstrate that point and to give the Minister the opportunity either to convince us that it is necessary or perhaps to convince himselr that it is not. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the point of the amendment in its original form is to ensure that all 10 meetings are not held in a complete rush and that there is an adequate distance between them. To delete the whole of subsection (3B) would mean, theoretically at least, the possibility of having 10 meetings in January or that some meetings would not; have an adequate period between them. I am afraid that on this occasion the amendment is necessary for the sake of clarity.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, perhaps I may probe a little on subsection (3B). When I first looked at it I thought that the best answer would be to delete it, as would the amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. However, perhaps I have misunderstood it.

If we look at subsection (3B) together with subsection (3A) it seems that meetings hale to be reported back at least 28 clear days apart. The first part of Clause 44 states that within 10 days of an election the assembly must meet to elect a chairman and a deputy chairman of the assembly. The next part of the clause states that 15 days after the poll, and then at monthly meetings, the report must be considered and there must be an opportunity for assembly members to question the mayor.

Subsection (3) states that notice must be given to the mayor. Subsection (3A) states that after the first meeting, notice must be given at least 28 days before the meeting. However, (3B) states that another notice cannot be given until that meeting has been held.

It is unclear whether a date can be fixed well in advance without the notice provisions applying. Would the Government consider clarifying that: point? It is somewhat confusing.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I raise a slightly important point for the convenience of all. The authority will want to print a GLA diary containing the dates of meetings. If that document is to be published a year in advance, the question would arise, whether formal notice is required.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I do not entirely follow what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said about the interconnections of the provisions.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, many organisations, including public bodies, print an agreed timetable of meetings. However, that is different from the notice of a meeting. Of course, such dates can be changed.

On this amendment we are discussing the deletion of subsection (3B) from Amendment No. 193. In our view, we need adequate time between meetings, and the combination of these clauses provides that.

I shall look at what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said to see whether we can bring any greater clarity to the matter. In the meantime I cannot accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for the reasons that I have given.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation. Clearly, if the Government feel that it is necessary to stop the mayor having 10 meetings in January, so be it. However, I do not feel that subsection (3B) is the correct way of achieving that. We want properly spaced meetings with proper notice. I understand what the notice of a meeting is and it is not something that is printed in a diary. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, with all his experience, knows that as well.

It seems to me that achieving that by preventing a notice being published before the previous meeting has been held is a considerable overstatement. I hope that the Minister will look at that again, as we shall. It is not a crucial matter in the running of a strategic authority for London. Obviously, I shall not press the matter now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment No. 193 agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 194 to 196 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 197:

Page 25, line 42, at beginning insert ("All questions coming before, or to be decided by, the Assembly shall be decided by a majority of the members of the Assembly present and voting at a meeting of the Assembly. (1A) In the case of an equality of votes, the person chairing the meeting of the Assembly shall have a second or casting vote. (l B) Subsections (1) and (1A) above are subject to any provision to the contrary contained in this or any other enactment. (1C)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 197 and I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 199 and 200, 220, 232, 292, 294, 295, 298, and 312 to 314. All those amendments hang together. They clarify and tidy up the provisions for the assembly to take decisions by a simple majority.

Amendment No. 197 makes express provision for the assembly to take decisions by a simple majority of those present and voting at a meeting, except where there is express provision in statute to the contrary. The provision is modelled on provisions in the Local Government Act 1972 and includes provision for the chair to exercise a casting vote where the vote is tied.

Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 are consequential. The other amendments in the group bring other references to assembly decisions by simple majority into line with the provision in Amendment No. 197. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, this amendment raises interesting questions about what happens when, in the assembly, there is an equality between two sides or parties. Before, matters were decided by a majority, presumably in accordance with the rules of this House where, if there is a tied vote, a matter proceeds or does not proceed, according to the type of matter that it is. However, the assembly is to have a chairman with a casting vote. If there is an equality of parties in the assembly, one side will be given a permanent majority rather than the equality voted for. That appears to be a strange way in which to upset the balance voted for in the assembly.

