Greater London Authority Bill

HL Deb 14 October 1999 vol 605 cc597-628

8.30 p.m.

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Clause 46 [Discharge of functions by committees or single members]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 202:

Page 26, line 7, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 8.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 202 standing in the name of my noble friend, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 203 to 208.

Currently, the provisions of Clause 46 permit the assembly to arrange for the discharge of its functions only by a committee of the assembly or by a single member of the assembly. We believe that this is too restrictive. Therefore, this group of amendments provides for the assembly also to delegate its functions to sub-committees and in certain circumstances to GLA staff.

In order to help the House I shall briefly explain the purpose of each amendment. Amendment No. 202 is a drafting amendment. The same provision is made in Amendment No. 208 and now appears at the end of the clause. Amendment No. 203 adds sub-committees as a category to which functions may be delegated by the assembly. Amendment No. 204 provides for the assembly to delegate its staff appointment functions to members of staff of the authority appointed under the provisions of Clause 56(2). This excludes delegation to the staff appointed by the mayor.

Amendment No. 205 provides for the delegation by committees to sub-committees and in turn for the delegation by sub-committees to a single member. Amendment No. 206 provides that where delegations have taken place, that will not prevent the assembly, or whoever has made those delegations, from exercising those functions where they choose to do so.

Amendment No. 207 applies and extends the provisions introduced by Amendment No. 197 in relation to the quorum of the assembly and its committees and the voting procedures in those committees. This means that questions before such committees will be decided by a majority of those present and that in the case of an equality of votes, the chair will have a second casting vote. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 203 to 206:

Page 26, line 10, after ("committee") insert ("or subcommittee").

Page 26, line 11. at end insert— ("(1A) The Assembly may arrange for a member of staff of the Authority appointed under section 56(2) below to exercise on the Assembly's behalf any function exercisable by the Assembly under section 56(2) or 59(2) below.").

Page 26, line 11, at end insert— ("(1A) The Assembly may arrange for a member of staff of the Authority appointed under section 56(2) below to exercise on the Assembly's behalf any function exercisable by the Assembly under section 56(2) or 59(2) below.").

Page 26, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) Any arrangements made under this section by the Assembly, or by a committee or sub-committee of the Assembly, for the discharge of any functions by—

1. (a) a committee or sub-committee of the Assembly,
2. (b) a member of the Assembly, or
3. (c) a member of staff of the Authority,

shall not prevent the Assembly, or the committee or sub-committee by whom the arrangements are made, from exercising those functions.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 207:

Page 26, line 17. at end insert— ("() Subsections (1) to (1B) of section 45 above shall apply in relation to a meeting of a committee or sub-committee of the Assembly as they apply in relation to a meeting of the Assembly.").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswoodhad given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 207, Amendment No. 207A: Line 2, leave out ("(1) to (1B)") and insert ("(1A) and (1B)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend, I can safely say that the Minister's explanation clearly indicated the correct meaning of Amendment No. 207 and our worries have been removed.

However, the way in which the amendments to Clause 45 have been laid out is extremely confusing. Perhaps one of these days we shall find a clearer way of numbering our amendments. I shall not move my amendment.

[Amendment No. 207A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 207, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 207 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 208:

Page 26, line 17, at end insert— ("() Subsections (1) to (2) above are subject to any express provision contained in this Act or any Act passed after this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whiny moved Amendments Nos. 209 and 210: After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES AND SUB-COMMITTEES

(" .—(1) For the purpose of discharging, in pursuance of arrangements under section 46(1)(a) above, any functions exercisable by the Assembly —

1. (a) the Assembly may appoint a committee of the Assembly (an "ordinary committee"); and
2. (b) an ordinary committee may appoint one or more subcommittees ("ordinary sub-committees").

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section—

1. (a) the number of members, and
2. (b) their term of office,

shall be fixed in the case of an ordinary committee by the Assembly or, in the case of an ordinary sub-committee, by the appointing committee. (3) An ordinary committee or sub-committee must not include any person who is not an Assembly member. (4) The Assembly may appoint one or more committees ("advisory committees") to advise it on any matter relating to the discharge of its functions. (5) An advisory committee—

1. (a) may consist of such persons (whether Assembly members or not) appointed for such term as may be determined by the Assembly; and
2. (b) may appoint one or more sub-committees ("advisory sub-committees") to advise the committee with respect to any matter on which the committee has been appointed to advise.").

After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—

MINUTES

(" .—(1) Minutes of the proceedings of a meeting of the Assembly, or of any committee or sub-committee of the Assembly, shall be kept in such form as the Assembly may determine.

(2) Any such minutes shall be signed at the same or next suitable meeting of the Assembly, committee or sub-committee by the person presiding at that meeting.

(3) Any minute purporting to be signed as mentioned in subsection (2) above shall be received in evidence without further proof.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, the next suitable meeting of the Assembly, or of a committee or sub-committee of the Assembly, is their next following meeting or, where standing orders of the Authority provide for another meeting to be regarded as suitable, either the next following meeting or that other meeting.

(5) In the application of this section in the case of a meeting of the Assembly under section 44(2) above, "minutes" includes—

1. (a) the text of any question put pursuant to section 44(2) above at the meeting, and
2. (b) the text of the answer given to any such question,

whether the question was put, or the answer given, orally or in writing.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 47 [Political composition of Assembly committees]:

Lord. Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 211 and 212:

Page 26, line 21, after ("its") insert ("ordinary committees and advisory").

Page 26, line 22, after ("ordinary") insert ("or, as the case may be, advisory").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 48 [Openness]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 213:

Page 26, line 29, after ("council,") insert ("and

1. (b) any committee or sub-committee of the Assembly were a committee or sub-committee of a principal council, within the meaning of that Part,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 214:

Page 26, line 38, at end insert— ("(2A) In the following provisions of that Act, namely

1. (a) section 100A(2) (which requires the exclusion of the public from meetings and makes other provision to prevent disclosure of confidential information in breach of the obligation of confidence), and
2. (b) section 100D(4) (which prevents the inclusion in a list of documents of any document which would so disclose such information),

any reference to the disclosure (or likelihood of disclosure) of confidential information in breach of the obligation of confidence includes a reference to the disclosure of information of any of the descriptions specified in subsection (2B) below without the consent of the relevant body concerned. (2B) The descriptions are—

1. (a) any information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person which was acquired in consequence of a relationship between that person and a relevant body;
2. (b) the amount of any expenditure proposed to be incurred by a relevant body under any particular contract, if and so long as disclosure would be likely to give an advantage to a person entering into, or seeking to enter into, a contract with the relevant body, whether the advantage would arise against the relevant body or another such person;
3. (c) any terms proposed or to be proposed by or to a relevant body in the course of negotiations for any particular contract, if and so long as disclosure would prejudice the relevant body in those or any other negotiations concerning the subject matter of the contract;
4. (d) the identity of any person as the person offering any particular tender for a contract for the supply of goods or services to a relevant body;

and in this subsection "relevant body" means Transport for London or the London Development Agency.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 214 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 217. Amendment No. 214 modifies the assembly's openness arrangements under Clause 48 of the Bill. Its effect is to place a duty on the assembly not to disclose to the public certain kinds of commercially sensitive information relating to transport for London or the LDA without the consent of the body concerned.

The amendment narrowly defines that information. In essence, we are talking about information about the financial or business affairs of any person which TfL or the LDA has obtained as a result of the relationship with that person.

TfL and the LDA will be executive, businesslike organisations. Much of their business is bound to be about commercial matters. If they are not to be put at a commercial disadvantage, they will need to be able to ensure that they are able to guarantee the same degree of commercial confidentiality to people with whom they do business as a local authority. Clearly, the assembly will be able to obtain information from Transport for London and the London Development Agency using its powers under Clause 51, including commercially sensitive information. The issue here is a limitation on their ability to disclose it.

