Lords Sitting of 21 October 1999

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by Lord Bishop of Lichfield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Viscount Hood Viscount Hood—Took the Oath.

North American Free Trade Agreement
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any prospect of the United Kingdom being admitted to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the prospects of the United Kingdom being admitted to the North American Free Trade Agreement are nonexistent. The United Kingdom is a committed member of the European Union. American foreign policy has, in recent years, consistently encouraged the UK to play a full role in a strong Europe, and the UK Government have no intention now, or in the future, of applying to be admitted to NAFTA.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I ask the Minister to take the point a little further. If the North American Free Trade Agreement were genuinely to stretch its reach to outside the American continent, could it in fact play any part in promoting international free trade in any sense other than that already performed by the World Trade Organisation? Is it correct to say that membership of NAFTA by this country would be totally contrary to our membership of the EU because it would permit duty-free entry of goods from the United States, Canada and Mexico into this country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is quite clear that, under Article 10, membership of NAFTA would not be compatible with our membership of the EU. More important, it appears to make no economic sense whatever, in that 52 per cent of our trade in goods and services is with the EU, and—I believe—18 per cent is with NAFTA. In fact, our trade with Sweden exceeds the total of our trade with Canada and Mexico put together. Eight of our top 10 trade partners are in Europe. On that basis, it would not seem to me to make commercial sense.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the increasing enthusiasm in certain parts of the Conservative Party for a link-up with NAFTA is yet another indication that their strident campaign against the euro is taking them ever closer to rejecting the European Union altogether? Would it not be wise for the Government, in turn, to be somewhat more relaxed
1286
in their attitude towards the euro; to recognise that it is part of the central project of the European Union; and should they not be a little more bold in expressing, at least in principle, the view that the euro would be good for Britain?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question of what the policy of the Conservative Party now is on that issue is obviously very real. It seems to be moving towards rejecting the European Union in its totality. I merely point out what has been said by Malcolm Rifkind, John Major, and the right honourable Member for Henley, Mr Heseltine. Perhaps I may read out their comments. John Major said recently:
"They were trying to create a certain sense in which there will then one day be no choice but to decide whether we stay in or leave. This is politically crazy. I also think it is economically crazy".
I shall quote what Malcolm Rifkind said. I suppose that this is also to be air blown out of the records. He said that Conservative policy is
"a call which is little more than an euphemism for us to quit Europe".
Now perhaps I may quote the right honourable Member for Henley—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord and remind him that, as a Minister, he is responsible for answering questions addressed to the Government about government policy, and not for speculating about the policy of other parties?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in that totally disappointing and inaccurate answer, the Minister did not even respond to the fairly erroneous comments of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. Surely the Government must agree that global free trade by the year 2020 should be a vision that we, in all parts of this House, set for the world? If he agrees, surely he should further agree that free trade between Europe and America is an important first step towards realising that vision? Therefore, why does he reject an alliance between the European Union and NAFTA, one of our most significant trading partners, as an important symbol of that free trade commitment?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree that global free trade is our aim. That is why the UK is working with the EU towards implementation of the transatlantic economic partnership with the US, the EU-Canada Trade Initiative and the EU-Mexico Free Trade Agreement. We are working towards exactly those goals stated by the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not abundantly plain that being admitted to NAFTA is quite different from working co-operatively with the member states of NAFTA, which, as I understand it—and perhaps the Minister will confirm—we have done successfully

1287
since the Labour Government were elected in 1997? Indeed, we continue to work successfully with them. Is it not also a fact that many of our main industrial companies work most co-operatively in mergers, combinations, or alliances with companies operating within the European Union area? Why should we begin to damage that prospect by reason of the internal arguments which seem to be absorbing the Tory Party at the present time?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I entirely take the point that there is a great difference between extending free trade with free trade agreements to the countries of NAFTA, and the point of the original Question, which was about joining NAFTA. Clearly we could do that only if we ceased to be a member of the European Union.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is it not right that ever since the start of the Common Market, the United States, in spite of tariff barriers, and because of its lean economy, has managed to increase its exports to Europe, and that in fact since 1990, the US has increased its exports to Europe much faster than we in Britain have increased our own exports? Does that not tend to show that it is not necessary for success in world markets to be a member of an organisation like the European Union, least of all an organisation which seems to believe in high taxes, high regulation, and bureaucracy? What is really important is to have an efficient economy ourselves as free from regulation as possible.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly in all matters of trade the efficiency of one's economy and how well one increases productivity are major factors in whether or not one increases trade. I do not believe that that in any way alters the need for free trade areas or the benefits of the EU.

Third Party Liability Insurance: Businesses
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarretasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it should be a requirement for companies, small businesses and self-employed persons to have compulsory third party insurance against personal injury caused by negligence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, many third party liabilities of this kind are already covered through compulsory employers' liability insurance, compulsory motor insurance, licensing requirements, or, indeed, as a condition of membership of a trade association. Therefore, very persuasive arguments would be needed to justify the introduction of a general requirement for businesses to have third party liability insurance. Such a requirement is unlikely to be
1288
warranted by problems which may exist in particular sectors. The burden of complying with such a regulation would be particularly difficult for small businesses.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, which surprises me a little. Is the noble Lord aware that there are many people —particularly those who are self-employed, such as electricians—who unfortunately can and do fail to carry out work properly? That can lead to serious consequences for the person for whom they are working. If those people are not insured against negligence, there is no possible way in which damages can be claimed. I happen to know that that has happened. Will the noble Lord offer me advice?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord's question covers a number of different situations. It is true, for example, that it would be difficult to claim insurance on a property if there were no form of insurance covering that property and if a sub-contractor or a self-employed person working on the property did not have insurance. Nevertheless, if one is concerned about such a situation it should be remembered that in many cases a requirement of membership of or registration with a trade association is that the member firm must protect itself one way or the other against such liabilities. On the other side of the equation, in many sectors the cost of general third party liability insurance would be a great deterrent to the setting up of small firms.
Lord Renton: My Lords, even if third party compulsory insurance is not feasible, surely the Government should do what they can in the interests of employees to have as much third party insurance as possible on a voluntary basis?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree. Indeed, in those sectors where it is a particular problem—for example, the construction sector—we are very much behind moves to establish that on a voluntary basis among small contractor firms.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, is it not the case that a large number of small businesses carry what are called "traders' policies"? Those not only cover stock and disruption to trading in case of fire, but also third party liability, including negligence, and also the no less important risk of product liability?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, that is true in many circumstances. As I said earlier, in some circumstances that is a condition of membership of the appropriate trade association. Therefore, in many cases there will be cover.

Beef on the Bone
3.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderleyasked. Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is the advice of the Chief Medical Officer that beef on the bone is safe to eat and, if so, whether they will allow it to be offered for sale in England.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, Professor Donaldson's advice, which the Government have already published, is that the ban can now be lifted, although it would be prudent to retain it for manufacturing uses as a precaution. We consider that it would be preferable for consumers and for the beef industry to lift the ban at the same time in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that sad and most disturbing reply which further depresses the very demoralised industry of agriculture. Will she say why we have to wait until the rest of the United Kingdom falls into line? Does not the Welsh Assembly seem to be undisciplined on this matter rather as, perhaps, your Lordships were on the first Question this afternoon?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that it will not be depressing for the industry. We believe that it is in the industry's best interests that we take a United Kingdom view. Further scientific evidence is scheduled for November. Provided that that evidence and the medical advice are favourable, it will be the Government's clear and firm intention, and the clear and firm intention of the First Minister in Scotland and the First Secretary in Wales, to lift the ban throughout the United Kingdom.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does not the fact that we still have the ban on beef on the bone look suspiciously as though we are worried about the state of beef, thereby giving ammunition to the French in banning our beef?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not agree. I believe it is absolutely clear that it is because we have had the highest standards, based on an extremely precautionary approach, that we have been able to persuade the European Commission that our beef is safe for export. The beef which would be exported under the date-based export scheme has no link to the beef on the bone issue. That beef has to be deboned; it has to come from animals under 30 months of age which were born after 1996; and it has to come from dedicated plants. That presents a separate issue, and one which we need to pursue, but I do not believe it is related to this particular one.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in asking a supplementary question I must declare an interest, having been a member of the Southwood working
1290
party which reported to the Government on BSE in 1989. Will the Minister agree that for a time it was a wise precaution to ban beef on the bone because of the possibility that the bone might have been contaminated by spinal cord tissue and posterior root ganglia? However, in the light of all the precautions that have been taken over the past 18 months or so, is it not now evident that the risk of eating beef on the bone is so minuscule that the ban should be lifted? Will the noble Baroness press her colleagues in Scotland and in Wales to lift it as soon as possible in the light of the CMO's advice?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, are very wise. The spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee suggested that it was a sound precaution to take. The Government imposed the beef bone regulations because of that advice. We have received advice from Professor Donaldson that the risk in lifting the ban on the retail sale of beef on the bone would now be so low as not to be significant in any quantifiable way. We hope to be able to proceed on that advice. The chief medical officers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland want a little longer to consider the data which will be available from the Oxford epidemiological group in November. We believe that it is sensible and prudent to give them those few weeks to see if we can go forward on a United Kingdom basis.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, is it not a slightly farcical situation when the Chief Medical Officer for England, who has overall responsibility for health in the United Kingdom, says that beef on the bone is fit and all right for us to eat, but two of the assemblies among Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—which were elected on the basis that they would allow beef on the bone to be eaten as soon as they were elected to power—now prevent those in England who want to eat beef on the bone from doing so? How are we to resolve those sorts of questions in the future?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not answer from this Dispatch Box for the policies of either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. The Chief Medical Officer advises the United Kingdom Government as a whole but legislative competence and policy in food safety is the remit of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, advised by their own CMOs. Obviously, it is preferable if we can go forward on a United Kingdom basis. I return to that point. We are all working together and hoping to achieve that.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am absolutely certain that the Minister understands the difficulties that arise from different chief medical officers having different opinions. Does the Minister agree that if we embark upon a policy that responds in a piecemeal manner and which is somewhat divisive, that would make a difficult situation much worse and would not achieve anything? Secondly, how long does the Minister believe it will take before the chief medical officers present a united front? How quickly can we

1291
respond and lift the ban when the other chief medical officers come into line with the English Chief Medical Officer?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, consumers would experience real difficulties were there to be different regimes in different parts of the United Kingdom. For that reason we believe it is preferable to go forward in a united manner. We hope that when the new data are published in November the chief medical officers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be reassured and will take the same view as Professor Donaldson. Then we shall be able to move speedily to lift the ban on retail sales.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I want to press the Minister. Is the Chief Medical Officer responsible for the whole of the United Kingdom, or does he have to go along with his subordinates in Scotland and Wales? Secondly, does the Minister realise the difficulties caused by the delay? We have no idea when the ban will be lifted, although the suggestion is that it should happen in November. Does she not accept that in the meantime many farmers are going to the wall? In this country farming is in crisis and this Government are doing nothing urgently to help.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I take issue with the noble Baroness about this Government doing nothing to help farmers. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture announced a substantial package of aid to farming industries whose difficulties I would not underestimate.
A Noble Lord: My Lords, it was only £1 million.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it was not only £1 million, but £150 million as well as the compensatory money.
The noble Baroness asked about the position of the Chief Medical Officer. He is the adviser to the United Kingdom Government. It is absolutely plain that in the past food safety policy has been the remit of Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers and it has been possible for them to take different advice from different CMOs. In November we expect additional evidence on which we hope that the CMOs of the other countries will be able to advise their chief Ministers to lift the ban. Then we can move speedily to lift the ban.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is not the purpose of devolution that each country should have responsibility for looking after its own affairs? That being so, why should England, and English farmers, have to depend upon the decisions of Scottish and Welsh Ministers?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, they do not have to depend on the decisions of Scottish and Welsh Ministers. However, in this case it is sensible to act on a United Kingdom basis. I give an analogy. It would
1292
dhave been possible to set up separate food standards agencies in each of the four countries. Because of issues of food safety and food standards, the decision has been taken that it is sensible not to have different regimes in different countries and for us to act in a concerted, United Kingdom fashion. That is what we want to do in this respect. The law says that it is possible to act in a different way. The views of the First Minister of Scotland, the First Secretary in Wales and the United Kingdom Government are that it would be preferable—I say that seriously—for the industry to move on a United Kingdom basis.

China: Falun Gong
3.23 p.m.
Lord Moyneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make representations to the Government of China about the treatment of adherents of Falun Gong.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government expressed their disappointment to the Chinese Government at the banning of the Falun Gong organisation on 22nd July and supported an EU Presidency démarche in Peking on 29th July to the Chinese Government. We also referred to the issue at the recent round of High Level Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue between 13th and 15th September.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that satisfactory reply. I am glad that the Government of this country are aware of this shocking situation. Tens of thousands of people are under arrest, including old ladies up to 83 years of age. Many are tortured with electric shocks. One woman died on the 7th of this month after 10 days of continuous beatings. People have been sacked from their jobs, expelled from universities and driven into exile. The matter should not be allowed to pass without comment and I am glad that the Government are not doing so.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure your Lordships, and particularly the noble Lord, that the Government take very seriously indeed the human rights issues inherent in the expression of religious commitments. It is a matter that the Government have pursued with some vigour since coming into office in 1997. We have sought bilateral dialogue with China in order to address that matter vigorously.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the actions that the Government have taken already. Will she agree that Falun Gong is an entirely peaceful belief system which encourages the highest standards of moral behaviour among its adherents and therefore there is no excuse whatsoever for the actions that the Chinese have taken against the millions of people who belong to that new religion?

1293
Apart from remonstrating with them, as the noble Baroness has said we have already done, will she see that the matter is taken up and investigated by the UN Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, M Abdelfattah Amor, and ask him to make a report urgently to the Human Rights Commission so that the commission can consider the Chinese action at its session next April?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made it clear in all their dialogues with the Chinese authorities that they see religious expression as a clear part of human rights. We make no comments on the merits or demerits of any particular religion. Religion is a matter for the individual. Her Majesty's Government have taken every opportunity to encourage the Chinese authorities to engage with the UN. The noble Lord will know that we have encouraged them to sign two conventions: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1997 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1998. Through bilateral dialogue we are also making efforts to make practical contributions to a change in the way in which China addresses the issue of human rights. We shall pursue that with vigour.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, how does the Government's repeated failure to co-sponsor the annual motion of the UN Human Rights Commission criticising China's human rights record demonstrate that Britain is prepared to take a firm and candid stance on such matters of human rights? Can the Minister say how the so-called ethical foreign policy of the Government has, over the past year, improved the human rights situation in China, given that only this week Amnesty International said that there has been a marked deterioration in respect of civil and political rights in China since the Prime Minister's visit a year ago?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can. Her Majesty's Government have a proud record in that regard. In 1997, when Her Majesty's Government came into office, we were instrumental in bringing about a change. Isolation bore no fruit prior to 1997. Since 1997, through the bilateral dialogue, we have engaged with the Chinese in a practical, constructive manner, which has borne fruit. Dialogue is the way forward. We have continued to challenge the Chinese Government at the highest level in relation to breaches of human rights that have been identified to us.
Today the Prime Minister spoke directly to the President of China about issues of human rights. Yesterday my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had a very robust discussion with the Foreign Minister detailing a number of specific issues upon which Her Majesty's Government were not content. We are not silent. We are doing an enormous amount to improve this dialogue. But constructive interaction is the way forward, not negative isolation which brings no fruit.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, will her Majesty's Government continue to make representations to the
1294
Government of China about the treatment of the adherents of the Dalai Lama in Tibet? I ask that as patron of the all-party Tibet Group. As the noble Baroness will know, the Dalai Lama is not seeking independence from China; he is seeking a form of autonomy. Since he believes in achieving his objectives by peaceful means, I hope he will have the support of our House.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said earlier, Her Majesty's Government emphasised the importance of religious freedom. The issue of Tibet and the Dalai Lama were raised yesterday by the Foreign Secretary with the Foreign Minister. It is an issue upon which we continue to place emphasis. The Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of a number of people. It is a matter that her Majesty's Government will not cease to highlight whenever it seems appropriate.

United Reformed Church Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Mitrokhin-related Matters
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on Mitrokhin and related matters. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the Mitrokhin archive and other related issues.
"On 13th September, when the House was in Recess, I issued a Written Statement concerning the activities of the KGB and its agents which had been brought to light by the Mitrokhin archive. A copy of this Statement has been placed in the Library.
"The archive material relates to activities spanning several decades from 1917 up to the mid 1980s. A book by Mr Mitrokhin and Professor Christopher Andrew drawing on the archive was published in September prompting extensive media coverage. This in turn raised questions about how the archive had been used.

1295
"In the light of these questions, I announced on 13th September, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, that the Intelligence and Security Committee had been asked to conduct an inquiry into the policies and procedures used by the intelligence and security agencies in the handling of the Mitrokhin material. I am very grateful to the right honourable Member for Bridgwater, the chairman of the committee, and his colleagues for taking on this work. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I will carefully consider the committee's report and ensure that as much as possible of it is made public. It may, however, be helpful to the House if I set out today some of the essential background.
"Vasili Mitrokhin worked for almost 30 years in the foreign intelligence archives of the KGB, where, at great risk to himself, he made notes of the contents of the highly secret files which passed through his hands. Over many years, he assembled a huge collection of material, some in manuscript, some typed.
"In 1992, after Mr Mitrokhin approached the UK for help, the Secret Intelligence Service made arrangements to bring Mr Mitrokhin and his family to this country, together with his archive.
"As there were no original KGB documents or copies of original documents, the material itself was of no direct evidential value. But it was of huge value for intelligence and investigative purposes.
"Thousands of leads from Mr Mitrokhin's material have been followed up world-wide. As a result, our intelligence and security agencies, in cooperation with allied governments, have been able to put a stop to many security threats. Many unsolved investigations have been closed; many earlier suspicions confirmed; some names and reputations have been cleared.
"Our intelligence and security agencies have assessed the value of Mr Mitrokhin's material world-wide as immense.
"Much of the media coverage in September concerned Mrs Melita Norwood. My Statement of 13th September summarised the history of the Security Service's knowledge of Mrs Norwood spanning over half a century, and the decisions that were taken in her case. The handling of her case will plainly form part of the inquiry that is now under way by the Intelligence and Security Committee. For the convenience of the House, however, I will briefly summarise what I spelt out in September.
"Mrs Norwood was first vetted for access to government secrets in 1945 when she worked for the British Non-Ferrous Metal Research Association. Although there were concerns about her in 1945, there were insufficient grounds at that time to warrant withholding her clearance for access to sensitive documents. Further investigation, however, led to her vetting clearance being revoked in 1951. She had not in practice had authorised access to government secrets after 1949.
1296
"An extensive investigation of Mrs Norwood in the 1960s led the Security Service to conclude that Mrs Norwood had been a spy in the 1940s. But the service also concluded that there was no usable evidence which could be used in court to support a prosecution
"When Mr Mitroklin's notes of the KGB archive material became available to British intelligence in 1992, those notes further confirmed the suspicions already held about Mrs Norwood's role as a spy. However, the Security Service again concluded that this material did not on its own constitute evidence which could be put to a UK court. Moreover, a judgment was made at that time that material needed to remain secret for a period. There were many leads to more recent espionage to be followed up, particularly in the countries of a number of our close allies, which could be jeopardised by premature disclosure. In summary, the key decisions in this case were made in 1945, in 1951, in 1966 and in 1992–93.
"Questions on prosecutions for espionage or for any other alleged crime are a matter for the prosecuting authorities and the law officers, not for the Home Secretary of the day.
"As I made clear in my 13th September Statement, the papers relating to Mrs Norwood were submitted to the Attorney-General in the spring of this year. But he concluded that 1992 had represented the last opportunity for the authorities to proceed by way of a criminal investigation/possible prosecution, and that there was therefore no decision for him to take. I can, however, tell the House that, in the light of Mrs Norwood's recent statements, the papers in this case are currently being studied again by the prosecuting authorities. I understand that four other cases covering the Mitrokhin archive and other related matters are also being considered.
"Let me now turn to the decision which was taken to make publicly available information from the Mitrokhin archive. Although the material has been in the custody of the Secret Intelligence Service since 1992, it was and remains the property of Mr Mitrokhin. It was always his intention that the material should be published but Mr Mitrokhin agreed to co-operate with the major operation by the security and intelligence agencies, which I have outlined, to use the information first for investigative purposes.
"I understand that by 1996 investigations in the UK and elsewhere had reached a stage where it was possible to agree to start the process to meet Mr Mitrokhin's wish to see the story revealed. Given the nature of his notes, it was concluded that this could best be done through an historical analysis.
"In March 1996 the right honourable Sir Malcolm Rifkind QC, the then Foreign Secretary, agreed in principle that Professor Christopher Andrew of Cambridge University should be invited to coauthor, with Mr Mitrokhin, an historical study of