In Clause 43 there are provisions for the election of the chair. If the chair is to have the casting vote, how will the chair be elected when there is no chair to cast that vote? Although we are dealing with a situation where there is an even division of the assembly, this provision will introduce not a temporary but a permanent distortion, which is highly undesirable. I hope that the noble Lord will think again.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, finds this situation strange. It is common practice in local government in this country. He reminds me of my time in China when we talked about the chairman of a meeting having a casting vote. The Chinese found it grossly undemocratic that anyone should have two votes. The noble Lord appears to resemble the Chinese communists in that respect. Perhaps I should not insult him in that way.

It is a common practice in UK local government, and indeed elsewhere, for the chair to have the casting vote, as I am sure the Minister is about to tell us. The London Borough of Islington currently has an equal number of Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. It is run on the casting vote of the chair of the committees. The casting vote always seems to be cast in accordance with the wishes of the Labour group. I do not know whether it is necessary for this provision to be included in the Bill, but it reflects normal practice in UK local government.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, on a simple point of arithmetic, I remind noble Lords that there will be 25 members in the assembly. Presumably, they will all turn up for the first meeting, and presumably they will vote for a chair. From there on, I believe that the normal practice in local government will apply.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 198 to 200:

Page 25, line 43, after ("committees") insert ("and subcommittees").

Page 26, line I, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1C)").

Page 26, line 1, at end insert— ("() subsections (1) and (1A) above;")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 201:

Page 26, line 2, at end insert— ("() section (Minutes) below;").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I described the group of amendments to Clause 46 as practical and intended to assist the authority in the conduct of its business. I am happy to describe this group in the same terms.

The amendments to Clause 46 provided for the assembly to be able to delegate its functions, not only to a committee or single member of the assembly, but also 10 sub-committees of the assembly and members of the authority's staff.

This group of amendments provides for the establishment of ordinary committees and subcommittees of the assembly, their membership, and the procedures they should follow. They also provide for the establishment of advisory committees and subcommittees.

If your Lordships want, I can go into great detail. However, Amendment No. 209 provides for the assembly to establish an ordinary committee that may, in turn, appoint one or more ordinary sub-committees. It will be for the assembly to decide the number of members of an ordinary committee and their terms of office The ordinary committees will, in turn, decide the membership of the sub-committees and their terms. We would expect such committees to deal with the day-to-day business of the assembly, including its scrutiny role, but it may establish standing committees to deal with issues where the authority has no function or responsibilities; for example, health or education. Only assembly members may be members of such committees.

Under these provisions the assembly may also appoint advisory committees, the membership of which may or may not include members of the assembly, and these advisory committees can, in turn, appoint sub-committees. That will allow the assembly to draw on the maximum range of support.

If noble Lords want, I can go through the details of the individual amendments that enact and enable that process to take place. At this stage, I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, I want to comment briefly on Amendments Nos. 209, 211 and 212. On the first of those amendments, are the provisions on advisory committees at subsections (4) and (5) necessary? Can the Minister tell us whether or not the assembly could do that without that provision? With regard to Amendments Nos. 211 and 212, which deal with the political composition of the assembly committees, should not the sub-committees be included as well? Should this apply, as the Government suggest, to advisory committees? How does it apply? Does is apply simply to assembly members on such committees or to all of the members?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, my understanding is that it applies to the assembly members of such committees. Should that not be the case, I shall write to the noble Baroness. Also, I can assure her that I have had confirmed the need and necessity for the wording set out.

7.30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill)

Before putting the question on this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, only mentioned Amendment No. 209. The grouping contains a great number of other amendments. Does the noble Baroness wish to mention them at this juncture? Otherwise, successive occupants of the Woolsack may be a little confused.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I apologise to the House. I did not list them all and I now correct that error. In speaking to Amendment No. 201, I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 209 to 213, 231, 233, 237, 239 to 243 and 577 to 579.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.

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