Amendment No. 217 clarifies that the modified version of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972—that is, the openness arrangements under Clause 48—applies to assembly committees and subcommittees in the same way that Part VA of the 1972 Act applies to committees and subcommittees of principal councils. It is a clarifying amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I have some concerns as regards this amendment. Clause 48 applies the local government access to information laws to the DLA, with some certain changes. The local government regime provides two exceptions to the right of public access to meetings and also to related documents.

The first is confidential information—Section 100A(2) of the Local Government Act 1972—which the council may not disclose. In local government this is information provided by a government department on terms banning that disclosure, or information banned by an enactment of a court from disclosure. The other group is the exempt information; namely, Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, which the council "may" prohibit disclosure of. In local government this includes personal information, tender details, the identity of tenderers and legal advice.

The Government wish to insert subsections (2A) and (2B) into Clause 48. This would extend the definition of "confidential information" to financial arrangements between TfL or the LDA and third parties. It is then for TfL or the LDA to decide—it is their decision—whether this information can be debated publicly by the assembly. We believe that the information should be treated merely as exempt information and that it should be for the assembly, not TfL or the LDA, to decide whether or not it can be made public.

The assembly can be expected to behave sensibly, as councils always do about exempt information, and not release such information without a very good reason. However, we feel very strongly that it should be the assembly which makes the decision and not the two functional bodies, as this amendment proposes. In my view, the Government's proposed insertion of subsections 2(A) and 2(B) would actually weaken the whole provision; it should not happen.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the objective of this amendment is to ensure that the functional bodies can engage in a degree of commercial activity, with the understanding that they are able to do so without putting those people with whom they do business in the position of being in danger of having their personal financial and commercial information divulged by someone else.

TfL and the LDA are public bodies and would need to consider such matters. They are also subject to a degree of openness and public accountability. Like a local authority, they would have to make a judgment as to whether they would be prepared to release that information. Therefore, both TfL and the LDA are in the equivalent role to that of a local authority dealing with people on business and commercial matters; the assembly is at one stage removed from that situation. The provision is that the assembly should only divulge that information if TfL and the LDA agree. The analogy is not the local authority with the assembly. In this context, it is the local authority and the "functional bodies".

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I hear what the Minister says and, in general cases, I would be very happy to accept it. However, does he accept that there might be a query here in a case where there is an instance of corrupt practice? Let us suppose that such a situation arose between a body like TfL and a commercial contractor. In such a case, TfL might have an interest in, shall we say, concealing exactly what had happened. In fact, it might be for the assembly to reveal what was going on; indeed, that could be the only way in which the public could be satisfied that the whole process was proper.

Unfortunately, here we have to consider not only what happens when everyone is honest; we also have to consider those other circumstances when someone behaves in a dishonest fashion. That has to be handled properly and the mechanisms have to be there for the purpose. Therefore, in such a situation, there is reason to suppose that some sort of dispensation might be required.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, exactly the same situation can, regrettably, arrive in a local authority. There is no provision for someone else to take such a decision when the local authority is engaged in a commercial relationship which might not be in the interests of the public. Indeed, there may be some corruption in a local authority or connivance at corruption. There is no provision that someone else, apart from public authorities—in certain circumstances, the ombudsman and in others the police and criminal proceedings—would deal with the matter. In those circumstances, we would be in a different situation. But the local authority is the equivalent of the LDA or TfL in these circumstances, not the assembly.

There is also the role of chief finance officer to consider in these circumstances, as would be the case within a local authority. As I said earlier, the analogy is not between a normal local authority and the assembly; it is between a normal local authority and the LDA. Exactly the same criminal and investigatory provisions would apply to the LDA and TfL in those circumstances, as would apply in a local authority.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 215 to 217:

Page 26, line 38, at end insert— ("() In section 100C of that Act (inspection of minutes and other documents after meetings) any reference to the minutes of a meeting shall, in the case of a meeting of the Assembly under section 44(2) above, be taken to include a reference to—

1. (a) the text of any question put pursuant to section 44(2) above at the meeting, and
2. (b) the text of the answer given to any such question,

whether the question was put, or the answer given, orally or in writing.").

Page 26, line 38, at end insert— ("() Nothing in section 100D (inspection of background papers) requires or authorises the inclusion in any such list as is referred to in subsection (1) of that section of any document which discloses anything which, by virtue of subsection (4) of section 37 above, is not required to be disclosed under subsection (3) or (3A) of that section.").

Page 26, line 38, at end insert— ("() In section 100E of that Act (application to committees and sub-committees) subsection (3)(e) shall have effect as if section (Assembly committees and sub-committees) above were included among the enactments specified in section 101(9) of that Act.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]

Clause 49 [Review and investigation]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 219:

Page 27, line 15, after ("exercisable") insert ("and any other functions exercised").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a small amendment and one which has been tabled to enable the Government, I hope, to give me an assurance on a point which slightly troubles me. Clause 49(1) provides for the assembly to, keep under review the exercise by the Mayor of the statutory functions exercisable by him". The word "statutory" made me pause because the clause could also have referred to, the exercise of the functions exercisable by him". I wonder whether "statutory" is in any way restrictive. That is why I tabled this amendment, which provides that the assembly should keep under review the exercise of "any other functions" actually exercised by the mayor. If the word is restrictive, I would be concerned for the following reason.

We have had a number of debates, including one this afternoon on the state of London's public health, and we have been assured by the Government that there is nothing in the Bill to stop the mayor undertaking this sort of review, a report on public health and various other matters which have been discussed during the course of our debates on the Bill. It seems to me that the assembly should quite properly review the exercise of those functions by the mayor, as well as those spelled out on the face of the Bill. My amendment seeks assurance that everything the mayor does is to be kept under review through this provision. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I believe that I can give the noble Baroness the assurance she seeks. The mayor cannot act except in pursuit of a statutory function. Activities for which there is no express statutory provision will be carried out either under the general power in Clause 25 or the subsidiary powers in Clause 28. That would include activities such as the pursuit of the health report which we debated earlier. I can also assure the noble Baroness that the term "exercisable" includes functions which have been exercised as well as those which have not. Therefore I believe that she will find her concerns covered by this amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I realise that "exercisable" must mean those functions which the mayor has not actually exercised—that is, of course, the point of the exercise.

One concern arose from a point I have made before, which is the distinction between powers and functions. The Minister has confirmed that although the exercise arises from a statutory power, it is nevertheless within those provisions because it is a statutory function. I am looking to the Minister to confirm that in terms, if he will nod—he has nodded. I am grateful for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50 [Proposals to the Mayor]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 220:

Page 27, line 25, leave out ("resolves by a majority of Assembly members present and voting") and insert ("decides").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 51[Power to require attendance at Assembly meetings]:

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 221:

Page 27, line 32, leave out (", (3), (4)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 224, 225 and 235. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will speak to Amendments Nos. 222 and 223.

The small group of amendments to Clauses 51 and 53 to which I am speaking cover a large subject. I am returning to it because, having read the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at Committee stage, I am still unhappy about the draconian and exceptional powers which are proposed for the Greater London Authority to summon people before it. I am disappointed that, having heard what we had to say on the subject, the Government have not introduced any modifications to eliminate the larger absurdities to which, as we pointed out, the provisions give rise.

Amendment No. 221 is simply a paving amendment to Amendment No. 224, which calls for the deletion of subsections (3) and (4). Those two subsections give the assembly power to summon before it three categories of persons; first, any person who has within the preceding three years had a contractual relationship with the authority. Secondly, a person who has within the preceding three years received a grant from the authority. Thirdly, a member of any body—I am assuming that that will usually be a company, but it could be a different sort of organisation—or an employee of such a body.