1297
those aspects of the archive which cover KGB activities against the principal Western states. I understand that Sir Malcolm agreed with the recommendation that an inter-departmental committee of officials should consider whether any of the information in the material needed to be withheld from publication. I also understand that Sir Malcolm imposed a condition that any allegations of criminal behaviour against individual persons should not be made public unless those individuals agreed or they had been prosecuted and convicted.
"This Government were informed in late 1997 of the plan to publish the archive, and concurred. In 1998 the Secret Intelligence Service entered into confidentiality agreements with Professor Andrew and the publishers, Penguin. These were intended to ensure that still sensitive material was not published.
"In the interests of national security, the Security Service has over the years carried out many investigations into allegations of espionage based on intelligence which it has acquired. But allegations or even good intelligence are not proof of criminal activity. They are instead the basis for investigative work designed to prevent further damage to the interests of the country. They may in turn help in the end unearth evidence solid enough to put before a court.
"The publication of news articles and television programmes about the Mitrokhin archive and East German Stasi records has led some people to ask that the Government should publish a list of all those against whom allegations of spying and complicity with the KGB and Stasi have been made. There are, however, compelling arguments against doing so which have been accepted by successive Governments.
"First, it would be wrong to compromise the effectiveness of the intelligence and security agencies by revealing the cases on which they may be working. Above and beyond that consideration, it is a long established rule of law that people are innocent until convicted in a court of law. We must not slide into trial by denunciation.
"The Mitrokhin archive has raised some important issues which we are pursuing through an inquiry by the ISC and we wait for its report to see what lessons can be learned. That must not obscure the important value of Mr Mitrokhin's work to this country and to our allies. His archive is a unique testimony to a brave individual who worked alone against tyranny. It is also a reminder, if one were needed, of the continuing value of the work of our security and intelligence services".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the consequences of the traitorous actions described in the Mitrokhin archive were exceptionally damaging to this country and to some individuals and were, of course, designed to be absolutely catastrophic. The whole House will be appalled by the behaviour of the spies, which has been
1298
revealed by the archive. But, equally, the whole House will endorse the Home Secretary's commendation of the bravery of Mr Mitrokhin and also his praise for the security and intelligence services. We also look forward to reading the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on this matter.
I note that the Statement said that the archive did not contain original evidence and so was itself of no direct evidential value. No doubt this influenced the decisions of the Security Service about prosecutions in 1992. However, in the past few weeks there have been some confessions which obviously affect the considerations of possible prosecutions. I am glad that prosecution is being reconsidered. If I may express a personal view, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the new Attorney-General will find it legally possible to approve prosecutions following the confessions. But I do not ask for a comment on that this afternoon from the Home Office. My only regret is that a punishment of banishment to the former Soviet Union will not, in any case, be available to the courts.
Can the Minister confirm that the length of time since the crimes and the age of those concerned will not be limiting factors, particularly in the light of the recent World War II prosecution, which was also for very serious crimes, and, for that matter, the treatment of Senator Pinochet? Can the noble Lord tell the House whether the conditions on publication, which were laid down by the right honourable Sir Malcolm Rifkind—that no allegations of criminal behaviour should be made public unless either the individuals had been convicted, or they had agreed—have been adhered to? If so, how has it come about that some individuals were featured in television programmes and in newspaper articles at the time of publication last month? This has been a most serious affair. We look forward to seeing the committee's report on the details of how it has evolved over a long period of years.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it may be slightly mind-boggling to read that these documents cover the period from 1917 to the 1980s. Therefore, this is one of those rare occasions that allows me to say that these Benches take ministerial responsibility, as do the Opposition and the Government. We also endorse what the Minister said about the continuing value of the work of our security and intelligence services. But that should not make us hold those services in awe. I think that our first base should be that we want security services which catch spies when they are active and alive, not when they are dead or old.
In many ways, the areas covered here belong to another world. I was international secretary of the Labour Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I fully believe that I must have talked to the KGB, the Stasi, MI6, the CIA, BOSS and MOSAD. It was a Cold War world. It is important to get into perspective the things that have changed since then. Indeed, if we go back to some of the hysteria of those days and some of the assumptions that were made by informed commentators—and we now look back with the

1299
information of hindsight—the TUC General Council actually comes out better than the University of Cambridge, if we are measuring patriotism.
When looking at such archives, it is also important to point out, as has been emphasised, that they are notes and jottings; they are not prime sources. It is important to bear that in mind when using words like "criminal" and "offences" as regards people who are named. It is also important to understand the difference between actions by Crown servants who have signed the Official Secrets Act and individual citizens who may be opinionated and freely give their opinions hither and thither but who, in fact, have no disposable secrets to give.
The cases revealed fall into both those categories. In the case of the Crown servants, one has to ask whether a prosecution would succeed on this evidence and whether such prosecutions would be in the public interest. I freely admit—and these Benches admit it—that this is a judgment call. If the Cold War were still at its height, one might say, "prosecute"; but it is over and won. We are dealing with events which took place a long time ago. The following words come to mind:
"Let the dead Past bury its dead!"
So what about the future? Treason is still treason and it is important that we have efficient, effective and accountable security forces. But we must face the fact that if we look at "efficient, effective and accountable" in terms of our security forces, we cannot give them 100 per cent on any of those categories over the period of consideration.
There is still genuine concern about political and parliamentary control of our security forces. As regards the case at hand, from 1992 to 1997 the security forces in many ways acted as judge and jury in terms of what they should reveal, when they should reveal it and to whom they should reveal it. Too often in the past, the security forces have chosen to reveal not to political masters, but to Chapman Pincher, Rupert Allason or Brian Crozier.
We believe that the key is accountability. I must say that in my experience Prime Ministers, Home Secretaries and Foreign Secretaries sometimes get sucked into the security services' "club". The security services committee was always seen as a halfway house. I realise this question is premature but we shall continue to ask it. What is the Government's response to the suggestion of the Home Affairs Select Committee that the security services should now be fully accountable to Parliament? In the mean time, what measures will be put in place to ensure that the ISC is fully informed? It is extremely worrying, and indeed extraordinary, that Mr Tom King and his committee were kept totally ignorant of these matters over the long period that they were in the hands of the security forces.
What is the Government's response to the suggestion made by my colleague Simon Hughes in another place that prosecution of present and former spies should not be the accountable prerogative of security services' officers or Ministers of the day but
1300
should be done on the advice of some special counsel who would be independent of both political pressures and security service influence? There is schizophrenia as regards spies. Mata Hari and the life of Riley, James Bond and Smiley's People all convey glamour and entertainment. Whenever these matters come before Parliament, there is a retreat on the part of politicians because the security services marshal their considerable skills to imply that anyone who questions them is somehow being unpatriotic.
We on these Benches believe that our security services have an important job to perform. Rogue states, drugs, organised crime and international terrorism should all be on their agenda. However, I repeat that to combat those threats we need effective, efficient and accountable security services. We on these Benches believe that if we obtain parliamentary accountability in this regard, effectiveness and efficiency will flow from that.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government are most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord McNally, for their confident support of our security forces and security agencies and for their continued commitment to support the national interest through the national security services. There are, of course, many important questions relating to accountability on which many Members of your Lordships' House will no doubt have different and differing views. That is, of course, an important area of public debate.
I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised by your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the length of time since crimes occurred and whether the age of those concerned might be a limiting factor. Of course that is an important consideration, but we take the view that whether or not anyone faces prosecution is very much a matter for the prosecuting authorities. It is a matter of public record that those authorities take into account the strength of evidence and the public interest; those must be paramount. Age may, no doubt, enter into the equation, but it can be only a part of that consideration. It must not be the determining factor. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked whether the conditions of publication had been properly adhered to. So far as I am aware, the conditions of publication have been properly adhered to and that must continue to be the case. I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking that question.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked a couple of questions about the role of the Home Affairs Select Committee and its views, and about the role to be played by the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is the Government's intention that we co-operate fully with the Intelligence and Security Committee, but we cannot anticipate the committee's conclusions or commit ourselves now to accepting all of its conclusions. We expect that the committee's investigation will be a thorough one; we should expect no less. We shall look carefully at the committee's findings and at the recommendations that it makes.

1301
There may well be lessons to be learnt for the future. We look forward to the contribution which the ISC is able to make in this process. We recognise that there is a debate to be had as regards the ISC's conclusions, our view and the views of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
We hold strongly to the view that no one should be judged as guilty without full evidence being made available. It is entirely a matter for the prosecuting authorities as to who should be prosecuted, where and when. I stick firmly by the point that we must not have trial by denunciation. I believe that to be utterly wrong. The previous government held that to be an important principle, as do Her Majesty's Government today. We need to proceed with great care when following up revelations.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I ask about the trial by denunciation dimension. As I am sure everyone will accept, this is not the first time that selective leaks to by and large Right-wing newspapers by government—as happened in the Gordievsky affair and now—have named a number of people who are thought to have been involved in matters but against whom a prosecution has not been brought. A number of these are my friends and colleagues. I declare an interest. As a professional in a policy studies institute in the 1980s I was involved in conversations with Russians. I recall a Sunday Telegraph half-page article which suggested that the then Christopher Tugendhat and I were dangerously close to being agents of influence in going to meet Yakoulev and Primakov in Moscow.
We have to be concerned about the relationship between the security services and newspapers of a conspiratorial bent. Nowadays The Times and the Telegraph see conspiracy as often in Brussels as in Moscow, but I refer to allowing the security services to give lists of names, many of whom are professionals who have to be engaged—as are all professionals in international relations—in discussions with governments of whom we do not in arty sense approve and with experts working with those governments whom we often suspect of being engaged in intelligence activities. Can we have an assurance that part of the role of the inquiry will be to ensure that the relationship between the security services and such newspapers will be properly investigated in future because a great deal of damage has been done to innocent people, not just on this occasion but even more in the Gordievsky affair and on earlier occasions?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I join other Members of your Lordships' House in repudiating trial by denunciation. I think that it is quite wrong and I have made that clear. The Government hold firmly to that view. Of course, it must be for the ISC to draw its own conclusions. Those conclusions will be shaped and framed by input from Members in another place and no doubt from Members of your Lordships' House and from elsewhere. Clearly, the committee will
1302
draw on a wide range of material in coming to its conclusions and its views with regard to these matters. It must be unfettered in that exercise. It will then quite properly be for the Government to consider our response. Clearly, accountability is an important issue. We shall have to consider those matters carefully. I can say no more than that on that point.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, is the Mitrokhin/Andrew book the only material to be considered by the Intelligence and Security Committee? Will the Minister ensure that that is made freely available in the Library in order that we may read it? I am particularly interested in the Agee and Hosenbal case, for which I was responsible when I was the Home Secretary. It was the first matter to appear on my desk on the day I took up my appointment. Parliament was heavily involved in that material. I am advised that the Agee and Hosenbal case is dealt with in this book—or at least in the material. The case was discussed in Parliament and the material should now be made freely available.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I return to the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. With the agreement of the Prime Minister, he announced on 13th September that the Intelligence and Security Committee was to be asked to conduct an inquiry into the policies and procedures used by the intelligence and security agencies in the handling of the Mitrokhin material. That provides sufficient scope for a wide-ranging consideration of all the issues the noble Lord raised in his earlier comments.
As to The Mitrokhin Archive, I can reveal—it is no great secret—that I have a copy. It consists of 1,000 pages and there are but six references in it to Meli
ta Norwood. In my humble opinion, it is not the best of bedtime reading. I would far prefer to cuddle up in bed with a cup of cocoa and a Ruth Rendell. The Mitrokhin Archive is not at the top of my Christmas book list.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wish to make three points. First, I have the impression from the Statement—I was very pleased to hear it—that there had been perfectly accountable behaviour by both services in terms of keeping the relevant Ministers informed. Secondly—I think that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will agree—it is not very likely that Mitrokhin would have come to us, as Penkovsky did at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, if he had not felt that he would be given total protection and total secrecy. That is where, unfortunately, the need for professional services comes in. It has nothing to do with the honour and integrity of members of Select Committees; it is to do with training and the t rust that needs to exist in the mind of a potential source who is about to risk his life. That is one reason why I fear it will always be difficult to be very much more open than the services are at present.
That said, I greatly welcome the existence of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It seems to be doing an admirable job. I am sure it will properly

1303
investigate whatever needs to be investigated. However, we should remember that many of the unfortunate events of the past few weeks—and the events earlier which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally—were inspired by the media, not the services. Finally, we should remember, alas, that anything that is said in public in the House of Commons is as available to our enemies as to our friends. It is a hard fact.
Lord Bassam: My Lords, the noble Baroness speaks with great experience and wisdom. She spent her career dealing with these matters and she speaks with a great deal of sense.
The noble Baroness is quite right to say that we must treat Mr Mitrokhin with care. We should be very grateful to him for the work that he carried out. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said, he was very brave and we owe him a great deal. The noble Baroness is also right that anything we say in public may well be used by our enemies elsewhere. We need to be careful and mindful of that.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I listened to it with great interest. I thought it curious that the original Mitrokhin archive appears to remain the private property of Mr Mitrokhin. A number of questions arise from that, although I readily accept that the Minister may not be able to answer them directly.
First, what other resources of the secret services are effectively the private property of individuals who are not under the control of the Official Secrets Act? Secondly, why did not the secret services simply buy the Mitrokhin archive from him, thereby ensuring that it was their property, to deal with as they saw fit? Thirdly, was the reason that the secret services did not have enough money to buy it? I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer my questions directly, but they should be considered.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord asked an interesting question and raised an interesting point. The fact remains, however, that the Mitrokhin archive is the Mitrokhin archive; it is his property. It is for Mr Mitrokhin to use or dispose of the Mitrokhin archive as he wishes. He created the archive; it his personal property. I can assure the noble Lord with honesty and integrity that, as far as I am aware, no other material has been made available to Mr Mitrokhin or Professor Andrew in the creation of the book.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord two questions. First, following on from what was said by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, both security organisations have had the habit of leaking information to a handful of journalists. This has gone on for many years. In many cases it has had a most destructive effect on relations with other organisations within the criminal justice area. Will the Minister draw the comments of my
1304
noble friend to the attention of the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee so that the matter can be looked into?
Secondly, it would be unwise for us to become involved in exposing particular individuals as alleged spies by name. Were we to do so, if criminal proceedings were to be considered it would be very difficult to ensure that relevant matters came before a court because of the amount of pre-trial damage which might be caused to an individual's reputation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is obviously very important. He is quite right; I agree completely with his comments. The noble Lord asked that I pass on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, to the ISC. Those comments are of course publicly recorded in Hansard and I am sure that he will not hesitate to draw them to the attention of the ISC. It would be quite in order and quite proper to do so. His comments were wisely made.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend disagree with one point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally; namely, that, because the ideological war against Soviet Communism is past and has been won, that in some way should be a significant point in determining against any prosecution? If there is usable evidence—whether it be from the archive or from admissions and confessions made by individuals subsequent to the publication of the archive—which reveals what may be very serious consequences following on betrayal, that should be a reason for prosecution rather than the opposite, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Lord Bassam: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his comments. However, I must decline to comment one way or the other on whether it is right or proper to prosecute. As I said, prosecutions are a matter for the prosecuting authorities. It is their responsibility alone. It cannot be for others to urge or encourage prosecutions. The prosecuting authorities are properly charged with that responsibility
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am provoked by some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to say a word on the question of the responsibility and supervision of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I have served on four Select Committees in the other place; I was intimately concerned with the legislation drawn up to establish the Intelligence and Security Committee; and I served on the committee for the whole of the last Parliament. I started out as something of a sceptic in regard to those arrangements. There are clear distinctions between the powers of a Select Committee and the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I should also like to say that, having served on that committee for some two-and-a-half years, I was totally converted to the powers and functions of that committee as it exists, and it was certainly my

1305
impression that that view was shared by every member of the committee. It comprised distinguished representatives of the Conservative Party who had served in the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign Office. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that the present membership of that committee is equally satisfied with its powers.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gilbert for that point. I can confirm that the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are entirely happy with their range of powers, duties and responsibilities in this matter. I thank my noble friend for his observations.
Lord McNally: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, the point that I made, and which was followed up by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, was not mine alone. The conclusion of the Home Affairs Select Committee is as follows,
"In our view, it is inevitable that the intelligence services will one day become accountable to Parliament. That is the logical outcome of the process of reform embarked upon by the previous Government".
We agree with that statement.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his further point. We are all familiar with that line of argument. It is an important part of the debate and we fully recognise that.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the House allow me to add that if that should ever come to pass, the Government would have a lovely, peaceful life because there would be no intelligence?

Greater London Authority Bill
4.11 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Schedule 16 [Hackney Carriages]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 475ZAA:
Page 267, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) Transport for London may send to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Commissioner of Police for the City of London—

(a) details of a person to whom Transport for London is considering granting a licence under this section, and

(b) a request for the Commissioner's observations; and the Commissioner shall respond to the request.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before I speak to the amendment, it may be appropriate for me to take this opportunity to respond to the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, at the start of business on Tuesday. He asked that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee should have an opportunity to consider the
1306
amendments which the Government have tabled on Report. It is my understanding that the committee met yesterday and concluded that there was no need to draw any of our amendments to the attention of the House. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, has written to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to confirm that. Further, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and his committee for the speed and efficiency with which they have addressed this matter. We all recognise that there was considerable pressure on the committee. I am also grateful that it has presented us with a clean bill of health.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to thank the Minister and in particular to thank my noble friend, Lord Alexander of Weedon for so rapidly casting his eyes and those of his committee over what was an immense volume of work. I was pleased to receive a note from my noble friend and I am equally grateful for the Minister's assurance. I am delighted that the matter has been cleared speedily and amiably.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I turn now to the amendment before us. Amendment No. 475ZAA is a simple but important safety provision. It provides for criminal record checks on would-be taxi drivers. It ensures in particular that. Transport for London can ask the police for a criminal record check; and it requires the police to make such a check.
There is nothing new in this. It is already the practice for checks to be made, in London and elsewhere, and understandably so. It is surely right that people with convictions for crimes of violence or for sexual offences should not be taxi drivers when vulnerable members of the public are travelling alone in their charge.
The London taxi trade is regulated by the Public Carriage Office, which at present is part of the Metropolitan Police. For that reason, a criminal record check is straightforward. In future, the Public Carriage Office will be part of Transport for London, and separate from the police. We therefore need legal provision for those new circumstances. This amendment provides that and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the amendment. Can he clarify one point? What will happen if the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police thinks it inappropriate for an applicant to be granted a licence? Does he rule that the licence will not be granted? I should be grateful to know the position on this matter.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the position will not change. The Public Carriage Office must take account of information received from the police. It will be a

1307
matter of judgment, but in normal circumstances, if a serious offence was involved, I am sure that the licence would not be issued.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, will the Minister clarify one point for me? What is the difference between a hackney carriage and a minicab?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, hackney carriages can ply for hire and are covered by all the regulations that apply to cabs that have been cleared to ply for hire; a minicab must be requested and cannot ply for hire on the street. It may also be of interest to the noble Viscount to know that minicab drivers are already covered by a provision to allow for criminal record checks.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 475A:
Before Clause 225, insert the following new clause—

PROVISION OF FACILITIES TO BENEFIT USERS OF WATERWAYS
(" . Transport for London may provide or secure the provision of such amenities and facilities as it considers would benefit persons using any waterway.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 475AA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 475A, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 475A agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 475B:
After Clause 225, insert the following new clause—

LANDING PLACES: TRANSFER OF CERTAIN RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a landing place was transferred to London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries on or after 31st March 1999 but before this section comes into force, or

(b) after this section comes into force a landing place is transferred to London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries pursuant to an agreement made on or after 31st March 1999 but before this section comes into force.

(2) In this section "qualifying landing place"—

(a) means a landing place transferred as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, and

(b) includes any property associated with the landing place and transferred with it.

(3) Any agreement—

(a) made between the transferor of a qualifying landing place and the owner of a vessel, or with a waterman in respect of a vessel not owned by him, and

(b) which concerns the use of the qualifying landing place by the vessel,

shall have effect on and after the relevant date in accordance with subsections (4) to (6) below.
(4) The agreement shall have effect as if—

(a) the transferee had been a party to the agreement instead of the transferor;

(b) for any reference to the transferor there were substituted a reference to the transferee;

(c) any reference to any officer or member of staff of the transferor were a reference to such person as the transferee may appoint or, in default of appointment, to the officer or member of staff of the transferee who most closely corresponds to the transferor's officer or member of staff;

and this subsection shall apply whether or not the agreement is capable of being assigned or transferred.
(5) An agreement shall only have effect in accordance with subsection (4) above—

(a) to the extent that the agreement concerns the use of the qualifying landing place by the vessel, and

(b) in relation to things falling to be done under the agreement on or after the relevant date.

(6) An agreement shall not have effect in accordance with subsection (4) above to the extent that the transferor and the transferee have made contrary provision.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
"landing place" means any waterside landing place, pier, jetty, pontoon or other similar installation;
"transferee", in relation to a qualifying landing place. means the body (being London Regional Transport or one of its subsidiaries) to which the landing place is or was transferred as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above;
"transferor", in relation to qualifying landing place, means the person by whom the landing place is or was transferred to a transferee as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above;
"relevant date", in the case of a qualifying landing place, means—

(a) the date when this section comes into force if on that date the landing place has been transferred to a transferee, or

(b) if the landing place has not been so transferred, the date when it is transferred to the transferee;

"waterman" means a person who navigates a vessel used for carrying passengers for reward.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is aware of concerns that have been expressed on behalf of those who provide tourist bus services on the river under contracts drawn up, I believe, with the PLA, which will run until 2002. The operators are concerned that under this new clause all the property will move to TfL. They do not know whether the ticketing kiosks form part of the jetties and quays, and so forth. The operators have used their own funds to provide those ticketing kiosks. Furthermore, they have wider concerns that in the future they will be dealing with an authority whose sole concern is that of public transport, whereas previously their Ministry, as it were, has been the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Different contractual arrangements apply between themselves and the PLA than are likely to obtain with TfL or its subsidiary—or whatever London River Services will be called when it becomes a subsidiary of TfL rather than, as it is now, a subsidiary of London Transport.