Under Clause 54, any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to attend, or to answer questions, or to produce documents, is to be guilty of a criminal offence and liable to a fine at current rates of up to £5,000 or even three months in prison. These subsections even purport to confer extra-territorial powers on the authority. In Committee I gave the example of a non-English speaking clerk employed by a firm in Greece being summoned to give evidence under the totally unenforceable threat of the criminal sanctions of Clause 54.

In fact the provisions are even more absurd than I thought when I first considered this clause. The employee, or member who is summoned, need not have been involved in the company at the time that the contract was performed or the grant was given. What value will his evidence have, except perhaps to provide the bait for any fishing expedition that the assembly may choose to launch?

We absolutely do not argue with the need for the assembly to be able to obtain information about its affairs from those having dealings with it. The way to do that is to provide in the contract or offer of grant that it is conditional upon the recipient co-operating with any reasonable request for an account of those dealings. That is what happens in any normal commercial relationship. Failure to comply would give the authority the right to complain to the civil courts about a breach of contract, and to obtain a mandatory injunction requiring the third party to comply.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is proposed that every contract with the authority will contain a health warning about the contractor and his employees present and future, to the effect that they can be dragged before the authority to give evidence under the threat of being jailed for three months. Or will the contractor be presumed to know the law, even if the subpoena comes as a complete surprise to him?

Perhaps I may point out to the Government that this clause, in an exceptionally badly drafted and cobbled-together Bill, includes also in this particular area one giant defect. It empowers the summoning of persons who are members or employees of the company or organisation being investigated, but what about the past members or employees? There is no power in the clause to summon even the chap who left hurriedly the day after he got wind of the impending subpoena—I refer to the one who really knows what happened and where the body might be buried.

Far be it from me to invite the Government to include even more regulations. But as I have said, the Government have clearly not thought out the ramifications of this unusual power which it seeks to give to the authority.

Amendment No. 225 calls for the deletion of Clause 53 (10). That subsection refers to persons appointed under Clauses 56(1) and 56(2). Persons appointed under Clause 56(1) consist of the two political advisors and up to 10 other members of staff all personally working for the mayor. Persons appointed under Clause 56(2) are additional staff members appointed by the assembly to assist the mayor, after taking into account any views of the mayor. Although part of the mayor's staff, both categories of employee are to be treated as employees of the authority. They are accommodated and paid for by the authority out of public funds. That is specifically provided for by Clause 56(3).

What does Clause 51(10) provide in relation to those publicly-funded assistants to the mayor? It provides them with an exemption from being required to give any evidence, or from producing any documents relating to any advice given by them to the mayor. The subsection provides for an elite class of public servants, enjoying an exemption not enjoyed by the staff of Cabinet Ministers. We have all seen civil servants right up to the rank of the Cabinet Secretary himself being called to account before committees of the other place. There is, I know, an argument that if advisers cannot give their masters advice in confidence, then it makes their task difficult, if not impossible. We are talking here about publicly paid advisers, not ones funded by the mayor personally or by his party. We are discussing this in the context of the proposition that, The assembly must be able to undertake the proper scrutiny of the actions of the mayor and the staff of the authority".—[Official Report, 23/6/99; col. 1041.] Those are not my words; they are the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when responding to the earlier stage of this group of amendments. It will be noted that the noble Lord was referring to the staff of the authority. By the definition in Clause 56(3), which I have just quoted, those advisers are staff of the authority. How can their actions and those of the mayor be "properly scrutinised", in the words of the noble Lord, if the questions which they can be asked are so severely constrained as to make their testimony virtually useless?

Clause 59(4) requires that those special advisers and personal staff members must attend every statutory monthly meeting of the assembly where their presence is requested and must answer any questions put to them by members of the assembly. I repeat: any questions. They will not be subject to the special privileges set out in Clause 51(10). That total contradiction is, of course, typical of the way in which this Bill has been drafted.

Amendment No. 235 is a minor drafting amendment to Clause 54 which I propose solely for the purposes of clarity.

Clause 53 empowers the Secretary of State to prescribe what information persons who are summoned before the assembly are entitled to refuse or to give or what documents they are entitled to refuse or to produce. That is all well and good. However, Clause 54(3) also gives the witness an important exemption from answering questions or producing documents if he could refuse to do so in court proceedings. An example would be something that might incriminate the witness or to which some privilege attached; for example, solicitor and client. The amendment makes clear that the ministerial exemption under Clause 53 does not interfere with the exemption under Clause 54(3).

I have already drawn attention to the inconsistency between Clause 51(10), exempting advisers from testifying, and Clause 59(4), which says that they must do so. In Committee I challenged the Minister to say when?, similar powers existed in local government. With his usual candour, the noble Lord said: The noble Baroness is right to say that this is unique to local government, as indeed are the powers of the mayor and the authority". That is what is so worrying. Clearly, this Bill and the creation of the Greater London authority will be used as the precedent for the creation of further similar bodies: London today; Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Bristol, and goodness knows where else tomorrow.

9 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, what about Newcastle?

Baroness Miller of Hendon

Perhaps even, my Lords, Newcastle, if the noble Lord, Lord Graham, would like that too. There are also the regional assemblies which the Government are threatening to inflict on us.

Is every one of these authorities to be free to set up its own inquisition with powers that, as the Minister admits quite rightly, are unprecedented, except, quite rightly, in the hands of the sovereign Parliament? We agree that the assembly must have proper powers to scrutinise the operations both of the mayor and of the whole authority of which it is an integral part. That is its entire purpose. However, the powers which the Government propose to grant are entirely unprecedented. They are backed by sanctions, as mentioned earlier, which equate their breach with all but the most serious of crimes. They are unworkable powers in the case of witnesses out of the jurisdiction of the authority and they discriminate against UK residents. They are contained in a group of clauses which, as I have pointed out, are not only inconsistent with each other but have that major drafting error about employees who have already left the employment of the company involved.

Given that it is accepted that the assembly must have powers to make all proper investigations and inquiries, the Government must frame those powers in more direct and restrained terms. That is what those amendments seek to do. I very much hope the Minister will give this matter serious thought because it is a very serious problem, apart from being quite unprecedented. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, far from there being an inconsistency of drafting, I find the Opposition Front Bench's argument somewhat inconsistent. They were trying to extend the ability of the assembly to acquire information which might be regarded as commercially confidential or personal. Now we are in a situation where noble Lords opposite are opposing as excessive powers that the assembly should have for perfectly legitimate inquiries and information. I do not consider those powers to be excessive. It is important that the assembly, in order to fulfil its scrutiny role, should undertake proper scrutiny of the actions of the mayor and the staff of the authority. It is for the assembly to ascertain whether persons who have a contract have fulfilled that contract and, if they have received a grant, have used it for the purposes for which it is given, subject to the caveat which was included in the earlier clauses.

If we were to curtail the assembly's powers of summons, as is proposed by the noble Baroness, the assembly would be unable to carry out one of the most important aspects of its work; namely, ensuring that public funds, for which the authority was responsible, were not misused. Certainly, Amendments Nos. 221 and 224 in the name of the noble Baroness would not be acceptable.

At this point I shall curtail my remarks and allow the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to speak.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. As regards Amendment No. 222, I must confess that I tabled those amendments thinking that I had found a gap in the armour of the Bill. Subsequently, I found that I had not because, of course, the position of the mayor is covered by subsection (5)(c). Therefore, I shall not pursue Amendment No. 222.