1309
I should like to put some questions to the Minister. First, has he consulted on this matter with Janet Anderson MP, who is the Minister responsible for this area at the DCMS? Secondly, how does he think such tourist services will be run, possibly in competition with public transport services, in the interim period between the creation of TfL and the possible—some seem to think inevitable—creation of a strategy for the River Thames? Once such a strategy is created, it will bear in mind the needs of tourists and the services for tourists provided on the river. The providers of tourism services fear that they will be put into direct competition with public service providers working off the same jetties and along the same routes and that they will therefore have their current contractual arrangements in effect spoilt.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of the general concern which the noble Baroness and her noble friend Lord Thurso have raised but I am not sure that I am able to give a reply to all of those details. I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no sinister purpose behind the clause. We are merely transferring from the PLA to London Transport, and thereafter to Transport for London, all the contractual and other liabilities associated with piers. That is common sense. The reason that some operators are concerned is that they are engaged in ongoing negotiations with the new pier owners, London River Services, itself a subsidiary of London Transport. Ongoing negotiations will, of course, continue. I have no wish to become involved in the details of those negotiations. Nothing changes in terms of the nature of those negotiations—simply the ownership of the infrastructure. I cannot answer the noble Baroness's specific point about infrastructure that has been separately provided. I am confident that the property and legal position will not change.
As far as concerns the broader point, the Government are supportive of the excellent strides that London River Services has made during the short period it has been in existence. We are fully supportive of its objectives, which include the tourism objective. My department has worked closely with the DCMS on this matter and will continue to do so. I therefore believe that it is an unfounded fear that the tourism dimension would disappear with these new arrangements. I undertake to write to the noble Baroness on her other points.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 227 [Designation of first GLA roads]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 476:
Page 125, line 34, at end insert—
("(4) No order may be made under this section in respect of any road unless a draft of such proposed order has been circulated to all local authorities within Greater London for a consultation period of at least nine months' duration, and the responses of such authorities to such draft order have been received and considered, and no order may be made designating a road as a GLA road with effect from a date prior to the end of such period of consultation and consideration.
(5) No order may be made under this section in respect of a road within the City if before the end of the consultation period referred to in subsection (4) above the Common Council have objected that such proposed order would adversely affect either—

(a) the integrity of any traffic management scheme within the City of London operated by or on behalf of the Common Council on the day before the Greater London Authority Act 1919 received Royal Assent, or

(b) the ability of the Common Council to ensure, or to assist and facilitate those responsible for ensuring, the security of the City of London and the people and businesses resident within it."").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall not be moving this amendment or Amendment No. 479 as the issue will be better covered in the Government's group of amendments. However, I shall be speaking to Amendment No. 477 when it is called.
[Amendment No.476 not moved.]
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 477:
Page 125, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under this section in respect of any highway or proposed highway for which a London borough council or the Common Council is the highway authority, unless he has given 2 months' notice of the proposed order to the highway authority and considered any representations made."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 478. The amendment focuses a consultation requirement on the Secretary of State before he makes an order under Clause 227, which designates which roads will be GLA roads. It is clearly in the public interest for there to be a reasonable consultation period before this action is taken. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify one point. The noble Earl has not moved Amendment No. 476. Can he say which other amendments in the group he does not intend to move?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, Amendment No. 476, which I did not move, was the ring of steel amendment. The Minister has made concessions and I therefore thought it would be better not to move that amendment and wait until we discuss the Minister's amendment. I have moved Amendment No. 477 and spoken to Amendment No. 478, which deal with Clause 227. I hope that that is helpful to the Minister.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, are we therefore abandoning the other grouped amendments? It is difficult to know what is happening.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 477 is to require a two-month consultation period with the boroughs when the Secretary of State designates the first GLA roads. That seems a somewhat arbitrary timetable for consultation. Most of the designation of the roads is pretty much agreed.

1311
If there are problems, it may well take less or more than two months to sort them out. It is also the case that we should not be in a situation where one London borough could exercise a right of veto over the total strategic position. As I understand the noble Earl's amendment, it would give London boroughs individually a veto over these proposals.
Amendment No. 478 would allow the designation of a road as a GLA road only if it is of strategic importance in determining the mayor's integrated transport strategy. It would prevent the Secretary of State including side roads off the GLA road network within the definition. We shall deal with the issue of side roads later, but what is proposed does not seem appropriate. I believe the amendment is therefore redundant in any case. The whole designation and description of Greater London strategic roads is that they are part of a strategic transport policy. However, there may be side roads which would not obviously be strategic were it not for the fact that they were part of a one way system or linkage system. One can think of an example not very far from your Lordships' House—around Victoria Station. It is designated a strategic road although, if one studies a map, it might not look strategic. The amendment, I believe, could lead to some misunderstanding. I hope that the noble Earl will not pursue it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I apologise if I slightly threw him by not moving the first amendment in the group. It will be interesting to see what happens when we focus the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 478 not moved.]
Clause 228 [Orders by the authority changing what are GLA roads]:
[Amendment Nos. 479 and 480 not moved.]
Clause 229 [Certification, lists and maps of GLA roads]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 480A:
Page 127, line 4, leave out ("list of, and a map showing,") and insert ("record or).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 480B to 480F. This group of amendments seeks to give Transport for London greater flexibility in the way it maintains the definitive record of which roads are GLA roads. As the Bill stands, Transport for London would have to prepare and maintain both a list of, and a map showing, the highways and proposed highways which are GLA roads.
However, when the Secretary of State defines the first GLA roads, the Bill does not specify how the roads are to be identified. The Secretary of State could choose to define the network by means of a list or a map, or a combination of both methods. We think it right that Transport for London should have the same freedom to keep the definitive record of the network in the form it thinks appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 480B to 480F:
Page 127, line 5, leave out ("and proposed highways").
Page 127, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) The record required to be prepared and maintained under subsection (3) above may consist of—

(a) a list;

(b) a map; or

(c) a list and a map.").

Page 127, line 7, leave out ("list and of that map") and insert ("record").
Page 127, line 12, leave out ("list and map") and insert ("record").
Page 127, line 13, leave out ("list and map") and insert ("record").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 230 [Supplementary provisions]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 480G:
Page 127, line 31, after ("Mayor") insert ("of London").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 480H. These two amendments make minor technical changes to the Highways Act 1980 to ensure that the references to the mayor and assembly are freestanding with that Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 480H:
Page 127, line 33, after ("the") insert ("London").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 231 [Exercise of powers so as to affect another authority's roads]:
4.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 481:
Page 128, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (11 A) below,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 482, 483, 484, 492 and 493.
We return to the thorny issue of the word "affect". The question has been raised as to how far the GLA/TfL will be able to interfere in local decisions through their control over GLA roads.
Various clauses insert new sections into the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 giving the GLA a veto over local decisions in respect of roads. This therefore appears to be the appropriate place to peg back GLA power by clarifying the basis on which it can act.
There is a serious question as to the meaning of "affect". This amendment would usefully end the uncertainty. Virtually anything, however trivial, that a London borough does will affect a road in another borough, especially if the two roads concerned are adjacent. As there is a need to notify, and that is subject to a one-month expiry period as provided for

1313
in subsection (3), that means that the London boroughs will always have a bureaucratic and statutory delay of one month imposed on any action which will not even have a substantial effect, if I can turn matters round the other way. It is important to make sure that consultation is not required for trivial matters. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I question the purpose of the amendment. I believe it to be otiose—but no doubt my noble friend will be able to correct one or other of us on that point. If the matter were deemed to be de minimis in terms of the effect that it might have, it could not be capable of being upheld in the courts. Therefore, I wonder what value the word "substantially" would have in this respect.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said in Committee in response to a similar amendment, the provisions in Clause 231 are modelled on current arrangements for designated roads and priority routes. The arrangements and the terminology have worked well for a number of years. The concept of "affect or likely to affect" is therefore well established and well understood. It is also possible that, should there be any confusion, the mayor would be able to issue guidance on the operation of these proceedings.
Changing a well understood formula would, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis indicated, introduce an element of doubt as to whether previous operations had been changed, and it might well lead to some legal dubiety; whereas most people who operate the highways within London understand how the previous arrangements have worked. Therefore, we do not think it sensible to make a change. Amendments which change a formulation which has stood the test of time are usually not appropriate and would merely create uncertainty.
The noble Earl's objective of trying to exclude minor issues is understood. Currently, minor matters are excluded, and will be in future, because the mayor will have the same power as the Secretary of State to exclude them. It will be in his interests to do so in order to reduce bureaucracy. It would not be helpful for the noble Earl to pursue this change.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 482 and 483 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments No. 483A:
Page 129, line 34, at end insert—
("(11 A) Any reference in this section to a GLA road includes a reference to a GLA side road, within the meaning of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see sections 124A(9) and 142(1) of that Act).").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group.
We have brought forward these amendments in response to concerns expressed by the Association of London Government that Transport for London should not be the highway authority for side roads to the GLA road network.
When we announced last February the Government's intentions for the GLA road network, we said that we were minded to include in it those short stretches of side road which were necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the main roads. That was an indication of intent. But we then heard representations from London's local authorities. They said that they did not think that that was sensible. We obviously, therefore, reconsidered our position. To say the least, that proved to be a somewhat complex matter and so it has taken some time and has required a number of meetings both at official and ministerial level to attempt to resolve it.
In Committee in July, I explained that the discussions were still ongoing. I am now able to report that, following the discussions held by my former colleague, Glenda Jackson. with the ALG later in July, we were able to reach a consensus on a practical way for TfL to have a measure of control over these short stretches of side road. Transport for London is to be the traffic authority for a new category of road known as "GLA side roads", but the local borough remains the highway authority. That is what the amendments before the House seek to ensure.
The key amendment in this group is Amendment No. 485ZA. It amends the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to provide the Secretary of State with the power to designate roads which are to be GLA side roads, in much the same way as Clause 227 provides for him to designate the first GLA road network.
Once the first GLA side roads have been defined, the Secretary of State can by order apply, for such modifications as he sees fit, the provisions of Sections 14B and 14C of the Highways Act 1980. The provisions will enable the mayor to change and to keep records of the GLA road network. That can also be applied to GLA side roads by order of the Secretary of State.
We have not sought to amend the Bill to set out in full the procedure for changing roads. Had we done so, your Lordships would, I regret to say, be faced with even more amendments. That is why we have taken the approach of an order-making power. After the long discussions that we have had with the boroughs in London and their professionals, we see this as the best way forward and it has been agreed among us.
The other amendments in this group, including this one, Amendment No. 483A, are effectively consequential amendments to Amendment No. 485ZA. They give effect to the intentions that I have spelt out. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, in Committee we were concerned regarding the ring of steel and the position of the City. In part the Minister has met our concerns with his amendment and we are grateful. There is a residual concern regarding side roads that haw been

1315
stopped up as part of the ring of steel. We are worried that they could be opened up, against the wishes of the City. Can the Minister give me any assurance on that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in the procedures for consultation and any change on the side roads, the City would remain the highways authority for the side roads. The GLA would be the traffic authority. Therefore, one hopes that the two could reach consensus. If they did not, on physical matters such as stopping up the road I assume that the position of the highways authority would be the determining one. Therefore, the City's position is maintained.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 484 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 484YA:
Page 129, line 39, at end insert ("or GLA side roads").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 484ZA:
After Clause 231. insert the following new clause—

CONSULTATION BETWEEN SECRETARY OF STATE AND HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OVER CERTAIN PROPOSALS FOR ROYAL PARKS OR HIGHWAYS
(" . After section 301 of the Highways Act 1980 there shall be inserted—
Royal Parks or highways in London affected by proposals relating to the other.
301B.—(1) The Secretary of State shall not exercise any of his functions in relation to the management of roads or traffic in a Royal Park in such a way as to affect a highway in Greater London unless he has consulted the highway authority for the highway about the exercise of those functions in that way.
(2) A highway authority shall not exercise any of its functions in relation to a highway in Greater London in such a way as to affect a Royal Park unless it has consulted the Secretary of State about the exercise of those functions in that way.
(3) The duty imposed by subsection (1) or (2) shall not apply if it would not be reasonably practicable for the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the highway authority to consult the other before exercising functions; but, in such a case, as soon as practicable after so exercising functions the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the highway authority shall inform the other that those functions have been so exercised.
(4) In this section "Royal Park" means any park to which the Parks Regulation Act 1872 applies (see sections 1 and 3 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 484A:
After Clause 231. insert the following new clause—

CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN ROAD HUMPS IN LONDON HIGHWAYS
(" .—(1) The Highways Act 1980 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 90A(1) (construction of road humps by highway authority) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "or

(c) (whether or not the highway is subject to such a limit) the road humps fall within section 90CA below."

(3) After section 90C there shall be inserted—
"Special procedure for certain road humps in London.
90CA.—(1) A road hump falls within this section if—

(a) it is constructed by a local highway authority in Greater London, and

(b) the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) have been complied with.

(2) The requirement of this subsection is that before starting to construct the road hump the authority concerned gives the Secretary of State notice stating—

(a) the nature, dimensions and location of the proposed road hump,

(b) the spacing between the proposed road hump and any other humps constructed, or proposed to be constructed, in the vicinity,

(c) the type and description of signs which are proposed to be located in the highway in connection with the proposed hump.

(d) the statutory speed limit for motor vehicles to which the highway where it is proposed to construct the hump is subject, and

(e) the period (of not less than one month) within which, and the address to which, the Secretary of State may send any comments on the proposal to the authority.

(3) The requirement of this subsection is that in deciding

(a) whether to proceed with the construction of the road hump, and

(b) what the nature, dimensions and location of the road hump as constructed are to be,

the authority concerned has regard to any comments made by the Secretary of State within the period stated in the notice.".
(4) After section 90D(4) there shall be inserted
"(5) Regulations under this section do not apply where a road hump falls within section 90CA above.".
(5) In section 90E(1) for the words from "Where" to "satisfied" there shall be substituted "Where the requirements of subsections (1A), (1B) or (1C) are satisfied in relation to a road hump".
(6) After section 90E(1) there shall be inserted—"
(1A) The requirements of this subsection are that—

(a) regulations under section 90D above apply to the road hump,

(b) the road hump conforms to the regulations, and

(c) if the road hump is in a highway maintainable at the public expense. the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied.

(1B) The requirements of this subsection are that—

(a) the road hump is specially authorised by the Secretary of State,

(b) the road hump conforms with the conditions attached to the authorisation, and

1317

(c) if the road hump is in a highway maintainable at the public expense, the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied.

(1C) The requirements of this subsection (1) are that—

(a) the road hump falls within section 90CA, and

(b) if the road hump is in a highway maintainable at the public expense, the condition mentioned in subsection (2)(a) below is satisfied.".

(7) Section 90E(3) shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I wish to speak also to the other amendments in the group. In our White Paper we said that traffic calming measures and stopping up orders on borough roads would be purely a matter for the boroughs. These amendments give effect to that commitment and reflect one of the overall aims of the GLA Bill, which is to devolve power to the appropriate level of government in London.
Among other things this group of government amendments provides that where boroughs propose to introduce non-standard traffic calming schemes they must notify the Secretary of State and take into account any comments. They are also required to continue to consult bodies such as the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. This is a sensible group of amendments which I commend to the House as a welcome devolution of power from the Secretary of State to the London boroughs. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I understand the principle underlying the provisions. It is an important one in relation to traffic calming measures. However, there seems to be a lack of uniformity in London boroughs about the dimensions of road humps. Some are higher than others. Even travelling at a modest speed—which is the intention—some damage can be done to the underside of the vehicle. What is the likely policy of the Secretary of State? Is there to be a measure of uniformity? That would seem common sense in relation to the liability of traffic calming measures. An unnecessary obstacle ought to be avoided. What reasons would there be for not having uniformity in this regard? I do not claim expertise but it seems to me that the differential in terms of measurements is undesirable.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, says that consultation with the LFCDA and others will continue. But the LFCDA is worried that that is not what the new clauses mean. It is stated that road humps can be installed without complying with the regulations. Those regulations insist that consultation should take place. Obviously, the fire brigade desires, indeed insists, that it should take place. I understand that it contacted the Government Office for London which confirmed that there was no intention to include consultation but suggested that new regulations to require that would be forthcoming once the GLA Bill was enacted. The LFCDA is receiving mixed messages. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the situation and say whether it is
1318
his intention to bring forward new regulations on consultation with the London Fire Brigade once the Bill is passed. If not, can he tell us where in the Bill it is clearly written that consultation will continue to take place?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the matter to which my noble friend alludes is important for all the emergency services. I wish to follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It seems to me that road humps and traffic calming measures are treated differently but both achieve the same end. There is a certain fashion in traffic calming measures. One year, one gets chicanes; another year, road humps; another year, mini-roundabouts and so on. Occasionally, there follows a spate of accidents. The traffic calming measures are found not to be calming but causing accidents and they are removed. Does reference have to be made to the Secretary of State about the removal of what were standard or specifically approved traffic calming measures or road humps?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have difficulty with one of the amendments and I shall have to test your Lordships' patience in explaining why. I am still unclear why the proposals are necessary. There is, however, a greater difficulty. All noble Lords are well aware that for the government of the day there are only three types of amendments: unworkable, unnecessary or defective. Governments will always hold that defective drafting is fatal to an opposition amendment that they do not support.
It may be that the Minister can convince me and the House that his amendment is workable and necessary. Unfortunately, Amendment No. 497A is defective. The Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) empowers the Secretary of State to stop up or divert highways for development to be carried out. Amendment No. 497A removes the Secretary of State's power in London and transfers it to the London boroughs. There is no apparent justification as to why London is treated differently. The provision is inconsistent with other powers. I do not understand why the power has been handed right down to the boroughs and does not stop with the mayor. The Minister is always persuasive and no doubt he can convince the House of that need. However, unfortunately I do not see how he can explain why the Common Council of the City of London does not benefit from his amendment.
In the TCPA, the council of a London borough, under Section 336(1), includes the Common Council unless the context indicates otherwise. Section 247(3)(b) mentions,
"a London borough council specified in the order or, if it is so specified, the Common Council of the City of London'`.
The Minister's amendment introduces a new subsection (2A) into Section 247 of the TCPA which allows the council of a London borough by order to,
"authorise the stopping up or diversion of any highway".

1319
It does not mention the Common Council of the City. Given that it is mentioned as an alternative to a London borough in the same section, surely the Common Council cannot benefit from the Minister's amendment. That may be the effect that the Minister desires. If so, we will have to check later to ascertain whether it is acceptable to ourselves.
Paragraph 7(7) contains a serious defect. The new subsection (5A)(c) of Section 252 of the TCPA refers to,
"or transporter as are mentioned in that subsection",
that is, subsection (4). Unfortunately, that subsection refers to a public gas supplier, not a transporter.
There is a further difficulty in paragraph 6 which applies the provisions of Section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (the LGA) relating to evidence and costs at inquiries. Paragraph 7(8) of the amendment purports to apply these provisions to inquiries ordered by London boroughs. Unfortunately, subsections (4) and (5) of that section refer specifically to,
"Where a Minister causes an inquiry to be held".
Those subsections allow costs to be awarded. The amendments in this schedule do not extend the power in the LGA to a situation where a London borough rather than the Minister causes an inquiry to be held. They are, therefore, defective and we cannot allow them to go on to the face of the Bill.
There also appear to be difficulties with paragraph 8 of the new schedule. At present, the relevant section allows the Secretary of State to make an order after considering objections to any inspector's report. The amendment allows the mayor to make an order but the rest of the provisions give the order-making powers to the London boroughs. This problem arises because the order-making powers are not transferred when a London borough causes an inquiry to be held and it reports to that London borough and not the mayor. The amendment does not specify what orders the mayor may make. The error may be explained by the summary of the subsection,
"confirmation of order after local inquiry".
These orders are not made by an authority at one level and confirmed by another. In the existing legislation they are all made by the Secretary of State. The amendment appears to try to bring in the mayor to confirm the order but the statutory framework does not provide for confirmation. These orders are usually sought only when planning permission has been obtained. Section 253 allows the order process to begin earlier in respect of local government, statutory undertaker development or if the planning application has been either called in by the Secretary of State or is being appealed to him. The latter provisions allow objectors to the highways orders to be heard at the same inquiry as the planning application and the decisions can be issued at the same time.
1320
These amendments mean that the ability to run applications together will be lost if the Secretary of State does not have power to make the orders in London. Is that what the Minister intends? Is he content with that situation?
Paragraph 9 appears to allow a London borough to make temporary stopping-up orders for highways that are affected by mineral workings. I sometimes wonder where any mineral workings will be in the GLA area, but that is what we face. The amendment sits uncomfortably with the power of local planning authorities to make orders to stop up or divert footpaths and bridleways (Section 257 of the TCPA). If objections are made, those orders are subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. This amendment gives London boroughs the choice between seeking the Secretary of State's confirmation under Section 257 or making the order under Section 248 with some procedure involving the mayor. It is not obvious why that should be so. Can the Minister explain why?
Many of these amendments are fatally flawed; alternatively, they might not have the effect that the Minister intends. The defects illustrate our worst fears that the Bill may contain some even more serious time-bombs that are ticking away. We cannot detect them all, and no doubt some will escape our attention and even that of the Minister. I suggest that the Minister takes these amendments away and revises them. The Minister would never accept one of our amendments if it was defective, and I hope that he will not try to put defective amendments on the face of the Bill. If he is tempted to do so, we shall oppose Amendment No. 497A when we come to it in the Marshalled List.
I am sorry to have taken so long, but the Minister has tabled a huge raft of amendments to cover different issues. I have focused on one amendment that covers a large schedule which gives rise to a problem. Because it is defective in several places, I have had to address a good number of issues.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl and other speakers in this debate have touched on a range of issues. I am aware that road humps cause a certain amount of controversy, in whatever context they are debated. In response to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, who I am sure always drives at a modest speed whether or not there are road humps, I point out that existing road humps must comply with regulations. Traffic-calming measures come in a whole range of different sizes, shapes and situations based on advice from the Highways Agency and our other technical staff. Some of them are larger or higher than others; some cover part of the road or the whole road, but there are specifications for those standards, and existing road humps should comply with the regulations.
Inevitably, there is a certain amount of experimentation in the field of traffic calming and traffic management. Therefore, on occasion, nonstandard road humps and other engineering changes

1321
are proposed. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must approve them, and that is provided for in Amendments Nos. 484A and 484B.
The intention behind all of these amendments, which effectively fulfil our commitment in the White Paper to push this range of decisions away from the Secretary of State and towards the boroughs, will be widely welcomed in London. We have followed this through in the earlier amendments to the clause. At various points we have included the mayor in the structure of consultation. There will have to be consultation under different powers in this Bill, in the Town and Country Planning Act and in the Highways Act about the provisions that deal with humps.
As to the fire and civil defence authority, I understand that there are anxieties in that area. However, I believe that my commitment that the present requirement for consultation with the emergency services will continue to apply will reassure the fire and civil defence authority.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, perhaps he will confirm precisely what will be the consultation arrangements with the emergency authorities. This is an important point which deserves specific attention.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the point I make is that there is nothing in this group of amendments which changes the present consultation. I can in writing cross-refer the noble Baroness to other regulations, but the point I seek to make both to the House and to those on the current and future authority is that there will be no less consultation than before. I am aware that the emergency services have anxieties about some traffic-calming measures. It is important that they are built into consultation on those issues.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, concentrated mainly on Amendment No. 497A which deals with a rather lengthy schedule containing a number of provisions. The main provisions are that a borough, including one that acts on behalf of another, will itself be able to make unopposed stopping-up orders and decisions that are opposed will be made by the mayor. The mayor will also be able to dispense with a public inquiry if the mayor so sees fit. At present, the cost, another issue raised by the noble Earl, of making stopping-up orders falls on the Secretary of State. In devolving that role to London boroughs we intend to use the order-making powers to enable them to charge the applicant. They are Secretary of State order-making powers but they will allow the London borough to make the charge. Before we finally make such an order there will be wide consultation.
The noble Earl asked a number of questions relating to the cross referencing of these provisions with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There are also cross-references to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which are, therefore, not apparent and explicit on the face of the amendment. He also asked whether the references to London boroughs included the Common Council of the City of London. I am reasonably confident that the definition of the
1322
London authorities in this context includes the City of London. However, I am not absolutely confident. Because of the complexity of the cross-references to other legislation which is not immediately to hand to noble Lords, and because of my uncertainty in relation to the City, with the leave of the House I shall not proceed with that amendment and will try to clarify the situation for noble Lords opposite between now and Third Reading. I beg to move the first amendment, but I shall not move Amendment No. 497A at the appropriate time.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 484B:
After Clause 231, insert the following new clause—

CERTAIN TRAFFIC CALMING WORKS IN LONDON
(" .—(1) The Highways Act 1980 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 90G(1) (powers to carry out traffic calming works) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "or

(c) fall within section 90GA below,".

(3) In section 90G(2) for "subsection (1)" there shall be inserted "subsection (1)(a) or (b)".
(4) After section 90G there shall be inserted—
Special procedure for certain traffic calming works in London.
90GA.—(1) Traffic calming works fall within this section if—

(a) the works are constructed by a local highway authority in Greater London, and

(b) the requirements of subsection (2) and (3) have been complied with.

(2) The requirement of this subsection is that before starting to construct the works the authority concerned gives the Secretary of State notice stating—

(a) the nature, dimensions and locations of the proposed works,

(b) the type and description of signs which are proposed to be located in the highway in connection with the proposed hump, and

(c) the period (of not less than one month) within which. and the address to which, the Secretary of State may send any comments on the proposal to the authority.

(4) The requirement of this subsection is that in deciding—

(a) whether to proceed with the construction of the works, and

(b) what the nature, dimensions and location of the works as constructed are to be,

the authority concerned has regard to any comments made by the Secretary of State within the period stated in the notice.".
(5) In section 901 for the words from "Works" to "authorisation" there shall be substituted—
"(1) Works (whenever constructed) to which this subsection applies".
(6) After section 90I there shall be inserted—
"(2) Subsection (1) applies—

(a) to works of a description prescribed by regulations under section 90H above or specially authorised under section 90G above which conform to any requirements imposed by the regulations or authorisation, and

(b) to works which fall within section 90GA.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 484C:
After Clause 231. insert the following new clause—

STOPPING UP: ORDERS BY LONDON COUNCILS
(" . Schedule (Stopping up: orders by London councils) (which contains amendments to the Highways Act 1980 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) shall have effect.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 485 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 485ZA:
After Clause 232, insert the following new clause

GLA SIDE ROADS
(" .After section 124 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted—
"GLA side roads.
124A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order designate roads or proposed roads as roads which are to be GLA side roads.
(2) Any road or proposed road so designated shall become a GLA side road on such date as may be specified in the order.
(3) A road may only be a GLA side road if it has a junction with—

(a) a GLA road; or

(b) another road which has a junction with a GLA road.

(4) A road or proposed road shall not be a GLA side road if it is a trunk road or other highway for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority.
(5) A road may only be a GLA side road if and to the extent that the appropriate authority considers it appropriate for the road to be a GLA side road in the interests of the management of traffic and the control of the waiting and loading of vehicles on or in the immediate vicinity of GLA roads.
(6) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for or in connection with applying in relation to GLA side roads, with such modifications as he thinks fit, the provisions of sections 14B and 14C of the Highways Act 1980 (orders changing what are GLA roads and certification and records of GLA roads).
(7) The provision that may be made under subsection (6) above is subject to subsections (3) to (5) above.
(8) In this section "the appropriate authority" means—

(a) in relation to an order under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State:

(b) in relation to an order made by the Greater London Authority under section 14B of the Highways Act 1980, as applied under subsection (6) above, the Mayor of London; and

(c) in relation to confirmation of such an order by the Secretary of State under that section as so applied, the Secretary of State.

(9) Any reference in any provision of this Act or any other enactment to a GLA side road shall be construed as a reference to a road in Greater London which is for the time being a GLA side road by virtue of—

(a) an order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above; or

(b) an order made by the Greater London Authority under section I 4B of the Highways Act 1980, as applied by an order under subsection (6) above.

(10) Any functions conferred or imposed on the Greater London Authority in relation to GLA side roads shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor of London acting on behalf of the Authority.
(11) Subsection (10) above does not apply in relation to any functions expressly conferred on the London Assembly.
(12) Any power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 233 [Power to place traffic signs in connection with GLA roads]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 485A:
Page 130, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) the words "in their area" shall be omitted; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 487A to 487C, and 576A. This group of amendments arises largely out of representations made by the Transport Committee for London which represents all the London boroughs. It asked us to amend the Bill so that when TfL changes the operating cycle of traffic lights which are on borough roads, or installs new traffic lights on borough roads, there will be a clear requirement to consult the relevant borough council. I am pleased to be able to oblige both representations from the boroughs. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 486 not moved.]
Clause 235 [Transfer of London Traffic Control System to Transport for London]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 486A:
Page 132, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Any reference in this section to a GLA road includes a reference to a GLA side road.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 236 [London borough councils and the London traffic control system]:
[Amendment No. 487 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 487A:
Page 133, line 4, at end insert—
("(5A) Before Transport for London

(a) changes the operating cycle, or the timing of the operating cycle, of any traffic light installations provided on a road in Greater London which is neither a GLA road nor a trunk road, or

(b) provides new traffic light installations for such a road,

Transport for London shall consult the council of the London borough in which the installations are or are to be provided.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 487B:
Page 133, line 10, at end insert (" or

(b) by a scheme under subsection (1) or (3) of section 74B of this Act transferring functions of the Secretary of State to Transport for London;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 238 [Traffic authority for certain traffic signs in Greater London]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 487C:
Page 134, line 18, leave out from ("or) to end of line 19 and insert ("sections 65, 73, 74, 74A, 74B and 75 of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 488 not moved.]
Clause 241 [Designation of paying parking places on highways]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 488A:
Page 137, leave out lines 10 and 11.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 242 [Financial provisions relating to parking places on the highway]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 489:
Page 138, line 11. leave out (" 71(2)(c)") and insert (" 71(4)(c)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 490 not moved.]
Clause 245 [Special parking areas]:
[Amendment No. 491 not moved.]
Clause 247 [Interpretation of parking provisions]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 491A:
Page 142, line 25, at end insert—
("""GLA side road" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see sections 124A(9) and section 142(1) of that Act;";").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 491B:
Page 142, line 40, at end insert—
("(1C) In this Part of this Act, any reference to a GLA road includes a reference to a GLA side road."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 251 [London borough council affecting another authority's roads]:
[Amendments Nos. 492 and 493 not moved.]
Clause 252 [Interpretation of the Road Traffic. Regulation Act 1984]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 493A:
Page 146, line 10, after ("road"") insert ("(subject to subsection (4) below)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 493B:
Page 146, line 11, at end insert—
("""GLA side road" shall be construed in accordance with section 124A(9) of this Act;";").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 493C:
Page 146, line 13, at end insert
("( ) At the end of section 142 there shall be added —
"(4) Any reference in this Act to a GLA road includes a reference to a GLA side road."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 493D:
After Clause 252, insert the following new clause

CONSULTATION BY SECRETARY OF STATE AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OVER CERTAIN PROPOSALS? FOR ROYAL PARKS OR HIGHWAYS
(" . After section 132 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted—
Royal Parks or highways in London affected by proposals relating to the other.
132AA.—(1) The Secretary of State shall not exercise any of his functions in relation to the management of roads or traffic in a Royal Park in such a way as to affect a highway in Greater London unless he has consulted—

(a) the traffic authority for the highway, and

(b) Transport for London,

about the exercise of those functions in that way.
(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) shall not Apply if it would not be reasonably practicable for the Secretary of State to consult the traffic authority or Transport for London before exercising functions; but, in such a case, as soon as practicable after so exercising functions the Secretary of State shall inform the traffic authority and Transport for London that those functions have been so exercised.
(3) A traffic authority shall not exercise any of its functions in relation to a highway in Greater London in such a way as to affect a Royal Park unless it has consulted the Secretary of State about the exercise of those functions in that way.
(4) The duty imposed by subsection (3) shall not apply if it would not be reasonably practicable for the traffic authority to consult the Secretary of State before exercising functions; but, in such a case, as soon as practicable after so exercising functions the highway authority shall inform the Secretary of State that those functions have been so exercised.
(5) In this section "Royal Park" means any park to which the Parks Regulation Act 1872 applies (see sections 1 and 3 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 253 [Repeal of certain enactments]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 493E:
Page 147, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Any reference in this section to a GLA road includes a reference to a GLA side road.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 254 [Road user charging]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 494:
Page 147, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) The net proceeds from each scheme established under subsection (1) above shall, during the scheme's initial period as defined by paragraph 16 of Schedule 18, be applied solely for the purpose of implementing the Mayor's transport strategy.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 509,501 to 507, and 516 to 522. The arguments surrounding these amendments were well rehearsed in Committee. Amendment No. 494 would put on the face of the Bill, first, a statement that as regards road user charging:
"The net proceeds from each scheme established under [the subsection] shall, during the scheme's initial period as defined by paragraph 16 of Schedule 18, be applied solely for the purpose of implementing the Mayor's transport strategy".
Amendments Nos. 501 to 507 amend Schedule 18 in order to lengthen the time during which that hypothecation shall last in the case of each scheme established during the initial period after the creation of the GLA. Amendments Nos. 509 and 516 to 522 amend Clause 255 and Schedule 19.
The objective is, first, to put hypothecation firmly on the face of the Bill, and, secondly, to lengthen the time for each scheme during which that hypothecation will be required. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, these are some of the most significant amendments in this part of the Bill. Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara deal with similar issues.
No doubt the Secretary of State is proud of his achievements in getting the Treasury to accept hypothecation. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with a Second Reading speech. However, my fear is that the new taxes will simply force the less well off to use public transport while allowing the more affluent to take up the spare capacity so created.
Londoners will not expect us to allow congestion charges to go the same way as the road fund licence scheme, which is now known as vehicle excise duty and is an important revenue scheme for central government. Sadly, vital road safety and capacity improvements remain to be started. The public transport system in London is woefully short of capacity at the ever extending peak period. For instance, at Victoria Station this morning there were hardly any spare places on the downward escalator. In other words, it physically cannot move any more passengers. As an aside, I was extremely disappointed that nowhere on the station concourse was I able to find a ticket machine which would take notes.
Part of the solution to the problem of transport in London will be buses and investment in the Underground. It is important to understand that the time required to construct new rail facilities is considerable and the payback period may stretch into
1328
decades. Unfortunately, the Government's hypothecation runs only to one decade. That is simply not good enough.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, offered one possible and attractive solution to the problem. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will shortly be proposing another. The House might not be in a mood to decide this issue tonight, but we must reach a conclusion on Third Reading. The two amendments are not necessarily mutually exclusive and our debate tonight will better inform us in our decision making. The Minister may even be able to make a helpful suggestion himself.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl ends his speech with a challenge. I hope that I can make a useful suggestion. Everyone in this Chamber and more widely recognises the important breakthrough that the proposition on congestion charging and hypothecation makes to the future funding of transport infrastructure and the quality of the system within London.
When the noble Earl began, I thought that he was making a Second Reading speech, but clearly he has concerns about the proposition. His noble friend's amendment and the amendment we are considering effectively accept that we shall engage in a system of congestion charging, should the mayor so wish, and deal primarily with the issue of hypothecation.
The provision of hypothecation as such is already covered in Schedules 18 and 19 and my ministerial colleagues and I have made many commitments throughout the passage of the Bill relating to our advocacy of such approaches in London and elsewhere. Schedules 18 and 19 define relevant transport purposes as,
"any purpose which directly or indirectly facilitates the implementation of any policies or proposals set out in the Mayor's transport strategy".
It is clear that a wide range of schemes across the geographical area of the GLA would be paid for by the hypothecation of this money. Therefore, the provisions of the Bill already guarantee that the revenues from the new charges will be ring-fenced for the purposes of implementing the mayor's transport strategy.
That leaves us with the question, for how long? The noble Earl dismissed it, but the agreement reached between government departments on the hypothecation of this form of revenue for transport infrastructure is a major breakthrough. It has been widely welcomed and it gives us a new way of providing decent transport for the capital. It is an important issue and it is not in the nature of the Treasury to concede such matters for all time. Indeed, it has a good reason for taking that stance and I agree with it. It is that if the revenues are sufficiently high and of a sufficiently long duration, there will come a time when there are no value-for-money transport infrastructure projects in London.
Noble Lords may believe that that is a long way off. I agree that it is probably a long way off, but there comes a point when it is appropriate. Therefore, we

1329
have built into the measure the provision that any scheme starting within the next 10 years can run for 10 years, but there will then be a review of the process. It seemed sensible to build in that review.
In her amendment the noble Baroness has been a little more modest than she was during earlier stages when she suggested 35 years before there was a review of the proceedings. She is now suggesting 15 years. It is to be hoped that by Third Reading we can reach some accommodation on the 10 years we propose, plus a review at the end of that period. That does not mean that the hypothecation will automatically stop. Indeed, if the scheme is working to the benefit of Londoners and there is palpable improvement in the transport system in London as a result of such funding, there is no doubt in my mind that the political imperative of continuing the scheme in some form will exist.
Nevertheless, it is sensible and prudent to review the situation after a period of 10 years. That is what we are building into the Bill. We do not want a five-year delay by having a review after 15 years. We believe that it is sensible to have it after 10 years; a view we have taken throughout the debate from which I shall not depart at this stage of the Bill.
There is not a great deal between the noble Baroness and ourselves on the desirability of providing this power for the mayor in relation to congestion charging and a workplace parking levy. However, understandably, the noble Baroness wishes to push the matter further in the future. I wish to do so, too, but it is prudent to build into the Bill a review after 10 years. I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness will agree that that is sensible financial management by national government and by the mayor and that she will not pursue the amendment tonight.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister was right to suggest that we on these Benches have sympathy with the ideas of congestion charging, workplace parking levies and hypothecation. On that we are completely at one. However, the difference between us lies in the area he next referred to; namely, the moment when such funding will no longer be necessary. Two difficulties arise. The first is that there may be problems with a 10-year period because it allows only two and a half of the four-year local authority cycles after the coming into existence of the GLA in which to commence any such schemes. The second is that if a sufficient number of schemes is undertaken to contribute to the financing of the undoubtedly enormous public transport needs—who knows, we may return to cycle lanes, which we are not allowed to talk about in the context of the Bill but which the mayor will be allowed to talk about in determining a transport strategy—there might be a wide range of transport needs to which the money can be put. Throughout, our contention has been that 10 years is not long enough to provide a stable, reliable source of funding for such projects.
1330
I shall read with great care the final part of the Minister's answer and compare it with what he said in Committee. I thought I understood 'what lie said in Committee and my understanding will be enriched by comparing the two. I shall make sure that I really do know what the Government's intention is. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 495:
Page 147, line 23, at end insert—
("(4) Any charging scheme established pursuant to this section shall cease to take effect, and may not be revived, if at any time there is not a scheme to improve transport arrangements (including schemes to assist the movement of pedestrians) within Greater London in the operation or establishment of which the net proceeds of the charging scheme (within the meaning given it in Schedule 18) can be applied, and are only applied.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word about Amendment No. 495. It might have been thought that Amendment No. 495 flowed from the previous group of amendments that we have been discussing, but in this particular grouping I shall be discussing Amendments Nos. 495 and 510, which are identical in wording. My noble friend Lord Attlee will discuss the other amendments in the group.
We should be very clear as to what we are talking about. Clauses 254 and 255 of the Bill create options for the mayor or his subsidiary body, Transport for London, or the London boroughs or the Common Council of the City of London to introduce schemes either for congestion parking or workplace parking.
This Bill is for and about London, and in that sense it is a geographically local Bill. It is not a national Bill to establish a national tax or a national scheme of levies. When we talk about hypothecation, which has been trumpeted as a great triumph, it is my view that we are being made to fall for what I regard as something that is intellectually dishonest. There is nothing to hypothecate. The Secretary of State has no revenue at all because any power to raise revenue is wholly and entirely in the hands of somebody else. In effect, what we are saying in this Bill is, "Mr Mayor, you may charge these levies on behalf of London on those who drive or park in London, whether or not they live in London, but after 10 years we reserve the right to take your decision away from you and to take the product of that decision and apply it elsewhere". I am sorry, but I do not regard that as a satisfactory way of going on. Schedules 18 and 19 give effect to that, and that is where the issue of hypothecation is discussed.
Amendments Nos. 495 and 510 deal with the matter in this way: they leave the power of decision to raise these revenues locally, of course, as the Bill requires. Then the Bill says that they should be applied locally for the improvement of transport arrangements, which include schemes to assist the movement of pedestrians within Greater London. Then at the point when there are no further such schemes that anybody can think of which could be of any possible benefit to London, those schemes will cease. It seems to me that that is perfectly reasonable and proper. If the decision is

1331
taken locally to implement these schemes, then, when there is no further use for them locally, they should cease. I think that is the way we should go about this business.
Of course in the background there is a separate issue, which is the question of whether there should be a national scheme of road-user charging—one could call it "congestion charging" or give it any other name. There could equally well be a national scheme for workplace parking charging. If both those schemes were to be introduced on a national basis, then the Secretary of State would rightly be able to claim credit, if he could persuade the Treasury to hypothecate the product of those schemes for transport purposes, because in fact there would then be some national money over which he had some control and with which he could do something. That may well be the situation we shall be looking at in a year or two. I have heard rumours floating around that indeed there may well be legislation at some point in the not too distant future, bringing just such schemes into being on a national basis.
I said when I began these remarks that we are dealing here with a geographically limited Bill: in essence, a Bill which is all about London and which is for Londoners. If schemes are produced under this Bill, they will be produced either by the mayor or his subsidiary, Transport for London, or the London boroughs or the Common Council of the City of London.
I regard that as perfectly reasonable. It is also perfectly reasonable that if those bodies choose to introduce those schemes, the schemes should be applied to London. I do not think it is reasonable that in fact, having taken the initiative, the risk and indeed possibly the political odium of introducing such schemes, they should then be subject to the intervention of a third party—that is to say, the Treasury—to take away from them what one might call their rewards for political boldness and initiative. It is for that purpose that Amendments Nos. 495 and 510 are on the Marshalled List. I commend them both to the House and beg to move Amendment No. 495.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, Amendment No. 497 deals with research. The Secretary of State claims that he wants an integrated transport policy. The mayor is under a duty to pursue such a transport policy and this amendment fulfils that purpose by ensuring that road pricing cannot be introduced in an ad hoc manner without proper research into the knock-on effect on other roads. That makes good environmental sense. The research is required to be published widely as a means of democratic accountability.
During the previous debate I explained my fears that congestion charging would simply suck in the more affluent motorist. What research has conclusively shown is that traffic flows can be reduced overall? Can the Minister show where it has worked before?
Amendment No. 508 follows on from Amendment No. 497. It is only common sense to ensure that traffic which would be displaced by private means by any
1332
charging scheme can be absorbed by the public transport system and thus prevent double counting in the research. The amendment covers both people and goods. Charging could impact on business adversely.
Amendment No. 510 tackles hypothecation as it applies to workplace parking rather than congestion charging, as in Amendment No. 495. Amendment No. 512 introduces the requirement for research into workplace parking. The transport White Paper states that new measures are needed to tackle excessive workplace parking provision on existing developments, so that local authorities can develop comprehensive parking management policies to support their transport and development plans. To make this effective without penalising the responsible car driver who cannot avoid using his car—we shall come later to amendments which cover that point—there needs to be a mixture of incentives and disincentives.
If everyone stopped using a car and used public transport, London Transport would collapse from overload. We heard about the lack of capacity on the railway system when debating an earlier amendment. Therefore, parking charging should discourage excessive use only and not every use. We understand this because we are the party of the responsible car driver and his employer. There is also the need for parking charges to be linked to a comprehensive parking management policy, as envisaged by the transport White Paper. This amendment provides for no parking charges where research is inconclusive and seeks to ensure that the results of any research are made publicly available, including on the Internet.
The amendment fulfils those purposes by ensuring that parking charges cannot be introduced in an ad hoc manner without proper research into the knock-on effect on roads in the area. The research is required to be published widely and, it is hoped, on the Internet. Amendment No. 523 covers a similar issue. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has at least a consistent approach to these matters. His view is that local authorities should use their own money and that there should not be too much, if any, interference from the centre in relation to money raised locally.
I respect that position. It is one which has been taken by governments of either complexion for many decades, although it is not one which this Government take. We believe that all methods of raising local government money, including those within the Greater London area, have to be subject to some local government finance regime, charges included. Therefore, the issue of hypothecation or otherwise does arise.
The noble Lord is not consistent in the wording of his amendments, as distinct from what he said—which is the principal position—in that he wants us to lay down the time at which the scheme should automatically end without local decision, without