Amendment No. 223 deals with the question of someone who has been chairman of a functional body in the previous three years. There is no requirement for the chairman of a functional body to be either the mayor or a member of the assembly. If the mayor chooses to be a member of Transport for London, he shall be the chairman. However, Schedule 8 stipulates that the chairman will be one of the members of TFL and it is only at paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 8 that it states: Where the Mayor is a member … he shall be the chairman". It therefore follows that the chairman of Transport for London could be an independent individual appointed to that office. As I read Clause 51, there are no means by which a former chairman can technically be called as a witness in an examination undertaken by the assembly. It may be that I have missed something here, but I do not believe that I have. If that is the case, the provisions of Amendment No. 223 would help the assembly and would help the Government because it would provide consistency.

It is important that people who have served as chairmen of functional bodies, where they might be ordinary mortals who have been pulled in and appointed for what are good and proper reasons, should be capable of being examined by the assembly in those years immediately following the time they served as chairmen. They might reasonably be expected to have knowledge of and to have been responsible for decisions made by those functional bodies which may require examination.

This is a small, technical point, and is not designed to trip up anyone. Indeed, it is intended to be helpful, and it is on that basis that I have tabled the measure.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord on the last amendment. I have been advised that the chair and therefore former chairs of TfL can be summoned. I shall need to check the reference, but I am sure that that is the case. However, I shall write to the noble Lord to give the exact reference.

I shall now return to my speech, to comply with proceedings at Report stage. The noble Baroness referred to the unique criminal sanctions implied in these clauses. It is true—the noble Baroness has quoted me on this—that these are not sanctions which apply in the rest of local government. Nevertheless, they do apply, for example, in relation to the Welsh Assembly. We believe that the position of the mayor is such that equivalent powers are needed to ensure that the scrutiny powers of the assembly in London, as with the assembly in Wales, provide that they can interrogate people to the same degree. That will require some sanction. We regard that as important in order to carry out the duty.

The noble Baroness also referred to the exemption for the private staff of the mayor. In a sense that returns to an earlier debate. It relates to advice rather than to information, and refers to advice which is of the same category as the advice of senior civil servants to Ministers. I know that there are doubts about the provision in the House. However, we have consistently maintained that that advice should be exempt from the disclosure requirements.

Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 235, to which I believe the noble Baroness referred. I am disappointed that the assurance I gave in Committee did not satisfy the noble Baroness. However, the fact is that this matter is covered and the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 54(3) exempts people who are summoned from having to give evidence to the assembly which they would be entitled to refuse to give were they in a court in England or Wales. The provisions of Clause 53 could not in any circumstances override or affect the provisions of Clause 54, and therefore there is no need for this additional cross-reference. They are already protected. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not press the amendments.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, I shall certainly accept what the Minister has said and I shall not press the amendments further this evening. However, I should like it to be put on the record that I am disappointed. However, having said that I am disappointed, I am sure that the Minister will feel quite the opposite and be extremely pleased that I do not intend to press the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 223:

Page 27, line 41, after ("is") insert (", or who has in the previous three years served as,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, subject to the Minister satisfying me that the point has been covered, I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 226:

Page 29, line 8, at end insert— ("(10A) Nothing in this section shall require a person who is—

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

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

1. (a) the Metropolitan Police Authority, or
2. (b) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

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

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

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

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, Amendment No. 226 was in the same group as Amendment No. 136 which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, withdrew on the basis that he would take it away and reconsider it. I am not saying that it is forbidden, but it is certainly unusual within a grouping to withdraw one amendment but leave the other. The amendment that has been withdrawn related to the definition of the word "advice". The significance of the definition of the word "advice" comes in this clause, Clause 51. The clause deals with the assembly's power to require attendance of witnesses to give such advice, and so forth, so perhaps all these provisions should be considered together.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I think that I made it clear at an earlier stage—I probably made it excessively clear—that I was concerned only about the definition of "advice" which arises under Amendments Nos. 136 and 228 which, when we come to it, I shall not move.

I did not undertake to withdraw Amendment No. 226, as I thought that I had made clear earlier. That may be a bit unusual, but I was intending to be very specific that the provisions that I was withdrawing related to the definition of "advice" rather than the principle. I would therefore like to move Amendment No. 226, if that is acceptable. I see that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip is about to raise something procedural. I am sure that we would not want to fall out too far over this. I shall listen to what the noble Lord has to say.

Lord Henley

My Lords, before my noble friend responds, I have to say that I find this somewhat extraordinary. As I understand it—obviously, I was not present when Amendment No. 136 was debated—Amendment No. 226 was grouped with it. The noble Lord withdrew that, and his group. No doubt other noble Lords who took some interest in the group then decided to disappear because they thought that that amendment was not likely to come up later. My noble friend has now made the point that she thinks that this amendment was withdrawn at that stage. It would be unusual for the noble Lord to try to press ahead with it. I accept that the whole thing is perfectly within order We all know the mantra at the top of the groupings list, which states: Although every effort has been made to secure agreement to these groupings, they remain informal", but I think that that is slightly more binding on the Government than on the Opposition. We think that it is fairly peculiar for the Government to start behaving in such a manner whereas we all understand perfectly well when Back-Benchers wish to decouple such groupings. The noble Lord should give us a slightly better explanation before my noble friend decides how to exercise her particular rights.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is making such a meal of this, I believe—and I think that the record will show—that I made quite clear which provisions I was taking away for another look. Nevertheless, in the interests of proceeding with this Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and to come back at Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 227:

Page 29, line 9, leave out (", 53 and 54") and insert ("to (Proceedings under section 51(1): openness)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments. Nos. 229 and 236. This group of amendments clarifies that the assembly's openness arrangements under Clause 48 apply to proceedings held under Clause 51. It also adapts those arrangements, where necessary, to take account of special features of assembly hearings.

That means that assembly hearings will generally be open to the public and the papers supplied by witnesses, minutes of the hearings and records of oral evidence will generally all be open to public inspection. The usual rules on excluding the public from meetings and not disclosing papers and minutes will apply in line for those with local authorities generally.

The main changes to the usual arrangements are as follows. Papers supplied by witnesses and transcripts or other records of evidence will be available for inspection as if they were reports or minutes for any assembly meeting. Rights to inspect background papers will apply to any papers in addition to those summoned which witnesses provide and to papers prepared for assembly members to use for the hearing. These amendments clarify the arrangements for the openness of assembly hearings. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 229:

Page 29, line 16, at end insert ("and

1. (c) any reference to proceedings is a reference to proceedings at a meeting.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 230:

Page 29, line 16, at end insert— ("() The Assembly shall not refuse a request by the Mayor that it invites to attend its proceedings the Secretary of State or any person who has, within the previous 5 years, been the Secretary of State for the purpose of explaining any guidance or direction or draft guidance or direction given or proposed to be given by him under this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, from time to time during debates on this Bill we have mentioned that the Secretary of State will have very considerable powers over the Greater London Authority, both the mayor and the assembly. He will have power to issue guidance on a range of matters to require a number of things to be done. It is entirely reasonable that the Secretary of State should be expected, when required, to come to the assembly and to the mayor to answer questions and give explanations as to why he has issued guidance and other matters which perhaps need clarification.

We discussed this in Committee. At that time our amendment said that the assembly may require the Secretary of State to attend. There was concern, which we did not accept in the sense that we agreed with it. However, we accepted that there was concern that that would be a blurring of responsibilities and would somehow imply that the Secretary of Stale was accountable to the assembly whereas he or she is accountable to Parliament.

We now have a different wording which takes care of that point very well. The amendment states, The Assembly shall not refuse a request by the Mayor that it invites to attend its proceedings the Secretary of State". When such an invitation is issued, I hope that the Secretary of State will give it all the weight and consideration it deserves. He or she should be prepared to attend and explain the reasons for the guidance that has been issued and be prepared to answer questions in the same way through this legislation as he requires others to do. That is the purpose of this amendment.

In responding to it I hope that the Government will recognise that we have acknowledged their concern about the blurring of the lines of responsibility and that we have tried to deal with it. We accept that the Secretary of State is not accountable to the assembly but to and through Parliament. Nevertheless, there is a reasonable expectation that, should an invitation be issued, the Secretary of State will be prepared to attend.

The other issue which we have come up against many times is the division of powers. Again, this amendment makes it very clear that power rests with the mayor, not the assembly, to request that an invitation be issued. I hope that we have dealt with the only concerns raised by the Minister in responding to the previous amendment. We have tried to meet them in this amendment. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel able to meet us on this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I understood the purpose of the noble Lord's previous amendment, but I do not really understand the purpose of this one. The purpose of the previous amendment was to require the Secretary of State to appear before the assembly. It is worth legislating for that. In my view it cut across the accountability of the Secretary of State and I opposed it. Nevertheless, it seemed a matter for legislation.

However, what we are discussing here is the ability of the mayor and the assembly to invite the Secretary of State to attend. That implies that he does not need to. Clearly, he can be advised and he can request an invitation. He or she can also try to persuade the assembly to invite the mayor. But I do not see that as a matter for legislation. Unless there are some powers or duties involved I do not see the point of this amendment.

I hope that from time to time the assembly will invite the Secretary of State or his or her successors to attend. As I have said, there are no powers or duties involved here. It is a question of sensible political relationships. It is not a matter for legislation.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he not agree that a provision framed in these terms is very close to the point that the Secretary of State may give guidance and so forth? It is not dissimilar in terms of powers or otherwise.

Lord Whitty

No, my Lords. This gives a power to the Secretary of State to issue guidance which must then be observed. This is simply a question of political relationships, not of powers, duties or functions, which are the business of legislation.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister does not recognise what we are trying to achieve here—or perhaps he does. Maybe it is a matter for legislation. I can certainly envisage, without too much difficulty, a situation where the mayor may wish the Secretary of State to come but the assembly may not. Indeed, as with an earlier government amendment on a different issue, it is to be clear as to where the final decision rests. If I quote the Minister correctly from earlier this evening, "the final decision rests with the mayor". If the mayor wishes the Secretary of State to come, it is not for the assembly to refuse.

The Minister has not given us an answer, even within the need for legal definition; nor has he given us any indication as to whether he accepts that it is reasonable that the Secretary of State should come. I know he does not accept that it is reasonable that the Secretary of State may be required to come. However, he has given us no reasonable expectation that the Secretary of State, and any predecessor secretaries of state, should come to the assembly if so invited by the mayor.

I can see that I shall not get further with this tonight. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52 [Procedure for requiring attendance.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 231 to 233:

Page 29, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("is") in line 21 and insert ("an ordinary committee of the Assembly, if the committee").

Page 29, line 22, leave out ("a simple majority of those present and voting at a meeting of the whole") and insert ("the").

Page 29, line 24, at end insert— ("() Except in the case of a committee which is authorised by standing orders to exercise the powers of the Assembly under section 51(1) above, section 46 above shall not apply in relation to—

1. (a) the Assembly's function of deciding to exercise its powers under section 51(1) above; or
2. (b) the Assembly's function under subsection (1) above of authorising a committee to exercise those powers.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 234:

Page 29, line 26, leave out ("Chief Administrative Officer of the Authority") and insert ("head of the Authority's paid service").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 234, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 261 to 266 and 334.

This group of amendments looks complex but is not. Amendment No. 234 simply anticipates an amendment we are making to Clause 61. The other amendments seek to clarify the respective roles of the mayor and assembly in relation to the provision of resources for the head of paid service and the monitoring officer. These are dealt with respectively in Amendments Nos. 264 and 266. Both provide for the mayor to provide accommodation and other resources for the two officers and for the assembly to provide their staff.

Amendments Nos. 261 and 265 provide for the head of paid service and the monitoring officer to be appointed as members of staff under the provisions of Clause 56(2) of the Bill. That prevents either office being held by staff appointed by the mayor. The same is true in the case of the chief finance officer, which is why Amendment No. 334 also appears in this group.

The procedures for handling reports submitted to the authority by either the head of paid service or the monitoring officer are also provided for in these amendments.

The provision in the Bill which required that the head of paid service should be known as the chief administrative officer has been criticised as being too prescriptive. On reflection, we agree. That requirement is deleted by Amendment No. 263. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, perhaps I may raise a query as regards Amendment No. 265, which adds a massive chunk to Clause 62. The monitoring officer obviously has wide responsibilities across the area of the Greater London Authority. The amendment states that in this subsection "GLA body or person" means the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the mayor of London, the London assembly, and so on.

I have clearly missed something because there is no mention of the Metropolitan Police or the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, which are existing bodies. Presumably they have their own existing monitoring arrangements. Provided I am given an assurance by the Minister that that is so and that such existing functions will continue in future, I shall be perfectly happy. If not, one needs to think about this.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right. They have their own monitoring officers.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 53 [Restriction of information]:

[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]

9.30 p m.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 236: After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—

PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 51(1): OPENNESS

(" .—(1) In its application by virtue of section 48 above, Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents of certain authorities, committees and sub-committees), so far as relating to any proceedings under section 51(1) above ("the evidentiary proceedings"), shall have effect with the following additional modifications.

(2) In section 100B (access to agenda and connected reports) any reference to a report for a meeting includes a reference to any document (other than the agenda) supplied before, and for the purposes of, the evidentiary proceedings (a "relevant document").

(3) If a report or relevant document is supplied less than three clear days before the evidentiary proceedings, copies of the report or document shall be open to inspection by the public under subsection (1) of that section from the time such copies are available to Assembly members, notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of section 100B.

(4) In section 1000 (inspection of minutes and other documents after meetings)—

1. (a) any reference to the minutes of a meeting shall be taken to include a reference to a transcript or other record of evidence given in the course of the evidentiary proceedings; and
2. (b) any reference to a report for the meeting includes a reference to a relevant document.

(5) In section 100D (inspection of background papers) any reference in subsections (1) to (4) to background papers for a report (or part of a report) shall be taken as a reference to any additional documents supplied by a witness.

(6) In this section, "additional documents supplied by a witness" means documents supplied, whether before, during or after the evidentiary proceedings,—

1. (a) by a person attending to give evidence at the proceedings, and
2. (b) for the use of Assembly members in connection with the proceedings,

but does not include any document which is a relevant document.

(7) In section 100F (additional rights of access for members) subsections (2) to (4) shall not have effect in relation to documents which contain material relating to any business to be transacted at the evidentiary proceedings.

(8) In section 100H (supplemental provisions and offences) in subsection (6), in the definition of "accessible documents"—

1. (a) the reference in paragraph (d) to a report for the meeting includes a reference to a relevant document; and
2. (b) the reference in paragraph (e) to background papers for a report for a meeting shall be taken as a reference to any additional documents supplied by a witness.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 55 [The Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 237:

Page 30, line 35, leave out from ("for") to end of line 36 and insert—

1. ("(a) the Mayor;
2. (b) the Assembly members;
3. (c) members of the Authority's staff; and
4. (d) persons not falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) above who are members of advisory committees or subcommittees of the Assembly.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 238:

Page 30, line 38, at beginning insert ("disposal,").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 238. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 244. Both amendments deal with ethical standards.

An obvious but important point is that the mayor must observe the highest ethical standards and must be seen to do so. Therefore, we have tabled amendments that are similar to those that we tabled in Committee.

The amendments provide that the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State shall deal not only with the disclosure of interests, but also with the disposal of interests—the disposal of assets. Amendment No. 244 provides that the code of conduct to be observed by the mayor shall be as close as possible to the code of conduct to be observed by Ministers of the Crown.