1333
local accountability and without local democracy. Amendments Nos. 495 and 510, to which the noble Lords opposite spoke, would require a charging scheme to be terminated if the net proceeds from the scheme were not being used to fund transport improvements.
We have said that they should be hypothecated. Under the noble Lord's freedom situation, why should the mayor of London not be able to spend that money on whatever he likes? That is inconsistent with the noble Lord's general approach. It is better that we are clear from the beginning that hypothecation is laid down in the schedule and that it will be reviewed in 10 years' time. If it is then, indeed, the case that there are no longer any value for money transport projects in London on which it is worth spending money—which I believe we all agree is a fairly unlikely scenario—we should then look at the system. There will be other aspects of the system besides the appropriate and necessary hypothecated spending, which determine whether the system is fair, socially just, and so forth.
Therefore, a review is built into the provision. However, in the terms of the noble Lord's amendment, there would be an automatic cut-off in certain circumstances. I believe that the review process is far more sensible. There is nothing in our proposition—here I am reverting in part to the earlier amendment—to suggest that after those 10 years the Secretary of State would from there on pocket the money. We should review the situation and allow the mayor to keep the revenue and to continue to spend it on transport. Alternatively, should an unlikely scenario arise, we might even decide that he could use it for London Transport projects. However, that judgment needs to be made at that point. At this stage we are concerned with setting up schemes with clearly hypothecated revenue, and that revenue being recycled into transport infrastructure and improvements.
I turn now to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I am never quite clear where the Front Bench transport team stands on these matters, particularly in relation to the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, who obviously, I am sure we all appreciate, has better things to do with his time than to be present for this debate.
The amendments place substantial constraints on the operation and continuation of these schemes. One is tempted to believe that they are actually intended to make it extremely difficult for the mayor—or the boroughs, for that matter—to set up and run such schemes. Obviously, we all recognise that there is a need for research at various stages to determine how they are working and what the alternative might be. However, to lay down those provisions in such a prescriptive way seems to me to be the thin end of the wedge and to make that far more difficult.
There will be both operational and political problems for the mayor or the boroughs in deciding to go for these options. If, on top of those political and technical difficulties, we include these prescriptive constraints, it begins to add up to a position which, without quite saying so, would prevent the mayor and
1334
the boroughs from adopting this route towards the improvement of London's internal transport. The noble Lord may deny that that is his motive, but that would be the effect. As it chimes so much with what the noble Lord, Lord Archer, has said in a wider context and slightly premature stage of a certain contest, I therefore have deep suspicions of the amendments and hope that we should not pursue them here today. I hope also that, if the noble Earl's views are somewhat different, he will consider rather different amendments, or, more properly, support the position which we have already taken in the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me and understand if I divert to what is an apparently unrelated subject. The Minister will recall that, a year or 18 months ago, I asked him a question about the position of the Dartford River Crossing and at what date the tolls on that crossing were expected to cease.
The Dartford River Crossing—to refresh the memory of the House, which may not be necessary—was provided at the initiative of Essex and Kent County Councils. Because its provision was a local decision, it was decided that the tolls charged and the revenue from them would be applied to cover the cost of construction until all the construction and running costs had been paid and a sufficient pool of capital was established for the future maintenance of the crossing.
It was the joint view of Essex and Kent County Councils that the charges should cease at that point. My position is consistent. Indeed, when the crossing was in effect nationalised and privatised all in one swift motion by the previous government, that principle was accepted and followed in the Bill which went through both Houses of Parliament. It established the private system for that crossing, so that after the firms running the crossing had paid for it and received a reasonable profit for their investment and risk, and built up an adequate maintenance fund and paid all the costs, the tolls were due to cease.
That is a perfectly proper decision to be taken locally. I draw from that experience and apply it to this provision relating to London. The Minister is also indeed consistent, because in his reply he hinted at the possibility that, before the tolls ran out on the Dartford crossing, a national scheme might come into being which might mean that the tolls would continue. I suppose that in the great scheme of things one must accept that governments have that power. I further suppose that, as I now stand here, in a sense, as a representative dealing with government matters as opposed to local matters, one must accept that that is the way in which such matters must be considered. That is, of course, also proper.
However, we are here asking the putative mayor of London or the London borough councils to establish a scheme which may subsequently be abolished without further legislation. Under the provisions of the Bill, if the hypothecation runs out, that will be it. I said in my introduction to these amendments that we must face the possibility that there may be national schemes. If there are, that is a separate issue. But I do not believe

1335
it is right that we should place the burden of initiating what could, in effect, become schemes to produce national revenue, on the mayor and the boroughs. I do not believe that that is reasonable.
I believe that there may well be a fundamental difference between myself and the Minister. I listened with interest to what he had to say and I shall certainly consider very carefully the wording of Amendments Nos. 495 and 510. However, I assure the noble Lord that I believe that we shall need to bring back these amendments at Third Reading. My noble friend Lord Attlee will, of course, also consider what the Minister has said in regard to the amendments in this group to which he spoke. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 496 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 497 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 497A not moved.]
Schedule 18 [Road user charging]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 497B:
Page 275, line 12, leave out from ("road"") to end of line 13 and insert ("includes a reference to a GLA side road:").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 497C:
Page 278, line 11, at beginning insert
("(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with—

(a) exemptions from charge,

(b) the application of reduced rates of charge, or

(c) the imposition of limits on the charges payable,

in the case of any prescribed class of motor vehicles or any prescribed description of disabled or other persons.
(2) Subject to any regulations under sub-paragraph (1) above,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 497C, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 498, 512A, and 513A, which stand in my name. The government amendments fulfil the commitment that I gave to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester when I met him and other representatives of disabled groups and people interested within this House on 6th October to discuss disability issues arising from the Bill. I also referred briefly to our intention to move these amendments when we debated similar amendments moved last Tuesday by my noble friend Lord Morris.
These amendments will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to grant concessions and exemptions from road user and workplace parking charges in London. That includes any exemption from charges for disabled persons. Therefore, this regulation-making power will ensure that national exemptions will apply both inside and outside London.
We are in the process of finalising the structure of national concessionary arrangements. We hope shortly to be able to provide a summary of the responses that have been received to our consultation
1336
paper Breaking the Logjam. The question of exemptions will be dealt with in that context. We shall ensure that the regulations that the Secretary of State can prescribe will be in place before any charging scheme is introduced in London.
The regulations we shall bring forward will be subject to the negative resolution procedure of both Houses. I should add that the mayor will still be able to specify exemptions or concessions in London where those have not been specified by the Secretary of State as applying nationally.
I believe that those points meet the concern expressed in this House about the ability of the mayor to introduce charging schemes without reference to national exemptions because the Bill will have passed before any subsequent legislation. I believe that that is tidied up by this amendment. Clearly, there will be national exemptions and those will apply within London. I hope that those who have been understandably concerned about this matter will be reassured by the amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has moved his amendments, not least because I am not entirely confident about the drafting of my amendments. Therefore, we are happy with progress on this issue. Obviously, I shall not be moving my amendments.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for Amendment No. 497C. I shall refer to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester, as "my noble friend" because that is how he described me on Tuesday. I am delighted to repay the compliment.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, explained to the Minister why he would be unable to be here today to thank the Minister. I too thank the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, feels that the amendment meets his point totally. Amendment No. 511 will therefore not be moved.
I echo the noble Lord's thanks for the meeting we had with the Minister two weeks ago. It was an extremely friendly, helpful and productive meeting. I am very grateful to the Minister for having listened so carefully and having given such a good response.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 498 to 508 not moved.]
Clause 255 [ Workplace parking levy]:
[Amendments Nos. 509 to 511 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 512 not moved.]
Schedule 19 [Workplace parking levy]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 512A:
Page 291, line 26, at beginning insert ("The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with exempting—

(a) a prescribed number of parking places provided at any premises from being workplace parking places, or

(b) any prescribed class of motor vehicles from being controlled vehicles,

1337
whether generally or in the case of any prescribed description of premises or any prescribed description or disabled or other persons.
(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with—

(a) exemptions from licensing,

(b) the application of reduced rates of charges for licences, or

(c) the imposition of limits on the charges payable for a licence,

in the case of any prescribed description of premises or any prescribed description of disabled or other persons or, in the case of paragraph (b) or (c) above, any prescribed class of motor vehicles.
(1B) Subject to any regulations under sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) above,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 513 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 513A:
Page 291, line 31, at beginning insert ("Subject to any regulations under sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) above,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 514 to 523 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Clause 257 [Functions during the transitional period]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 523A:
Page 148, line 18, at end insert—
("(bb) facilitating the transfer of functions, property, rights or liabilities to Transport for London from any other body or person from whom they are or may be so transferred under or by virtue of this Act; or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Chapter XVI of Part IV provides for the transition from London Transport to Transport for London. In particular it is designed to deal with the period prior to the transfer to TEL of London Underground during which both bodies will be in existence with London Transport continuing to be responsible for the operation of the Underground.
London Transport, as the most substantial predecessor body, clearly has a major role to play in the setting up of TfL. Clause 257(2) already imposes a duty on London Transport to do anything it considers appropriate for a transitional purpose; that is, securing that public transport services are not disrupted, securing the PPP agreement, and transferring the property, rights and liabilities of LT to TfL.
This amendment widens the transitional provisions in the Bill to ensure that London Transport has sufficient powers to do anything necessary to facilitate the setting up of TfL. That would include facilitating the transfer of functions, property, rights and liabilities from any other predecessor body to TfL. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 524 not moved.]
Clause 259 [Continuity: repealed or revoked functions]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 525:
Page 150, line 8, after ("by") insert ("or in relation to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 526 and 527, and 567 to 570. This group of amendments clarifies the continuity provisions in Clauses 259 and 356. Amendments Nos. 525, 526 and 527 aim to ensure that anything made, done by or in relation to London Regional Transport shall have effect as if made, done by or in relation to Transport for London. Amendments Nos. 567, 568, 569 and 570 make similar provision in relation to bodies abolished or dissolved and functions transferred, revoked or repealed by this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 526 and 527:
Page 150, line 11, after ("by") insert ("or in relation to").
Page 150, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Any reference in this section to anything made or done by or in relation to London Regional Transport includes a reference to anything which by virtue of any enactment is treated as having been made or done by or in relation to London Regional Transport.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 260 [Transfer of former.functions of London Transport Executive]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 528:
Page 150, line 19, at end insert—
("(2) In section 144 of the Transport Act 968 (transfer and disposal of historical records and relics) for "London Regional Transport" in each place where it occurs there shall be substituted "Transport for London".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 263 [Appointment of members by the Mayor]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 528A:
Page 150, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert—
("(8) Removal under Schedule 2 shall be subject to approval by two-thirds vote of the London Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this group I have tabled Amendments Nos. 528A, 529A to 529D and 534A. All relate to improvements that we would like to see to Clause 263 which sets up the London Development Agency within the context of the Regional Development Agencies Act.
Amendment No. 528A seeks to give the assembly a somewhat different power from that for which we applied previously. It seeks to give the assembly power to constrain the mayor's somewhat arbitrary powers of dismissal of members of the London assembly under Schedule 2. If there is to be such arbitrary power, we believe that the assembly should have some control over it. I do not expect the Minister to agree. I am not optimistic that he will see the light suddenly. However, we thought that it was worth attempting to do this once again.
Amendment No. 529A (line 3, page 151) deliberately sets out to create a situation in which the membership of the London Development Agency will always include one member of the London assembly, one member of the Common Council of the City of London, and one member who is a member of a London borough council. At present the legislation requires that people be appointed from those categories. However, such people can cease to be members of those bodies but still continue to serve on the London Development Agency. That would mean the possibility that no member of each of those three important sectors of London's commercial and political life would be involved directly with the agency. We do not believe that that is right. Amendment No. 529A takes care of that issue.
Amendment No. 529B involves a small point. It simply requires that at least two-thirds of the members of the London Development Agency—rather than half of them—should be people who have experience in the business and commercial world. Again, we believe that would be appropriate.
Amendment No. 529C removes from the face of the Bill the little phrase, persons
"who appear to the Mayor to be persons".
We do not believe that the London Development Agency should necessarily consist of people who "appear" to the mayor to be persons of experience in business and commerce; we believe they "should" be people with that experience. Amendment No. 529D covers a similar point.
Amendment No. 534A deals with a provision in Schedule 20. If the amendment were accepted, it would make it a condition that the person whom the mayor appoints holds elected office. At the moment the mayor can appoint someone who holds elected office, but such a person can cease to hold that office as a result of which a situation could arise in which the London Development Agency consisted of former elected officers as opposed to people actually in office. We do not believe that that is right.
We believe that these small amendments will improve and strengthen the London Development Agency. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, rarely have I seen what I was going to call "daft" amendments, but perhaps that would be unparliamentary language. In this respect, I do not refer to Amendment No. 529. I refer to those about which the noble Lord has just spoken.
The amendments are revealing because they indicate that the Conservative Party now recognises that it has absolutely no hope of gaining the mayoralty or a majority in the election. I greatly respect the noble Lord, notwithstanding what I have said. He is an old friend of long duration, or at least has been until now! I cannot imagine that he would have contemplated these amendments in any circumstances other than those which I have described. They are designed to "hobble" and to hamper, but not to improve the situation.
1340
I have no doubt that my noble friend will not entertain these particular amendments. They grasp at straws. With respect, they are not for the real political world at all. I do not believe that my noble friend will need much urging from me to reject the amendments, but they ought to be rejected.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, although Amendment No. 529 is in this group of amendments, I am glad to have been excepted from the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. We shall not speak to Amendments Nos. 530 and 531 in the group.
Amendment No. 529 addresses the membership of the London Development Agency and in particular its members who come from the assembly, from the London borough councils and from the Common Council of the City of London. The Bill provides that there will be at least four members—it may be more—of the London Development Agency who are at the time of their appointment elected members of any of those bodies. As we proposed at the previous stage, we now propose that there should be at least two members from the assembly and at least two members from the London boroughs or the Common Council.
We are glad to see the acknowledgement on the part of the Government of the interest of the London boroughs in regeneration and the need to ensure that the boroughs are firmly part of the partnership arrangements which will deal with the matters for which the LDA has responsibility.
At the previous stage of the Bill, the Minister said that the Government want,
"people who can contribute to the aims of the board, in particular its economic ones, and who can act together with the various private and public institutions within the region.—[Official Report, 7/7/99: col. 884.]
We feel that those representatives will be among them. When I suggested that the Minister had not addressed my point, he said that my amendment at that stage, which was the same as this one,
"fixed the requirement too rigidly in relation to local authority representation".
The Minister also accused me of going over old ground. I did not think then and do not think now that that is the case. However, since we went over so much ground so many times I can well understand that we all begin to have a sense of déjà vu about certain matters.
The point was not answered then. I am concerned that the mayor may be tempted either to appoint all of the four members from London borough councils, perhaps because he is going through a rough period with members of the assembly, or only appoint chums who are members of the assembly and who might come from any party because he feels that that is a nice cosy arrangement and it would be uncomfortable to have members of the London borough councils on the LDA board.
The Government have gone a long way to recognise the contribution that may be made by the different spheres of London's government. I hope that they feel that they can go that little bit further to ensure that

1341
that contribution will be made and will not be sidelined by the mayor, who might take a different view from the Government.
6 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I shall say a few words about Amendment No. 529C. I shall not comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, when he described a group of amendments as "daft". I am sure my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will do that adequately. The noble Lord said that he wished to remain a friend of my noble friend. I am sure he will. And, despite his remarks, he will certainly remain a friend of mine outside this Chamber.
It is important that the chairman of the London Development Agency should be a person who has experience of running a business. The reason we do not like the words,
"persons who appear to the Mayor to be persons",
is simply that the mayor himself does not have to be a person who has experience of business. That is not accepting, as the noble Lord suggested, that we have given up on our candidate; far from it. People who write books may not necessarily be considered business people in this sense.
It is important that Amendment No. 529C should be accepted by the Government. It is essential that the mayor, in designating who is to be the chairman of the London Development Agency, should choose someone who "is" experienced in business, not somebody who "appears to him" to be experienced in business.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was slightly astounded by the last remarks of the noble Baroness. Many writers may not be business people, but the noble Lord, Lord Archer, in view of the income he receives from his writing, cannot be regarded as anything but a successful business person.
The model of government that we are proposing means that the mayor takes an executive decision-making role and the assembly provides scrutiny of the mayor's actions. Amendment No. 528A would undermine that. It would allow the assembly to remove members of the London. Development Agency.
There is no equivalent in the RDA. Act as regards regional development agencies elsewhere. I remind your Lordships that under Schedule 2 of that Act, RDA board members can be removed from office only on the grounds of bankruptcy, prolonged absence or other unfitness for office. That is the appropriate position rather than it being a political decision to remove from office a member of the London Development Agency.
In their different ways Amendments Nos. 529, 529A and 534A would specify more closely the composition of the local authority representation on the LDA board. Again, they will reduce the mayor's discretion to appoint LDA board members in a way which is representative of diverse London interest groups. It is
1342
fundamental to our whole approach to regional development agencies that their boards bring experience of various different kinds to regional life. That applies equally to London. Members are not tied to specific regional interest groups and regional bodies. If we were to prescribe the balance of the local authority membership, that would undermine that overall approach. They are there for their own qualities, experience and expertise. I hope, therefore, that those amendments will not be pursued.
Amendment No. 529B would change the requirement that half the board members have to have business experience by a requirement that it be two-thirds. It has been clear throughout that it is our intention that the board of the LDA should be business led. However, we also recognise the need to require representation on that board of other interest groups and economic interests as well as local government. Were we to prescribe that the business element should always be two-thirds, it would reduce the discretion of the mayor in making such appointments and, if it were to be prescribed rigidly by statute, it would limit the mayor's ability to ensure representation of groups from other important walks of life, skills and experience on a board of no more than 15 persons. I therefore cannot accept Amendment No. 529B.
I shall not use the same terminology as that used by my noble friend in relation to Amendments Nos. 529C and 529D. They replace the requirement that half the board members must be persons who "appear" to the mayor to have experience of running a business. The words, "appear to the mayor" leave some judgment and discretion with the mayor, which is the point of establishing the mayor in the first instance. Were we to prescribe on the face of the Bill direct experience of running a business, which is an allegedly objective criteria, it could lead to substantial litigation were it ever to be challenged. It is clear "appears to" in this and other contexts—for example, the same phrase is used in the Welsh Development Agency legislation—leaves an element of judgment (in those days to the Secretary of State and now to the Welsh Assembly) to the mayor, whereas if we were to prescribe flatly "experience of business" who would judge whether or not the mayor fulfilled that requirement? In other words, the final judgment is down to the mayor but the mayor has to be able to demonstrate that it is reasonable that the person appears to him to have business experience. If Amendments Nos. 529C and 529D are intended to take discretion out of the mayor's hands, I understand that, though I do not agree with it. The reality is that it would open up arguments as to what amounts to appropriate business experience.
I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to say that she would not refer to Amendments Nos. 530 and 531 in this group. I shall therefore refrain from commenting on those.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we have had an interesting discussion. In relation to my amendments I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am not sure whether he has been present each time we have