The objections raised at the previous stage of the Bill to a code relating to the mayor being close to the ministerial code were as follows. First, there will be a new framework for the whole of local government, although the Government accepted that the mayor will be in a particular position in regard to his executive powers. We agree that that will be the case, so it is particularly important that the code of conduct should be observed.

The second objection was that the mayor cannot be regarded as exactly parallel with ministers, as they are part of a collective executive. The mayor is directly elected to take decisions. Again, we agree with that and that his election will be on the implicit basis that the mayor will act with complete propriety.

The final objection was that the ministerial code has no statutory force, but nor will guidance.

The objections to the reference to the disposal of assets—for instance, into a blind trust—were that that would pre-empt the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State. At the time, I thought that that was not as full an answer as may be given. One could describe it as a little thin. In any event, I believe that the guidance should cover the point.

At the previous stage of the Bill, we were told that a draft of guidance would be available before the Report stage. Indeed, it is now available. It was waiting for me when I arrived home Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. I accept that it is a draft code for consultation. References to such issues are made in the code at paragraph 2.7: The Mayor and Deputy Mayor may dispose of any relevant interests if they consider that this would be the best way of demonstrating that decisions were not affected by any personal interests". Paragraph 2.8 says, The Mayor and Deputy Mayor are free to place investments … into a blind trust if they consider that this would be the best way of demonstrating that decisions were not affected by any personal interests". The paragraph goes on to explain what a "blind trust" is.

Indeed, the mayor and deputy mayor are free to dispose of interests. They are free to put their assets into a blind trust. Neither of those is in any way mandatory, at any rate to the extent that a non-statutory code can be mandatory. I accept that to put the provisions in the Bill, since they would be in the context of guidance, would not make them mandatory, but it would indicate Parliament's view of the importance of the issues.

One of the questions for consultation asks about blind trusts and this is an opportunity for your Lordships to make the point that this is important and that the guidance should be stronger than as currently proposed. A reference in legislation to non-statutory matters is not inappropriate given that the provision, by its nature as set out in the Bill, is not statutory and that it is a provision that is capable of being varied.

These are two important matters. I am able to make the point in an entirely non-personal way. This is no implication as to how any future mayor may conduct himself or herself and the points are easily made before we have a mayor. In other words, it is important to set out the most proper code of conduct before we embark on this important exercise of creating London's new government. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the intention of Clause 55 is to provide ethical guidance. As the noble Baroness indicated, a consultation paper has been published on ethical guidance and aspects of that are similar to ministerial ethical guidance, but other aspects would not be entirely transposable into the ethical guidance for the mayor. The number of issues to which the noble Baroness referred—for instance, blind trusts—are out for consultation. If there were to be a legal case, guidance would be a material consideration and we must try to get it right. However, it seems slightly peculiar to write on the face of the Bill, which in the case of the Mayor shall be as close as possible to the code of conduct to be observed by Ministers of the Crown", whereas it is clear, and even the noble Baroness accepts, that there will be significant differences in terms of the role of the mayor as compared with Ministers.

I accept that there should be effective and clear ethical standards and ethical guidance. I hope that the result of the consultation exercise will give clear steer to the Secretary of State as to how that guidance should be followed. But to accept Amendment No. 244 would be an odd way of achieving the ends that the noble Baroness seeks. Clause 55 already provides for the statutory basis of the ethical guidance and I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I may have misunderstood him. I do not believe he commented on Amendment No. 238.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely correct. I did not comment on the aspect of "disposal".

I believe that this can be taken care of in the total context of the guidance. The ethical guidance can cover disposal of interests by both the mayor and the assembly in various ways. If the two can be taken together, the disposal of interests is not necessarily the same as the disposal of interests for Ministers. However, I may need to consider this matter and write to the noble Baroness. It does not alter the main point in Amendment No. 244, which is overtaken by the fact that we have now—no doubt a little late for the noble Baroness—issued the consultation.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, it is not late; I read it over breakfast this morning.

I would be grateful if the Minister would consider further the point about disposal. The provision, or a similar one, would fit appropriately in Clause 55(2)(a), which states: The matters which may be dealt with in any such guidance include — (a) disclosure and registration of interests". Your Lordships may wish to set a higher threshold than disclosure and registration only and include disposal.

I look forward to further consideration of the matter. I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me If we cannot sort out the point between the two of us in writing, we may have to return to it. It is an important matter which should be before your Lordships. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 239 to 243:

Page 30, line 40, leave out ("or") and insert (", any member of the Assembly,").

Page 30, line 40, after ("staff") insert ("or any committee or sub-committee").

Page 30, line 41, after second ("Mayor") insert (", member of the Assembly").

Page 30, line 41, after ("staff") insert (", or a member of the committee or sub-committee,").

Page 30, line 43, after ("member") insert (", or any other person who is a member of an advisory committee or sub-committee,").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 244 not moved]

Clause 56 [Appointment]:

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 245:

Page 31, line 10, at end insert— ("or such numbers of advisers and staff as shall not exceed in aggregate the full time equivalent employees provided by paragraphs (a) and (b) respectively.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 56(1) of the Bill states: The Mayor may appoint—

• "(a) not more than two persons as his political advisers; and
• "(b) not more than ten other members of staff".

I still find it extraordinary that the Government so distrust the mayor and the assembly for all time that they feel it necessary to go into such prescriptive detail in primary legislation. These matters would be much better resolved between the mayor and the assembly in relation to the budget. The important consideration is not so much the number but the cost. We debated that matter in Committee but the Government did not accept the point. I am not sure that they even understood the point.

I am sure that the Minister will recall that I asked in innocence whether the prescriptive numbers of two and 10 related to individuals or to full-time equivalents. The Minister replied, first of all: I would have thought that the provision related to full-time equivalents". All reasonable people would have thought that. He went on to say: but it seems that my previous understanding needs to be revised, and that it applies to 10 members of staff and two political advisers".—[Official Report, 23/6/99; col. 1053.] When we pursued the matter still further because we did not believe that answer was credible, the Minister went on to say: My initial reaction would be, yes. I think that the noble Baroness's reaction would be yes. My latest understanding, however, indicates that there is a different answer".—[Official Report, 23/6/99; col. 1054.] In other words, it relates to the number of individuals not at all to the number of full-time equivalents.

I think that the Minister was genuinely surprised by this at the time—as were we all—because it seems to be a nonsense. Even more importantly, it flies in the face of the policy of a Government who talk about family-friendly work practices, flexible working, encouraging part-time workers, many of whom happen to be women, encouraging job-sharing and all such practices. We are now enshrining in primary legislation something that does not allow for any of those provisions but says simply that there are to be two persons as political advisers and 10 other members of staff, whether those individuals work for two or 42 hours a week.

I fully expected to see a government amendment which sorted this matter out and clarified the position. No such amendment has been forthcoming and we are therefore moving this amendment. I hope it will clarify and state what the Government intend. I have to rely on what the Minister said; namely, that what is on the face of the Bill is what is meant, and that the Government's intention is that there should be no allowance for part-time working, job-sharing and so on, but that the political advisers will be two in number, regardless of the hours that they work, and the 10 members of staff will be 10 and no more, regardless, again, of the number of hours that they work or any other job arrangements that may be in place.

I find it incomprehensible that that is prescribed in the Bill in the first place, and especially incomprehensible that a Government who promote family friendly working and flexible working hours should include such a provision in primary legislation. It is beyond belief that two Ministers on the Front Bench, both of whom, as I know from my personal dealings with them, genuinely and strongly espouse family friendly working, flexible working arrangements and so on, should now be about to stand up and defend the provisions in the Bill.

I am confident that the Minister is either about to accept my amendment or to accept that the Government's intention is the same as that in the amendment, that they have merely been overwhelmed by the 500 other amendments that they have had to prepare over the past two weeks, and that they will return at Third Reading with an amendment that actually states what they intend—that these posts should be full-time equivalents, not simply a n umber of individuals regardless of the number of hours they work. I beg to move, and I do so with confidence.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am eternally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for a complete re-run of an earlier cock-up by me in relation to the Bill! I am also grateful, naturally, that at a quarter to ten at night we should suddenly remember family friendly policies—all of which we should love to espouse, particularly those of us on the Front Bench.

Nevertheless, I now understand that the amendment is there for a different reason. It is not to impose a limitation on the budget. The cross-references to the limitation on the budget are dealt with in the subsequent amendments. It is intended as a limitation on the mayor, for fear that the mayor may bring in a large number of political appointments which would unbalance the professional staff whom he or she appoints. The mayor is completely free to appoint anyone, for whatever hours and on whatever terms he can negotiate with the individuals concerned. Therefore, in a sense, the point about family friendly hours does not apply. But the total number of people who are political or personal appointees of the mayor needs to be limited in order to reassure those who deal with the authority that it is not full of political apparatchiks, to coin a phrase.

That is the reassurance that the amendment gives; it is not so much a reassurance in terms of the budget. It is important that in regard to the authority we do not start out with the implication that the mayor, of whatever political persuasion, would immediately introduce a whole raft of political and personal appointments, allegedly on a part-time basis but in practice overwhelming the professional staff of the authority. That is why we have maintained the maximum of two plus 10 in this area, rather than translate it into two plus 10 full-time equivalents. I hope that the noble Lord understands that even though, as is fairly clear from his expression, he does not agree with it.

Amendments Nos. 246 to 248 are intended to ensure that the assembly, in making its appointments, does so only after it has taken full account of the appointments of the mayor. They are to clarify the interface.

Amendment No. 249 clarifies which provisions of Section 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act should apply to the mayor's appointments. Under Clause 56(1) it was not intended that the 1989 restrictions on remuneration should apply in that sense to the mayor's political advisers. The change in Amendment No. 249 makes Clause 56(8)(c) and (d) unnecessary, therefore Amendment No. 250 deletes them.

I do not disagree with the noble Lord's objectives, but the point of the clause is to limit the number of individuals and not the call on the budget, although that is also relevant.

We have had a slightly misleading debate, I misled myself and possibly the noble Lord. The pursuit of family-friendly policies and other aspects of staff relations within the future GLA are a different matter. We are reassuring people that it will not be a political gravy train.

Lord Tope

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he confirm that the mayor, in making the appointments of the 10 other members of staff specified under subsection (b), will be required to follow the full equal opportunities recruitment policy? I believe that to be the case. If so, can the Minister tell me how, in following that policy, the mayor will be able to appoint all these political apparatchiks, about which he knows far more than I do?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am not sure about that. We are dealing with two plus 10. The two are clearly political advisers, appointed on a political basis without other procedures applying. The other 10 will be other personal appointments of the mayor who, like other employers in the public sector, is required to follow appropriate procedures in making those appointments. They may be specialists, personal staff or people to give him broader guidance, but they must follow that procedure. Nevertheless, they are the personal staff of the mayor and therefore it is important that there is a constraint on the numbers in relation to the relatively small numbers that we envisage will be employed by the GLA.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I am sure that, with the 10 other staff to whom I refer, the mayor will have to follow the equal opportunities procedures. In other words, there will have to be open advertisements, the usual specification and so on. Therefore, following that procedure properly, I cannot see how the appointment of so many apparatchiks would be possible, unless they were appropriately qualified apparatchiks, the most suitable people for the job.

I return to a number of points. First, on the question of our family-friendly working hours, I do not know whether we are making progress. The last time we debated this it was 11.30 at night, now it is not yet 10 o'clock. Perhaps we are making progress.

On a more serious point, let us leave aside the two political advisers because there may be a case with them. With the 10 other members of personal staff appointed through full, normal, proper equal opportunities procedures, even accepting that the Government wish to limit the total number, I do not understand why that limit should not be a total number of full-time equivalents. What matters in the Government's terms is that they are working the equivalent of 365 hours a week, if that is 10 times the 36½-hour week. Is not that important? Not whether there are 10, 15 or even 20 individuals working halftime. That is the point. It would enable the mayor to demonstrate that he too believed in family-friendly working practices, flexible arrangements and was able to employ people on job-shares and so on. He could set an example not only to the rest of the authority but the rest of London.

The Bill as drafted by the Government prevents a mayor who might wish to set that example from doing so. The Minister nods. The mayor can do that, but by so doing he or she deprives himself or herself of the amount of work capacity he could have. Of course the mayor can employ 10 half-time staff, but by doing it he deprives himself of half the working capacity that he is permitted under the Bill. I believe that the Government have got it wrong. If the Government wish to be prescriptive in their Bill, I hope that they will return to the point and examine it.

I shall not press the matter at this unfriendly hour of Thursday evening, but I am strongly inclined to do so. I hope that the Government will look at it again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 246:

Page 31, line 11, leave out ("having taken into account") and insert ("after consultation with the Mayor and taking into account, in particular,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 247 to 250:

Page 31, line 12, leave out ("the powers conferred on the Mayor") and insert ("the manner in which, and the extent to which, the Mayor has exercised, or proposes to exercise, the powers conferred").

Page 31, line 15, leave out from ("for") to end of line 16 and insert ("the proper discharge of such functions of the Authority as are respectively exercisable by the Mayor, the Assembly, and the Mayor and Assembly acting jointly.").

Page 31, line 32, leave out from ("Section") to ("shall") in line 34 and insert ("9(1), (9) and (11) of that Act (assistants for political groups)").

Page 31, line 39, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 57 [Disqualification and political restriction]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 251:

Page 32, line 14, at end insert— ("(bb) the London Development Agency").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 251, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 252 to 257. I hope that these are straightforward amendments which bring the London Development Agency and TfL within the political restriction provisions in Clause 57. They also clarify that, where one of the staff appointed by the mayor is appointed to the board of TfL or LDA, he or she will receive no additional payment. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I confess that at this hour of the night and at this stage of this monster Bill it is increasingly difficult to decide whether to be positive or negative about this measure. I have had to work quite hard on the Bill, as have many other Members. I can well imagine that Ministers and noble Lords opposite who fulfil that role have a more difficult problem. Even worse is the problem faced by parliamentary draftsmen who have to try to interpret the wishes of Ministers and make sense of them. I express the hope that Amendment No. 255 is not an absolute example of the thinking of either Ministers or parliamentary draftsmen. As I read it, it indulges itself in a triple negative, which appears to me to be slightly excessive: who do not receive any remuneration …which they would not receive if they were not members of the body". I find such wording in a Bill a trifle strange. I hope the Minister agrees that it may be more felicitously worded and that he will instruct that to be done. I find this too good an opportunity to miss. I do not for one moment charge the Government—still less parliamentary draftsmen—with negative thought, but I regret to say that in this instance they appear to have indulged in it.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am not sure that there is an answer to that. However, if we went through the total Bill to look for felicitous draftsmanship I am afraid that sometimes double and triple negatives must appear in the drafting. I shall look at it. However, I hope the noble Lord accepts that if all of the clauses are read together they make reasonable sense in this case.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 252 to 257:

Page 32, line 15, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).

Page 32, line 19, leave out ("a") and insert ("an unpaid").

Page 32, line 20, leave out ("without any additional remuneration").

Page 32, line 21, at end insert— ("() For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the unpaid members of any body are those members of the body who do not receive any remuneration (whether from the body, the Authority or any other source) which they would not receive if they were not members of the body.").

Page 32, line 24, at end insert— ("() In section 2 of that Act, so far as it has effect for the purposes of section 1 of that Act, the expression "the statutory chief officers" shall be taken to include a reference to the chief finance officer, within the meaning of section 113 below,—

1. (a) of Transport for London, and
2. (b) of the London Development Agency,

whether he is an officer, employee, member of staff or member of Transport for London or, as the case may be, the London Development Agency.").