1343
discussed this, but not least of the reasons for tabling what might be called "foolish" questions is that it forces the Minister to think. I pay the Minister this compliment. He has strengthened his arguments in favour of his position considerably since we first raised the matter. That is the justification for the procedures of this House.
I shall study with interest the Minister's comments. He definitely strengthened his argument. I doubt that the two of us will ever be in complete agreement on these matters, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 529 to 529D not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 529E:
Page 151, line 16, at end insert—
("(12) Proposed members of the London Development Agency shall complete a declaration detailing their business interests, whether he has been made bankrupt, been a party to a voluntary arrangement, whether there are any judgements against him. whether he has been convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty or an offence under legislation (whether or not of the United Kingdom) relating to companies (including insider dealing), building societies, banking or other financial services, or if he has been disqualified as a director or of any other material information, and this declaration should be publicly available for inspection one month before appointment."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 529E seeks to put into the Bill a subject which produced quite a bit of interest when we were dealing with this matter at the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, joined me, and the amendments not spoken to in the previous grouping touch on this matter. No one who works for a public limited company would be unfamiliar with the provisions in either of these amendments. They are both directed to achieve the same purpose but would do so in different ways. Amendment No. 529E seeks to insert a provision into Clause 263 and Amendment No. 534 would make an addition to Schedule 20.
As I said, any businessman who is working in a plc will, if he is a director of that company, have to make a declaration of probity. It is an entirely reasonable and accepted procedure which any businessman would not think about for one moment; indeed, he would expect to have to comply with it. Of course, some of the businessmen who will serve on the London Development Agency have already signed this declaration, but they will have signed it for someone else. I do not think that it is unreasonable that they might have to make the declaration for the mayor—in fact, not for the mayor, but for the people of London. The LDA is not there for the amusement of its members, still less is it there for the gratification of the ambitions of the mayor. It is there to serve the people of London.
It would gratify me enormously if the Minister could find it in his heart to accept one or the other of these amendments. I believe both of them to be sensible, but I do not expect both to succeed. The principle is absolutely correct. Although I admit that we have returned to a matter which we debated thoroughly in
1344
Committee, I think it is an important matter and that these two amendments deserve sympathetic consideration by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 530 and 531. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has no doubt noted, it is no coincidence that the amendment from these Benches is identical to Amendment No. 529E in many respects. Indeed, we were certainly not alone in Committee in finding the Government's reply unsatisfactory regarding the nature and the way in which interests were to be declared with regard to the LDA.
In her reply in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, seemed to imply that the provisions in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 were satisfactory. However, I suggest to her that paragraph 8 of the second schedule to that Act, which I believe is the part of the legislation that she referred to as requiring declarations of interest, is really unsatisfactory and is certainly in no way comparable to the provision suggested by these amendments. The paragraph in that schedule deals only with ad hoc disclosures and not with general disclosures, which are then fully published. We debated the Food Standards Bill in the Moses Room last week. There are proper provisions in that legislation for declarations of interest and their publication. That is the right thing to do for a public agency. In our view, the LDA should be treated no differently.
We have tabled Amendment No. 531 which can be treated as either additional or alternative to Amendment No. 530. Indeed, the matter might be best dealt with by incorporating, as it seeks to do, Clause 55 of the Bill into the Regional Development Agencies Act. That clause currently applies only to the mayor, the assembly members and the staff of the authority. The amendment is designed to incorporate Clause 55 into the Regional Development Agencies Act so that the provision would also apply to members of the LDA. It deals inter alia with disclosure and registration of interests, the exercise of functions when there are conflicts of interest and,
"the prescription of model codes of conduct".
All that could be properly applied to members of the LDA.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out, and as was quite clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, in Committee—who, after all, must have filled in a great many application forms to the Stock Exchange over a course of time—such declarations are the sort of thing that businessmen do every day as a matter of course. It really is time for the Government to accept that a much more comprehensive declaration of interest is required by members of the LDA under the terms of the Bill. They should be subject to a proper duty to make declarations. I very much hope that the Government will reconsider the matter.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the propositions in these particular amendments. I just wonder whether it is all a little too complicated, but no doubt my noble friend the Minister will enlighten us. There is one advantage that I see in a declaration; namely, that if someone signs a declaration which is false, it would open up the possibility of a prosecution for perjury. To that end, there would be an additional sanction available which, as I understand it, would not be available if the concept of a declaration is rejected. I may be wrong in that respect, so I shall certainly listen to my noble friend's response with care.
It seems to me to be important to inject into this argument the possibility of a criminal sanction which might follow in what is a matter of very important public duty. I simply put that idea forward for my noble friend to consider in her response to this debate.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 529E and 534B, together with Amendments Nos. 530 and 531 which were originally in the previous grouping, would require proposed members of the LDA board to complete a declaration covering certain issues which might render them unsuitable to serve on that board. Those issues would include bankruptcy, fraud, dishonesty, offences under the Companies Acts and similar legislation, and disqualification as a director. The declaration must be publicly available for one month before appointment.
The noble Lord has raised an important issue. I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the matter with him again. Perhaps I may begin by stressing that we fully accept the need to avoid conflicts of interest and the need for high ethical standards. However, conflicts of interest are prevented by Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act—this deals with one of the points raised by the noble Lord—which requires members to declare interests in matters being discussed and prevents such members from taking part in decisions in which they have an interest. Ethical standards are protected in part by the power of the mayor to remove members who become bankrupt and by the imposition of the local government framework of controls, including oversight by the Audit Commission and the appointment of a chief finance officer with statutory duties to ensure financial propriety. Therefore, we are convinced that there is no case for further controls in that area.
I can understand noble Lords seeking to argue that it is best to err on the side of caution, but we have another difficulty with the proposed amendments. We firmly believe that the approach suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan—with its emphasis on avoiding the rigidity introduced by trying to define standards in statute—is the right one. The amendment proposed would cut across that policy. We accept that the amendment essentially covers Stock Exchange practice for directors of plcs, but I am advised that that practice does not have a statutory basis, thus supporting the view that statute is not the best vehicle for such matters.
1346
Finally, I should point out that the mayor with his or her powers of appointment and extensive powers of direction over the LDA is able to apply such extra safeguards as she or he sees fit. Our policy is not to add unnecessary constraints on the mayor's freedom of action. He or she is, in the last analysis, answerable to the voters for stewardship of the authority and functional bodies. It is not clear that a false declaration would inevitably in all circumstances—I am sure noble Lords are aware that I am being cautious—lead to perjury; it would depend on the status of such action. I prefer to write to clarify the point in greater detail if that is necessary.
As regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, Amendment No. 530 requires proposed members to complete a declaration covering bankruptcy and certain related matters. However I believe that I have covered that point. I hope that noble Lords will feel that to achieve the aims which we share it is not necessary to proceed with the amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act. Clearly her view is that that is entirely satisfactory even though it is not as widely drawn as the amendments. What are the publicity requirements under paragraph 8 of Schedule 2?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not aware that there are publicity requirements in those circumstances but that does not in, my way detract from the strength of the constraint as regards ethical practice in making such appointments.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I did not quite follow the argument about false declarations. If someone is required, as here, to make a declaration and, let us say, a declaration is made that that person has not been bankrupt, or rather he or she does not declare that he has been bankrupt, in almost all the circumstances—although I can see one or two areas where that may not apply—why should not the Government say that it is desirable that the declaration should be made and if it is breached the criminal sanction is available certainly as regards some of the concepts that we are discussing? Would that not be a useful sanction?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is my understanding that the requirement to act within the ethical framework in the terms laid down in the legislation, and in the circumstances of requiring a declaration, for example on bankruptcy, is covered in exactly the way that my noble friend seeks. I was being cautious and offering to write to the noble Lord if he had further questions on that matter. I am assured that the answer I gave was correct.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, when one stands at the Dispatch Box on this side of the House one does not have great expectation of an occasional triumph

1347
when the Government agree to a measure. However, I draw some encouragement from the fact that debate on the procedures and detail of the Greater London Authority, the mayor and the subsidiary bodies will almost certainly in the initial stages of the working of that authority be material which they will find useful if not absolutely essential. I am glad that I initiated this debate. I shall study the comments of the noble Baroness with care and attention, as always. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 530 and 531 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, if Amendment No. 531A were to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 532 because of pre-emption. I now call Amendment No. 531A.
Clause 264 [Delegation of functions by Ministers to the Mayor]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 531A:
Page 151, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we think that the way in which the legislation is drafted gives too much power to the mayor with regard to the London Development Agency. In Section 6 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 the Secretary of State delegates power to the regional development agencies. However, the effect of Clause 264(2) of this Bill is that delegated powers are given to the mayor and not to what is in effect the regional development agency. Therefore the mayor is in effect the London Development Agency. We think that that is too strong a power. I do not suppose that the Minister will agree with us but we thought it was worth putting this down once again as a marker. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, by the same token I do not expect miracles from the Minister's reply. Amendment No. 532 seeks further clarification as to the extent of the delegation to the London Development Agency on the part of the Secretary of State. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, made it clear that the Government intended to transfer the property, rights and liabilities of English Partnerships to the LDA. We certainly welcome that and we trust that the Minister will give that assurance today. That is the first of the four limbs of the delegations that we seek to examine.
The second delegation that we seek from the Secretary of State regards selective financial assistance under Section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. As regards those powers in relation to assisted areas, the noble Baroness said that the Government had decided that that should be reserved for Ministers for the present. However, she gave no reasons for that. Surely these are a vital component of any regeneration strategy to be adopted by the authority. It is not clear from the noble Baroness's reply whether, if the present is not the right time, when will be the right time. Why is now not the right time?
1348
As regards the third limb, EU structural funds, the noble Baroness was even less forthcoming. She said that because the LDA will be a recipient it would be inappropriate for it to allocate such funds. I wonder whether the Minister can go into further detail as to why that should be the case. After all, if it receives just a part of the cake it could easily be responsible for allocating the remainder of the cake. That matter could be clarified. Again it is an important part of any regeneration strategy.
Finally, as regards allocation of the single regeneration budget, because of some confusion over groupings in Committee the Minister's reply was not very clear when one examines Hansard, although she seemed to imply that SRB funding responsibility would be delegated to the LDA. If that is the case, obviously we welcome it. However, we seek clarification in all those areas and in any other areas of delegation that the Minister may care to comment upon.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am a little hurt. The noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith, and Lord Clement-Jones, seem to imply that we on these Benches have not listened to anything and have never responded positively to any point raised. That would be a tragic note to leave on record in the light of the reasonable approach we have taken.
Amendment No. 531A would ensure that Ministers could only delegate economic development functions under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 to the LDA, and not to the mayor, and that the mayor's consent would not be required for this. I should explain that Section 6 of the RDA Act provides for the delegation of certain functions by Ministers to RDAs, as noble Lords have said, and it lays down the conditions under which such delegations can be made, varied and revoked.
Clause 264 amends Section 6 so that a Minister may delegate any eligible function to the mayor or, with the mayor's consent, to the LDA. The present intention is to make such delegations on the same terms as delegations to RDAs outside London, which includes making the delegation subject to such conditions as the Minister sees fit. Any such delegated function can be further delegated by the mayor to the LDA under Clause 31 of the Bill. However, if it is delegated to the LDA in this way, the mayor is obliged to attach conditions to the delegation to ensure that the conditions attached by the Minister to the original delegation are fully satisfied. As we made clear in the White Paper, the LDA will be an executive arm of the mayor. If Ministers were able to delegate functions to the LDA against the wishes of the mayor, that would undermine the close working relationship which we intend for the mayor and the LDA.
Amendment No. 532 seeks to delegate to the LDA a miscellany of functions and funding regimes. The first of these is already provided for in Section 36 of the RDA Act. This allows the Secretary of State to direct the Urban Regeneration Agency to transfer to RDAs

1349
appropriate properties, rights and liabilities as a consequence of the RDA carrying out the functions of the URA in its regions. For example, the English Partnership assets in London—except for the Dome and possibly some property close to it—will transfer to the LDA. I can assure the noble Lord that we intend to make such a transfer to the LDA—together with the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—when the LDA is established.
As the noble Lord recognises, the second function would go beyond those delegated to other RDAs and, as has been acknowledged, this was fully debated during the passage of the RDA Bill before finally being rejected. Assisted areas define where government can give specified financial support to industries. We have decided that this should be reserved for Ministers as at present.
I have seen too many Ministers at the Dispatch Box get drawn into answering questions such as "How long is 'possibly soon'?"; "How long is 'sooner'?"; "How long is 'very quickly'?"; "How long is 'at some stage in the future'?"; and "If so, when?" to realise that that would not be a wise course to follow. However, I should make it absolutely clear that RDAs will have an important role in advising on applications for assistance.
Perhaps I may respond to a specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Assisted areas are a matter of national policy dealing with the relative competitiveness of different parts of the country and within the EU. It is clearly right that this should remain with the national government. If the noble Lord requires any further expansion on the subject, I shall of course write to him.
The third function would allow Ministers to delegate to the LDA the administration of the structural funds currently carried out by the Government Office for London. Like RDAs elsewhere, as the noble Lord recognised, the LDA is likely to be a recipient of structural funds. It could lead to conflict with other recipients were there to be a role for it in overall administration.
The fourth function would specify that the single regeneration budget in London should be delegated to the LDA. We have already committed ourselves to this, but the delegation will be made to the mayor unless he or she consents to a delegation directly to the LDA.
These are funding programmes that naturally evolve over time, and it would not be appropriate to identify functions for the purposes of the Bill by referring in detail to such programmes. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I hasten to reassure her that we do not regard the Government as wholly immovable. Often, it is very difficult see when a concession is a concession. Sometimes one has to study the wording to find whether it is a concession, or sometimes the concession comes along later. I readily
1350
acknowledge that during the passage of the Bill there has been quite a lot of movement. Undoubtedly, some of that movement has come partly as a result of the Government's studies of the flaws in, or omissions from, the original drafting, and some has come as a consequence of the pressure applied by ourselves and noble Lords sitting to my right. That is the purpose of our debates.
I heard with great interest what the noble Baroness said. I shall study her remarks. In the meantime I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 532 not moved.]
Clause 265 [The London Development Agency strategy]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 532A:
Page 152, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 12 and insert ("submit to the Mayor, the Assembly, the London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 532A to 532J constitute a large group of amendments which deal with matters that we have fairly thoroughly debated. Dare I say it, from the responses of the Minister today, I do not think we will get a great deal of movement on them now. Therefore I feel it is perhaps unnecessary to trouble your Lordships by taking the House painfully through them again.
[Amendment No. 532A not moved.]
[Amendment Nos. 532B to 532J not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I call Amendment No. 5340. The Question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. I think inadvertently he has taken two pages of the Marshalled List together. The next amendment is Amendment No. 533.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 533:
Page 153, line 1, at end insert—
("( ) In this Act and the Greater London Authority Act 1999, references to the London Development Agency strategy include, except where the context otherwise requires, a reference to the London Development Agency strategy as revised.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 533A:
After Clause 268, insert the following new clause—

ASSEMBLY TO DEBATE REPORT AND ACCOUNTS OF AGENCY
(" . The Assembly shall debate annually the report and accounts of the London Development Agency.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 533A deals with a simple and basic point. It may be that the Minister will tell me that it is otiose—to borrow someone else's word—or unnecessary.
This small amendment requires that the London assembly shall debate annually the report and accounts of the London Development Agency. It may be deemed inconceivable that that would not happen, but it does not have to happen. The London Development Agency could submit its report to the assembly quietly and it could be quietly buried. That is not what should happen. The amendment seeks to ensure that it does not happen. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, by virtue of Clause 116, the assembly will receive a copy of any reports prepared by the LDA's chief finance officer under Section 114 of the Local Government Act 1988. These are reports on losses, unlawful expenditure or items of account, and the likelihood that expenditure will exceed resources. Furthermore, under Clause 121, the LDA will have to provide the authority with such information about its accounts as the mayor shall request so that the authority can prepare its summary statement of account under Clause 120 for the GLA and the functional bodies as a whole. Therefore, the assembly will have ample opportunity to debate reports on financial matters and the LDA's accounts. We all anticipate a co-operative and peaceful relationship between the mayor, the assembly and the LDA. For the noble Lord to imply that it could come to the point where the scrutiny function is not carried out is not realistic.
The assembly has a power under Clause 49 to keep under review the exercise by the mayor of the statutory functions exercisable by him. Given the powers of appointment and direction which the mayor has over the LDA, the assembly will be able to hold regular debates. Requiring the assembly to debate the LDA's reports and accounts is unnecessary and would serve only to cloud its responsibilities. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I fail to understand why the fact that the assembly might debate the report and accounts of the LDA should cloud matters. I should have thought that, if anything, it would be more likely to cast light on the subject. None the less, I accept that in the way of the world it is unlikely that when the assembly receives the reports—in particular, when it looks at what the LDA is doing in relation to preparation of the draft consolidated budget—it will not go into the London Development Agency report and accounts in considerable detail.
It is on that basis that I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, rather than for the reason that it might cloud an issue. I do not believe that that would happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 20 [Further amendments of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 533B:
Page 300, line 18, leave out from ("to") to end of line 19 and insert ("London where the London Development Agency shall have regard to the views of and regularly consult small, medium and large businesses in London and their representative bodies."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to a theme on which we have touched time and time again as regards the need for thorough consultation between the representative bodies of small, medium and large businesses in London and the LDA. There are some half a million businesses in London, give or take a few. There are so many small businesses that it is difficult to know the exact figure. Most of those businesses are small and medium sized. It is a fact that most such businesses do not generally have representative bodies which can adequately put forward their point of view. None the less, such businesses form a large and significant part of any urban economy and deserve to be taken most thoroughly into account.
I do not apologise for tabling the amendment yet again. I wish that the Government would see the force of it, although I do not doubt that they will say that the consultation will be Utopian and that there is no problem here. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment slightly late in the day. I find it a little superfluous to put into the Bill the need to consult small, medium-sized and large businesses. Noble Lords may be aware that Sub-Committee B of the Select Committee on the European Communities, of which I have the honour to be a member, is looking into the needs of SMEs and the help they receive from Brussels. We have been debating the matter for some time and it is hoped that we shall produce a paving report before the end of the Session. Therefore, I wonder whether it is necessary to include this level of detail.
There are, of course, a significant number of organisations that do look after small businesses as well as large ones. The sub-committee examined the point again this morning and I believe that it is true to say that their views are well represented. I certainly do not believe that it is necessary to go into the level of detail required by this amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, partly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and partly for the reason that very early in the Bill, starting at Clause 25, and throughout it we have built in provisions for consultation between the mayor, the functional bodies and the business community—I believe that I gave a positive reassurance on the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, earlier in the Report stage—I can say that we are absolutely committed to full consultation with the business community at all levels. There is an additional reason why this would not be an appropriate point to build in such a provision; namely, the amendment relates to paragraph 3 of Schedule 20 which amends the Regional Development Agencies Act in relation to regional chambers. Clearly, a body consisting solely of business interests is not the equivalent of regional chambers in the other regions of England. For that reason, it would not be appropriate to insert such a provision at that point of the Bill.

1353
I have expressed the view several times during the course of our deliberations on the Bill that we are committed clearly, absolutely and more than sufficiently to consultation with business.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but it gives me pleasure to hear him reiterate his points on consultation. It is good also to hear the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, when he assures us that the mechanisms already exist. I am an infinite sceptic, because however good things are, they can always be improved. It is because things can always be improved that I continue to press so often on the same subjects. That ensures that the improvement process is likely to happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smithhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 533C:
Page 302, line 9, leave out paragraph 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the boundaries of the London Development Agency. As drafted, the Bill fixes that boundary for all time unless subsequent primary legislation is passed, and it is a fact that that is not the general situation. I know that we have debated the matter before, but I reiterate the argument. However, on this occasion I shall spare the Minister the trouble of responding to me by not moving the amendment.
[Amendment No. 533C not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 534:
Page 302, line 23, at end insert—
("Power to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament
After section 26 there shall be inserted—
"Power to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament
26A.—(1) The London Development Agency—

(a) may promote Bills in Parliament; and

(b) may oppose any Bill in Parliament.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) applies only if the Mayor of London—

(a) gives his written consent to the Bill; and

(b) confirms that consent in writing as soon as practicable after the expiration of 14 days after the Bill has been deposited in Parliament.

(3) If the Mayor of London does not confirm the consent as required by subsection (2)(b), he shall give notice of that fact to the London Development Agency, which shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the Bill.
(4) If the Mayor of London, in giving notice under subsection (3), states that he confirms his consent to the Bill if provisions specified in the notice are omitted or are amended as so specified, the London Development Agency may, instead of withdrawing the Bill pursuant to subsection (3), take all necessary steps for the omission or, as the case may be, the amendment of the provisions in question in accordance with the notice.
(5) Without prejudice to subsections (2) to (4), the functions conferred on the London Development Agency by subsection (1)(a) are exercisable subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Schedule 6A.
(6) Subsection (1)(b) applies only if the Mayor of London gives his written consent to the London Development Agency to oppose the Bill.
(7) If—

(a) the London Development Agency deposits a petition against a Bill in Parliament, but

(b) the consent required by subsection (6) has not been given before the end of the period of 30 days following the day on which the petition is deposited,

the London Development Agency shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the petition.
(8) Before exercising the functions conferred by subsection (2)(a) or (b), (4) or (6), the Mayor of London shall consult the London Assembly.
(9) This section is without prejudice to any power to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament which a regional development agency other than the London Development Agency may have apart from this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 534A and 534B not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 534C:
Page 303, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
("(5) After paragraph 3 (remuneration, pensions etc) there shall be inserted—
Application of paragraph 3 in relation to the London Development Agency
3A.—(1) Payments by way of remuneration or allowances, other than allowances in respect of expenses incurred in the exercise of their functions, shall not be made under paragraph 3(1) to members of the London Development Agency who are also members of the London Assembly.
(2) The payments that may be made to or in respect of a person—

(a) under paragraph 3(2)(a) or (b), or

(b) under a scheme provided or maintained under paragraph 3(2)(c),

do not include payments referable to periods when the person is or was a member of both the London Development Agency and the London Assembly.
(3) In the application of paragraph 3 in relation to the London Development Agency, the references to the Secretary of State shall be taken as references to the Mayor of London.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, as consideration on the Greater London Authority Bill has now been concluded a little earlier than we expected, I think the general feeling of the House is that we should go

1355
straight on with the Unstarred Question. As the Question is being taken at the end of business, it is no longer restricted to the one hour that would have been allowed in the dinner break. A one-and-a-half hour limit now applies. That does not affect the time allowed for the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, or my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, but it increases the time available for all other speakers from four minutes to seven minutes. However, if noble Lords have prepared four minute speeches and would prefer to avoid the inconvenience of extending them at such short notice, I am sure there will be no objection.

Aberdeen and North-East Scotland
6.50 p.m.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the contribution of the city of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland to the economy of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I sought this brief debate and tabled the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper because I believe that Aberdeen and north-east Scotland are making a hugely important contribution to the economy of the United Kingdom. The city of Aberdeen is without doubt a major contributor to our present prosperity. I wish to be assured that the Government are aware of that contribution to our national wealth and that they are actively pursuing policies that will underpin the position of Aberdeen and guarantee, so far as any government can give such a guarantee, that it will continue as a generator of wealth.
Aberdeen has historically been a place where business has flourished. It has always been a successful port and in times past its traditional industries prospered. They, and most notably the fishing industry, continue to have an important place in the local economy. Today, with a population of over 200,000, Aberdeen has the highest gross domestic product in the United Kingdom.
The oil industry and Aberdeen's position as the European oil capital testify to the success of the city. Securing the oil industry for Aberdeen can in large measure be attributed to a Member of the House. I refer to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. It was he who, as Lord Provost of the city and later as a Scottish Office Minister, helped to create a business environment which the oil industry found attractive over competitor locations. He deserves credit and recognition for that. I am delighted to see him in his place this evening.
At its peak in 1991 the oil industry employed some 54,000 people. Today that figure is reduced to around 40,000 and predictions recently made by Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire councils project a further reduction of around 10,000 between now and 2011. The councils' report says that the future depends on field development, the servicing and support of
1356
international oil provinces and the framework set by the Government. The energy industry is robust, and I am confident that it will prove so in the future, but I hope we will hear tonight from the Government how they view the future of the oil industry in Scotland.
Aberdeen and north-east Scotland is the foremost region in Northern Europe and has a leading position in business, commerce, science and technology. Its universities and related institutions sit well with the excellence achieved by the business community. Its public authorities match that excellence and the high quality of its local government is widely appreciated.
I should like at this point to make some observations about the economic infrastructure. Aberdeen is well served by the aviation industry. Although there have been recent concerns about the provision of air services it does appear that these will continue at a level that meets the needs of the business community. Links with London, continental Europe and the British mainland are frequent and reliable. Aberdeen airport itself is a first-class facility. BAA Scotland runs a very efficient organisation at Dyce in support of air movements associated with the oil industry as well as the passenger airlines. I believe that it is in the interests of Aberdeen and the economy as a whole that a more liberal regulatory regime on later landing times is developed to allow even greater use and access to the airport. It is a price worth paying and one which an important industrial centre like Aberdeen should be prepared to pay.
There is not time to deal with everything, despite the Chief Whip's generosity, but I would make a plea for an improved rail service between Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Express trains covering the same routes as commuter trains stop at every station, or so it seems, and that is not necessary. It certainly seems like that if you attempt to go up on the night sleeper. Schedules are simply too slow and it is time to do something about it. There is also a clear need for a cross-city link.
Perhaps the most important plea I can make tonight is for the early construction of the road known as the western peripheral route. Recently when clearing papers belonging to my late father I found proposals for this route being considered by Aberdeen Town Council, of which he was a member, in 1945. If there was case then, there is surely a case now. It is time to build it. The present trunk road network is totally inadequate. Dual carriageways and motorways link from south of the city to the south of Europe. Yet the network comes to a dead-end at the city boundary. The entrance to Aberdeen from the south is by way of the 16th century ancient monument of Bridge of Dee. Its seven foot width restriction makes mockery of the trunk road objective of providing a continuous, quality network. Before rejoining dual carriageways to the north and west of Aberdeen the trunk roads through the city use residential streets and are fragmented by some 16 sets of traffic signals and pedestrian crossings.
The European Union has designated the Trans-European Road Network connecting Aberdeen from the south to the west. Yet the UK and Scottish

1357
Governments have failed to recognise the importance of the western peripheral route as contributing to this continent-wide network. Aberdeen is too important to the Scottish and UK economies for this route to be delayed any longer. A commitment to its construction must be made now.
Even in the midst of prosperity there are small pockets of poverty. In recent times bids for funding and support such as is required for the upgrading of the Tillydrone area have been rejected. This has led to a perception in the city that central Scotland decision-makers misunderstand the needs of Aberdeen City Council. It leads to the claim that Aberdeen generates wealth that is spent elsewhere in the UK while the needs of Aberdeen are not met. These perceptions are divisive and they must not gain currency. But that means that the Government in Edinburgh must match its promise of inclusiveness and see to it that Aberdeen City Council receives the financial assistance it requires to tackle poverty and social exclusion.
I have sought in this debate to identify some of the important priorities of a city that has great economic and social importance to the United Kingdom. I hope that I have not overstated the case for Aberdeen, unlike an old Aberdeen councillor when I was a young man. Addressing the council on tourism, he made this observation:
"Aberdeen is famous throughout the world— and beyond".
He exaggerated just a little! I shall be satisfied if the Government have heard our case and I look forward to hearing the contributions of noble Lords and my noble friend's response at the conclusion of the debate.
6.58 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, although I was brought up in Aberdeenshire and used to know Aberdeen very well, I should like to take your Lordships on a trip up to the true north-east of Scotland; that is, to Caithness. The noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, to whom we a re all grateful for introducing the debate, mentioned communications, so let us start in London.
The drive from London to Edinburgh takes about eight hours. The journey by train takes about four hours. The next stage of the journey is from Edinburgh to Inverness. That is probably about the same by train or by car: four hours. The next leg of the journey up to north-east Scotland takes about four hours by train and about two hours by car. There is a huge contrast. It highlights the disadvantage that Caithness suffers through lack of a decent train service.
What does that mean? It means that people do not use the railway, and therefore there is less investment. It also means that freight companies do not use the railway. Although we might be only two hours from Inverness and your Lordships might think that we have certain advantages, if one looks at petrol prices, one soon realises that Caithness is not contributing in the way that it could to the economy of the United Kingdom because the price of petrol is some 15 to
1358
20 per cent higher than it is in London. The situation is exacerbated entirely by the Government's policies on fuel pricing.
Caithness is very much a farming county. However, the Government's policy is not to help farmers at all. As a result, farming is suffering enormously, as we found out at Question Time today, when reference was made to the diabolical policy on beef on the bone which is frustrating farmers. Another point that needs to be borne in mind—which is true of a large part of the farming in Aberdeenshire—is the total lack of flexibility in the North in terms of crops. It is not like the balmy South, where one can grow various crops. Farmers are very restricted in what they can grow.
Another issue that is causing great concern in the North-East as a whole is the Scottish Parliament's proposals for land reform. Investment is drying up in all kinds of areas and that is beginning to take its toll. The environment in the North-East is beautiful. The Flow Country is almost a world heritage site, and I hope that it becomes one. But it does not generate income. It does not make a great contribution to the economy. Further help is badly needed, as are fewer policies that will be detrimental in the future.
The government policies that I supported when we were in power have also led to problems. I argued against them at the time. The centralisation of the Highland council at Inverness is draining good people away from the North-East to Inverness. It is an inevitable consequence of centralisation. It would be far better if the present Government sought to undo the folly of their predecessors in centralising in Inverness. To put the Highland council back into Wick and the local areas would provide people with new opportunities and would stop the drift of unemployment.
Unemployment is a long-term problem in Caithness. The figure for the long-term unemployed is the second worst in the Highland area. The problem is exacerbated by government policies. There are very good areas, such as Dounreay, where the figures have risen again to what they were before the threat of closure. Areas in Thurso are thriving. But with the road link, despite the high petrol prices, and with the Highland council based at Inverness, it is inevitable that people go to Inverness to shop rather than shop in the high street. That reduces the contribution that Caithness can make to the economy. The county has great potential. It merely needs better government policies. At present, the Government are aiding the millennium clearances, and that is bad for the whole of the North-East.
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, on initiating this debate. I shall take the short speech option.
King Robert the Bruce gave my family land and a castle in north-east Scotland in 1308. Apart from military service, particularly at Bannockburn in 1314—a home win, where we commanded the cavalry—and the 9th Earl being in Australia for five years from 1895, we have been there ever since.

1359
The North-East has many good things. It has good farming. Thirty per cent of the food production in Scotland, worth £117 million in 1997, takes place in the area. It now has the Scottish wing of the Food Standards Agency. Seventy per cent of the UK fish catch is landed in the North-East. Aberdeen has a modern and efficient harbour, the second busiest after Dover in terms of ship movements. We can also grow good timber, and we have our own breed of cattle black Aberdeen Angus, which, rather like Scottish hereditary Peers, are carefully bred from long and well-proven blood lines. Once the current problems are resolved, they (the pedigree cattle, that is) will continue to be exported all over the world.
We have good scenery, but rather lose out to the A9, the road that runs from Perth to Inverness. I understand that, in the tourist trade, the A9 is called the Aberdeen bypass. As the noble Lord said, Aberdeen certainly needs a bypass, but rather closer than the A9. Difficult decisions over the western peripheral route will have to be taken soon before economic activity grinds to a halt.
We have almost full employment which in itself causes problems, particularly for firms wishing to expand. We are possibly the victims of our own success. Although a considerable amount of money has been generated in, and has left, the area, the infrastructure has been rather left behind. There is now a serious shortage of industrial land. A 1997 review stated that in the area in close proximity to Aberdeen there was only 4.3 years' supply left.
The two most important contributors to the UK economy in the North-East are Scotch whisky and North Sea oil. In 1998, the Scotch whisky industry employed about 1,350 people in the area, many in remote rural and economically disadvantaged communities. One in 10 agricultural jobs in Scotland relies on the success of the industry, which draws heavily on Scottish farmers for about 80 per cent of its malting barley needs, much of the barley grown in the North-East. The distilleries are a great magnet for tourists, who will leave the A9 to be among the million visitors to 40 distilleries, some in north-east Scotland. The industry generates £2 billion of exports each year and pays considerable duties to the UK Exchequer.
As regards North Sea oil and gas, the right honourable Stephen Byers, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, writing the foreword to a task force report in September this year, stated:
"There can be no doubt about the significant part which the oil and gas sector plays in the UK economy. Over the years it has provided £89 billion pounds in revenue to the nation, significant employment, with some 30,000 jobs offshore and over 300,000 direct and indirect jobs onshore: and in 1998 it was responsible for some 17% of UK industrial investment".
Need I say more?
7.9 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I ought to start by declaring an interest as a professor and Vice-Principal of the University of Aberdeen. That will give some background as to why I shall mention that institution,
1360
at least to some extent, in my comments. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld on giving the House the opportunity to debate this Unstarred Question. It is phrased somewhat like an examination question. I only hope it does not produce the answer of one undergraduate when asked to give an assessment of the contribution of D.H. Lawrence to English literature. The candidate wrote on the examination paper: "Nae much". That cannot be said about the contribution of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland to the economy of the United Kingdom.
It is important, in debates such as this, that we voice local interests, but we must also beware of being parochial. I do not believe there is a risk of that happening in this debate because the themes and issues on which we touch have a resonance that goes beyond north-east Scotland, beyond rural Scotland and applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. In northeast Scotland we are well placed to contribute to many debates that affect rural society throughout the United Kingdom.
Other speakers in the debate will touch on the many areas in which Aberdeen and north-east Scotland make an important and dynamic contribution to our economy. Although it is important to recognise the contribution of oil and gas and the increasing contribution made by the knowledge economy in north-east Scotland, we cannot forget the traditional role of north-east Scotland as an agricultural area and recognise that primarily, outside the major conurbation of Aberdeen, it is a rural area.
I am moved to make at least one comment on the somewhat idiosyncratic contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to the debate. His criticism that the Government do not care about agriculture is simply beyond belief. The figures do not stack up in any way to support that assertion. First, one simple figure is that £400 million per year, year on year, of public money is used to support Scottish agriculture. That is at least one measure of the Government's contribution to an important industry.
Secondly, in all the past three years, in recognition of the problems that the livestock industry has been facing in the hills of rural Scotland, the Government have found additional money to give extra support to that particularly vulnerable sector of the industry. So it is a total nonsense to suggest that the Government do not care for agriculture. They do, and they put their money where their mouth is, absolutely and completely.
However, it is true that the rural economy is changing; rural society is changing. The rural economy in north-east Scotland is a success. The figures indicate that we have a rural economy based in Aberdeenshire which has increasing population levels, good jobs, high wages and low unemployment. The issue of outward rural migration throughout much of the north-east and rural Scotland generally has been turned round. Rural Scotland is an attractive and dynamic place with an attractive, dynamic economy.

1361
That success is based increasingly on diversity. It is based on individual enterprise and flair, responding to market opportunities, often through adding value to the high quality of the primary products which we produce.
However, we must recognise that the primary sectors are undergoing difficulties. With the best will in the world, because of world trends. it is hard to see those difficulties disappearing in the short term. But that should not be a cause for despair; it should be a spur to find solution, to accept the challenge. The opportunity exists for north-east Scotland to lead the way and develop approaches to rural development that can be of relevance not only to the north-east, not only to Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom.
It is my belief that that approach should have a number of elements to it: first, a move away from dependence on commodity production and commodity prices, a move towards recognising the importance of demonstrating quality and adding value, being close to the market and providing customers with what they want. Above all, we must have an approach and a sensitivity which emphasises and rewards flair and individual enterprise.
Essentially, there is a need for a change of culture, to an extent, which recognises that the dependency culture of a subsidy-driven agriculture regime that we have through the CAP is thwarting individual enterprise and individual adjustment to difficult circumstances.
I believe that we must—and I try to do this—provide a framework that will encourage local people and local communities to accept responsibility for their own development. That often sounds a simple, easy and attractive option. It is not. Accepting responsibility is often difficult and, I am afraid, causes local conflicts. In the end, I am convinced that a bottom-up approach to rural development stands a much greater chance of bringing about sustainable rural development than any of the heavy handed, top-down approaches we have seen in the past. It is a means by which local communities can be energised and helped to solve their own difficulties and problems.
I do not underestimate the difficulties inherent in that approach, but there are real and distinctive opportunities to make a breakthrough in north-east Scotland and set the pace for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Within Aberdeen there is a concentration of rural-related research institutes which is quite unique. We have what is now referred to as the MLURI, but I still refer to it as the Macaulay Land-Use Research Institute, the Rowett Research Institute and the Scottish Agricultural College. Within my own university of Aberdeen, there has been considerable investment in providing a rural research infrastructure, through our own departments of agriculture and forestry, but perhaps most significantly, with the setting up of the Arkleton Rural Research Institute. Individually, those institutes and departments are at the forefront of advancing a new
1362
rural agenda. The challenge must be to harness the intellectual imagination and practical common sense that resides in the individual institutions,
thereby providing a framework that will bring benefits not only for north-east Scotland but for rural Britain generally.
In that context, government have a role to play. I have been enormously heartened by the decision to establish the Scottish food standards agency in Aberdeen. That is a beginning. I believe government can go further, it can encourage, support and enable. I look forward to a further flourishing of rural Scotland coming from the north-east.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I confess that I was to some extent tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, on his theme of aviation. That is particularly because of my own association with helicopter activities in that part of 'the world. It is worth pointing out that they very much led the way in terms of organisation, safety and the conduct of such activities. I mean not only in terms of offshore North Sea activities, but also helicopter activities throughout the world.
I was also rather tempted to talk about rail, but as I am catching the 9.30 sleeper to Aberdeen, that might be tempting fate. Therefore, I shall develop a totally different theme. In a sense, in part it follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said about the role of the University of Aberdeen. The noble Lord referred to certain aspects of that university, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, will say rather more about it in a moment.
I should like to refer to the Robert Gordon University, which is another major example of the role of further education and how it operates in that part of the world. I refer not only to the benefits it offers to the north-east of Scotland, but to those that it offers to the UK as a whole, and internationally. The Robert Gordon University complements the more conventional academic nature of the University of Aberdeen (if I may so describe it). The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, shakes his head, but I have not got to the point. The noble Lord described many other aspects of that university which complement what I shall describe as the important elements of the Robert Gordon University.
I declare a very minor interest as a patron of the university's development appeal. I quote the university's annual report:
"The Robert Gordon University enters the new millennium providing almost 10,000 full and part-time students with more than 300 courses covering a broad spectrum of subjects in the arts, management, engineering, pharmacy, health and the sciences, and is well equipped to respond to the challenges of the future. The national and international standing of our graduates and our staff bear testimony to the success of our vocational approach to higher education and the ongoing synergy between the University and industry, commerce and other organisations in the private and public sector".
That says it all. It is a neat summary of what the Robert Gordon University does and how it is perceived locally, nationally and across the world.

1363
But the university has other notable achievements to its name. It has the lowest level of graduate unemployment among Scottish universities. Only 2.1 per cent are still unemployed six months after graduation. Its links with industry are extensive. That is reflected in at least three distinct ways. It has the highest income from private industry and public corporations relative to the number of full-time staff, and in return it offers the most extensive portfolio of business and management courses in the North of Scotland. More than that, it uses industry professionals, experts in their field, to help to design the courses, many of which are accredited by professional bodies.
There is also a practical link in the all-important matter of survival training for the oil, gas and marine industry by RGIT Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of RGU. Any of us who have worked in the offshore industry, including myself as a helicopter pilot, know how essential is that training and how well it has been pioneered by RGIT Ltd. Among those areas of its work closer to the public sector, it is worth pointing out that the Robert Gordon University's School of Nursing and Midwifery is the largest in the North of Scotland. The School of Pharmacy is the oldest in the United Kingdom; indeed, it is home to the only World Health Organisation collaborative centre for training in drug management and pharmacy practice. Having spent many years working in the health service, I for one know how vital that is.
These achievements deserve to be placed on the record—indeed, trumpeted—for the Robert Gordon University contributes massively to Aberdeen's record and status as both a seat of learning and substantial industrial capital of the north-east of Scotland. It contributes not only to our national UK economy, but on a wider international scale.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I join those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld on introducing this debate. He and I share a love of the city of Aberdeen. He is a native-born Aberdonian whose father was a very distinguished councillor and respected Lord Provost of that city. He has an advantage over me in that respect. I am a newcomer having arrived in Aberdeen at about the age of four. I have spent most of my life in Aberdeen. I had the privilege of representing part of the city in the other place for 27 years. I can just about claim that I am now a real Aberdonian. I frequently refer to myself as an Aberdeen nationalist. I see my noble friend Lord Kirkhill shaking his head about my being accepted as a true Aberdonian. We shall sort that out outside the Chamber.
I extend my congratulations to both Aberdeen City Council in its bid for the Scottish Food Standards Agency to be located in the city and the Scottish Executive on accepting that bid and proceeding with it. I believe that to be a vote of confidence in the institutions of the city of Aberdeen. Over its history the city has had to face many different challenges. It has
1364
been at the forefront of the challenges posed by the rural economy and its hinterland, and so forth. But none of the challenges over the years can match those presented by the advent of the North Sea oil industry. My noble friend referred to that earlier and the part played by my noble friend Lord Kirkhill.
But it is characteristic of the city that all sections of society faced up to the challenge. The local authority, the chamber of commerce, the oil industry and the Scottish Office all worked together to enhance the prosperity of the city. Prosperity can be measured in many ways, but it is within my living memory that unemployment levels in the city were double the Scottish average, which in turn was double the UK average. Therefore, Aberdeen once had an unemployment rate four times the national average. Today, unemployment levels are so low that they are the envy of almost every other part of the UK.
Having said that, we should be careful not to wallow in self-congratulation about how well everything is going in the city of Aberdeen. Time does not stand still and new challenges are thrown up all the time. One of the present challenges is to ensure that general prosperity, which is very high in the city of Aberdeen, reaches out to all levels of society. It has been estimated by the city council that it needs to spend £1 billion over the next 30 years on the housing stock to catch up on repairs and upgrade dwellings. That is a lot of money.
My noble friend Lord Hogg said that there were pockets of deprivation in the city, as there are. There are elements of quite severe unemployment. Aberdeen has a very serious drug misuse problem, and addiction brings great tragedy and heartache to many families. I accept that the scale and number of the problems faced by the city do not match those in the central belt, but for individual families the tragedies are just as great. It is not just a question of numbers. The impact of bad housing, high unemployment and social deprivation has a debilitating effect on all people. In general I understand the view of the Government. I believe that money must be spent where the greatest problems arise. However, it is necessary for Aberdeen, despite its prosperity, to get its fair share of help.
There is a feeling in Aberdeen, which I hope does not sound as if we complain all the time, that others believe that the city can get on with its own problems. Aberdeen is willing to tackle its problems, but to do so a conundrum must be solved. Government, whether based in Westminster, Whitehall, the Scottish Office in Edinburgh or the Scottish Executive in Holyrood, must find a way to ensure that if Aberdeen and other parts of the North-East are to improve their prospects the purse strings are loosened. On the one hand, in general the Scottish Executive and government say that they cannot give much more money because of huge problems elsewhere. On the other hand, they say that those concerned cannot spend more than they are told to spend. In those circumstances, a double bind is imposed on those who want to make progress.
I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply she will accept that the people of Aberdeen remain optimistic about the future, that they believe the