Page 32, line 24, at end insert— ("() In the application of section 2 of that Act in relation to the London Development Agency by virtue of subsections (1) and (2)(bb) above, any reference to the person designated under section 4 of that Act as its head of paid service shall be taken as a reference to the chief executive of the London Development Agency appointed under paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 59 [Terms and conditions of employment]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 258:

Page 32, line 42, after ("conditions") insert ("(.including conditions as to remuneration)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments have been tabled in response to your Lordships' concerns that it was not completely clear that when the Bill refers to terms and conditions they include remuneration. These amendments are intended to put the matter beyond doubt. I beg to move Amendment No. 258.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 259 and 260:

Page 33, line 13, at end insert— ("() The requirement of subsection (5)(b) above is that the person 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 first asked at the meeting.").

Page 33, line 18, at end insert— ("() In this section "working day" has the same meaning as in section 37 above.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 61 [Chief Administrative Officer (head of paid service)]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 261:

Page 33, line 29, at end insert— ("() The person who, by virtue of subsection (1) above, is designated under section 4(1)(a) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 as the head of the Authority's paid service must be a member of staff appointed under section 56(2) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 262 to 264:

Page 33, line 30, leave out subsection (2).

Page 33, line 33, leave out subsection (3).

Page 33, line 35, at end insert— ("(4) In the application of section 4 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in relation to the Authority by virtue of subsection (1) above, the following provisions shall have effect. (5) The duty imposed by subsection (1)(a) (appointment of head of paid service) shall be discharged by the Assembly after consultation with the Mayor. (6) The duty imposed by subsection (1)(b) (provision of staff, accommodation etc for the head of paid service)—

1. (a) so far as relating to the provision of staff, shall be discharged by the Assembly; and
2. (b) so far as relating to the provision of accommodation or other resources, shall be discharged by the Mayor.

(7) Any report prepared under subsection (2) (report by head of paid service) shall be a report to the Mayor and the Assembly. (8) The references to functions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) (matters concerning which proposals may be made in a report under subsection (2)) shall be taken as references to the functions of the Authority, whether exercisable by the Mayor, the Assembly, or the Mayor and Assembly acting jointly. (9) It shall be the duty of the Mayor personally to consider any report to the Mayor and Assembly under subsection (2). (10) The meeting required by subsection (5) to be held to consider any such report shall be a meeting of the Assembly which must not be held until—

1. (a) the Mayor has submitted to the Chair of the Assembly a written statement of his views on the report; or
2. (b) the period of one month has elapsed since copies of the report were first sent to members of the Assembly without the Mayor having submitted any such statement;

and the reference in that subsection to section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (delegation) shall be taken as a reference to section 46 above. (11) In considering any such report at any such meeting, the Assembly shall take account of any views on the report which have been expressed by the Mayor in a statement submitted under subsection (10)(a) above.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 62 [Monitoring officer]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 265:

Page 33, line 42, at end insert— ("() The person who, by virtue of subsection (1) above, is designated under section 5(1)(a) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 as the Authority's monitoring officer must be a member of staff appointed under section 56(2) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 266:

Page 34, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) In the application of section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in relation to the Authority by virtue of subsection (1) above, the following provisions shall have effect. (3) The duty imposed by subsection (1)(a) (appointment of monitoring officer) shall be discharged by the Assembly after consultation with the Mayor. (4) The duty imposed by subsection (1)(b) (provision of staff, accommodation etc for the monitoring officer)—

1. (a) so far as relating to the provision of staff, shall be discharged by the Assembly; and
2. (b) so far as relating to the provision of accommodation or other resources, shall be discharged by the Mayor.

(5) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted— (2) It shall be the duty of the Greater London Authority's monitoring officer, if at any time it appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission of a GLA body or person has given rise to, or is likely to or would give rise to—

1. (a) a contravention by that or any other GLA body or person of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment, or
2. (b) any such maladministration or injustice as is mentioned in Part III of the Local Government Act 1974 (Local Commissioners),

to prepare a report to the Mayor and the Assembly with respect to that proposal, decision or omission. In this subsection "GLA body or person" means—

1. (a) the Greater London Authority;
2. (b) Transport for London, when exercising any function of the Greater London Authority by virtue of section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;
3. (c) the London Development Agency, when exercising any function of the Greater London Authority by virtue of section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;
4. (d) the Mayor of London;
5. (e) the London Assembly;
6. (f) any committee or sub-committee of the London Assembly;
627
7. (g) any committee or sub-committee of Transport for London or the London Development Agency, when exercising any function of the Greater London Authority in consequence of an authorisation under section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;
8. (h) any joint committee to which the Mayor of London has power to appoint members (whether or not the power is the subject of an authorisation under section 31(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999);
9. (j) the Deputy Mayor of London;
10. (k) any member of the London Assembly;
11. (l) any member of staff of the Greater London Authority;
12. (m) any member, or member of staff, of Transport for London or the London Development Agency, when exercising, or acting in the exercise of, any function of the Greater London Authority in consequence of an authorisation under section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;

and in the above definition of "GLA body or person" any reference to a member of staff of a body includes a reference to an officer or employee of that body. (6) The duties imposed on the Authority by subsection (5) (to consider any report and to ensure that during the period of suspension no step is taken for giving effect to any proposal or decision to which the report relates)—

1. (a) so far as relating to a proposal, decision or omission of a GLA body or person in the case of a function of the Authority exercisable by the Mayor (or, by virtue of an authorisation under section 31(1) above, by a GLA body or person), shall be discharged by the Mayor;
2. (b) so far as relating to a proposal, decision or omission of a GLA body or person in the case of a function of the Authority exercisable by the Assembly (or, by virtue of arrangements under section 46 above, by a GLA body or person), shall be discharged by the Assembly; and
3. (c) so far as relating to a proposal, decision or omission of a GLA body or person in the case of a function of the Authority exercisable by the Mayor and the Assembly acting jointly, shall be discharged separately—
1. (i) by the Mayor, as if the case fell within paragraph (a) above, and
2. (ii) by the Assembly, as if the case fell within paragraph (b) above.

(7) Accordingly—

1. (a) in its application in relation to the Mayor by virtue of subsection (6)(a) or (c)(i) above, paragraph (a) of subsection (5) shall have effect with the substitution for the words "at a meeting held not more than" of "within"; and
2. (b) in the application of that paragraph by virtue of subsection (6)(b) or (c)(ii) above, the meeting required to be held shall be a meeting of the Assembly.

(8) in paragraph (b) of subsection (5), the reference to section 115 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (duties in respect of conduct involving contraventions of financial obligations) shall include a reference to section 115A of that Act (which is inserted by section 117(9) below and makes provision in relation to the Mayor and the Assembly). (9) Where by virtue of subsection (6) above the Mayor or the Assembly is under a duty to consider a report, the Mayor or the Assembly in discharging that duty shall take account of any views on the report which have been expressed by the other of them in a statement submitted—

1. (a) by the Assembly to the Mayor; or
2. (b) by the Mayor to the Chair of the Assembly.

(10) Standing orders of the Authority shall make pro vision for or in connection with—

1. (a) the period within which any statement by virtue of subsection (9) above must be submitted;
2. (b) the consideration of any such statement by the Mayor or, as the case may be, the Assembly;
3. (c) the period within which any meeting of the Assembly required by subsection (5) by virtue of subsection (6)(b) or (c)(ii) above must, or must not, be held.

(11) Neither section 31 above nor section 46 above shall apply in relation to the duty imposed on the Mayor or the Assembly by virtue of subsection (6) above to consider a report.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 267: After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—