1365
challenges have been faced, and that they still have an innovative spirit. But they need encouragement from elsewhere in the form of recognition of the problems and the provision of a little help. But, above all, those in the North-East who have the expertise must be allowed to use it in the full knowledge that it will benefit everyone in Aberdeen and north-east Scotland.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, for this chance to sing the praises of Aberdeen and the North-East and to make sure that others recognise what is happening there. I should like to draw on two examples to reinforce what other noble Lords have said. I shall take one example from the city of Aberdeen, and another from Aberdeenshire.
One should always be careful with statistics, but there is that marvellous historic statistic which anyone involved with the universities of Aberdeen always likes: that Aberdeen city had two universities when the whole of England had only two. The rest of the UK seems to have caught up; but it is very nice indeed that Aberdeen city again has two universities. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, spoke about Robert Gordon University. I should like to speak about Aberdeen University. I believe that the two universities play a major role in Aberdeen, the North-East and the United Kingdom.
It is a great pleasure to find that of those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, we have one vice-principal of the University of Aberdeen; we have two honorary graduates from the University of Aberdeen; and I must declare an interest as Chancellor of the University of Aberdeen. Without overdoing statistics, and before moving to what I believe is the real contribution of the universities, perhaps I may mention two statistics. Apart from local government employment, Aberdeen University is the second largest employer in Aberdeen after Shell, so it is a major player in the economy. It is also a major contributor to the overall economy with a financial impact of something like £189 million to £193 million a year.
However, I believe that the real significance is in what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, called the knowledge based economy. It is the engine effect of universities in creating the environment for a knowledge based economy. Quite apart from its teaching ability—I believe that Aberdeen University and Robert Gordon University have an excellent record—the role is most significant in the forefront of research.
I suggest that Aberdeen University has a significant role to play in that research field. I take three examples. Magnetic resonance imaging is at the forefront of medical technology. It was developed at the University of Aberdeen. A huge amount of related work is undertaken at the Institute of Medical Sciences. Particularly interesting recently has been the fascinating work undertaken by Professor Docherty on juvenile diabetes. Other work has been done on
1366
obesity and Alzheimer's disease. A great many world class elements of medical research are being undertaken. My third example is the Centre for Organic Agriculture, sponsored by MAFF and Tesco. Over the past few months it has started to do research on large-scale organic farming.
I suggest that that role of the universities in conjunction with the research institutes contributes to the atmosphere in Aberdeen to which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, referred. It has made Aberdeen the right place to set up the Scottish food standards agency. I hope that it will make it the right place to set up in future the rural affairs agency too. I believe that the staff of the University of Aberdeen, including the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the vice-principal, under the leadership of the principal of the university, Professor Duncan Rice, deserve great credit for the way in which they are building up the role of Aberdeen University.
That shows that geography is not a deterrent to excellence or to playing a major role of significance in the whole of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it; should be a spur to being outward looking, to seeing beyond the region into a wider world—in the United Kingdom and Europe—and to being world class.
In another sector of city life—financial affairs—Aberdeen Asset Managers has demonstrated the same: that one can be a major player based in Aberdeen. Fifteen years ago, that organisation had one office in Aberdeen with six staff; it now has offices spread around the world and has funds under management of some £16 billion. Geography is no deterrent.
Perhaps I may use the springboard of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. He spoke of the dynamic atmosphere in rural affairs in Aberdeenshire. I take one small example which has resonance beyond Aberdeenshire. I refer to an organisation called the Birse Community Trust. I declare a sort of interest in that I am an elector in that parish and therefore automatically a member of the trust, quite apart from wishing to support it. That trust has been set up recently through the determination of some local people, with the support of three major estates. It has done a number of things. First, it has resolved a dispute over the enjoyment of property which has been going on for several hundreds of years. It made a fortune for swordsmiths in the 16th century, and another for lawyers in the 18th and 19th centuries, and practically ruined two estates. It has resolved that legal dispute.
It has created a situation in which there is now management of the most easterly part of the Caledonian Forest. It has created a situation in which quite unique water-powered wood-turning mills are now being looked after. Above all, it has shown how a community can get together to do all those things, and then work on other community projects. It is an example of something of importance and significance well beyond the boundaries of Aberdeenshire.
In conclusion, in responding to the debate I hope that the Minister will recognise that much is happening in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire and the North-East; that what is happening deserves attention and support

1367
when support is needed; and perhaps, above all, that it deserves positive acknowledgement and encouragement.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, and to the House for not being present at the start of the debate. I was informed by a normally reliable source that proceedings were to be adjourned until 7.15. However, I do not wish to hide behind anyone else and I accept full responsibility. I express my regret to the House. As I wish to speak on a fairly narrow point, perhaps I may be allowed to proceed.
Several people have asked me why an Englishman is speaking in what is manifestly a Scottish debate. However, although we now have devolution we still have a responsibility to help each other; and I want to draw attention to a matter which is an example of the vigilance of which we must be more and more careful in the future.
When I think of Aberdeen, I think of granite. I call to mind trade union conferences I have attended there. My main impression has been the windswept streets driven with rain. Nevertheless, the water made the granite appear particularly beautiful. I understand that granite is still produced in quantity near Aberdeen, at Kemnay. It is a marvellous example of Scottish and British building stone which is responsible for the prosperity of a number of areas.
I have taken a particular interest in this matter because of the scheme to refurbish the House of Commons car park. The House may recall that I have inquired about the project from time to time. The latest estimate of the cost is £2.44 million and in the other place on 26th May 1999, at col. 398 of Hansard, it was described as being a "cosmetic" exercise. I go along with that.
I tabled a Question for Written Answer, asking the Chairman of Committees to given an undertaking that the granite used in the refurbishment of Old Palace Yard will be British. The Answer, given on 3rd December 1998 at col. WA53 by the Chairman of Committees, was, "No".
Furthermore, on 16th December 1998 (col. WA163) I asked whether the granite setts, laid in the small area at Chancellor's Gate to illustrate what they would look like, were of British origin. The Chairman of Committees replied that they were of French origin.
The project is supposed to be part of the World Squares. I should have thought that if we were going to have a world-class heritage site, we ought to try to ensure that it is an example of British workmanship at its best and a tribute to this country.
The problem is not confined to the Houses of Parliament. I have found references in the press to the British Museum. This may seem fairly mundane to your Lordships. You see, it is all right to talk in high-flown
1368
phrases and generalities, but this is what is happening on the ground. The Times of 27th September reported:
"English Heritage has demanded an inquiry into the apparent blunder, which involves inferior French limestone replacing English material during the redevelopment of one of the nation's most important Grade I listed buildings.".
The Evening Standard of 27th September 1999 recalls:
"Easton Masonry, the company hired for the multi-million pound restoration work, used inferior French limestone and then allegedly billed the museum for the substantially higher cost of Portland Stone.".
Portland stone, as your Lordships will know, is one of the best examples of our indigenous building materials.
The final quotation I shall weary your Lordships with is from the Independent of 4th October when Norman Foster, who has a big hand in the project, stated:
"The switch to French limestone is perfectly legal … On any publicly funded building you have to comply with EU directives."
It was the phrase "comply with EU directives" that attracted my attention. At present, this country is involved in a severe and serious dispute with the French which is undermining the entire confidence on which our community is built. I give this as an example because unless we are vigilant about such issues our indigenous industries will suffer and areas like Aberdeen will suffer like everybody else.
I thank your Lordships for your indulgence and apologise once again for missing a substantial part of the debate.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I take the opportunity to rise in the gap. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld on initiating the debate. Secondly, I apologise to my noble friend and to the House for my failure as a former Lord Provost of the City of Aberdeen to put my name forward to speak in the debate. However, I can plead in mitigation that I expected to be in Bosnia tonight on the business of the House. A missed aeroplane connection proved to be a problem and I was physically unable to reach the office to submit my name at the appropriate time.
This has been an interesting debate for those of us who live in and experience the joys of Aberdeen in its various manifestations. I am out of touch with the economic reality of the city, not least because it was a quarter of a century ago when I was Lord Provost. I moved from being Lord Provost one day to being a Minister of State at the Scottish Office almost the next. Once you become a Minister you become totally out of touch! Other noble Lords here who have been Ministers will agree with that.
As a matter of historical interest, I can tell the House that when I found myself in the Scottish Office in 1975 it had not yet been decided in the higher echelons of Civil Service minds whether or not significant onshore development would take place in Aberdeen or in Invergordon. The subsequent difficulties with the road patterns in the area reflect that measure of indecision. Nevertheless, Ministers have to take responsibility for that.

1369
I revert. Twenty-five years ago, just as I assumed the office of Lord Provost, the Economist published an article, the heading of which was "Cosy Corner". The writers had been up to Aberdeen because BP had made a public announcement of its Forties Field oil discoveries. It was then cosy corner. I believe that we could pay a tribute to the then town planning department of Aberdeen Council, because it moved quickly and made available the industrial space necessary to attract the onshore oil development. Noble Lords should keep in mind that in the early days, Dundee had significant claims to big onshore development. For example, Dundee had a superior deep-water facility at its harbour. Dundee overall, with one or two exceptions, was a day's less sailing for supply ships from its harbour to most of the then oil discoveries. Many in Aberdeen had to work hard to persuade the oil companies that Aberdeen would be the preferable location for their significant onshore developments and much of that is attributable to the persistence, imagination and vision of the then officials in the town planning department. I want to pay that retrospective compliment to them tonight.
7.47 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I, too, apologise for being absent when the debate started. It is commendably ingenious of the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, to come up with a way of drawing attention to his home area and in doing so reminding the House that it has a substantial legislative interest in Scotland post devolution.
My connection with north-east Scotland is limited to having family living in Hatton and having served briefly in Aberdeen with the Royal Navy Auxiliary Service. As a volunteer director of Clackmannanshire Enterprise, I look with envy at the strength of the north-east's economy in comparison with that of Clackmannanshire. Historically, the north-east included the earldom of Mar. It is galling that my Erskine family were separated from the lands of Mar by this Parliament as part of the 1716 Attainder passed on the sixth Earl. So be it.
This is a land of rich coastal plane, mountain and marine environments. Its economy revolves around oil and gas, fishing and forestry, farming and whisky, manufacturing, tourism, education and two prisons among others. Certainly, its east coast location has always granted it a favourable sunny climate, enabling programmable work. Its connections with Scandinavia have blessed its people with a culture of hard work. The problems of farming at this time are primarily of market surplus rather than production difficulties.
However, it cannot all be sweetness and light. Workers who became accustomed to high wage rates are now finding it difficult to get out of bed merely for average wages. In an area of relative affluence, it has to be more difficult for the poor to live out their lives. Sonic citizens are so depressed by their failure to share in the prosperity that they descend into the downward
1370
spiral of drink and drugs. Enabling all the people to participate in the economy will remain a major task for government at all levels.
There is also a potential problem in the housing stock. General affluence has led to the construction of larger homes. If the economy declines—and I do not of course wish that should—there will be a surplus of above-average houses. With regard to price, the market will resolve the problem by depressing the price. However, although that would make larger properties a bargain, the houses may well be too expensive to run.
Aberdeen has generally good communications with central Scotland, despite being 130 miles north of the Forth. The A90 has been rebuilt as a dual carriageway and there are direct train services to London and south-west England, among other places. Scotrail is in the process of introducing Turbostar Class 170 trains on the Aberdeen to Edinburgh services. Air services are wide-ranging and international, despite the bizarre early evening closure regime at Dyce.
Shipping serves the North Sea oil and gas fields, and will probably serve the developing west coast exploration areas. Despite the efforts of my noble friend Lord Thurso to develop Scrabster in this connection, I suspect he will be thwarted by the A9 north of the Dornoch Firth. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, managed to bring Caithness into north-east Scotland, which was ingenious because I would regard it as belonging to the far north; but perhaps that is a problem of definition.
However, I should to draw attention to the Shetland Islands. Almost all lines of communication go through Aberdeen and so the Shetland Islands must be considered to be part of Aberdeen's hinterland. I would remind your Lordships that many parts of Shetland are further east than Aberdeen. I am concerned about the reduction of the RAF station at Saxavord on the island of Unst. Clearly this will be a major blow to the remote and fragile economy of Unst and will leave an excess of facilities in the Baltasound area. I believe that the Government should be considering measures to mitigate the effects of this. The provision of a bridge to replace the ferry over to Yell would allow Unst to hold its population, while enabling people to travel to work on the Shetland mainland.
So, to conclude, the north-east of Scotland has an enviable economic circumstance which its people will do well to protect and enhance. This Parliament must recognise that it has a big part to play in Scotland, and indeed not just in the successful North-East.
7.53 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, this has been a fascinating and far-reaching debate, and I heartily congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, on introducing the subject. This is a terribly important area of the United Kingdom and, in particular, of Scotland.
Aberdeen, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, said, is a prosperous and cosmopolitan city and for many reasons, both past and present, has links with Europe

1371
and much further afield. It is worth mentioning, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, said, that Aberdeen's unemployment rate is well below the averages for other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. However, of course there are sectors where there is cause for concern. Other noble Lords have mentioned agriculture, but some points are worth highlighting, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said about the speech of my noble friend Lord Caithness.
There is great concern over excessive regulation in the agricultural industry. There is also the question of net farm incomes in Scotland—and of course this goes further than the north-east area—because in the year 1996–97 farm incomes averaged £20,564 per farm. In the year 1998–99 the figure was £416 per farm. Pig farming has suffered particularly, with the largest pig unit in Aberdeenshire going out of business with debts of £10 million.
There are also difficulties in the commercial fishing industry. Positioned as they are in this area, industries are particularly dependent on transport and the infrastructure. Fuel costs are significant, and they have been increasing. The 11.16 per cent increase in diesel duty and the increase in vehicle excise duty are damaging the road haulage sector. Taxes amounting to 84 per cent of pump prices are now the highest of all European Union members. As has been mentioned in the Scottish Parliament, the introduction of road tolls could further increase these costs.
Turning now to the oil industry, as other noble Lords have mentioned, this has contributed greatly to the economy of this area and will continue to do so. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, said, one must be aware of the forecast that 10,000 jobs will be lost over the next 10 years. The mood in the industry has improved as the oil price has now increased to over 20 dollars per barrel. That has created more optimism, but there is no room for complacency. I look forward greatly to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say in reply. I hope she will tell us what actions are planned by Edinburgh and Westminster to sustain this popular area of Scotland.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I wish to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld for tabling this Question on a subject which I know is near to his heart and in which he has much expertise. I should also like to congratulate those noble Lords who have participated in this debate—an excellent, lively and informative debate—about the contribution to the United Kingdom economy which is made by Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland.
Aberdeen is often referred to as the off-shore capital of Europe. That description is well merited: the granite city. I think that my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe is to be congratulated on reminding us of the link between granite and the beautiful city of Aberdeen. It has played a vitally important role in the development of the United Kingdom Continental
1372
Shelf as an important oil producing area—if not in the paving of Chancellor's Gate for the carpark. I should also like to join my noble friend Lord Hogg in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill for his major contribution to this success and I am pleased that he managed to be in his place for this debate.
On many occasions in the past those who believe that they can foretell the future have predicted the decline of United Kingdom oil and gas production, but in fact the amount of oil and gas which will be produced in United Kingdom waters this year is expected to be the highest ever. There can be no doubt about the significant part that the oil and gas sector plays in the United Kingdom economy. Over the years it has provided £89 billion in revenue to the nation, as was noted by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore. It has provided significant employment opportunities, with some 30,000 jobs offshore and over 300,000 direct and indirect jobs onshore. In 1998 the oil and gas industry was responsible for some 17 per cent of United Kingdom industrial investment.
The north-east of Scotland has played a major part in that success, and both the region and the United Kingdom as a whole have benefited from the resultant economic activity. In 1996, gross domestic product per head in north-east Scotland was over £14,000, over a third more than for the UK as a whole. The total GDP that year in north-east Scotland accounted for 13 per cent of the Scottish total. In fact, as my noble friend said, Aberdeen had the second highest GDP per head of all the areas of the UK, only London having higher.
However, as some noble Lords mentioned, towards the end of last year the industry faced a tremendous challenge with the dramatic fall in oil price to 10 dollars per barrel from previous levels of over 20 dollars. At the same time, the increasing maturity of the UK Continental Shelf in terms of oil and gas production posed other challenges to the industry.
The UK still has substantial reserves of oil and gas. However, many existing large fields are well into decline, and new discoveries are becoming fewer and smaller. The cost of developing new fields and producing oil from them is higher than for many other oil producing areas around the world. Although the price of oil has now recovered to well over 20 dollars per barrel, the need for the UK industry to reduce its costs is as strong as ever because of the need to compete for investment against lower cost areas elsewhere. Indeed, noble Lords who have said that complacency was not something to be followed are correct.
In recognition of the urgent need to reduce the cost base of UK oil activity, the Government announced the oil and gas industry task force last November. The task force, whose report was published last month, developed several important initiatives. Those consist of specific projects which will improve industry collaboration with the service sector, stimulate the development and use of new technology, and address the skills needed by the industry.
My noble friend Lord Hogg noted that employment in the oil industry is projected to reduce gradually over the next 12 years. I should not wish to seem unduly

1373
pessimistic given that historically such projections have nearly always proved to be conservative—with a small "c". Indeed, the task force believes that the initiatives it is putting in place should help support 100,000 more jobs in the UK than would have been the case if no action had been taken.
The Government and the industry both believe that the UK Continental Shelf, despite its maturity, can improve its international competitiveness and can continue to make a substantial contribution to the UK economy in the future. I fully expect Aberdeen to continue to play a significant role in that business.
I have spoken of the oil and gas industry at some length, but let us not forget other sectors which make a contribution to the UK economy from the north-east of Scotland and which I am pleased that various noble Lords have raised this evening. I noted what the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said about Shetland. Although Caithness is up for inclusion in the North-East, I do not really know what to say about Shetland. I spent a delightful holiday in Shetland this summer, and I note and am aware of the concern about the RAF station at Unst.
My noble friend Lord Hogg made some observations on the economic infrastructure of the area, putting in a particular plea for the western peripheral route. My noble friend will understand that that is a matter for the Scottish executive. However, I understand that the proposal for this route is the responsibility of Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire councils and that at this stage the route is unlikely to be designated a trunk road. I further understand that the councils concerned have set the case for the road in the context of their draft local transport strategies submitted to the Scottish executive.
My noble friend was also concerned that Aberdeen City Council receives the financial assistance it requires to tackle poverty and social exclusion. My noble friend Lord Hughes has spoken movingly tonight of some of the problems in Aberdeen. I accept much of what he said about the people of Aberdeen and their spirit in tackling those problems. Again, I know that my noble friends appreciate that those matters fall to the Scottish executive to consider.
However, New Housing Partnership resources totalling almost £2 million have been earmarked to progress Aberdeen City Council's housing transfer proposals. It is expected that those proposals will yield substantial new investment to tackle disrepair throughout the housing stock, including areas which are in urgent need of investment like Tillydrone.
I turn now to other sectors. Many high quality and internationally renowned food and drink companies are located in this area, including Baxters of Speyside and several distilleries, whose products I know many noble Lords greatly appreciate and are familiar with. In 1997 there were 12,400 people in the North-East employed in such varied sectors of the food industry as
1374
the processing and preserving of fish, the manufacture of food and beverages and the production and preserving of meat.
Furthermore, as recently announced—my noble friends Lord Hughes and Lord Sewel, the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, have all mentioned this point—the Scottish arm of the proposed new food standards agency will be located in Aberdeen. The agency's Scottish executive will comprise up to 45 staff.
Whisky is what many people across the globe associate most readily with Scotland. It is Scotland's second largest and most profitable export industry after electronics, and the UK's fifth largest profitable export industry after chemicals, metal goods, textiles and office equipment. I do not believe I need explain to this House the statistics which show that that industry is indeed a very important one, both to the area, and to the economy of the United Kingdom.
I turn now to the farming and livestock industry. In 1998 there were 12,300 people engaged in agriculture in the North-East, accounting for 2 per cent of the UK agricultural workforce. The contribution made to the economy by that sector is equally valuable, with the 1998 gross agricultural output in the North-East being estimated at over £390 million or 2.4 per cent of the UK figure. Although the farming industry is facing a number of difficulties as a result of such fact ors as the strong pound and continuing oversupply, as noted by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, it continues to make a valuable contribution both to employment and to the UK economy.
I take issue very strongly with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his statement that this Government's farming policy is not to help, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Sewel, who speaks from his extensive and recent experience. The noble Earl and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, also raised the issue of rural petrol prices. Both the Competition Commission and the OFT have investigated rural petrol prices, and have concluded that higher prices in rural areas are determined by lack of competition, and, to a lesser extent, by transport costs. The fuel escalator is a response to the need to reduce carbon emissions. The issue of land reform, which the noble Earl raised, is of course a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
I agree with one thing which the noble Earl said: it is a beautiful countryside. I passed through it this summer.
The North-East also makes an unrivalled contribution to the UK fishing industry: 3,040 people are directly involved in the catching of fish, which is about 17 per cent of the total UK employment in the fish industry sector. A further 4,200 people are employed in fish processing in the North-East—about 21 per cent of the GB total. By any yardstick, it is clear that the fishing industry makes a significant contribution to the North-East's economy.
I cannot conclude without saying that the Government recognise the vital economic and cultural

1375
contribution made by universities and colleges to north-east Scotland. The noble Lords, Lord Glenarthur and Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, and my noble friend Lord Sewel dealt with that adequately and widely. In fact, as was pointed out, there is quite an impressive roll call of University of Aberdeen luminaries participating in the debate.
The contribution of the universities and colleges of north-east Scotland to economic development is substantial and wide ranging. They are creators of revenue, generators of external income from services, economic regenerators, producers of skilled recruits, and centres of leading-edge research. The influence of universities and colleges in the North-East spreads throughout the UK, Europe and the world by virtue of the education, research and consultancy which is provided.
1376
I am speaking under a tight time constraint. I hope that I have answered all the points raised. However, I shall study Hansard closely and if I have missed anything on which I could comment usefully, I shall write to those noble Lords concerned.
I conclude by assuring my noble friend Lord Hogg and the whole House that Her Majesty's Government recognise the contribution which Aberdeen and north-east Scotland make to the economy of the UK. Indeed, one of the first engagements of my right honourable friend John Reid as Secretary of State for Scotland was to go to Aberdeen to visit local businesses. By working with the oil and gas industries and other sectors such as food and drink, farming and fishing, the Government intend to do all that they can to ensure that that important contribution is maintained into the future.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eight o'clock.